Tuesday, 24 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 1.45 p.m. , and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Senator Archer, who was absent through ill health on 21 April when the Certificates of Election of Senators to serve in this Senate from 1 July 1982 were tabled in the Senate, and senators were sworn, is in attendance in the chamber. I ask the honourable senator to come to the table to be sworn. Senator Brian Roper Archer thereupon made and subscribed the oath of allegiance . The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Interest Rates To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Our opinion on paper: That ever since the early seventies, high interest rates of staggering magnitude have made a complete mockery of justice, unparalleled in our time. Resulting in the elimination of employment on a vast scale, in every phase of production causing house ejections, with mind effects and mental disturbances, leading to interrupted education, road toll and social disruption. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge politicians of all parties to nationally unite for the return of Justice by using the powers vested in them to immediately and drastically reduce these destructive interest rates. Further and to this end a conscience vote is essential, if justice is to be served. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (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 whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 38 citizens), Button (from 48 citizens), Harradine (from 68 citizens), Lewis (from 93 citizens) and Robertson (from 258 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crowley (from 36 citizens) and Giles (from 128 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to remove provisions for deductions from taxable income in respect of the removal of indigenous trees. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That this House congratulates the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia for the steps taken to give an urgently-needed boost to small business by- (1) initiating moves to increase the general payroll tax exemption from $140, 000 to $250,000 progressively over three years. (2) Abolishing payroll tax liabilities in respect of group apprenticeship schemes. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: (1) That this House deplores the needlessly high level of informal voting at the 1983 Senate election and- (a) notes with particular concern that in New South Wales and Victoria informals exceeded one Senate electoral quota, and (b) welcomes government electoral reform initiatives. The PRESIDENT —Before I call on questions without notice, I refer honourable senators to the comments made by Senator Lewis and Senator Chaney at the conclusion of Question Time last Thursday regarding the number of questions being asked. I have examined the matter and compared the figures for the Budget period of sittings 1982 and the first weeks of the current period of sittings. Honourable senators will be interested to note for that period of 1982 an average of 21.9 questions were asked per day over a 43 day period, which compares with an average of 21.5 questions per day asked in 11 days this year. The proportionate number of supplementary questions asked in 1983 has been higher to date than in 1982. I table details of questions asked during the Budget sittings 1982 and the sittings this year. These details, together with a summary table, have been distributed to honourable senators. With the concurrence of honourable senators, the summary table will be incorporated in Hansard. The table read as follows- Budget 1982 21.4.83-19.5.83 Supple- Supple- Questions mentaries Questions mentaries ALP 426 100 114 2 LIB. 406 18 92 34 NPA 23 . . 9 . . AD 76 22 19 4 IND. 10 2 3 1 Average number of questions per day-21.9 (43 days)-21.5 (11 days). The PRESIDENT —I again remind honourable senators that the number of questions which can be asked during any Question Time is determined by the length of questions and the length of answers. To enable more questions to be asked, co- operation must be forthcoming from both sides of the chamber. Senator CHANEY —(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)-by leave-Mr President, I thank you for your immediate attention to the matter which was raised in the Senate. The Opposition, likewise, examined some of the figures, and I think I should say that the comments made by both Senator Lewis and myself arose out of the situation on Thursday. It was certainly felt by the Opposition that there were very lengthy answers, a view which I think was in part borne out by your own unsolicited and unprompted intervention at a couple of points. It is the wish of the Opposition to see an effective Question Time during which a significant number of questions can be asked by honourable senators. We will endeavour to ensure that our questions are short and, indeed, I think in the main they have been short. We would expect the Chair, as it has to date, to show an interest in achieving the same effect for the same reasons. Mr President, we will be watching the matter. We hope that Senate Ministers will keep to the better record they had in the early part of the session and give prompt answers. We thank you for your interest in and attention to the matter. Senator CHANEY —This very short question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Do the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions agree that increases in the social wage will be reflected in a moderation of wage demands? Do a number of measures in last Thursday's mini- Budget mean an effective decrease in the social wage, a decrease costed by many commentators at $8 to $10 per week? How does the Government intend to deal with the prospective exacerbation of wage demands to which such increases in the social wage would give rise? Senator BUTTON —On the assumption that the calculations to which Senator Chaney referred about the effect of the economic statement last week are correct, I suggest that the question of the social wage has to be seen in the context of the economic statement of last week and the forthcoming Budget. It is not the intention of the Government to have its prices and incomes policy in full place until later this year, and the combined effects of the statement and the Budget will have to be taken into account in assessing the question of the social wage. I was asked, in the earlier part of the question, whether the Government and the ACTU agree on the importance of the social wage to the prices and incomes policy , and the answer to that question is yes. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Leader of the Government for his answer, but ask: Is it not a fact that the Government will have to assert a view on wages before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission before the August Budget and, in those circumstances, it will need to have a view on the point raised which does not take into account the combined effect of the two, because the Budget will not be available to us? I ask him, therefore: What view has the Government adopted with respect to the social wage at this stage when it has all the information that can be available to it before it goes to the Arbitration Commission? Senator BUTTON —It is the Government's view that there should be no national wage hearing before the middle of this year. The Government has also indicated that, in the latter half of this year, it would see a 3 to 4 per cent increase in wages as being consistent with its overall economic policy. The question of the way in which the national wage case is dealt with is currently being considered in a series of conferences before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission President, Sir John Moore. The Government will be putting its view there. There have been full and recent consultations with the ACTU following the economic statement of Thursday of last week. These matters have been discussed and will be the subject of further discussion with that organisation. Senator ELSTOB —I understand that the Minister for Social Security has received submissions made in the time of the previous Government to provide additional funding for an early intervention program in South Australia to assist Down's syndrome children. In view of the anxiety of the parents of these children and the need to help, as expressed in many representations to the Government and the previous Government by myself and others, I ask the Minister whether he has made a decision on this matter. Senator GRIMES —The Government did receive a submission from an organisation called Down's Syndrome Incorporated in South Australia which is made up of a small group of parents of Down's syndrome children and specialists who deal with those children in an attempt to improve the method whereby children with Down's syndrome can be kept at home and enabled to utilise what abilities they have to the maximum without having to go into institutions. As a result of such submissions, the Government decided to increase the funding to this organisation to the extent of about $30,000 to enable this program to continue not only for the children and the parents who are involved in the program but also so that the experience and information which they gain can be handed on to other parents and organisations dealing with Down's syndrome in our community generally. The result of this submission and of this increase in funding, I believe, will be an expansion of a worthwhile program which will be to the benefit of all parents and all children in this situation in Australia. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his often quoted justification for preventing the development of Australia's uranium, namely, that there is presently a lack of markets for uranium. Can the Minister say that, if companies can get contracts at the prices set by the previous Government, the Government will allow the development of uranium projects such as Honeymoon, Jabiluka, Koongarra and Yeelirrie? Senator WALSH —I have not been saying that there is a lack of markets for uranium . What I have been saying is that I do not believe that any Australian producer has signed or can sign a contract at prices which would have been acceptable to the previous Government. Senator Messner —I am saying 'if they do that'. Senator WALSH —All right. I am going on. I have also stated, of course, that, indeed, a contract was rejected by the previous Government for just those reasons: The pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. Senator Chaney —No. Senator WALSH —A contract was rejected by the previous Government because the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. It was at about the end of last year ; I am not sure of the precise date. That of course confirms the accuracy of the view that the Government has taken of the state of the world market. As to the hypothetical question posed by Senator Messner that some company may be able, at some unspecified time, to produce a contract with pricing arrangements which would have been acceptable to the previous Government, should that happen-I believe that is unlikely-as I have said before, that will be considered by the Government in the light of the Australian Labor Party's policy on waste disposal , nuclear proliferation and also the commercial aspects. Senator JONES —Is the Attorney-General aware that peanut growers in Queensland are arming themselves in response to raids by members of the Peanut Marketing Board who are invoking 57-year-old legislation which empowers them to make such raids if they suspect that peanuts are being kept on the premises? Is he aware that this legislation gives the Board power to investigate, enter private homes, search, apprehend, confiscate crops and documents without compensation and halt the transport of peanuts from individual farms? As the legislation is being revived in an attempt to restore a monopoly market for the Board and prevent peanut farmers selling their product on an interstate market, does the Attorney- General consider that these measures are in direct contravention of section 92 of the Constitution which states emphatically that intercourse amongst the States shall be absolutely free? If so, what action can the Commonwealth Government take to uphold the principles of free enterprise in relation to Queensland's peanut farmers and avert any possible bloodshed? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention has been drawn to certain media reports suggesting that the position is as suggested in the honourable senator's question. I understand that powers of the nature referred to by the honourable senator are conferred by or under the Primary Producers Organisation and Marketing Acts in Queensland in relation to the investigation of contraventions of the Act. The honourable senator will appreciate that it is not the practice nor is it appropriate under Standing Orders for me to provide legal advice or opinions in relation to this or any other matter. The Queensland Act in question and the powers conferred under it would need to be construed, of course, in light of the constraints on State legislative power which are imposed by section 92 of the Constitution. If Queensland peanut farmers do consider that the Queensland Act is being administered in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the Act or of section 92 of the Constitution they should seek appropriate relief through the judicial processes available to them. My preference so far as the reform of section 92 is concerned has been stated often enough and is simply this: It ought to be repealed entirely or at least amended so that it applies only to discriminatory laws or executive acts directed to the impairment of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse among the States and the Territories. Senator CHIPP —Is the Attorney-General aware that a justice of the Family Court of Australia in Melbourne named Frederico is reported to have refused to hear a case because the barrister, a woman, was wearing slacks instead of what the judge deemed to be appropriate female gear? Is it true that that barrister, who is the only female member of the council of the Law Institute of Victoria, was representing a person who had travelled at some expense from Sydney for the case which had to be adjourned because of the judge's decision? I ask the Attorney- General whether he considers consistent with civil liberties the following statement of the judge: I am not even going to hear you on the question of whether or not I should hear you. This case is adjourned. Does the Attorney-General consider that a person who so blatantly discriminates against another person is a fit and proper person to administer justice in a Federal court? If not, will the Attorney take steps which could bring about the transfer of this person to another jurisdiction where his shameful bias and discrimination will not affect the proper administration of justice? Senator GARETH EVANS —It will be appreciated by Senator Chipp and other honourable senators that it is not the practice of this Government, or indeed of any Australian Labor Party government in Australia, to seek to interfere in any way with the conduct by members of the judiciary of their courts. Certainly under those circumstances I would not seek in any way directly to raise the matter with the judge in question or to take any action of the kind that has been so robustly suggested by Senator Chipp. Senator Chipp —It is a serious question. Senator GARETH EVANS —It will get a serious answer, Senator Chipp. It has been quite serious so far. Nonetheless, it does appear that an error of judgment may have been made in this matter by the judge in question. On the next occasion that I have-they arise quite often-to discuss matters affecting the Family Court of Australia with Chief Judge Evatt I will raise with her the standards of dress propriety that are being applied in that court. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the public gallery, behind Government senators, of former Senator Poyser of Victoria. I am sure all honourable senators join me in welcoming Mr Poyser back to Canberra. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to a report of a meeting of the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia in Perth over the weekend at which a move to set up a national committee to sponsor the introduction of peace studies in Australian schools was adopted unanimously? State school teachers having previously endorsed such studies, can the Minister indicate the Government's likely response to submissions seeking funding for the development of studies of peace and the peaceful resolution of conflict? Senator RYAN —I did notice the item in the media over the weekend. Like many honourable senators, I was pleased to see that the Independent Teachers Federation believes that the study of the resolution of conflict should become an important part of the school curriculum. As Senator Giles will be aware, the setting of curriculum in schools is, by and large, a matter for State education authorities and even now in many States a matter for the local school community. The Government in principle agrees with the decentralisation of curriculum development in this fashion, but recognises also that there is a need for national leadership and a national role in curriculum development. The previous Government of course disbanded the national Curriculum Development Centre, and since that time there has been no proper national role for curriculum. It is the intention of this Government to restore a national curriculum function. Once that is restored-I expect that that will be the case shortly-resolutions, such as the very constructive and forward looking resolution of the Independent Teachers Federation, can be forwarded to the appropriate body and, I expect, responded to in a favourable manner. Senator ARCHER —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the prediction by the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford, on this morning's Australian Broadcasting Commission news that home loan interest rates are likely to fall as a result of the mini-Budget? Does Senator Button agree with his colleague? If he does, will he indicate, for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of Australians facing higher weekly repayments following the loss of the tax rebate, when such downward movement is likely and its extent? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the statement made by Mr Hurford. I will contact the Minister and try to provide an answer as quickly as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of recent comments by General Motors-Holden's Ltd about the existing passenger motor vehicle policy, particularly regarding export facilitation and light commercial vehicles? Are the company's comments in line with the difficulties it is now facing with 1,500 jobs to go from the Woodville plant in my State of South Australia and 1,300 to go in Victoria? Senator BUTTON —I am very much aware of recent comments made by General Motors about the state of the passenger motor vehicle industry and about passenger motor vehicle policy. The Government is very concerned at the impact of the company's decisions on social policy and on particular regions. I understand the point of the question to be to elicit what attitude the Government takes to General Motors-Holden's comments about increased competition from imports of light commercial vehicles and the importance to the company's future of the export facilitation scheme. The question of assistance to the industry will be considered in mid-June when the Automotive Industry Advisory Council meets. Of course, there are a number of interests and different points of view to be considered about the sort of package of assistance which should be made available to the industry. I do not in any sense want to pre-empt those discussions except to say that the problems of General Motors, in my view, cannot be attributed to the question of the existing motor vehicle policy in relation to the imports of light commercial vehicles, nor can they be considered as a responsibility of the present state of the export facilitation scheme. However, we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters with the company at the Automotive Industry Advisory Council in June. We hope that a solution to those problems can then be reached. Senator PETER BAUME —Did the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs review a decision taken early this year by me, as her predecessor, to refuse to allow a substantial amount of Commonwealth transition education funding to be given to the notorious Victorian radio station 3CR? Is this the same radio station which promotes extremist views and which, as recently as last Sunday week, disseminated information about Australian security organisations? Does the decision that it was not appropriate for Commonwealth education funds to be used to support this radio station still stand? Senator RYAN —The decision certainly still stands. As I recall, the process of having the decision taken by my predecessor, Senator Peter Baume, reversed involved an acceptance by me of the recommendations of the State Education Minister in Victoria. The decision in respect of this transition program-I understand it is a program allowing young people at the school leaving stage to learn about the operation of a radio station-was taken in the same way that any other program decision is made; that is, the State Minister of Education agrees that certain training or transition programs are within the guidelines of the Commonwealth funded transition program. In this case Mr Fordham, the State Minister, decided that the program was within the guidelines. I saw no reason not to accept the decision of the Victorian Minister of Education with regard to the training opportunities being afforded under this program. I think it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between the access that the young people in question have, I presume, to learning some of the technical side of broadcasting and the operation of a radio station and some of the program material that that radio station broadcasts. It seems to me that the two are entirely different. I would very much doubt that the transition students would have any editorial role in determining program material. Although I remember that there has been a fairly turbulent history with regard to some program material broadcast by 3CR, I think it is entirely wrong and unreasonable for Senator Baume to suggest that, because 3CR as a community access station broadcasts some material that he and, I acknowledge, a sizable proportion of the community have had some objection to in terms of its content, that radio station which, after all, is supported to some extent by the Commonwealth, should not be able to offer training facilities to young persons. But in any case, I saw no reason to oppose the decision to accredit 3CR's training scheme under the training program taken by the Victorian Minister of Education. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I do not think the Minister answered one part of my question. I had taken a decision, as former Minister for Education, that the Victorian Minister's recommendation should not be acceded to and I had so informed him. I ask the Minister again: Has she taken action to overturn that decision and thereby make funding available to radio station 3CR? Senator RYAN —I do not know where Senator Baume was for the last two minutes or so. I answered the question, yes. I have taken action to overturn the decision of my predecessor, Senator Baume. That decision was to reject the decision of the Victorian Minister of Education. I have overturned that decision. I have accepted the decision of the Victorian Minister of Education and in the last couple of minutes I explained my reason for doing so. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that surgeons in some States are charging and receiving payment for operations such as appendicectomies when those operations are not being performed by surgeons and when, in some cases, the surgeons are not present at the operation? Is this practice legal? Will the Government investigate this practice with a view to stopping what seems to be an immoral, if not illegal, practice? Senator GRIMES —In answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question I, as a bush GP, would not be willing to give a legal opinion in this place when some of the bush lawyers in this place are not allowed to. However, as the honourable senator says, if the practice is not illegal it should be, and it is certainly immoral. It has certainly been drawn to my attention that in some States surgeons have been charging for operations such as appendicectomies when all they have done is to give the registrar the okay over the phone to go ahead with that procedure, and they have not even turned up for the operation. I understand that this practice is sometimes justified by the statement of the surgeons that they are receiving the money from the medical benefits funds and that the money then goes into some travel or study fund in the hospital in which they work. I do not approve of this procedure, if it occurs. I certainly believe that the Department of Health should look into it. I believe that the Government will agree with me. I will refer that question to the Minister for Health-- Senator Georges —To the Public Accounts Committee. Senator GRIMES —I dare say, as Senator Georges says, it might end up before the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament. We will see whether this matter is occurring and what we can do about it if it is. Senator PETER RAE —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce been drawn to a statement made by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, to the annual conference of the Institution of Engineers held on 22 April 1983? The Minister stated: Australian's declining employment in manufacturing is permanent, irreversible and structural. In my view it is not temporary or to be rectified by tariffs, wage freezes, bounties, quotas or other fiscal measures. Does that statement represent the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce ? If not, in what way does the Minister differ from his junior colleague? Senator BUTTON —I have not read the statement made by the Minister for Science and Technology. Senator Peter Rae —I will send you a copy. Senator BUTTON —There is no need for the honourable senator to send me a copy; I am quite sure that the Minister will have sent me several. But I am asked a question about whether I agree with the view of the Minister for Science and Technology that the decline in manufacturing employment is permanent and irreversible. Senator Peter Rae —And cannot be rectified by tariffs, wage freezes, bounties, quotas or other measures. Senator BUTTON —Yes, that was the second part. With regard to the first part of the question, my general answer is yes. The experiences of the manufacturing industry in Australia in the last 15 years show that manufacturing employment has declined from approximately 27 per cent of total employment to something in the order of 18 per cent of total employment. A number of people who would be more expert than I in these matters suggest that by the turn of the century manufacturing employment in Australia, as we traditionally know it, will probably decline to about 12 per cent of total employment. I am unable to say whether that view is correct. I turn now to the part of the question which asked whether that employment decline can be rectified or reversed by tariffs, quotas and other protective devices. I believe that, in part, the rapidity of the decline can be rectified by those protective measures. Certainly, the social cost and the cost to capital in the form of investment can be alleviated by those sorts of measures. I cannot take the answer any further than that. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Quite obviously, the supplementary question is: Will the Government adhere to the policy promise that protection will not be lowered in any way during the current recession? Senator BUTTON —Yes, other than any reduction which is already planned by particular industry schemes; that is, phasing. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What is the Government's reaction to the destructive bombing raid on the Mozambique capital of Maputo by the South African Air Force? Does the Government agree with the South African Government that the raid was justified following the bombing of the South African Air Force headquarters in Pretoria? Senator BUTTON —The Government totally opposes the political system of apartheid in South Africa and is concerned about the loss of lives of South African citizens, irrespective of race, which has resulted from violence in that country . The Government condemns the use of indiscriminate violence as a means of changing the South African Government's political system and also, of course, totally condemns the raid by the South African Air Force which resulted in the bombing of what is believed to be the headquarters of the South African National Congress in the capital of Mozambique, Maputo. The Australian Government considers that the latest attack in Mozambique, like earlier attacks launched by South Africa into neighbouring countries, does nothing to solve the root causes of the problems in southern Africa and has condemned this latest use by South Africa of its Air Force to attack a sovereign neighbouring country. Senator LEWIS —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy that the 'Labor Party both in opposition and in government has made it perfectly clear that it believes that there must be a decline in real wages as an essential component of a package for economic recovery'? If the Minister agrees, I ask whether he can tell my why, in the accord made between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party, it was agreed: To protect the purchasing power of wages and salaries the adoption of a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported in tripartite consultations and before industrial tribunals. Further, does this paragraph of the accord explain the recent decision of the ACTU to seek full consumer price index increases for 1983? Finally, will the Minister tell us what is the current Government policy on the indexation of wages? Senator BUTTON —I do not know what Senator Walsh said about- Senator Lewis —I just quoted it to you. Senator BUTTON —I know you just quoted it to me but you may well have quoted it out of context. Senator Lewis —It is in Hansard, page 177. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis, you have asked your question. Senator BUTTON —The point that I perhaps have to make to Senator Lewis is that this is not a higher school certificate examination. This is Question Time. I will not comment on statements made by my colleagues on particular issues which may well have been taken out of context. But the fact of the matter is that there has been a decline in real wages in recent months in this country. The point of your question, as I understand it, Senator, was to ask whether the Labor Party agrees with that as a continuing process. You moved from that part of the question to the accord which deals with the maintenance of the real value of wages over time. If we are talking about quoting, Senator, I am quoting in using that expression 'over time'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Government to direct his answer through the Chair. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Mr President. I am indebted for the assistance of the Chair. The PRESIDENT —It might shorten things. Senator BUTTON —The answer is yes, the Government believes that, as soon as we are able to initiate economic recovery in this country, it will be most important in terms of sustaining that recovery that there be a fair share of its proceeds throughout the community. If that is not so, the recovery will not ultimately succeed. So, if the second part of the question, as I interpret it, was whether we believe that wages should be adjusted when the prices and incomes policy is fully in place in accordance with changes in the consumer price index, whether it be done yearly, half-yearly or quarterly, the answer is yes. The mechanism for adjusting wages on that basis will be determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator HEARN —I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Article 10, states: The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men. The General Assembly says: Considering that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organisations, local authorities and national Governments to recognise the rights set forth therein and strive for their observance . . . Recognising that it is people, represented by Governments which are responsible for the decisions to participate in armaments and war, it is essential that children are afforded the right to learn about peaceful resolutions of conflict and creative attitudes to common security. In Tasmania Dr Margaret Bailey-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to direct her question. Senator HEARN —I am directing it now. Dr Margaret Bailey has been instrumental in initiating seminars and discussions on education for peace. In New South Wales the Australian International School held a conference in October 1981. I ask the Minister-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator has been once stopped by you and has had her attention drawn to the need to ask a question. She has persisted for a considerable time and I ask you to disallow the question and to move on to another question. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to restrict her remarks to a question to the Minister. Senator HEARN —Thank you, Mr President. I ask the Minister: Will she investigate the establishment of a curriculum unit for peace education which will relate to and permeate the curriculum? Will she consider the provision of enabling funding to teachers who are using initiatives for peace studies? Senator RYAN —Senator Hearn's question is really along the same lines as the question previously asked today by Senator Giles. It again draws attention to a great defect in the educational processes in Australia. Through those processes a great deal of time is spent teaching students about wars and various militaristic enterprises. There is very little generally in the curriculum throughout Australia which would encourage young people to leave school with some concept that peace is a realisable aim. I repeat to Senator Hearn what I said to Senator Giles: It is the intention of this Government, in contrast to the previous Government, to re-establish a national curriculum function. The role of that national curriculum body will be to take up issues of national, and indeed in this case international, significance such as the development of peace and resolution of conflict studies and materials suitable for use in schools. Senator SCOTT —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy once more to his colleague Mr Keating's statement of 21 April last year that, should agreement with the States on the introduction of a resources rental tax fail, the Commonwealth would resort to coercion through reducing States grants. In view of the Minister's repeated failure to clarify the issue, I ask him to say without evasion or equivocation whether he stands by Mr Keating's statement. Senator WALSH —I answered this question at least twice last week. I am familiar with the statement that Mr Keating has made. I still hope that the States will see common sense and reason and agree with the proposals that are being put to them. I repeat: If as a result of inability in the present depressed market conditions high cost mines are not able to pay the substantial production-type taxes which are now levied on them by State governments and which we want to replace with a profit-related tax, and if those mines have to close because of those State government charges, the political odium for those closures will rest with the State governments which caused them. I hope that for that reason, if not for more intellectual and principled reasons, the State governments will agree to change the tax system in the way that we envisage. As for Mr Keating's statement, it is at all times correct that the bottom line of State government revenues is written by the Commonwealth. That has been the case ever since 1942 or thereabouts. There is nothing new about that. At least at this stage the Government is not threatening, however, to withdraw funds from States in a punitive way if they decline to agree with the sorts of policies on mineral industry taxation which this Government wants. I might add that that is somewhat of a contrast to not just the intentions but also the actions of the previous Federal Government, which gave the Victorian Government a healthy dose of Fraser Liberal Party style centralism when that Government introduced a taxing measure which it did not like. The Victorian Government was rewarded with a stiff dose of Liberal Party Fraser style Canberra centralism. If the Government at some subsequent stage should decide-I am not forecasting that this will happen-to proceed in the way that Senator Scott described, with coercion, the word I think he used, it would be following in a milder way the example set and precedent established by the previous Government in its dealings with Victoria. Senator COOK —Has the Attorney-General seen an article headed 'Court finds Tubemakers guilty of WA steel ''fix'' ' which appeared in yesterday's Australian Financial Review? Did the article report that companies associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, namely, Steel Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd and Tubemakers of Australia Ltd, and a Steel Supplies director, Mr Barry Neil Bint, have been convicted by Mr Justice Toohey under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act of 'illegally attempting to control steel prices in Western Australia'? Is the Minister able to say how much these price fixing activities have cost consumers in Western Australia? Will the Government consider amending trade practices law to enable injured consumers to take a class action against offenders of this type? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did see the newspaper reference to the Tubemakers case yesterday but I have not yet seen a more detailed report of the decision in that case. I am certainly not in a position at this stage to advise the honourable senator as to how much the price fixing activities in question may have cost consumers. Senator Peter Rae —It was an attempt that they were convicted of. They had not done it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe that is the appropriate explanation. Had they done it there may have been some quantifiable cost involved which it may be possible for me to ascertain, that presumably being the foundation of the proceeding that was then taken. If I can get further information I will advise the honourable senator accordingly. As to the operation of trade practices law in this area, Part IV of the Trade Practices Act, the restrictive practices aspect, is under active review at the moment in my Department, in consultation with the Trade Practices Commission. The consumer protection provisions in Part V of the Act are equally under active review in the portfolio of my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Indeed, a paper on aspects of that area has been put out recently. As to the question of class actions for injured consumers , that is a matter that the Government is proposing to give detailed consideration to in the context of the final report of the Law Reform Commission on this matter which is anticipated, I think, later this year. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the cost of basic health insurance is at present a component of the consumer price index? Is it correct that, in the event of Medicare coming into operation, this component will be removed, thereby reducing the CPI by several percentage points? If this is the case, can the Minister say what effect this is likely to have on increases in pensions since they are adjusted twice a year according to the CPI? Senator GRIMES —Yes, it is my understanding that, with the way the CPI is at present calculated, the introduction of the Medicare scheme or a universal health insurance scheme will in fact result in a reduction in the level of the CPI as it is calculated now. This, of course, will affect increases in pensions as they are calculated now under the automatic indexation scheme. But as the honourable senator would know, the present Government takes as its parameter for the level of pensions a percentage of average weekly earnings. We intend, over the whole period of this Governments if economic conditions allow as I am sure they will, to increase pensions as a percentage of average weekly earnings. If by increasing pensions in line with CPI increases we do not reach that parameter , we will adjust pensions so that the situation is dealt in that way. I remind the honourable senator of what happened in the past. In 1975 pensions had almost reached 25 per cent-they were about 24.5 per cent-of average weekly earnings. Since then they have been automatically indexed twice a year except for the year when the then Government unwisely omitted one indexation. But as a result of pressures from the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and pensioners ' organisations, the then Government restored that increase. Despite the fact that over that time pensions have been increased in line with CPI increases twice a year, their value has dropped to 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. I think this raises an important point: I believe and I have always believed it to be wrong to fix pensions just by CPI increases because CPI increases vary with the state of the economy and the level of productivity in the community. I think we have to fix a parameter, be it average weekly earnings or some other parameter, so that the true level of pensions relates to some recognisable and true value of the wages of other people in the community. For that reason we will watch the situation. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Finance been drawn to a report in today's Australian newspaper containing criticisms of the Government's legislation to recover tax avoided in bottom-of- the-harbour schemes? What substance is there to these criticisms? In particular, has the Minister received representations from the building industry with regard to withholding tax? What is the Minister's response to these representations? Senator WALSH —In regard to the last part of Senator Robert Ray's question-that is, the part concerning withholding tax and representations from the building industry-I will ask the Minister for Finance for an answer. In regard to the first part of the question, yes I have seen a particularly ill-informed news report in the Australian newspaper today about the tax legislation introduced by Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Finance, I think on Thursday of last week. If we eliminate the possibility of malevolence, it is clear that the journalist concerned has been snowed by tax dodgers and their accomplices with a series of false assertions. I will not detail all the assertions but I will mention at least two. It is stated in the Australian report that the legislation does not apply to public companies. Under this legislation, vendors who sold shares to what are colloquially known as bottom-of-the-harbour operators will be forced to pay the personal tax evaded by the illicit sales in addition to the company tax which was payable, or at least in most cases was payable, under legislation passed by the previous Government. The Australian asserts that that will apply to private companies but not to public companies. That is quite wrong, with one minor exception, namely, that for certain non-profit and government-controlled companies the legislation does not trace a deemed dividend to individuals, if any, behind the company. The second point with which I will deal is that it is asserted in the Australian that personal tax on deemed dividends will be payable in cases where vendors are also liable under the existing legislation for unpaid Division 7 tax. That also is totally false. If personal tax becomes payable under the proposed amendments the Division 7 tax liability is specifically eliminated, and any such tax paid will be refunded to the persons who paid it. There are other matters in that report which are, I suppose, to some extent matters of opinion and not outright misstatements of fact. They are opinions which I will not debate at this stage but which can be also easily scuttled. I say in closing that I believe it is about time the Press accepted its responsibility. If it is going to write stories like that, then, instead of-as I presume happened in this case-ringing some accountants who have been helping tax dodgers to escape with billions of dollars in recent years and imposing billions of dollars in burdens upon other honest taxpayers, I believe it is a social responsibility of the journalists concerned to get definitive and accurate information from the proper authorities instead of listening to the bleatings of tax dodgers and their agents. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of his public endorsement, as reported in the Tasmanian newspapers on 2 March, of reports that an American company is negotiating to establish a computer manufacturing plant employing 300 people in Tasmania, will the Minister inform the Senate of, firstly, the name of the company, secondly, what evidence he possesses of the company's bona fides, thirdly, the amount of financial support the company is seeking and, finally, the amount of money the Federal Government is prepared to provide in view of the fact that he was reported as stating three days before the election that the Government would encourage such a development and support it financially? Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters refers to a public statement attributed to me in the Tasmanian Press on 2 March. As I recall, we were in Opposition then and it sounds highly likely. The statement was made by me. It concerned a United States company which had made inquiries through a Melbourne agent about the possibility of investing in a computer software plant and also manufacturing some computer hardware. I am not able to tell the honourable senator the precise name of the company; I am not even sure I remember it at this stage. I was asked to keep it confidential. I should inform the honourable senator that I have been in correspondence with the Minister for Industry and Small Business in Tasmania regarding this matter and that he has made similar inquiries of me. The Melbourne agents of the company I mentioned have written to the Tasmanian Government about this matter. There was some confusion because the agents of the company wrote to the Premier's office and for some reason which has not been explained to me the letter did not reach the Minister for Industry for some time after it arrived at the Premier's office. I have no explanation at all of that, but it seems to be a matter of fact from my correspondence with the Tasmanian Minister for Industry. I am currently in the process of trying to obtain some further information for the Tasmanian Minister. As soon as I do, I will provide it to him. I think the honourable senator will appreciate that as confidentiality has been requested by the company concerned it would be improper for me to mention in the Senate the name of the principal company. However, I repeat that if it is the intention of that company to establish itself in Tasmania the Federal Government will certainly examine in a constructive way what financial assistance can be given to it to assist that process. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I can perhaps understand the need to maintain the confidentiality of the name of the company, but will Senator Button please answer the rest of the question that I asked him? What evidence does he possess of the company's bona fides? What amount of financial support is the company seeking? What amount of money is the Federal Government prepared to provide in view of the fact that the Minister said that he would encourage such development and support it financially? Senator BUTTON —It follows, I would have thought as night follows day, that if the company has no bona fides, as is implicit in the first part of the question, the Federal Government would not have pledged a particular amount of money to it . Indeed it would be ridiculous to do so until such time as there is a firm proposition from the company concerned. I do not know what amount the company is seeking. That would depend very much on the place where it proposes to site its activities, the extent of the plant required and so on. Those questions would properly be addressed at that time. Insofar as the bona fides of the company are concerned, I understand it to be a company of world repute and one which has manufacturing operations in a number of countries in the world. Whether this is a fair dinkum-if I may use that expression-inquiry in relation to Tasmania, I am unable to say but I am sure that the Minister for Industry and Small Business will investigate that question and provide the honourable senator with the answer as soon as he can. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 22 February this year, 14 governments signed a pledge to the world disarmament campaign launched last June at the United Nations General Assembly. I ask the Minister: Why is Australia's name not on the list of signatories? What active measures is Australia presently taking in the United Nations and elsewhere to promote disarmament? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the information available to me, I cannot answer the first part of the question but I will certainly seek an early opportunity to do so and give a considered Government response, including our current attitude. However, there are a number of initiatives which the Government is either undertaking or planning in relation to the whole international consideration of arms control and disarmament issues. We are certainly giving consideration to the appointment of an ambassador whose sole responsibility would be for disarmament and arms control matters. Another step that we have taken is to express a very active protest against the continuation of French nuclear tests in the Pacific. Associated with that is our very active support, which we will be pursuing particularly at the South Pacific Forum Conference to be held in August this year in Canberra, for the concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone. Whether that concept of nuclear free zones can be expanded beyond this narrow regional context is also being actively considered. In that respect we have accepted, as a government, the invitation to join the United Nations Secretary-General's Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Study Group which is to report to the 1984 General Assembly. Australia has expressed its keen support for the international negotiations that are now proceeding in fits and starts for a nuclear freeze followed, hopefully, by negotiated arms reductions. That is wholly in accord with our general approach as a government to regional and general international agreement for arms control and disarmament and is certainly an exercise to which we as a government will be giving such active support as we can in international forums. An incident having occurred in the gallery- The PRESIDENT —Order! Those people are to be removed from the gallery. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and is not on the subject on which he has just answered. Is it a fact that the Government has now backed away from its intention to hold a referendum on the constitutional alteration proposals on 20 August? If that is the case, what are its reasons, or did it just seem a good idea at that time? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will endeavour to focus on the matter raised by Senator Durack. The situation is, as I have publicly announced, purely a function of the Government's review of its legislative program. The parliamentary business committee of Cabinet met this morning to review that program. It became apparent that the pressure of business is now such that a full debate on the referendum Bills in both Houses of the Parliament is simply not possible in the time available. As Senator Durack will be well aware, the second reading debate in the Senate is only very partially complete at the moment and the House of Representatives is due to rise at the end of this week. Given the need to ensure that referendum proposals attract the maximum possible consensus, the Government really does not believe that it would be altogether consistent with that objective for debate-if not in this chamber, at least in the House of Representatives-to be gagged, guillotined or otherwise unduly curtailed in order to get the Bills through. The situation, accordingly, is that the party has decided to delay further consideration of these Bills until after Parliament resumes. Further consideration will be given at that time by the Government to the timing of the referendums themselves. The postponement, to this extent, will also give the Government an opportunity to consult further with the Opposition, if it is demonstrating a willingness to be consulted on these matters, and enable the Commonwealth to consult more closely with the States-particularly in the context of the forthcoming Premiers Conference-again with a view to maximising the chances of a consensus approach to these very important machinery proposals. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been approached in relation to a dispute concerning cleaning services at the University of Queensland? If so, is the Minister able to advise whether the Commonwealth Government can do anything to resolve the dispute? Senator RYAN —I have not been approached on this matter and I do not expect that I will be. As Senator Colston will know, the management of industrial and staffing matters within universities is a matter for the universities themselves . I hope that the matter will be resolved-I am sure it will be-without any intervention by the Commonwealth Minister. Senator CHANEY —In light of the very considerable interest in the question of disarmament on the part of Government senators, I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Will the Government now proceed to sell the Ordnance Factory at Bendigo? Senator BUTTON —The interest displayed in disarmament here today and indeed in questions from the Opposition was in the question of nuclear disarmament. The Bendigo Ordnance Factory does not make nuclear weapons and it will not be sold by the present Government. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he recalls stating in the Senate on 22 April 1983: I am advised that it is the Government's intention to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway as part of its long-standing commitment to the completion of an all-weather standard gauge connection between Adelaide and Darwin. . . . I recall that the then shadow Minister for Transport Mr Morris, who is now the Minister, made a commitment during the election campaign in February that a Labor government would continue construction of the line between Alice Springs and Darwin, with a suggested target date of 1988, and that he would energetically seek to prepare the necessary financial and construction details of the project. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator ask his question. Senator KILGARIFF —Would the Minister agree that he has misled the Senate? Would he further agree that Mr Morris, the Minister for Transport, has misled the Australian voter? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the question being asked. I replied that the policy of the Government at that stage was to give its support for a railway line that would assist the people in the Northern Territory. However, subsequent to my answering that question, the Government has had to review its spending programs, having regard to the impossible financial position in which the previous Government left this country. Consequently, the Government has had to revise a number of its public works programs. It does not resile from its responsibilities in respect of the railway. I am informed by my colleague the Minister for Transport, whom I represent in this place, that the Government suggests that the railway construction should be the joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. As this has been the practice for all State railway systems since the colony was established I do not think it is a radical departure from past procedures. A State government may well be interested in the proposal. After all, the railway is an extension of the connecting link between South Australia and the Northern Territory. These matters are currently still being discussed with a view to the project going ahead. Certainly I repudiate any suggestion that I misled the Parliament. What I stated was the Government's commitment at the time the question was asked. The Australian Government hopes to be able to proceed with that commitment. All that has changed is the method of financing the project. This will be a matter for discussion between the relevant State and the Commonwealth. Senator BUTTON —Earlier today during Question Time Senator Archer asked me a question about a statement on interest rates made by the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford. Since the question was asked I have been advised that the Minister said yesterday in the Bruce electorate that he believed that the economic statement brought down last Thursday outlined such a positive approach to economic management that it would have a downward effect on interest rates. The Minister did not put any time upon a reduction in interest rates. He pointed out that there were many other factors, such as the level of interest rates overseas, which had to be taken into consideration. He said that there was nothing that would help the housing industry more than a downward movement of interest rates but he pointed out to the electors of Bruce, who no doubt are concerned about these matters, that the Government had been left an appalling legacy by its predecessors in the form of a $9.6 billion deficit which the Government inherited on 5 March. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Philippines led by the Honourable Rogelio Sarmiento, Minister of State for Transport and Communications . On behalf of honourable senators I extend to all members of the delegation a warm welcome to the Senate chamber. I express the wish that they enjoy the remainder of their stay in Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT —I wish to make a statement in response to the Senate House Committee's inquiry into the organisation, operation, functions and financial administration of the Joint House Department. Honourable senators will recall that the reference to the Committee on 29 October 1981 resulted from the examination by Senate Estimates Committee A of the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1981-82. The House Committee subsequently reported to the Senate on 26 August 1982 and, at the time of the double dissolution, my predecessor in the office of President had not been able to respond to the report. On 17 May 1983, the Committee further reported on matters raised following the publication of its initial report. The reports of the Committee generally indicate a number of shortcomings in the past administration of the Joint House Department, and I assure the Senate that I will be paying close attention to measures which, I hope, will rectify that overall situation. In relation to the specific recommendations of the Committee, Recommendation 1 is that: . . . each House resolve to empower their respective House Committees, when sitting together as the Joint House Committee, with the executive responsibility for policy in relation to the functions of the Joint House Department-- I inform the Senate that at the meeting of the Joint House Committee on Thursday , 18 May, the Joint House Committee was told that the Speaker and I had agreed that whilst the responsibility for decision making in respect of the Joint House Department must rest ultimately with the Presiding Officers, in making decisions we would be guided by resolutions and determinations of the Committee. Recommendation 2 is that: . . . there be a determination of policy by the Joint House Committee covering the nature and level of services to be provided by the Refreshment Rooms- I agree that the Joint House Committee should consider the matter and make recommendations to the Presiding Officers. Recommendation 3 is that: . . . there be a thorough examination as soon as possible of the alternatives for operating all or part of the Refreshment Rooms on a contract or concession basis- I intend referring this matter to the Joint House Committee for consideration of the method by which the recommendation can be implemented. Recommendation 4 is that: . . . immediate consideration be given to contracting out all or part of the cleaning function- I understand the House Committee was told at its most recent inquiry that some examination of this proposal has now been undertaken by the Joint House Department. Again, I have asked that the proposal be fully evaluated and that the Joint House Department advise the outcome of the evaluation to the Joint House Committee as soon as possible. Recommendation 5 is that: . . . the Public Accounts and the Public Works Committee Secretariats be relocated- This recommendation was implemented by the previous Presiding Officers and the Public Accounts and the Public Works Committee secretariats have been transferred to the Department of the House of Representatives. Recommendation 6 is that: . . . the arrangements for night watchmen be immediately revised- The initial discussions I have had with parliamentary security advisers indicate there is validity in the Committee's conclusion. Discussions are in train between the Speaker and me, and with the relevant parliamentary officers, about existing security arrangements. Recommendation 7 is that: . . . the question as to whether Parliamentary staff should have security clearances should be reviewed- The permanent heads of the parliamentary departments have this recommendation under consideration. Recommendation 8 is that: . . . the President and the Speaker look to the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives to properly promote the education services of the Parliament- I accept this recommendation in relation to the Department of the Senate. I have been advised by the Clerk that the promotion of the education services of the Senate is a continuing function, and the enhancement of the service is the subject of constant review. Recommendation 9 is that: . . . the Presiding Officers, one or both, give urgent consideration to the tabling of the Urwick Report in the Parliament- In considering this recommendation, I have also discussed the matter with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and he endorses my decision to table the Urwick report at the conclusion of this statement. Recommendation 10 is that: . . . a number of other matters should first be decided before consideration is given to amalgamation of all or part of the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Reporting Staff with the Joint House Department- I agree with this recommendation and assure the Senate that, bearing in mind my 21 years of parliamentary service, I do not intend proposing such an amalgamation. Recommendation 11 is that: . . . the proposal of the Department of Transport and Construction concerning repairs and maintenance be further considered by way of a study aimed at establishing costs, benefits and the effects on Parliament's present technical staff. I note that the Committee, in making this recommendation, regarded as doubtful any suggestions that the Parliament could be better served by other than its own repairs and maintenance staff. However, like the Committee, I believe there is an obligation to assess whether overall economies can be achieved and I am referring this recommendation to the members of the Joint House Committee for their consideration. The members of the Committee have put in a lot of time and effort to arrive at the detailed conclusions of their report. The Committee's report has been of great assistance to me and I place on record my appreciation of the valuable work undertaken by the members and the staff of the Senate House Committee. I believe the decisions that have been taken arising from the report will achieve greater efficiencies in the organisation, operation, functions and administration of the Joint House Department. I table the Urwick report. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.6) —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Mr President, first I say that I think probably the most welcome news that came to us in your statement was that you and the present Speaker have decided to table the Urwick report. The Senate House Committee had access to that report during its deliberations in camera and, as has been indicated, we thought nothing in it should keep it a confidential document. However, for those who are interested and involved in the running of this Parliament House-that is, all members of the Joint House Committee, plus others-a lot of information in that report is very helpful and very useful. Much of it is non-controversial. It is also welcome that the recommendations of that report, I believe, will now be available to all the staff of this Parliament House so that they can see what recommendations have been made and make their comment and input on decisions that might be taken in relation to the design and function of their jobs in the future. Indeed, in some cases, they might comment on the subject of whether their jobs should even continue to exist. I think it is highly desirable that that information be made available to staff and that they have a detailed knowledge of the things on which they are supposed to be commenting rather than having the system that obtained before whereby the actual recommendations in the report were not available other than to heads of specific departments and very senior personnel. I note with interest, Mr President, that you intend to refer a number of the recommendations of the Senate House Committee to the Joint House Committee. These recommendations relate to the contracting out of cleaning, the possibility of looking at some sort of concession for the operation of the parliamentary dining rooms and some issues in relation to repairs and maintenance. Mr President, I also note your comment in relation to recommendation 1 which states : . . . each House resolve to empower their respective House committees, when sitting together as the Joint House Committee, with the executive responsibility for policy in relation to the functions of the Joint House Department . . . Mr President, I think that in further debate on your statement the Senate as well as the House of Representatives will need to take up this issue and look at , properly, how some authority can be given to that Committee. I can say only that it is a great pity that Senator McLaren is not still with us. If it had not been for the advent of a double dissolution I know which part of your report he would have been speaking on today. For years he advocated some authority being given to the Joint House Committee. I am sure he would be very enthusiastic about any moves in that direction and more notice being taken of the Committee. Mr President, I have a very particular interest in your response to recommendation 6 in relation to security. I might say-I am sure you have checked the Hansard transcripts-that every witness we questioned on this subject swore black and blue that there was nothing wrong with the arrangement for night watchmen in this place. It was only on the basis of some gossipy type of information members of the Committee had that that recommendation went in. I think possibly it was due to the fact that our recommendation was actually totally contrary to the evidence given to us and that we had reasons to doubt the helpfulness of the evidence that we had a subsequent need for another report from the Senate House Committee. Mr President, I am interested that you have looked at this matter and believe that there is some validity, as you say, in the Committee's decision. I just emphasise the point that you might find it useful to cast your eyes again over the evidence given in that report because witnesses declared very solidly that our concerns about security, particularly in relation to night watchmen, were not well justified. I realise that I have quite some time available in which to speak but I am intending to proceed on the basis on which we have proceeded with other reports and, that is, basically that a five minute limit applies. Mr President, I am sure that your statement will be noted with interest by all honourable senators and that there will be much more discussion on it, particularly by the Joint House Committee. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.10) —Mr President, I wish to respond briefly to the response that you have brought down to the Senate House Committee report. I fully endorse all that Senator Martin had to say, particularly in relation to security because that has been one of my concerns. One of the other concerns not included in the report is the morale of the members of the staff of Parliament House. This is a matter that I will be referring to, perhaps at a later stage in reference to the Joint House Committee. I congratulate you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker on the decision to table the Urwick report. I remind honourable senators, especially new senators who have recently joined us, that the Urwick report was commissioned by the Presiding Officers and contained a number of what were presumed to be controversial areas. Having obtained the permission of the Senate to view that report, I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was not a great deal of controversy in it. There was an expression of opinion with which I did not necessarily agree, but I did not regard it as being that controversial. I was curious as to why the report could not have been tabled without the Senate House Committee having virtually to beg the Senate for it to be released to it in camera. I believe that, if reports of this nature are to be brought down, it is the responsibility of all members of the Parliament to have available to them such reports so that we can determine for ourselves whether anything in them will affect the way this place is operated or whether they will affect the way we need this place to operate. Whilst Parliament House belongs to the people, it is the members and senators who are here for such a limited time and who require specific things to be available to them during that time. We must recognise also that the large number of people who work here on a day-by-day basis each week of the year require certain facilities available to them as well. The situation which has developed certainly over the last couple of years must be put into context. We cannot allow conjecture amongst the staff as to what a particular report says, for the very good reason that it affects and lowers the morale of people if they are not aware of what the report might say and they may be concerned that their positions in Parliament House could be affected by a determination which is made by other people. I commend the President for bringing down so rapidly a response to the second report of the Senate House Committee. Honourable senators will be aware that I tabled this report only last week. Because it is my intention to look more thoroughly at the statement that you have made today, Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks so that the report can remain on the Notice Paper and a contribution can be made by me and other members of the Senate at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. So much left undone-Report by the National Women's Advisory Council. 2. Department of Primary Industry-Annual Report. 3. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977. 4. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-Summary Record of Proceedings- Eleventh Meeting; Hobart, Tasmania, 3 June 1982. 5. Commonwealth Department of Education-Annual Report for 1982. 6. Operation of the Student Assistance Act in 1982-pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1973. Report: 'So much left undone' Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a report by the National Women's Advisory Council on special consultations with disabled women and girls. It is a simply written and very direct report which covers the subject of problems that arise for disabled women and girls in the Australian community. The subject matters which are the conclusions of the report were achieved through a particular process in this case. As I understand it, it was a matter of sending out questionnaires to disabled women and girls and then interviewing most of them by telephone. This method took cognisance of their disabilities and difficulty in travelling. A large number of issues are covered, as I have said, very simply and directly and I think very usefully. Many of them are common to all disabled people. There is some emphasis on how a problem that arises as a result of a disability can have a specific effect on a woman. I wish briefly to draw the notice of the Senate to a few points. One of the early points-a particularly interesting one in relation to debates we have these days on the subject of equality-is the effect that the so-called discrimination in favour of women by giving them the age pension at the age of 60 years instead of the age of 65 years, as in the case of men, has on the disabled. In fact, it is a disadvantage for disabled women. The invalid pension is not taxed but the age pension is. So disabled women who have another source of income, which they need because the cost of living for the disabled is extremely high, lose their invalid pension and are transferred on to the age pension at the age of 60 years , and are then subject to tax. That results in their having less income than a disabled man in otherwise identical circumstances who holds his invalid pension until the age of 65 years. Another very general issue, which has specific application to disabled women but which I am sure is of more general interest in the community at the moment, is whether the work that a woman does as a mother and in the home is in fact work. This is, of course, a matter of great debate in the community and there are some extremes of views on the subject. It is pointed out in this report that the disabled wife and mother who is carrying out the chores normally carried out by a wife and mother, which at the moment attract no economic reward, needs special assistance particularly in the matter of transport. For example, many disabled mothers must drive a car in order to reach the shops and to carry out their shopping. However, no sales tax concession applies to a car driven in these circumstances. Disabled men or women driving to paid employment would get sales tax concessions on their cars. They would also get some assistance with the extremely high cost of modification of their cars so that they could drive them. Women carrying out this job, which at present does not earn economic reward, get none of those sorts of concessions, although they would believe, and society I think pays lip service to the fact, that they are doing a job which has value. The report also points out that disabled women carrying out these sorts of household chores and work for the family often have to work with electrical appliances which are designed without any thought of the disabled. Whilst I suppose that this is not an area of government activity, it points out, I hope fairly clearly and forcefully, to those who are in the business of manufacturing electrical appliances that possibly there is a market that they have left untapped in the past. They might look at how they could modify their appliances so that they would have a very particular appeal. The matter of some disability aids specific to women being unsuitable is also raised. Reference is also made to the very special problems of motherhood for a disabled woman involving not just community attitudes but also doctors' attitudes specifically as to whether a disabled woman should have a baby, even though she may be physically capable of doing so, as well as some additional problems relating to how a disabled woman, for example, the physical strength of whose arms is affected, copes with that situation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.19) —I had the great pleasure and privilege on Saturday of attending a meeting of handicapped women and the mothers of handicapped children in Perth at which the report of the National Women's Advisory Council entitled 'So much left undone' was launched by Edith Hall, a member of the Council which organised Saturday's meeting in conjunction with the Young Women's Christian Association. Edith Hall, herself confined to a wheelchair, described very graphically the way in which those women who contributed to this document were asking with great humility for services of simplicity and low expense, the sorts of requests that handicapped people have been making for a very long time. The document before us is the summary only of a much more comprehensive report which goes to two volumes and which I hope will be studied seriously not only by the Government and the Opposition but also by many organisations which have a direct bearing on the way in which the handicapped can function or are prevented from functioning at their optimum. For example, we were told that incontinence pads required by many handicapped people are available only from pharmacies or in bulk, which makes it extremely inconvenient for very many people who need them to obtain the supplies that they obviously must acquire but which, because of financial constraints, they cannot acquire in bulk. Senator Peter Baume —Is that a legal restriction? Senator GILES —I am not sure of that. I do not believe it is. I intend to follow the matter further. The report of the International Year of Disabled Persons has still not been published, but I believe it will reflect the types of recommendations made in the report entitled 'So much left undone'. Forty-five per cent of the population suffers from one or more chronic conditions and of that number well over one million are disabled. Of that one million two-thirds are handicapped. Over 50 per cent of identified disabled people are women, the same proportion that women represent in the general population. It is somewhat of a scandal that in Western Australia in the last 12 months only 24 per cent of those receiving rehabilitation are women despite the fact that there are unused facilities within our rehabilitation institutions. There is a considerable lack of awareness in the community of what facilities are available. There is also a lack of awareness of what is required. Reference has already been made by Senator Martin to the fact that sex and sexuality of disabled women is largely unrecognised. The report states: The traditional caring roles also appeared to limit disabled women and girls . . . reducing their opportunities for establishing heterosexual relationships. Disabled men were felt to have a much greater opportunity to relate to women who provided the 'care' for them, whereas disabled women had stepped out of their traditional role in needing rather than providing care. In addition, when faced with her own inability to fulfil traditional role expectations of a male-female relationship, a disabled woman may consciously or unconsciously avoid personal situations which could lead to deep relationships with the opposite sex. This could be at a severe psychological, emotional, social and sexual cost to her development and fulfilment as a human being. Time and again the costs of transport are emphasised. One woman told us on Saturday how she had been desperate to work, to gain the experience that a particular job would provide, and found that the only way in which she could carry out that job was to spend something like 90 per cent of her income on taxis. Physical access to buildings recurs as a problem again and again. Many of us have probably been unaware of the fact that the notorious organisation, the Builders Labourers Federation, in the International Year of Disabled Persons placed a black ban on all buildings which did not provide access for the disabled. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.24) —I am pleased to follow Senator Martin and Senator Giles on the report of the National Women's Advisory Council entitled 'So much left undone'. It is a brief report and summary of a much more in-depth document covering these issues. I take interest and real delight in the way this report emphasises that it is the handicapped people themselves who have given the evidence that led to the recommendations contained in it. The report is not planning from on high but is planning by participation. Certainly, I think the recommendations would be fairly easily fulfilled; they are not great and heroic demands. I think that is also a point in this report that is well worth taking more generally. That point was very nicely demonstrated in this report. The report indicates too that the best guesses of the people planning the questionnaire did not actually match the responses of the handicapped women. When the women were asked what their principal problems were their reply was transport. This problem was listed the largest number of times. Access and finance were also mentioned. These points were not listed on the questionnaire but were volunteered by the handicapped women. Again, the main emphasis of the requirements of handicapped women was: 'Please, please could we try to live independently?' That request is not put in those terms in the report, but that is the main thrust. Quite some part of the document is devoted to the inadequacies and in fact the considerable humiliations not only of women but of men and women, young and old, living out their lives in hospitals because it is seen that anybody who is disabled is not normal, and anybody who is not normal is clearly sick, and we should put sick people in hospital. Those people say: 'We are not sick; we are disabled. We want to try and live independently'. A number of recommendations stress that point. It is interesting to note that that claim in this report matches very well the claim for support for independent living that is emerging from a large number of groups in our community, in particular the mentally handicapped as well as the physically handicapped. Often people will claim that it is not cost beneficial to have handicapped people living independently and that it is better to have them institutionalised because of economies of scale. I think those arguments have long since been laid to rest, but I argue that even if it were more expensive to protect people's dignity and to support them in independent living, if that is what those people desire, it ought to be the serious concern of government. There are some things on which we might have to spend our dollars. However this report does not dwell on the cost-benefit analysis. Another point that was raised by the previous speakers and that I think is very important is the fierce challenge to independent living by handicapped women who find themselves facing the combination of low income and disability that leads them to being very financially constrained. Not only do they find it very difficult to earn a living or even to find support in sheltered workshops where they might get a token sort of income, but to live independently they require appliances, modifications to homes, houses and cars, et cetera, and these are inordinately expensive. As explained by Senator Martin, the sales tax concessions allowable for employed people are not allowable for unemployed people, and that group often includes women. People on a low income have to pay far more to try to manage their independent living. This report is brief and it is simple, but it conveys very powerfully the message of these women: 'Please, could we have some facilities, consideration and understanding in the community to enable us as much as possible to live independently'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(3.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Summary Record of Proceedings Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(3.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The year covered by this report, 1982, was a year in which Mr Ken Jones headed the Department of Education, and the report is an account of his stewardship during that time. It indicates an effective job by a long-serving, loyal and respected officer. The Government of course decided, subsequent to that year, to get rid of Mr Jones as Secretary to this Department, a department which he had served and to which he had been appointed by the Labor Government in 1973, I believe. He previously headed the Commonwealth Office of Education. The Government decided to get rid of him when it came to office after the last election. The decision to move this officer is a proper decision of Executive government, but it is the unreasonable means and unpleasant way in which it was done which I would like to put on record once again. Mr Jones could have been moved when his Department was restructured, when the Administrative Arrangements Order was announced soon after the Government came to power, but it was not done then; it was announced then that permanent heads would be reappointed, and Mr Jones carried on as the head of the new Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It could have been announced after his new appointment to another department had been determined, had been announced, and when he knew about it. This was not done. What was announced was that Mr Jones would go from the Department of Education. What was let to be known was that Dr Wilenski would take over, and that announcement was released and made known to the public before the Governor-General, whose appointment it was, had had any chance to consider it. When Senator Ryan was questioned in this place about that premature announcement she announced that neither she nor the Government could be responsible for the premature announcement. The words, in answer to a question, are in Hansard. This was a matter which fell within Senator Ryan's ministerial purview. The premature release of this information was discourteous to Mr Jones and to the Governor-General. It certainly was a matter of Government responsibility, and it certainly was something which the Minister, exercising ministerial responsiblity , should have answered for. I should like to place on record the appreciation I had, as Minister for Education, for the loyalty which I received from Mr Ken Jones as permanent head of the Department, for the diligent way in which he looked after me, for the way in which he cared for officers and for the way he was respected. I place on record once again my distress at the disservice which was done to him by the way in which he was dismissed when this new Government came to power and when it made the decision that it wanted a different permanent head. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.34) —I shall speak for a moment so that I may seek leave to continue my remarks later. There may be others who, unlike Senator Peter Baume, wish to address themselves to the report rather than to a matter which more appropriately could have been raised in the adjournment debate . I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act in 1982 is an annual reminder of the problems that we face in this country in relation to tertiary education. I refer the Senate to page 14 of this report in particular where, in table 3, we find some very interesting statistics. In 1977, 99,153 students were assisted under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. For each year thereafter the figures are respectively 98,000, 93,000, 91,000, 91,000, with the preliminary figure for last year being 86,000. I think it is interesting to note that while the number of people in Australia grows, while demands upon tertiary education grow, while the world and particularly the Western countries move into technology, biotechnology and computers-in other words, while the Western countries move into industries which require tertiary education-what do we find in this country? We find that not only is the number of students who are being assisted to undertake tertiary studies dropping every year, but also that the total number of students as a percentage of the population has dropped every year since 1977. We are saying that we recognise that young people need to move into the work force, that Australia needs a whole variety of new industries to create new jobs and opportunities and that we recognise right the way across the board the valuable input that primary and, in particular, secondary and tertiary education studies make to the economy. Yet we are not willing to support students going into tertiary studies. I think that together those items show the barrenness with which we have approached the education debate in Australia. If we were merely looking at an Act which in some sense could be called non-productive, then indeed, in times of harsh economic climate we may say in regard to finance: 'We would like to, but we cannot'. But we are not talking about an area which is non-productive. We are talking about the area of tertiary education, which we know from overseas experience to be the most directly productive area within the community upon which a government can spend a dollar. This fact has now been recognised, particularly in the studies that have been done on the American economy. Particularly important is the relationship between tertiary studies and those new industries which the new Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has called sunrise industries. I hope that when we come to the Budget in August we will see for the first time some reversal of this trend which is highlighted on page 14 of the report. Without a reversal of that trend, without at least taking it back to 1977 levels when the Government was assisting 99,000 students instead of, as is the case now, 86,000 students, we will not see any advance. The other item I wish to point to is the application of the TEAS allowance and the criteria upon which it is made. That is discussed in chapter 3 under the heading: 'General Conditions of Eligibility for TEAS'. I think that again we see there that the major problem that confronts students is not so much that the Government has sought to cut back but that it has sought to make the hurdle more and more difficult. In a sense that runs directly counter to what we know to be the case within the general education community-that unless we are able to assist everybody who needs assistance we are throwing away the valuable talent which is necessary for the development of this country and for future generations. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.40) —This is an important report. It comes out each year from the Minister for Education to record the operation of the Student Assistance Act. The message from the 1982 report is that during that year considerable extra benefits were conferred upon students. While the figures quoted by Senator Macklin are correct, they do not tell the whole story, because this report sets out in detail the extra benefits which were made available to students both under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and under the post- graduate awards scheme in the 1982 Budget for the year 1982-83. While the honourable senator was correct in the enrolment figures which he gave to the Senate, what he has failed to add to those are the new figures for applications under TEAS which are already available and which show that this year such applications have increased significantly as a result of the extra benefits conferred last year. The report sets out that in the 1982 Budget the value of the post-graduate award award rose by 48 per cent. The report sets out that an extra 100 post-graduate awards were made available. It is also a fact that in that Budget there was a removal of constraint on other income that post-graduate scholars could earn. The report sets out the Budget increase in the level of TEAS allowances and student assistance payments as being 20 per cent. In that Budget, of course, there was an increase in the means test-the adjusted family income. It is on the basis of those increases that there has been an increase in enrolments for 1983 reflecting those more liberal benefits. So while Senator Macklin's sentiments are ones which, I think, most honourable senators would share, it would have been generous had he acknowledged that real steps were taken last year to try to increase the benefits and that the results are already showing. Enrolments in the TEAS scheme are up and more students are taking advantage of the scheme. This is a result of the extra benefits given last year. What Senator Macklin said, of course, was the truth. But it was not the whole truth in relation to TEAS. At page 10 of the report, reference is made to the fact that student representation on the student assistance review tribunals is drawn from the Australian Union of Students. I indicate that I had some concern about AUS being the sole source of candidates for membership of student assistance review tribunals. The reason for this is that whatever the position of AUS may have been 10 or even six years ago, the fact is that many campuses have chosen to disaffiliate themselves from AUS over the last few years. A number of campuses do not want to be affiliated in any official way with the Australian Union of Students. It seems to me that these campuses should have a capacity to nominate from, say, their student representative councils whom they wish to be their representatives on the student assistance review tribunals and that those representatives should not, as of right, come from an umbrella organisation which is representative now of only half the campuses around the country. There is only one other point I would like to make. It relates to table 11 on page 21 of the report. That table relates to the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and to the number of technical college students receiving living allowances. It brings home to those who may not have realised it the fact that students within the technical and further education area can apply for and benefit from the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. In fact, it shows that 14 ,000 students were benefiting from TEAS in 1982. It is worth observing that the loans scheme which the previous Government introduced made student loans available to students within the technical and further education sector. The abolition of loans has left those students in the worst of all possible worlds. They no longer have the loans which the previous Government introduced under the scheme and the institutions in which they study do not have access to any kind of emergency loan funds. I ask the Labor Government to consider the special position of disadvantage in which it has placed the students in TAFE by its administrative action. They now have less than they did before and they have no way of correcting what was removed when the loans scheme was discontinued. Senator FOREMAN —(South Australia)-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, as Chairman of the Public Works Committee I present the forty-sixth general report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-In tabling this report I wish to pay a tribute to the former Chairman and members of the former Committee. Mr Mel Bungey, when honourable member for Canning, served two terms as Chairman for a period of four years and 11 months, the second longest serving Chairman since the Committee was first formed on 3 December 1914. Mr Bungey was an extremely able Chairman, very thorough in the interrogation of witnesses and gave meticulous attention to the preparation of reports. I only hope that I will be able to emulate him. I also gratefully acknowledge the work done by the previous Vice-Chairman, Mr Les McMahon, and the service rendered by former Senator John Martyr, Mr Ben Humphreys-now the Government Whip-Mr Ted Innes and Mr Murray Sainsbury. May I also add how much the new Committee will benefit from the election of the Honourable Wal Fife as its Vice-Chairman. I welcome the wealth of knowledge and experience he brings and look forward to his support. This general report reviews the activity of the Committee during 1982. Some 16 reports on proposed works were presented. The total expenditure of those proposed works, when referred to the Committee, was $318m. The total expenditure recommended by the Committee was $313m.That represents a net saving of some $5m resulting from the Committee's inquiries. Details of reports presented by the Committee during 1982 may be found in appendix A of the report. The Public Works Committee's function is to ensure that Parliament is informed that works proposals referred to the Committee for examination have been thoroughly researched by the departments concerned, that they are necessary and acceptable to the community and that the cost is in keeping with the necessity for the work. I commend the report to honourable senators. Assent reported. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The major purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 to rectify technical deficiencies which have recently come to light. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to include in the tax sharing base some newly imposed Commonwealth taxes. In 1981, an understanding was reached with the States that, following a transitional year, their tax sharing grants would be calculated by reference to a 'total' tax base rather than the personal income tax base used in previous arrangements. That, and other understandings between the premiers and the previous Government, formed the basis of the tax sharing Act. Apart from the provision for certain taxes-or parts thereof-to be declared by the Treasurer to be a special surcharge and thereby be excluded from the tax pool, the Act did appear at the time to cover all major Commonwealth taxation collections. Moreover, to date, determinations of taxation receipts required under the Act have been made in accordance with the understanding with the States. Under section 27 of the Act, a determination once made is presumed conclusively correct. I record these facts simply for the information of honourable senators present and to assure them that, to date, determinations of tax collections under the Act have been made in accordance with the spirit of the understanding with the States. Recently, however, questions have arisen as to whether, strictly interpreted, the definition of income tax in the Act is in fact as broad as intended. Advice from Attorney-General's Department has confirmed the doubt that exists regarding this definition. The definition of income tax in the Act is derived by reference to section 6 (i ) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, a section which deals with assessed income tax only. Collections of PAYE instalments, company tax instalments or provisional tax instalments collected by the Commonwealth are not assessed, within the meaning of the Act, at the time of collection. Late payment penalties would also not strictly be included under the present definition. It is estimated that around $600m of the net income tax collections in 1981-82 would represent tax not subsequently falling within the definition of the Act. Because of the lag between personal income tax collections and the issue of related assessments, the determination which would have been made in that year, had the strict interpretation of the Act been adopted, would have been substantially below the determination actually made. Although previous determinations were consistent with the intention of the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act, the Government now proposes to make the necessary amendments to bring it into line with those intentions. As I have already indicated, in addition to amending the definition of income tax included in the tax sharing base, the present Bill also deals with newly introduced Commonwealth taxes. In recent times the Commonwealth has enacted two pieces of legislation, namely, the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 and the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982, which should, as part of the understanding reached with the States in 1981, be added to the list of taxes forming the tax base for the purposes of the tax sharing act. Finally, I note the amendments set out in the Bill also make allowance for the deduction, from the tax sharing base, of any payments which could be made by the Commonwealth under the proposed legislation for the payment of interest on tax overpayments. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will, among other things, honour an important election commitment to abolish the declaration that pensioners and concessional beneficiaries must sign when they receive pharmaceutical benefits. As honouring this promise involves legislative change, the Government is taking one of the first opportunities in the new Parliament to honour its election pledge. Honourable senators will recall that the previous Government introduced from 1 January of this year an arrangement under which a pharmaceutical chemist could not supply a benefit item to a pensioner free of charge or to a concessional beneficiary at the reduced contribution rate, unless the patient completed a complex declaration as to this entitlement. The declaration was printed on the reverse of the prescription form thereby requiring two signatures for each prescription, once on the declaration and once for the receipt of the benefit. In practice many patients particularly the aged, the infirm, migrants and the disabled were unable to complete the declaration form without help. There was widespread opposition to the arrangement. Its abolition will be welcomed generally. I draw honourable senators' attention to clause 6 of the Bill which would establish a far simpler mechanism for pensioners and concessional beneficiaries to claim their entitlement. Under the proposed scheme a pharmacist would be authorised to supply the benefit if the prescription form contains certain basic information about the patient's entitlement. The information needed will be set out in regulations and will be easily available from the benefit cards issued to all persons entitled to free or concessional pharmaceutical benefits. A medical or dental practitioner, the patient or any person on behalf of the patient, or the pharmacist supplying the benefit, will all be allowed to enter the entitlement information on the front of the prescription form. There will no longer be a need for persons to sign twice in order to obtain supply of the benefit and the patient contribution concession. It is expected that the problems being experienced by patients and pharmacists with the present complex arrangements will disappear. The new prescription form will simplify the present complex declaration form in four ways. First, all the required information will be provided on one side of the form. There will be no requirements on the reverse side of the form. Second, the information for beneficiary status will be simplified, making it easier for beneficiaries and pharmacists, yet still meeting the necessary demands for effective departmental monitoring. Third, a single signature will indicate both receipt of the prescription and claim to free or concessional entitlement. Fourth, doctors and, if need be, pharmacists, will be encouraged to assist beneficiaries in completing the form. However, I would make it clear that responsibility for the accuracy of an entitlement claim rests, as it rightly should, with the beneficiary. To discourage fraud, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 103 of the Act, the offence provision, to expressly cover the new procedure and the Department of Health will continue to closely monitor the supply of benefits, and will examine improved monitoring devices to eradicate fraud in the pharmacy area. Mr President, the opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to amend the National Health Act to ensure effective continuation of established policies and practices in the Commonwealth control of nursing home fees. I draw honourable senators' attention to clause 3 of the Bill. The Federal Government's annual contribution to accommodation and home care programs for the aged can be expected to pass the $1000 million mark in the next budget. Of this amount it is estimated that expenditure subsidising the provision of care in nursing homes will account for $865 million. The recurrent funding of nursing home beds considerably overshadows all federal capital expenditure on accommodation for the aged, recurrent funding for hostels and all expenditure on domiciliary care, and it is rising substantially. While the expenditure on the nursing homes programs continues to escalate significantly there are growing criticisms of the present arrangements. The aged , their families and taxpayers are increasingly questioning the inadequacies, expense and the mismatch of services which comprise Australia's present arrangements for care of the aged. Care of the aged is now an important community and political concern. The report released last year by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled ''In a home or at home; Accommodation and Home care for the Aged'' is a significant document which identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the present arrangements. The report shows Australia as having a complex, fragmented and expensive system of aged care. A major emphasis of the report is on the preponderance of institutional care over domiciliary and community care and on the need to redress this imbalance. At the same time the report provides clear recommendations aimed at rationalising and improving the present arrangements. The Government endorses the thrust of this report. As a nation we go on spending very considerable amounts on institutional care of the aged whilst severely restricting funding to those who would prefer to remain at home or in the community. The Government intends to develop a community care program to provide support for the elderly who wish to remain in their own homes. Under this program there will be a comprehensive range of domiciliary and community services provided across Australia. On the residential side our task will be to moderate growth in the nursing home sector, while continuing to pursue more equitable geographic distribution of nursing home beds, and to increase the availability of hostel accommodation. It is our view that neither per capita nursing home benefits funding nor deficit funding are ideal methods for securing the proper national development of nursing homes in the context of a total care policy for the aged. Existing nursing home benefits and deficit funding arrangements will be replaced by program grants paid to nursing homes. These program grants will be based on standard costs for the services delivered less the income received by the homes throught standard patient contributions. The program grant system will take some time to develop. In the meantime the existing funding arrangements for nursing homes, will be maintained. The principal purpose of clause 3 is to ensure protection for patients against excessive fee increases and at the same time to ensure appropriate control of expenditure on benefits under the current nursing home benefits arrangements pending the introduction of the Government's residential care program. Expenditure on the nursing homes benefits program is determined by the number of approved beds and the level of benefit. The benefit level in each State is related to the levels of nursing home fees in the State which in turn are determined by the Department of Health having regard to costs necessarily incurred by nursing home proprietors. The existing legislation on the control of fees simply provides that in determining fees the permanent head shall 'have regard to costs necessarily incurred in providing nursing home care in the nursing home.' Two recent federal court judgments have shown that this legislation is not able to support the policies and practices followed over many years in the administration of fees control-policies and practices which have been followed by both labor and liberal/national party governments. These judgments have serious implications for the overall cost of the nursing homes benefits program. The practical effect of the judgments is that the continued application of the policies and practices currently used in the determination of fees for nursing homes would result in many determinations being set aside, if challenged, as being made contrary to law. Costs which previously were not allowed for the purpose of setting fees now have to be given consideration possibly resulting in significant fee increases contrary to Government policy. This would lead to higher benefits and therefore increased Government expenditure. Within the protected environment of the nursing home industry, there is very little incentive to constrain costs given the cost-based nature of fees determination and the high occupancy rates resulting from Government controls on new beds. Limited costs validations undertaken by the Department of Health have revealed cases where costs have been artifically increased as a means of increasing profits. A recent consultancy survey undertaken with the co-operation of the industry revealed considerable variations in costs and profits between like homes. Legal opinion has been given to the effect that, in the light of the Federal Court judgments, the legislation greatly circumscribes the use of policy guidelines. Consequently, very great burdens will be placed upon delegates of the permanent head whose task it is to determine fees. The judgments interpret the legislation as requiring the permanent head and his delegates to regard all costs necessarily incurred as fundamental matters for consideration, with each fee being determined on the basis of the merits of each individual case. The considerable difficulties involved in maintaining consistent administration Australia-wide will be exacerbated. Successive governments have acted on the basis that parliament, in passing the fees control legislation, did not intend to limit significantly central control and accountability, particularly given that the legislation makes detailed provision for appeals against, and reviews of, delegates determinations. There are indications that the effect of the Federal Court judgments could be an eventual increase in Government expenditure on benefits of the possible order of $50 million per annum. In a program which is expected to cost more than $600 million for benefits alone in 1983-84, it is imperative that consistent and effective controls be exercised on costs which may have an inflationary effect on approved fees. The effect of clause 3 will be to allow the effective continuation of established policies and practices pending the introduction of the Government's residential care program. The Bill provides that the Minister for Health may formulate principles in accordance with which the permanent head or his delegate is required to determine a scale of fees. It is intended that the principles will reflect established policy. The Bill provides for scrutiny of the principles by Parliament. In formulating these principles, regard is to be had to the factors set down in the proposed sub-section 40AA (7B). These factors will permit delegates to take account of the lack of normal market constraints on the nursing home industry. Clause 4 of the Bill is designed to ensure that the Minister is not, of necessity, constrained by principles authorised by clause 3 which are intended to limit the discretion of a large number of delegates of the permanent head throughout the country. Thus, on appeal, the Minister may, in considering the merits of a case, decide that rigid application of the principle is inappropriate. This change puts beyond legal doubt a practice which has been followed by successive ministers of governments of all complexions. In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that the Government is able to continue the application of policies and practices in nursing homes fees control , established and supported by successive governments, pending the introduction of the present government's residential care program. I now turn to clause 5 of the Bill which relates to the domiciliary nursing care benefit. Honourable senators will be aware that this benefit is paid to persons who care for persons, generally relatives, in their own homes rather than having them admitted to nursing homes. To attract this benefit, persons are medically assessed by their own doctor and by a Commonwealth medical officer as requiring continuing nursing care to an extent that admission requirements to a nursing home would be satisfied. Other eligibility criteria for the benefit include that the person providing care and the patient must be domiciled in the same residence and regular nursing attention must be provided by a registered nurse. Where a person ceases to provide domiciliary nursing care to a patient, section 58J of the National Health Act provides that the permanent head of the Department of Health or his delegate shall revoke approval of the benefit. At present, this provision restricts the delegation of the power of revocation to a departmental medical practitioner. This restriction results in unnecessary diversion of medical staff resources in that revocation of an approval often results from non-medical considerations such as a change in residential arrangement or, indeed, the death of a patient. It is this unnecessary restriction in section 58J which is removed by the amendment in clause 5. Of course, a delegate would have available, if required in the process of exercising the delegation to revoke an approval, the advice of medical practitioners and other professional personnel. The amendment does not remove the inherent requirement in the domiciliary nursing care arrangements that a decision, requiring medical judgment, which may result in the revocation of an approval for the benefit, can only be made by a medical practitioner. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is one of a package of Bills, the main purpose of which is to introduce a new system for granting tariff concessions. The new system, to be known as the Commercial Tariff Concession System, is a modification of and replaces the existing Commercial By-law System. By-laws have been an integral part of the customs tariff since federation. Presently, under Part XVI of the Customs Act and particularly section 273, a concessional rate of duty can be applied to imported goods which comply with criteria prescribed in a by-law tariff item. In other words, the existing by-law system provides the legal means of removing duties (other than duties of a revenue nature) which serve no protective purpose. The sole and long-standing criterion for concessional by-law entry is where suitably equivalent goods are not reasonably available from local production. Considerable difficulty has emerged with this criterion on economic, administrative and legal grounds and as a result the commercial by-law system was referred to the Industries Assistance Commission in April 1981 for review. This was the first complete review of the by-law system. The Industries Assistance Commission reported to the Government of the Day on 2 July 1982 and the new Commercial Tariff Concession System encompassed in this legislation is largely based on the Commission's recommendations. The Commission found that the Commercial By-law System provides flexibility in tariff administration and has widespread support in the business community. Many production activities depend to some extent on the by-law entry of inputs and there could be serious disruption if the by-law system was terminated quickly without a prior comprehensive review of all assistance provided by the Tariff. While one Commissioner recommended ultimate abandonment of the by-law system, the majority concluded that the present system should be maintained in an improved form. The Government has accepted this majority view. In broad terms the Government has adopted a new criterion which will provide that commercial tariff concessions will be issued where the Minister is satisfied that no goods serving similar functions are produced or are capable of being produced in the normal course of business in Australia. The key words in the criterion are 'serving similar functions' and new section 269B (4) provides an interpretation of them. The test will be the degree of cross-elasticity of demand between the imported and Australian produced goods. In practical terms, this means that these tariff concessions will be decided by determining the effect that a reduced rate of duty will have on competition or potential competition between the local and imported goods. This will be based on a practical and realistic assessment of the market situation. The onus will be on the applicant for a tariff concession to identify the goods involved, the market for the goods and the degree of competition or potential competition between the imported goods and Australian-made goods. Notwithstanding this criterion being met, the proposed new section 269E provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a concession if he considers that such a concession would have a substantially adverse effect on the market available to goods produced in Australia or if it would not be in the national interest. The Bill also provides in section 269D that concessional entry will not apply in respect of certain classes or kinds of goods. The classes or kinds of goods envisaged are those where there exists a wide and comprehensive range of both Australian-made and imported goods which, notwithstanding differences in construction, quality, price, etc., basically compete with each other in the market place. Included in this category are foodstuffs, motor vehicles, footwear and jewellery. These exclusions will be prescribed in an 'exclusions schedule' in the customs regulations. Comparing the new criterion with the existing one, the proposed new criterion conforms more closely with established industry assistance objectives and should reduce disagreement and legal disputation over fine technical points in respect of particular goods. It should result in a more predictable administration for users of the system. The new criterion reflects to a large extent the way in which the current by-law system has in fact been administered in recent years using the Minister's discretionary power under the existing legislation. Other aspects of the system proposed in this legislation include the requirement for advertising applications for new concessions in the Commonwealth Gazette. This will make for better public scrutiny of the system, particularly by local manufacturers whose views will be taken into account prior to a decision being made on an application. The effective date of new concessions is proposed to be a date no earlier than the date of receipt by the Department of Industry and Commerce of the application or a notice of intention to lodge an application. In the case of revocation of an existing concession, the Bill provides that concessional entry will be accorded to goods that are in transit to Australia at the date of revocation. There are two other aspects on which I would like to comment. The first relates to end-use security and shortfall concessions and the other relates to the review of existing by-law concessions. The new system does not provide for concessions involving end-use under security provisions or situations involving shortfalls in supply. This is the only area of potential significant loss of concessional entry following the adoption of the new criterion. The reasons for the exclusion of these special concessions are contained in the Industries Assistance Commission report. In respect of concessions for particular end-uses, the Commission found that these have created a number of problems in principle, in their economic effect and in administration. To illustrate these problems, if it is necessary to restrict the availability of a concession to a particular use, there must be locally produced goods available. End-use concessions also lead to different rates of duty being paid on the same product by different importers depending on the use to which it is put. Demand can be influenced as a result. The validity of entry under such a concession must depend on there being safeguards to ensure that the imports are only used in the specified end-use. It is a fact of life that this has created considerable administrative difficulties as these conditions are often costly and nigh on impossible to control. This also raises the question of the potential for erosion of the protection already accorded to local industry. Existing end-use by-laws will be phased out over the next two years and any future proposals for arrangements of this kind will be considered for reference to the Industries Assistance Commission as special by-laws outside the tariff concession system. In respect of concessions to cover shortfalls, that is, where local industry is unable to maintain normal output, the Commission did not see these concessions as appropriate within the new concession system. Existing arrangements will, however, remain until they are reviewed by the Commission. Future applications for such shortfall concessions, and any cases involving extraordinary demands, will be considered for reference to the Commission. Any resulting concession of this kind will likewise be introduced as a by-law outside the new system. This leads me to the second matter, the review of existing by-laws and the granting of tariff concessions. I have already mentioned the position in relation to end-use and shortfall by- laws. Other existing commercial by-laws will be reviewed and new concessions issued where the new criterion is satisfied. This will be done gradually over a two-year period to accord importing and manufacturing interests a reasonable time in which to consider the implications of any changes for their business and minimize any disruption likely to occur. Decision taken under the new tariff concession system will be reviewable by the existing internal review system within the department of industry and commerce. The legislation makes provision for applicants who wish to make further requests for review to seek a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. Also, operation of the new system will be subject to review under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Subject to the passage of this legislation through the Parliament, an extensive programme is proposed to fully acquaint importing and manufacturing interests with the new system. Consequential amendments have been made to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Act 1975. The Bill also includes two other matters which are quite separate from the tariff concession provisions. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that Papua New Guinea content is to be included in determining whether goods are to be regarded as the manufacture of a forum island country, a declared preference country or a developing country. This amendment is in accordance with an agreement reached with the Government of Papua New Guinea. Clause 4 removes the requirements that goods eligible for tender quota must be imported and entered for home consumption within the same quota period. The intention of the existing legislation was to prevent goods being held back from entry to take advantage of a lower rate of duty which might apply in a later quota period. Experience shows that this fear has little basis. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this bill is to make amendments of a minor nature to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 as a consequence of amendments proposed by the Customs Amendment Bill 1983. It is one of the package of bills designed to introduce the commercial tariff concession system, a new system for granting tariff concessions which is a modification of and a replacement for the existing commercial by-law system. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make amendments of a minor nature to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1975 as a consequence of amendments proposed by the Customs Amendment Bill 1983. It is one of the package of bills designed to introduce the commercial tariff concession 8 system, a new system for granting tariff concession which is a modification of and a replacement for the existing commercial by-law system. I ccommend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(3.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Governor-General, in his Speech to the Parliament on 21 April 1983, stated that the Broadcasting and Television Act would be amended to 'remove the ban on political news and comment applying to radio and television stations in the three days before Federal and State elections'. I am pleased to introduce this Bill, which amends the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, and honours the Government's commitment to remove the election 'blackout'. The only election matter which remains subject to restrictions is paid advertisements. The Bill also seeks to reduce the administrative burden on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. We are well aware of the controversy which is caused by the 'blackout' each time an election is held. The momentum that has built up over the years for removal of this provision could not and should not be ignored, because the ' blackout' is simply not supported by most Australians. Amongst members of Parliament it is rejected not only by members on this side of the Senate, but by a number of members opposite. It is opposed by the broadcasting industry; it is opposed by the print media, and it is opposed by most public interest groups associated with the media. Not to put too fine a point on it, the present provisions are an infringement of our civil liberties which should not be tolerated by a democratic society. In fact, the Human Rights Commission, prior to the last election, had already initiated an inquiry into section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, the section which contains the 'blackout' provisions, on the grounds that it violated internationally accepted political rights. The Government believes that Australians are entitled to receive news and comment on the issues of the day at all times. They are certainly entitled to such news and comment in the process of an election when they are exercising their democratic right to choose a Government. Even if it were possible to justify this abrogation of free speech-of the rights of free men and women to decide for themselves-there would be no logic in denying such information to the public via the electronic media, while simultaneously allowing the print media to report it in full. Radio and television broadcasters, who have been asking successive Governments to lift the 'blackout' year after year, are entitled to describe this as discrimination. The Government accepts their argument and has moved to end this discrimination. The Bill provides that the 'blackout', from midnight of the Wednesday immediately preceding the election to the close of polls on the following Saturday, will apply in future to paid election advertisements only. All other election matter, including news, current affairs and political commentary, is a legitimate part of the public debate and should not be suppressed. Of course all parties would oppose a broadcaster favouring one party over another, either in its news and current affairs or in its provision of free time . The right to broadcast carries with it a corresponding responsibility to act with impartiality in matters of public interest. The coverage of elections- indeed of all political matter-should be handled by broadcasters in the most sensitive manner, so that neither listeners and viewers, nor we politicians, are prompted to cry ''foul'' and seek to impose restrictions on all because of the sins of the few. The Bill therefore seeks to extend the existing obligation for broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the broadcasting or televising of election matter to all political parties contesting the election which were represented in the last preceding Parliament, so that it covers the whole election period. That is, in future this responsibility will exist from the issue of writs to the close of polls. The Government also intends to examine the general question of fairness in the presentation of public issues by the electronic media. The Minister for Communications is currently considering draft terms of reference for an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which will allow a full and free public debate on this issue. The Broadcasting and Television Act currently requires the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to notify any broadcaster who is exempted from the '' blackout'' on broadcasting election matter. When a Federal by-election is held, the Tribunal therefore is required to notify the majority of radio and television stations, that is, those not received in the electorate concerned. The ''blackout'' now will only apply to election advertisements, but it also seeks to assist the Tribunal by substituting a duty to advise only those stations who are subject to restrictions. In the example just mentioned, the Tribunal would need to notify only a few stations. The stations notified, of course, are required to comply with the notice. It should be noted that since they are prohibited from playing any advertisements, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Special Broadcasting Service will no longer be subject to any election ''blackout''. The Bill defines ''election advertisements'' as advertisements which contain election matter and for which payment, whether by money or other consideration, is made directly of indirectly to the licensee of the radio or television station concerned. That is to say, advertisements broadcast on commercial stations and sponsorships broadcast on public broadcasting stations will not be able to contain election matter in the three days before the poll. The Bill before the Senate is slight in form but highly significant, because it introduces a reform which has been delayed for too long. There is a need for other laws reforming the way elections are conducted in Australia, but this reform is unarguably justified. The Government believes that Australia is a democratic society with a mature electorate and responsible broadcasters providing that electorate with the information it needs to make balanced judgments on public issues. The electorate's need for accurate and informed comment is never more urgent than in the process leading up to the choice of Governments. It is high time that we in the Parliament recognised this and repudiated the paternalism embodied in the present legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill implements two important aspects of the Government's industrial relations policy which was so soundly endorsed by Australians at the last election. Our policy in this area is designed to improve industrial relations in this country, something which is essential if the process of Australia's economic recovery is not to be impeded. The proposals before honourable senators will contribute to the achievement of that objective. I draw the attention of Honourable Senators to the background of the first area of Government policy dealt with in the Bill, namely, the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau and the re-establishment of the Arbitration Inspectorate. The Bureau was established by the Fraser Government in 1977. It was ill- conceived and it was not wanted by employers or the union movement. From the outset, both groups have sought its abolition. The Bureau was presented by the Fraser Government as the 'third-arm' of the conciliation and arbitration machinery, to complement the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court. It was described as being an independent body with the role of securing the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Regulations and Awards. It took over the labour inspection role of the Aribration Inspectorate, and was also given responsibility for enforcing a battery of new provisions which intruded the Bureau into the internal affairs of registered organizations and applied new sanctions to employers and unions. The Fraser Government believed that industrial relations could be controlled by legislative prescription, without proper consideration of the reality of industrial relations in Australia. The Industrial Relations Bureau was perceived as the machinery for implementing the Government's approach to industrial relations. Such an approach has never worked and will never do so. It is not an approach that will be taken by the Labour Government which is committed to working with the union movement and employers and their associations to achieve better industrial relations in the interests of all Australians. Moreover the Government believes, and both the union movement and employers agree, that labour inspection will be more appropriately carried out if it is vested once again in an adequately resourced Arbitration Inspectorate which is ultimately responsible to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and within his Department. This is how the Inspectorate operated before the regrettable creation of the Bureau. The Bill restores this position, reflecting what was in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act before provision was made for the Bureau. There are some minor alterations to enhance the administration of the Inspectorate. I should stress, Mr President, that the proposed legislation will not give the Inspectorate the intrusive role that the Bureau had in respect of the internal affairs of registered organizations. It will, as it did previously, be required to secure the observance of the Act, the Regulations and of awards. Its principal function will be to ensure that awards of the Commission are being observed. I point out to honourable senators that, again as was the case previously, the powers and duties of inspectors will be as determined by the Minister. They will be open to public scrutiny by publication in the Gazette. I turn now to the second policy area covered by the Bill. This concerns the facilitation of amalgamations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of registered organizations of employers and employees. It is widely recognised that there are too many unions in Australia. This has produced many problems in Australian industrial relations. For example, there are difficulties in dispute resolution where many unions are often involved; demarcation disputes present their own particular problems. The National Labour Consultative Council considered this problem over a number of years and in 1980 put forward proposals to encourage amalgamations of registered organisations. These recommendations were designed to facilitate amalgamations in the public interest where registered organizations could establish a community of interest between their industrial interests. Criteria were agreed upon for such a community of interest to be established before a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, in such a case, the minimum voting requirements under the Act for amalgamation ballots were to be reduced. These proposals were accepted by the Fraser Government and indeed endorsed by the then Prime Minister in his election policy in 1980. However the then Government abandoned them in favour of unworkable proposals for industry unions which the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation last year concluded would increase industrial disputation. Mr President, the Bill proposes the introduction of the 1980 NLCC recommendations, with some alterations which have been developed in a review of those recommendations by the Government in consultation with the NLCC to make them more effective. The NLCC has agreed that its earlier proposed community of interest criteria be widened to encourage desirable amalgamations, such as between the unions in the textile, clothing and footwear industries whose attempts to amalgamate have been frustrated by the existing provisions and may have continued to be frustrated if the community of interest provisions had not been widened beyond those originally proposed by the NLCC. The Bill will also facilitate amalgamations which involve more than two organizations, whether such amalgamations are under the existing provisions, which continue to operate, or under the proposed community of interest provisions. Honourable senators will note that all amalgamations will also benefit from a further provision of the Bill to bring voting rolls in amalgamation ballots more up to date. These provisions also reflect the NLCC recommendations. It is important to note, Mr President, that there has been full consultation with the NLCC on all the provisions of the Bill and they are agreed with by the Council. I now wish to outline these provisions in greater detail for honourable senators. In relation to the abolition of the Bureau, the Bill repeals Part VIA of the Act which provides for the establishment and general powers of the Bureau and removes its specific rights and responsibilities. For the purposes of securing the observance of the Act, the Regulations and awards, the Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations broadly along the same lines as applied to the former Inspectorate. As I have said, certain changes will be made to the former arrangements to enhance the administration of the Inspectorate. In particular, appointments to the position of inspector are only to be under the Public Service Act and the power of the Minister to appoint inspectors to carry out their functions under the Act will be capable of delegation to a senior officer of the Department. Inspectors will again be given powers to enter buildings, interview persons and inspect documents for the purpose of ascertaining whether awards and the requirements of the Act and Regulations are being observed. However, the former power to require the production of documents is to be made more effective to allow inspectors to require employers by notice in writing to produce documents at the premises of the inspector. This power would only be exercisable where there was a failure by the employer to produce that material at his or her agent 's premises at all or within a reasonable time. Where breaches of federal awards are detected, inspectors will be able, if it is necessary to do so, to bring proceedings before a court for a penalty under the Act. I again emphasize, Mr President, that as previously the powers and duties of inspectors will be as laid down by the Minister. As was previously the case the Bill will allow for arrangements to be made for State and Federal labour inspectors to operate within the respective jurisdictions on a reciprocal basis. There are some provisions of the Act in respect of which the Government believes that the role of the Bureau would more properly be exercised by the Industrial Registrar. Accordingly, upon the abolition of the Bureau, its responsibilities for investigations of deficiencies in the accounts and financial statements of registered organisations will be taken over by the Industrial Registrar. He will also take the place of the Bureau as one of the parties able to apply to the Federal Court for a declaration as to whether a person is eligible to be appointed or elected to an office in an organization or to continue to hold such an office. The Industrial Registrar will also assume the sole responsibility for the conduct of investigations into irregularities alleged in applications for inquiries into elections in organizations, a role which he had prior to the creation of the Bureau. The Bill also contains transitional provisions to enable proceedings under the Act in a Court at the time of the abolition of the Bureau to be proceeded with at the discretion of the Minister. Mr President, I turn now to provisions of the Bill dealing with the amalgamation of registered organizations. Honourable Senators will be aware that the existing legislation requires that, for an amalgamation to be successful, each organization must achieve a return of ballot papers in the amalgamation ballot from at least fifty per cent of members eligible to vote, and of those voting formally, more than half must vote in favour of the amalgamation. The Bill provides for an easing of these requirements in relation to organizations which can establish a community of interest in respect of their industrial interest. Organizations which apply to the Industrial Registrar to amalgamate will be able, at the same time, to apply to a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a declaration that the proposed amalgamation is in the public interest and in the industrial interests of those organizations. The Commission is to be empowered to make that declaration where it is satisfied that the amalgamation would further the objects of the Act and that there is a community of interest between the organizations in respect of their industrial interests. The Bill sets out a number of criteria under which the Commission can determine whether a community of interest exists. Organizations will be required to meet only one of those criteria. For employee organizations those criteria are that a substantial number of the members of each of the organizations are either: eligible to become members of the other organization or each of the other organizations; engaged in the same work, aspects of the same work or in similar work; bound by the same awards; employed in the same or related work by employers engaged in the same industry; or engaged in work, or in industries, in respect of which there is a community of interest. Similar criteria will apply to employer organizations. Where organizations obtain a declaration from the Commission, they will be required in an amalgamation ballot to achieve a return of ballot papers from only twenty five per cent of members eligible to vote and a simple majority of valid votes would be sufficient to approve the amalgamation. The Bill contains two other initiatives which will apply to amalgamations whether under the existing amalgamation provisions or the provisions for community of interest amalgamations. First, in an amalgamation involving more than two organizations, provision is made for the applicants to provide for alternative schemes of amalgamation. If in a ballot one or more of the organizations fails to secure the necessary support for the amalgamation, the amalgamation may still proceed in respect of those organizations the members of which voted in favour of an alternative scheme of amalgamations. Under the existing legislation those organizations would be forced to repeat the entire amalgamation process. The second initiative relates to the persons who are eligible to participate in an amalgamation ballot. Significant difficulties are faced by organizations in achieving a successful amalgamation because of the existing requirements in this area. Under the Act at present, the roll of voters consists of persons who were financial members of the organization at any time within the 12 months before the day on which the Registrar gave his approval for the amalgamation to be submitted to ballot. Moreover the ballot may not be conducted for several months after that date. Consequently the roll may not accurately reflect the actual membership of the organizations. In order to overcome this problem, the Bill provides that the roll of voters will comprise those persons who, one month before the opening date of the ballot , were eligible under the rules of the organization to vote in an amalgamation ballot, or where the rules do not so provide, persons who were eligible under the rules to vote in a rank and file election for an office within the organization. The Government believes, and is supported in its belief by both employer and trade union bodies, that these initiatives, together with the community of interest provisions, will do much to facilitate amalgamations which are both in the interests of the organizations themselves and the community generally. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.59) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, business this day be considered in the following order- (1) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 15 standing in the name of Senator Jack Evans for leave to introduce a Bill, and (2) The following Orders of the Day Government Business- Order of the Day No. 5 (Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 1983). Order of the Day No. 6 (Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983) . Order of the Day No. 7 (Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983). Order of the Day No. 21 (Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983). Order of the Day No. 22 (Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983). Order of the Day No. 19 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983). Order of the Day No. 20 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983). Senator Chipp —Is it not intended that at 6 o'clock the economic statement comes in to interrupt the consideration of Bills? Senator BUTTON —That is a matter about which I would like to consult with the Government Whip. Perhaps I can give Senator Chipp an answer in a few minutes. I understand some arrangement has been made but I am not sure of the precise time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Perhaps Senator Button can make a statement, by leave, later on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to encourage the introduction of industrial democracy in Australian enterprises through reductions in company tax for enterprises classified as industrial democracy enterprises. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.2) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill, originally introduced to this Parliament by former Senator John Siddons, is designed to encourage the introduction of industrial democracy in Australian enterprises. The Australian Democrats believe the participation of employees in making decisions which affect their work place is a basic democratic right and as important as the right to vote. This is a fundamental freedom which can be won only by careful thought and attention to detail. I refer to the humanisation of the work place, to an organisational structure that frees people to use their qualities of imagination , initiative, technical expertise, sociability and leadership during the eight- hour working day. Nothing, certainly not money, can compensate for eight hours of monotonous, mind-killing work. If people are not free to use their human qualities during the eight-hour work day, continued industrial strife is inevitable. The humanisation of the work-place is one of the greatest challenges facing Australia and the Western world today, and likely to face it for the rest of this century. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules on how this can be achieved, but there are principles which, if adopted, lead us in the right direction. This Bill is designed to encourage companies to adopt these principles and work out how they can be specifically applied in their organisations. The principles are: A cellular organisational structure, profit sharing, employee share ownership and consultative councils. The Bill calls for the setting up of a seven-member industrial democracy board which would have three members nominated by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, three nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and one nominated by the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, all for terms of three years. The Board would be supported by a small secretariat. The Board would create and maintain a register of individual democracy enterprises, which would be available for public inspection. The register would list each enterprise which, in the opinion of the board, substantially complied with the criteria laid out in the Bill. These criteria are: That at least 14 per cent of the issued share capital of the enterprise is owned by employees or held by employees under contract of sale through an employee share purchase trust; that the activities of the enterprise are carried out through autonomous working groups based on profit centres within the enterprise; that a profit sharing scheme has been established in the enterprise; and that a consultative council has been established. We believe these criteria are achievable, but we recognise that in virtually all enterprises considerable reorganisation would be required. In this legislation's first year of operation it is thus likely that only a small number of enterprises would be able to satisfy the criteria, but over a period of years more and more would see the value of this enlightened approach. I would like now to examine the criteria in some detail and to discuss briefly the reasons why they have been advanced. Fourteen per cent of the issued share capital of the enterprise, or about one-seventh, seems to us to be a reasonable proportion which most companies and their employees could afford. For example, a company which had 1,000 employees and 20 million 50c shares would be required to sell 2.8 million shares to its employees, which means they would receive 2,800 each. If these were bought over five years, it would cost the employees $280 a year or $5.39 a week. However, under the procedure we have outlined, they would receive a dividend on the shares in full, so they would not be out of pocket to any great extent. Alternatively, the shares could be bought over a period of 10 years, in which case the company would have to declare only a 12.5 per cent dividend, allowing for average income tax of 20 per cent, for employees to enjoy a rate of return equal to their cash outlay in the first year. Once the shares were fully paid for, the employee shareholders would continue to profit as would any shareholder . Employee share ownership achieves an important synthesis between labour and capital. For too long Australia has been bedevilled by a confrontationist approach to industrial relations. Industrial democracy is an important step on the road to industrial relations sense, of which this country desperately needs a large dose. Employee share ownership is not enough by itself. We believe worker involvement should and could go further, to the shop floor and throughout the enterprise. Overseas and Australian experience has shown the enormous value of autonomous working groups based on profit centres within the enterprise. One need cite only the example of Japan to be aware of the advantages of such an approach. Experience has shown that these groups are most effective when they have between 10 and 50 members. The Bill also provides for a consultative council to have half of its members elected by secret ballot of employees and half nominated by the management of the enterprise, with an alternating chairman. The council will have the function of discussing, and making recommendations to the management in respect of such things as working conditions, safety, long term planning, budgeting and internal decision-making processes. The council-I stress this-will not discuss, or make recommendation in respect of, matters directly concerning awards or rates of pay , or other matters which should be considered by trade unions. The board would have the power to refuse registration, or to deregister enterprises which did not provide such information as the board considered necessary to inform its judgments with reasonable notice. The key point of the Bill is that tax payable by companies which satisfied the criteria of the board would be reduced by 8 per cent. Before honourable senators jump to conclusions about the cost of such a proposal, let me explain that we believe the cost to the Commonwealth would be nothing like $400m, which is what the cost would be if every company immediately met the criteria. Many companies, particularly multinationals, would not be willing to issue 14 per cent of their share capital to employees, or to Australians at all. The reaction of Shell to a suggestion that it sell to Australians 25 per cent of its equity in Australia presumably is typical. Our own estimate is that in the first year not more than 5 per cent of companies would meet the criteria at a cost of no more than $20m. Fortunately, however, these companies would tend to be labour -intensive companies and would therefore benefit most from the introduction of these principles. The Government would not necessarily lose out in the long run. Experience has shown the introduction of industrial democracy greatly increases efficiency and productivity-that is a most important point-and it is thus quite probable that profits, hence tax, will rise also. The Bill which I have presented today is simple and logical. If enacted, it would bring Australia to the forefront of those countries that have adopted an enlightened approach to industrial relations, for example, the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Japan. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.3) —As I understand it, we are dealing cognately with the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill and Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill. These Bills arise out of the MARPOL Convention which is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The Convention, which was originally finalised in 1973, was then amended further in 1978 and is due to come into force on 2 October this year. It will achieve control on the discharge at sea of pollutants from shipping. Those honourable senators who have ever seen what can happen as a result of some of the types of discharge that have taken place in the past will want to support warmly this Convention. The discharge of pollutants at sea can do tremendous damage to our coastlines, reefs and islands and the creatures which live on and under the sea as well as those of us who use the sea. I will never forget walking along Ninety Mile Beach in Victoria from Lakes Entrance. I found that as I took step after step I could not put my feet down without putting them into oil or some sort of junk that had been discharged from a vessel at sea. That was 10 or 12 years ago. I found that quite a salutary experience and one which makes me feel all the more strongly that the discharge of oil and noxious liquid substances, including ship operational discharges, ought to be entirely prohibited in the Great Barrier Reef region and that it ought to be controlled in other areas around the coast, as those practices will be by this proposed legislation. The legislation was originally announced by the former Minister for Transport, Mr Ralph Hunt, and was to have been introduced by the former Government, now the Opposition. In those circumstances, I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate. The legislation has the total and warm support of the Opposition whose legislation it originally was. We commend the Government for introducing the legislation. We support its speedy passage. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.4) —The Australian Democrats also support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill. We believe that it is a measure which heads in the right direction, not only because it continues protection of the coastal areas-the areas that are adjacent to this great island continent-but also because it protects another vital area; it ensures the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. We are a little disappointed -I am sure that every honourable senator is-at the inability to move forward more rapidly in certain areas, but we recognise that we have tremendous hurdles to overcome when we are seeking to obtain agreement at the international level, and within Australia, between the Commonwealth and the State and Northern Territory governments. We therefore compliment both the Government and the former Government on the progress that has been made to date. The Australian Democrats would like also to congratulate the Government for agreeing to the suggestions put forward by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The amendments that will be put forward conform to our views on the necessity for having an appeal system in place rather than leaving sole discretion with the Minister. I compliment the Government on taking on board the proposals of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Other than that, the Australian Democrats are very happy to support this Bill. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.7) —in reply -The Government thanks the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for their ready acceptance of the legislation. I remind the Senate that originally the legislation was presented in the House of Representatives in October last year. As speakers have suggested, there was a degree of support both from the then Opposition and the then Government as there now is in respect of the legislation . The Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill will subsequently be amended in the Committee stage. It will be dealt with separately after we have dealt with the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill. I thank the Senate for its consideration of the Bill. I will speak to the Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill during the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.8) —For the reasons outlined in the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 1983 the Opposition will be supporting this legislation which was originally proposed by the previous Government. The remarks that I made in relation to the previous Bill apply equally to this Bill. The Opposition supports the Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.9) —I understand that the debate on this legislation was to be a cognate debate. My earlier remarks apply to this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.11) — Amendments which have been circulated to honourable senators seek to amend the original Bill presented to the Senate several weeks ago. They arise as a result of advice given to the Government by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. After consultation with the Attorney-General's Department, it was suggested that there should be some change in the appeal system for any party found in breach of the legislation. Largely the amendments seek to provide an opportunity for a review of decisions which would be taken and they seek to give existing discretionary power to a court of marine inquiry. The purpose of the amendments is to provide that the appeal would go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, if there were any breaches of the legislation, a new appeals procedure would be established. I think we should commend the Senate Standing Committee. After a lot of discussion over the years we have established the right of such a committee to advise the Parliament, where necessary, that other safeguards should be written into legislation. Of course, that justifies the proponents of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills who felt that a review role was needed. The Government is pleased to be advised in those circumstances. Consequently, it is our desire to insert, after clause 8, a new clause 8A. It provides that, when a certificate is issued, the persons concerned can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I move: Page 12, after clause 8 insert the following new clauses in Part II: '8A. After clause 424 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Applications for review-Division 12 of Part IV ''424A. (1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of- (a) a decision to refuse a ship construction certificate under section 267B; (b) a decision to refuse to issue an International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate under section 267C; (c) a decision to cancel a ship construction certificate under sub-section 267D (5); or (d) a direction given under sub-section 267K (1). ''(2) Where the Minister makes a decision referred to in sub-section (1) and gives to the person whose interests are affected by the decision notice in writing of the decision, that notice shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the decision. ''(3) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision. ''(4) Where the Minister gives a direction referred to in paragraph (1) (d), the notice by which the direction is given shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the direction by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the direction. ''(5) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (4) in relation to a direction does not affect the validity of the direction.''. '8B. After section 424A of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Applications for review-Division 12A of Part IV ''424B. (1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of- (a) a decision to refuse to issue a chemical tanker construction certifcate under section 267Q; (b) a decision to refuse to issue an International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk under section 267R; (c) a decision to cancel a chemical tanker construction certificate under sub- section 267S (5); or (d) a direction given under sub-section 267Y (1). ''(2) Where the Minister makes a decision referred to in sub-section (1) and gives to the person whose interests are affected by the decision notice in writing of the decision, that notice shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the decision. ''(3) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision. ''(4) Where the Minister gives a direction referred to in paragraph (1) (d), the notice by which the direction is given shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the direction by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the direction. ''(5) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (4) in relation to a direction does not affect the validity of the direction.''.'. I believe that those amendments will enjoy the support of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.14) —On behalf of the Opposition I welcome the amendments moved by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). I think a most welcome indication of the fact that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills procedure is working and working well is that we have this type of amendment, as recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, being introduced into the legislation to provide protections which are regarded as desirable and necessary. We simply welcome the fact that the amendments being introduced by the Government follow the recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is a procedure which I think honourable senators on both sides of the chamber do welcome. We support the amendments. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.16) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983 amends a very significant number of Federal Acts of Parliament . The amendments, with one exception, are made, I believe, in accordance with certain principles that are set out as to what types of amendments can be made by this omnibus form of statutory amendment. It is one which is not peculiar to the present Government. It is a procedure which is used by many governments to effect drafting amendments and a series of non-major policy amendments- corrections-to legislation. As a convenient procedure, it is supported and it is obviously useful. The Opposition, therefore, supports the Bill. I will make one comment in the Committee stage. However at that time-I give indication now-I will move to delete the amendments to the Honey Industry Act for reasons which I will outline then. In relation to the amendment to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, proposed sub-section 45 (4A) provides: Where the Commission borrows money under this section by the issue of prescribed securities, the repayment by the Commission of the amounts borrowed and the payment of interest on these amounts is, by force of this sub-section, guaranteed by the Commonwealth. I raise whether that is an appropriate matter to be included in a statute law revision. I do not wish to move any motion in relation to it; rather, to draw attention to its existence. The Opposition, with those comments, supports the second reading of the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.19) —in reply-There being no speakers other than Senator Peter Rae on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I express my gratitude to the Senate for its obvious willingness to give the Bill a second reading. I express my slight disappointment that the Opposition has not favoured us with any comment as to the criteria that are attempted to be articulated in my second reading-- Senator Peter Rae —The person who was going to is unavoidably away at the moment . Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Rae for that explanation. Senator Peter Rae —I did not wish to trespass upon him. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was a little disappointed that, after all the effort that had gone into trying to rationalise the shape and composition of this Bill, there seemed to be an insufficient appreciation of the herculean labours in which the Government had engaged. Senator Peter Rae —I adverted to it to indicate I was quite aware of the criteria, but I feel it would be better if the shadow Attorney-General, on an appropriate occasion, makes any comments he may wish to make. Senator GARETH EVANS —We will wait to hear from the shadow Attorney-General in the Budget session, when round two of this legislation comes before the Parliament. The honey industry matter raised by Senator Rae in his speech on the second reading would be, as he said, better dealt with in the Committee stage. The point he made about the amendment provision to the Overseas Telecommunications Act may well have some validity, to the extent that the words 'a guarantee is to operate by force of a sub-section' are more appropriate to some other piece of legislation. Although it is felt to be important for this amendment to be in place at this time to satisfy certain financial problems that have arisen in respect of the OTC in this narrow technical area, we very much take on board what Senator Rae has said. I will endeavour to ensure that no such provision appears in this legislation in future. With those remarks, I thank the Senate for its contribution and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-I will be brief in acknowledgment of the niceties of the Senate. It is the intention of the Australian Democrats to move an amendment which I foreshadowed to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) last week when we were discussing bits and pieces associated with the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. Acknowledging that the Attorney- General, for devious reasons of his own, needed that legislation passed at the time, I suggested that it might be appropriate if we left some amendments that we in the Opposition wanted to support until the introduction of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is therefore my intention, at whatever time is appropriate, to move an amendment relating to the inclusion of the Northern Territory in that legislation. I presume that the time to do so would be during the Committee stage. The Attorney-General, with his monstrous knowledge of these matters, will correct me if I am wrong. Senator Gareth Evans —But that is only 30 seconds away and you have not given me any notice of the text of it. Senator HAINES —It is exactly the same wording as that introduced by the Liberal Opposition last week. Since the Attorney-General was not in the chamber earlier, I discussed it with Senator Button. The amendment states: Page 55, Schedule 1, after amendment of the Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964, add: World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 Section 3, after sub-section (4), insert the following sub-section- '(5) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to the Northern Territory- (a) a reference in this Act to a State shall be read as including a reference to the Northern Territory; (b) a reference in this Act to a Territory shall be read as not including a reference to the Northern Territory; and (c) a reference in this Act to the Premier of a State shall be read as including a reference to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.'. I am not sure whether the Attorney-General is shaking his head because he will not support this amendment or because I cannot do what I propose. But that, in effect, is the text of the amendment which I presume I can now move. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I believe that the Committee stage is the appropriate time. Senator HAINES —I am terribly sorry if I have upset the Attorney-General, who is seeking guidance from a higher authority-not that I was aware that he ever acknowledged one. I ask the Attorney-General to give the matter some seconds' thought. Senator Gareth Evans —Come over and we will have a chat about it. Senator HAINES —All right. I want to raise one other small matter in relation to the Postal Services Act, but I suppose I can raise it during the Committee stage . Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I apologise to the Senate for not being totally on the ball and being in the chamber sooner. Obviously, not everybody was, anyway. I want to make a few remarks about the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill because often this sort of Bill is rushed through without very much attention. That has been clearly demonstrated this afternoon. Firstly, I congratulate the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the improved format of this Bill. To put most of the amendments into a Schedule makes the Bill much easier to deal with. As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, it makes for fewer mistakes which can easily creep into such a Bill. I think this is essential since such a Bill often corrects mistakes which have been made inadvertently in other Bills. I want to refer particularly to the amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act and to a number of other Acts regarding the furnishing and tabling of annual reports of departments and authorities. I suppose it is important that I make some brief reference to this matter as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which, of course, has taken a great interest in the matter of reports being made to the Parliament. The change to the Acts interpretation Act for which the Bill provides requires all bodies which do not have a specific period within which to furnish a report to the Minister to do so within six months of the close of the reporting period. The Minister would then have 15 sitting days within which to table the report in the Parliament. When the report is not furnished to the Minister within the six- month period a written explanation is required and an extension may be granted. Both the letter of explanation and the reasons for the grant of extension are to be tabled in the Parliament. The Attorney-General made the point that this is an interim measure pending further consideration of the Senate Standing Committee recommendations and that recommendations will be further considered by the Government as a matter of priority. But I should just remind the Senate that the recommendation of the Senate Committee, which was to provide for a time limit of six months for reporting by business authorities and a shorter time limit of three months for other authorities, was to ensure that in cases where an authority reports for a financial year the Parliament is able to receive and deal with that report by the end of the Budget session rather than it spreading over into the next calendar year before the matter is tabled or dealt with. An ancillary recommendation which has not yet been taken up by the Government is to allow for annual reports to be deemed to be tabled by presentation to the Presiding Officers and circulation to each member of the Parliament, again as a means of making public sooner details of authorities' and departments' activities. But at least the interim provision which is provided for in this Bill is a welcome step in the process of making more available the information about the activities of authorities and departments. I want to refer briefly to several other matters mentioned in other parts of the Bill. Once again I welcome the change to the various Territories Acts-the Acts concerning Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Norfolk Island and others-to ensure that regulations subordinate to ordinances have to be tabled and, therefore, are subject to disallowance by either House. I presume that this will make more work for us on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Despite that, one must welcome that improvement in the way in which the business of the Territories of the nation is dealt with. On page 14 of the supplement to the second reading speech reference is made to the amendment to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 which provides for the Minister to notify persons affected by decisions to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, the failure to notify such rights of review will not affect the validity of the decision. I am not suggesting that the Bill be held up because of this provision but I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General and his officers to this exemption which is creeping into legislation. It has been noticed in a regulation and in a number of Australian Capital Territory ordinances of recent times that this saving clause has been introduced. But just because somebody has not been notified of such rights does not affect the validity of the decision. I suspect that this is a matter the Government should consider generally in relation to ordinances, regulations and now an Act to ensure that it does not become any more common practice than it has been so far. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.31) —I move: Page 30, Schedule 1, leave out amendments of the Honey Industry Act 1962. I would like to speak briefly to outline the situation and something of the history of this matter. The Honey Industry Act governs the operations of the Australian Honey Board and a relatively small but, to those who are involved in it both as producers and as processors and exporters, an extremely important industry of Australia. This industry has had a number of problems. Partly, those problems caused the Senate last year to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act. The brief history of that matter is that on 25 March 1982 during the second reading debate on the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1982 and the Honey ( Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1982 the matter of the Honey Industry Act and its associated legislation was referred to that Committee. The Committee , after an examination in some detail of the affairs of the operation of the honey industry and the Australian Honey Board, made a report to the Senate in which it made quite a number of recommendations. Later last year-on 18 November 1982-the Government responded to that Committee's report which was tabled on 19 May 1982. Admittedly, that report was primarily related to the question of the introduction of charges for honey export inspection. But in the course of that Committee inquiry a significant number of other matters arose. Since that time there has been a question about the legality of the security of advances made by the Australian Honey Board to honey producers. I would like to emphasise to the Attorney the fact that in recent months there has been a question of the legality or otherwise of the form of security obtained by the Australian Honey Board from producers and a requirement made by the Board, without statutory authority to be able to require it, that it would seek to have a different form of security from the form of security which had been accepted in the past. I accept that there is a desire by various people associated with this industry, the Department of Finance and others to have the matter clarified . But I do believe that going about it in the way proposed in this legislation is extremely unfortunate. It proposes to make a fairly major potential change to the operation of the Honey Industry Act, of the Australian Honey Board and of the whole of the honey industry-and to do so almost by sleight of hand. I say that in no way offensively to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Part III of the Honey Industry Act is headed: 'Functions and Powers of the Australian Honey Board'. Section 16 (f) in that Part reads: The functions of the Board are- . . . . (f) such functions in relation to the export, and the sale and distribution after export, of honey as are conferred by or under this Act. That is a fairly limited power. It is a power related to the export of honey and to its sale and distribution after export. It is a power conferred specifically by the Act. The proposal is to make that power incredibly wide. The proposal is to leave out paragraph (f) and to substitute the following: Such other functions in connexion with honey as are conferred by or under this Act or the regulations. In other words, that involves anything to do with honey from the time it is produced-and prior to its production but associated with its production presumably-right through to the power formerly provided, that is, the power in relation to the export of honey and to its sale and distribution after export. This proposal will increase dramatically the powers of the Australian Honey Board by giving it virtually total power provided by regulations which may or may not be able to be appropriately dealt with by the Parliament within a reasonable period. One can have a situation in which regulations are made in November or December and the Parliament has no hope of disallowing them, if it is so minded, for some four months after that. This proposal would enable the whole of this industry to be operated by regulation. It would enable the Australian Honey Board to have powers which are far wider and greater than those it has been given by statute to date. A further provision is to amend section 23A by deleting that part of it which refers to making advances to the owners of honey. Section 23A (a) reads: With the concurrence of the Treasurer, the Minister may- (a) arrange with the Reserve Bank of Australia for the making by the bank of loans to the Board for the purpose of enabling the Board to acquire honey or . . . The Bill seeks to amend that by substituting these words: to make advances to the owners of honey or to perform any functions prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of paragraph 16 (f). The Bill seeks to bring in incredibly wide powers, such as those proposed in the amendment to section 16 (f) of the Honey Industry Act, which powers can be created and granted to the Australian Honey Board by regulation. I submit that that is not a matter which is appropriate or proper to be dealt with by a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It ought to be considered in a specific Bill introduced for the purpose of amending separately the Honey Industry Act, which Bill the Senate may at that stage consider it appropriate to refer back to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to ensure that the alterations being made are in accordance with the recommendations that that Committee has previously made. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.39) —I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by Senator Peter Rae. I refer the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to what he stated in his second reading speech which sets out a particular circumstance and which states that the basis for wanting this extra regulatory power is to provide a function for the Australian Honey Board which it is intended the Board should have. The Honey Industry Act, as it stands at the moment, includes a section which specifically sets out and enumerates the functions of the Board. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill intends that an extra extension be included in that Act to give power by regulation to extend the Board's function. If there is a specific function in mind, then I would submit that it would have been a better alternative to have stated that in the functions in the Act. Another amendment to the Act may be needed to complete it, but that would have been a better way of dealing with the matter rather than introducing a miscellaneous provisions Bill to extend the power to give additional function by regulation; in other words, as Senator Peter Rae stated, to extend that power without limit. I am sure that no attempt is being made here to introduce a matter of a controversial nature by means of this extension of power because the Attorney-General has given the specific example in his second reading speech. In supporting the amendment moved by Senator Peter Rae I respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General that in reconsidering this matter he might look to providing specifically in the Act the additional function that he detailed in his second reading speech. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.41) —I appreciate the force of the arguments that have been put by both Senator Peter Rae and Senator Hill and would appreciate a further response by them to what I am now about to put to them. It is clear, as was indicated in the supplement to my second reading speech that was tabled in the Parliament, that the sole objective that the Government has in mind in seeking to extend the functions or the range of functions of the Australian Honey Board is to enable the Board to make advances to owners of honey on satisfactory forms of security other than security on honey itself. At present advances can be made only on the security of honey, but it has been found, and indeed established that that is really a pretty ineffective form of security. In the event of a producer going broke, the Board would be an unsecured creditor, which raises all sorts of obvious difficulties. Further, the policy consideration that is motivating the desire to have an extended function in this respect is that the Board has made loans over the years, which have been to the advantage of producers. If this amendment were pulled out with the resulting inability of the Board to act so as to get the security it desires, then the Department of Primary Industry might have to recommend the cessation of such loans altogether, with consequential difficulties to producers. I state clearly that that is the context in which this amendment is brought forward. However, I accept that the language of the amendment is much wider than is strictly necessary to accomplish that relatively limited aim and that there are all sorts of other functions that could now be vested in the Board by regulation. As to that, I simply say further that section 32 of the Honey Industry Act provides, as is common in these matters, that the Governor-General-in-Council cannot make regulations which are in any way inconsistent with the Act. So that hurdle would have to be overcome as would, of course, the option for disallowance which is always retained by this chamber in respect of regulations which engage in overreach. I make the further point, although I appreciate that it is not necessarily calculated to win Senator Peter Rae's heart, that a provision in similar terms appears in the Dairying Industry Act 1924. General functions powers of this kind are, I am advised, not uncommon in primary industry legislation. Senator Peter Rae —Regrettably all too common. Senator GARETH EVANS —As a former acolyte of Senator Peter Rae on the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I make it clear that I understand and accept the force of what he is saying. It really reduces to this: Is the Opposition prepared to accept what I am saying-that this will be the sole purpose for which the additional powers will be exercised in order to establish security? Or will it not take that particular proposition on trust and insist in effect on delaying the capacity of the Board, with all the consequential disadvantages that may flow to producers and the Board itself, by insisting on removing this provision from the Bill? I really throw the onus, as it were, back to the Opposition benches to see, in the light of the explanation that I have given to this clause, just how serious it is about pursuing this matter. Perhaps the Australian Democrats, who hold the balance in these matters as in so many others, will give an appropriate indication at this point as to what their attitude is in the light of the explanation and the statement of intention that I have just made. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.45) —I am aware of the reason. I referred to the reason. The reason is that doubt has been raised as to the capacity under the existing legislation for loans to be made to the producers by way of advances in respect of honey which has been produced but not sold for, in effect, carry-on finance and the terms and conditions under which they can be made. What has happened over a period of more than six months, as I understand it-I think this is quite important to the question of urgency or otherwise-is that the Honey Board has continued to make advances to the honey producers and to obtain security from those producers. I have suggested to the Board-I have not had an answer; the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) may be able to obtain some instructions in relation to this-that a very adequate form of security and one which did not appear to be in any way unlawful, would be a bill of sale. I could not understand why a honey producer, already suffering a downturn in an industry which has had poor prices, who has already possibly had to mortgage his property, has to go out of business because he cannot get an advance, although he has honey available as security. It seems to me that, as the situation has been able to go on for some six months and as there are some real questions to be answered as to the way in which this scheme will operate, a further delay while the matter was considered would not be inappropriate. If the Attorney- General stated that his instructions are that there is no way that the advances to producers can continue beyond next week unless this amendment goes through immediately, of course, we would not wish to see the whole industry grinding to a halt. But, if the situation which has existed for the past six months can continue to exist for a little longer while the matter is cleared up properly, that is obviously the most desirable situation. The Attorney-General raised the question of the regulations not being inconsistent with the Honey Industry Act. The Bill states 'such other functions in connexion with honey'. It could not be any wider. It provides the widest conceivable regulation-making power. I do not think that anything remotely to do with honey could be regarded as being outside the regulation-making power. Bearing in mind that we are in the Committee stage of the debate, I invite an answer before continuing. Senator Gareth Evans —What are the Democrats going to do? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.48) —While the Australian Democrats make up their minds as to what they are going to do with this amendment, I indicate to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I am concerned about the provision in paragraph (f) which refers to the ability to add to the functions of a statutory authority by regulation. I know that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is very capable but the chances of its picking up such an amendment as this by regulation would be very remote. I cannot imagine how it would offend the Regulations and Ordinances Committee's provisions. We may accept the undertaking of this Attorney-General that that is the sole purpose at this time, but some future Attorney may not be aware of this Attorney 's undertaking and may allow some such regulation to be made. Is not the amendment to paragraph 23A just a reiteration of new paragraph 16 (f)? It seems to me that one paragraph says that we can do anything we like under the new regulations and the other says: 'So long as it is under the new regulations you can do what you like'. They seem to me to be one inside the other. I do not know that the amendment does anything except give someone enormous powers. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.50) —For the edification of Senator Lewis, I will pass on to him the information that I have already passed on to the Attorney-General and to Senator Peter Rae; that is, that the Australian Democrats are minded to support Senator Rae's amendment. However, I point out as a matter of public relations that when one wants support from people it is a good idea not to be rude to them in advance. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.51) —It would appear that, in the immortal concepts of the late Senator Kennelly, the Government confronts a situation in which it has neither the logic nor the numbers on this matter. In those circumstances, it would appear discretion is the better part of valour and we will not contest the removal at this stage of this item. I am instructed, however, that this will create real difficulties so far as the Board and the position of honey producers are concerned. It will be necessary to take some kind of urgent remedial action. I contemplate seeking the drafting overnight of a much narrower amendment to cover this specific problem, which is, I am instructed, the only problem with which the Department of Primary Industry is occupied at the moment, with a view to inserting such an amendment in the Bill in the House of Representatives and bringing it back here for endorsement next week. In those circumstances, I indicate that the Government will not contest the removal of this provision. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.52) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). In those circumstances, I also indicate that the Opposition would wish to co-operate in the course of action which he proposed. In no way is it intended to obstruct the further development of the industry. Rather, it is intended to get the industry straight while the legislation is going through. I thank the Attorney-General for the action. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.53) —Mr Chairman, I wish to raise a matter under the Postal Services Act. Am I entitled to do that? The CHAIRMAN —You can raise any matter you like as long as it relates to legislation covered in the Bill. The Bill is being debated as a whole. Senator HAINES —We seem to have hit a slight snag today with a plethora of sudden amendments. I did not want to confuse the issue any further. Honourable senators will be pleased to know that no amendment is forthcoming in this respect. I wish just to raise a matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). On page 44 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there is a reference to hoax explosives and some action which is to be taken to discourage the sending by post of hoax explosives. I have absolutely no objections to that, of course. I wish to know whether it is within the competence of the Government to do something about junk mail. The CHAIRMAN —Is that a hoax explosive? Senator HAINES —It could be, Mr Chairman. One never knows. It is a matter of some concern to many people. I refer not only to the junk mail which is put into letter-boxes without going through the post but also to unsolicited mail which constantly appears in people's letter-boxes despite the fact that a number of people complain to the sender more than once. I am not being particularly flippant although it may sound like it, Mr Attorney-General. It is a matter of serious concern to many people who are put to some considerable bother and not some insecurity, particularly when people are away. I ask in some seriousness whether anything can be done through the Postal Services Act to give people the right to say 'We do not want to receive junk mail' and, in effect, not to receive it. Can anything be done to assist people who receive unsolicited mail after they have requested the sender to desist? The CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines's remarks were only barely relevant, if that, to the Bill. If Senator Gareth Evans likes to give an answer to the question, he may do so. Senator HAINES —True. I acknowledge that point, Mr Chairman. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.56) —I am not sure whether Senator Haines is proposing $10,000 fines and imprisonment for five years for senders of junk mail, but to the extent that she is raising a serious point about appropriate further amendments to the Postal Services Act I simply say that she is referring to a matter that was raised, to my knowledge, by Mrs Darling, the honourable member for Lilley, in the context of a private member's Bill last year. It is something that I know she has raised with the present Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, and I know the matter is under review with a view to possible amendments coming forward at some later stage in that respect. No doubt the Minister will be indebted to Senator Haines for any contribution that she might care to make on that subject. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.57) —I should like a little clarification of a matter relating to an amendment moved a little earlier by Senator Haines. Senator Haines —No; foreshadowed. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines has not moved her amendment yet. Senator MARTIN —The amendment foreshadowed by Senator Haines. I am not clear whether Senator Evans indicated in his response that he would do something. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Martin, I do not think you can discuss an amendment that Senator Haines has not yet moved. If she moves it, you may then discuss it. We are discussing the Bill as a whole. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.58) —Mr Chairman, will it expedite matters if I move the amendment that I foreshadowed earlier, for the benefit of Senator Martin? She can then hear the Minister's response about whatever subsequent action will be taken. The CHAIRMAN —You may move your amendment. Senator HAINES —I move: Page 55, Schedule 1, after amendment of the Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964, add: World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 Section 3, after sub-section (4), insert the following sub-section- '(5) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to the Northern Territory- (a) a reference in this Act to a State shall be read as including a reference to the Northern Territory; (b) a reference in this Act to a Territory shall be read as not including a reference to the Northern Territory; and (c) a reference in this Act to the Premier of a State shall be read as including a reference to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.59) —This matter has been the subject of some discussion between Senator Haines and me since our exchange during the second reading debate. I think the situation is now much clarified; there was a degree of misunderstanding between us as to what was contemplated. What Senator Haines is seeking here to do is propose a really quite substantial and contentious amendment to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act which has just passed this Parliament a matter of days ago and has just, I believe, been proclaimed, and to do so in relation to the position of the Northern Territory. I indicated on behalf of the Government when that Bill was being debated that the Government was willing, at the time of the next round of miscellaneous statutory provision amendments, to consider one uncontroversial amendment to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act as it affected the Northern Territory-namely, an amendment to put the Northern Territory in the same position as the States for the purposes of establishing the composition of the proposed commissions of inquiry. I did indicate very clearly that the Government's position was not one of support for this proposal now before us, which is to place the Northern Territory in the same position as a State in relation to all aspects of the application of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. I explained in some detail at the time we were debating this legislation in the Committee stage why the Government took this view. I will endeavour to do so very much more briefly now because the reasons are already on the record. The situation is that the way the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act is drafted it relies for its force and effect on a number of different heads of constitutional power. So far as the Northern Territory and the other Territories are concerned, the Act relies for its force and effect on section 122-the Territories power-of the Constitution. So far as the Act's application to the States is concerned, it relies on a miscellany of constitutional powers, including of course in particular the external affairs power. What would happen, were we now to insert in that Act the amendment proposed by Senator Haines, is that the Northern Territory would be treated for all purposes in the same way as the States. To the extent the Act was subsequently decided by the High Court of Australia to have no application to the States because the Commonwealth lacked the necessary degree of constitutional power, the result of Senator Haines's amendment being passed is that that Act would also necessarily be held to have no application to the Northern Territory. In other words, the Commonwealth would have thrown away an undisputed head of power that it has in relation to the Territories by linking the position of the Northern Territory and the other Territories directly with that of the States. Although this Commonwealth Government, like its predecessor, is perfectly willing, for the purposes of the normal and ordinary application of Commonwealth legislation, to have the Northern Territory treated in the same way as the States, this Government, like its predecessor, is unwilling to throw away a head of constitutional power which it clearly has up its sleeve and which would ensure the application of legislation to the Territory in circumstances in which the validity of the legislation may be under some challenge or in some doubt. That is the reason why the Government is resisting an amendment in these terms. I think that is the position which was readily accepted by the Australian Democrats when this aspect of the Bill was being debated. I will say, however, this: Since the Bill is now going across to the House of Representatives with at least one amendment there to be accomplished to it in relation to the Honey Industry Act, I believe that it may be possible for an amendment to be specifically drafted, in the 24 hours or so that we now have before the Bill is dealt with in the House of Representatives, specifically to accommodate the position of the Northern Territory in the way in which I indicated was non-contentious and in the way in which I indicated that the Government was prepared to accommodate the Northern Territory-to put it in the same position as the States for the purposes of the procedures under the Bill in relation to the compensation inquiries. If it is possible to get such provision drafted in the short time available, I will undertake here and now to seek to have that provision inserted when this matter is debated in the House of Representatives before it comes back here for final endorsement. I believe that will be enough to accommodate the position as it was explained to and accepted by the Democrats when the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill was being debated, and I hope that is the view that will be adopted here. I shall add one further comment. I think it would be an unfortunate precedent if we were to use this clean-up Bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill (No. 1), to be the focus for contentious matters about which there is disputation between the parties and to use it as a vehicle for re-running debates on other legislation which we may have completed. I think it would be a most unfortunate precedent to establish, to have this Bill used as a vehicle for debates on contentious matters, and it is certainly very contentious for the reasons of principle which I have explained if it stays in its present form. I hope that Senator Haines might be prepared in those circumstances to withdraw this very broad and sweeping amendment and to accept the Government's undertaking to do its level best to get a much more narrowly tailored amendment, which meets the main point the Democrats are trying to establish here, in place by the time the Bill comes back here. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.4) —The amendment which Senator Haines moved is, of course, an amendment which was moved by the Opposition last week in relation to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, and I am not surprised that Senator Evans maintains his opposition to certain aspects of that amendment. I shall remind the Committee of some of the things Senator Evans said because I think, perhaps, he needs to be reminded of them before drafting this amendment that he will put forward. The application of the amendment, even in a restricted sense, would not just be a matter of appointing people to the commission that is to look at compensation. There were other aspects too, and I urge Senator Evans to look at them. Senator Evans made some rather unequivocal statements on his intentions, or at least part of them, in this chamber last week. He said: Insofar as some parts of the Bill do, in a sense, discriminate against the Northern Territory we would be prepared at an appropriate time to formulate an amendment to cover that situation. I refer in particular to the later provisions . . . about the commissions of inquiry and so on in which . . . the Northern Territory is denied, by the way in which the Bill is framed at the moment, the capacity to appoint someone to a commission of inquiry in a way that the States are not. He further said: What I have in mind is that the Bill would be amended by a miscellaneous amendments provision in the latter part of this year to accommodate that contingency. That is, the contingency of some matter arising during the recess. He went on: In the event that the legislation had not gone through we would deal with the matter at Executive level in the way I have indicated. I give such an undertaking on behalf of the Government. In debate it appeared that that was really the only application of the Bill that mattered at all. I remind Senator Evans of another matter that arose, when something was not recorded in Hansard. At the end of the debate I said: I seek the guidance of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on how this would affect the operation of clause 15 which requires copies of proclamations to be laid before Parliament and relates to certain parliamentary activities. I expect that the amendment-- That was my amendment- would have the effect of including the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as one of the Houses of Parliament, and I would think that is a very significant matter for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Senator Evans did then what he does now. He nodded his head across the chamber and agreed with me but that, of course, is not recorded in Hansard. I want to make clear that, while I do not expect the amendment that the Attorney-General will bring forward to be very broad, in terms of detail there were also other matters of principle which do not cut across his general objection to my amendment, which were important to the Northern Territory and which ought to be looked at in that amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.7) —I accept the force of what Senator Martin said. I had forgotten that a further provision was raised. I was not anticipating any debate on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 again today. I am not armed with all my materials-Hansard and everything else on this. But to the extent that it is possible to pick up those sorts of aspects of the World Heritage Bill which unjustifiably discriminate against the Northern Territory and draft some remedial legislation between now and tomorrow morning, along with everything else the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has to do in this rather vexed stage of our parliamentary timetable, I will certainly undertake to do my best to get those amendments in. If it cannot be done physically in the time available, given that the House of Representatives is rising on Thursday afternoon, I undertake that appropriate amendments will be brought forward in the next miscellaneous amendments Bill, which is, after all, the one that I was previously referring to in the debate on the dam Bill, the one coming forward in the latter part of the year. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.10) —I am not so sure that I appreciate the language of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I accept his assurances with some hesitancy. I am happy at least in the knowledge that the moving of this particular amendment has inspired the Attorney-General, if not the Government, to act with some urgency on this matter. I would like something a little more definite than 'level best'. Nevertheless, I am prepared to give the Attorney-General the benefit of the doubt-- Senator Martin —Until otherwise persuaded. Senator HAINES —Until otherwise persuaded. I also give the assurance that we will pursue the matter at the next appropriate stage, if he cannot find by tomorrow morning the words that will achieve an end to discrimination against the Northern Territory. Mr Chairman, on that note I seek leave to withdraw- probably temporarily-the amendment. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.12) —I would like to speak briefly at the third reading stage. I apologise for the fact that I was detained when the Bill came on for the second reading. I understand that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) expressed some disappointment that there had not been any comment by the Opposition on the guidelines or criteria that he laid down for matters to be included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983. As he seems to be otherwise engaged at the moment, I do not know whether I should waste the Senate's time any more in dealing with the disappointment he expressed . If he is interested in what I have to say, perhaps he will pay attention to it or read it at a later time. I would have thought that Senator Evans's question about the desirability of his or any other criteria in relation to these Bills may well have been answered by the course of the debate on this legislation. In other words, it is very difficult to predict what honourable senators are going to find contentious or constituting substantial policy issues. On looking at this Bill that Senator Evans introduced I would have thought that it did follow broadly the lines of the policy which the previous Government and which I, as the Attorney-General in that Government, followed in selecting matters for the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, there are necessarily different views about these matters. I do not see anything particularly new in the guidelines Senator Evans has laid down. I think it is very difficult ever to be sure that they will be effective. I believe that the first guideline is not likley to cause any problems. The second, of course, brings us to the difficult area. What is contentious? Views differ on that. The third guideline relates to matters involving lengthy and complex drafting. I do not have any objection to those going in to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. All I object to is the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill being brought on so quickly that people do not have time to study it properly. We have not had time to study this Bill properly . I do not know that there is any objection to non-contentious non-policy issues going into the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; but if matters are lengthy and complex, we should have time to study them to make sure that they are not really contentious. The comments I have made on the second guideline apply to the fourth. In relation to the fifth guideline, because of the peculiar features of the National Companies and Securities Scheme it is probably wise not to include amendments to that in this Bill, although if they are minor, non-contentious matters I cannot see an objection to them. However, I know that there is some resistance, and if Senator Evans wants to follow that guideline, it is a matter for him to decide. I entirely agree with guidelines 6 and 7. There is some irony in guideline 7 because this Bill does vary the incidence of tax. It provides for a higher penalty of 10 per cent to 20 per cent interest for non-payment of a tax on time. It may be quite a good guideline, but it is breached in Senator Evans's own Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 be dealt with cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Is it the wish of the Senate to debate these Bills cognately? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.15) — The Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 both arise out of matters which were dealt with originally by the former Government. I will deal with them very briefly and separately. The Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill provides a bounty to enable the manufacturer of room air conditioners in Australia, Kelvinator Australia Ltd, to be able to undertake in regard to its processes certain renovations, introductions and innovations to make it more competitive. The problem, as found by the Temporary Assistance Authority report, was that: . . . a growing price advantage over local production is the main reason for the increased share of the market taken by imported products. A further reason is that imported products have been updated and adapted to meet specialised requirements to a much greater extent than the local product. It has been indicated to the Temporary Assistance Authority by the Australian manufacturer, Kelvinator, that it has investment plans involving an expenditure of $4m to enable it to compete with imports at current tariff levels. The company believes that it will be unlikely for this plan to proceed in the absence of temporary assistance. As part of this plan its product range would be redesigned, some technologies currently incorporated in imported room air conditioners would be introduced and the sources of inputs would be reassessed. Kelvinator estimated that its investment plan would not be completed until the middle of 1984. The proposal made by the Temporary Assistance Authority was for this bounty to be granted. It is at the rate of $60 per air conditioning unit not exceeding a certain size and $90 for the larger unit. That bounty should enable the company to engage in the capital expenditure plan to make its industry competitive. That recommendation was considered by the former Government and on 27 October 1982 it announced that it had accepted the recommendation. This Bill merely implements that recommendation and, not unnaturally, the Opposition will support the Bill. The other Bill with which we are concerned deals with the bounty on certain steel products. Again, this is for short term bounty assistance to the industry which is producing certain high alloy steel products. This bounty was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report of 23 December 1982. On 1 February 1983 the previous Government-that is the Liberal-National Party coalition Government-announced that it had accepted the Authority's recommendation and would introduce legislation to give effect to that. The Bill before the chamber this afternoon is in the terms of the report of the TAA, as accepted by the former Government, and in those circumstances is supported by the Opposition. I will speak very briefly to the question of the steel industry and the problems which gave rise to the necessity for this legislation. I will refer, also briefly, to the doubts that have been raised recently in relation to the Government's attitude towards the steel industry. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the honourable member for Parramatta, Mr John Brown, speaking in the House of representatives on 12 May, stated: This Government is firmly committed to maintaining a viable, internationally competitive steel industry, not just because of its importance to the Australian economy or its capacity to employ people, but for a few other reasons. A little later he stated: The importance of the steel industry to our national security and defence arrangements is paramount. He also said: We are moving very quickly to finalise our steel development plan by the end of June. A little later he said: The steel industry can look forward with confidence to the end of June, when our steel development plan will be announced. Finally, he said: Our prime objective will be to create the environment for Australian industry to return to its once highly efficient competitive position in the world's steel industry. I imagine that those sorts of expressions of hopeful anticipation and wish would be commonly held on a bipartisan basis. It is for that reason that I was amazed to find in the economic statement last week one of the most vigorous attacks made on the steel industry that one could imagine. What we found was that something which was going to keep the steel industry fairly fully occupied for quite some time as well as playing a major part in the national development of Australia and the Northern Territory-that is, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway-has been effectively scrapped. What it boils down to is that the changed terms and conditions as imposed by the Government in the economic statement mean that there is no way, as Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has pointed out, that the Northern Territory could go ahead with funding what is now its required share of that development. That means that because there will be no railway there will be no steel production which would have been involved in the production of the rails. That means that the whole of the attitude of this Government towards the maintenance and development of the steel industry must be placed under the same very large question mark as must the adherence of this Government to the principles of the development of the Northern Territory. Senator Robertson —Like you did for over 50 years-the contribution you have made since 1911. You did nothing. You are selective in your facts. Senator PETER RAE —I am talking about what is being done, what has been announced, and what is happening now, not what is history. What we are dealing with right now is the question of whether there will be, as promised by the former Government, an Alice Springs-Darwin railway and whether that has any effect on the future of Whyalla, in particular, and the steel industry in Australia in general. I find it disappointing and a matter of concern that in the economic statement that course was adopted. Senator Peter Baume —Has Senator Robertson objected to the decision? Senator PETER RAE —Apparently Senator Robertson does not mind if an Alice Springs-Darwin railway does not go ahead. I presume there are other Government senators from South Australia who do not mind that Whyalla looks as though it has been kicked in the teeth. The only other point that I wonder about, when talking about the future of the steel industry and the approach of the Government, is whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), when replying, will indicate whether the promises of action which were made by Mr John Brown in the House of Representatives debate on this Bill to which I have already referred are something that the industry, notwithstanding the adverse effects of the economic statement decisions last Thursday, can look forward to along the lines outlined by Mr Brown before the end of June. As I have indicated, the Opposition supports the action which is taken by the Government in introducing this legislation which flows from decisions taken by the former Government. We support the Bills. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.24) —The Australian Democrats also generally support the proposals. We have a concern for the continuing and the increasing of bounties but where it is appropriate, absolutely necessary and urgent, obviously we will not oppose measures which will retain jobs and retain an industry's viability. I will speak specifically to the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 which aims to preserve jobs-jobs which are at risk at this moment. It seems, from assurances which have been given by the previous speaker, that Kelvinator Australia Ltd, at which company the legislation is aimed, will make the investment to make it more competive. The difficulty I have with this Bill-as with all bounty Bills-is that whilst it may improve the international competitiveness of the manufacturer, and not be to the detriment of other manufacturers of similar merchandise it also gives a competitive edge over manufacturers of other products meeting the same kind of market. I refer to the products that are specifically excluded from this Bill, such as ducting and those that are not, strictly speaking, air conditioning units. We find that the Government is subsidising one manufacturer and making it more difficult for other Australian manufacturers to compete evenly in the market place with that particular manufacturer. However, the legislation is aimed at providing short term relief; it goes only to 30 June. I hope my comments are picked up by the Temporary Assistance Authority with the next review, which I understand is to take place shortly, and that the results will be very clearly enunciated to Kelvinator. It must become competitive internationally in the shortest possible time. The Government cannot continue to subsidise one particular company against other competitors. The Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment which simply clears up an anomaly which we see in the Bill as it is presently drafted. The anomaly was picked up again by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Once more I pay tribute to that Committee for work well done. I apologise to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) that I gave very late notice of the proposed amendment which would clarify the anomaly in the Bill. I will speak more on the proposed amendment during the Committee stage. In general, the Australian Democrats will be supporting both of these Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.27) —I thank Senator Peter Rae and Senator Jack Evans for their general comments about the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill and the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill. I do not wish to comment on much that has been said, except that Senator Peter Rae used the second Bill to make some observations about the Northern Territory railway line and its possible effect on the Government's decision on the steel industry at Whyalla. The logical extension of Senator Rae's argument is that if the Government of Malcolm Fraser or somebody else had decided to build a steel bridge to Tasmania and this Government had decided that that was not in accordance with its economic priorities and not in accordance with the overall economic welfare of the Australian people we would have been condemned by Senator Rae in the course of this debate for rejecting that decision to build a steel bridge to Tasmania. I think the important- Senator Peter Rae —I will condemn you for cutting out the Craig Bourne Dam, the Warners Creek Dam and all the other things in Tasmania, as well as the Northern Territory, if you wish me to. Senator BUTTON —I am sure the honourable senator will have ample opportunity. Where the honourable senator has used this particular piece of legislation as a vehicle to make a comment about the economic statement which was made last Thursday, we specifically reject it. It is a little premature to adopt the views of the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory until such time as the Commonwealth Government has had the opportunity for discussions with the Government of the Northern Territory about the matter. I agree with Senator Evans that one does not wish to see a vast proliferation of bounties-nobody does . In the remarks he made subsequently he clearly indicated his concern about the necessity for assistance in particular circumstances, such as those applying to Kelvinator Australia Ltd. The Temporary Assistance Authority report specifically referred-as did Senator Rae in his comments today-to the investment program of Kelvinator in an effort to make itself more competitive. That is to be encouraged. No doubt the company will take heed of Senator Evan's words when it contemplates its investment program. The Government does not agree with the anomaly, referred to by Senator Evans. Perhaps we can deal with the matter in the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.29) —I was called out of the chamber before the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) replied to the comments made by Senator Peter Rae. I make the point at this stage that the Government has displayed a pitiful attitude to the steel industry in view of the undertaking during the election campaign when the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said he thought that an Australian steel industry was vital. I find it quite extraordinary that in the space of a few days the Government decided to abandon the proposition of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. This railway line would require something like 150,000 tonnes of steel rail. If the Australian National Line decided to use steel sleepers another 150,000 tonnes could be fabricated at Whyalla which would be of tremendous significance to that city. I believe-- Senator Macklin —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —I think I know the point of order the honourable senator is about to raise. We are debating the Committee stage of the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill. I will call Senator Jessop again when the Committee debates the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.32) —I move: Page 4, clause 6, sub-clause (3), lines 4 and 5, leave out 'the Comptroller- General is satisfied that'. The reason for moving that amendment is that there seems to be an anomaly in the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill. Clause 10 provides for the review of the Comptroller-General's opinion rather than a review of the conditions in clause 3 . The satisfaction that is required seems to me to be unnecessarily duplicated and therefore complicated as a result of having the words 'the Comptroller- General is satisfied that' in clause 3. I believe that it will make it not only clearer and more easy to understand but also will take away the potential for litigation if the Comptroller-General is asked to rule on his opinion rather than being asked to rule under clause 10, on the general satisfaction that the conditions under clause 3 have been met. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.34) —I think I see Senator Evans's point, but the Government does not agree with it. I am instructed that there is a similar format in all bounty Acts where the Comptroller-General has to be satisfied-- Senator Haines —Change the order. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator can introduce a private member's Bill if that is what she wants to do. But that is not what is before us today. Clause 10 deals with approval for the payment of bounty. It states that the Comptroller- General has to be satisfied that bounty is payable and, if he is not so satisfied, he refuses payment of the bounty. That is the essence of the clause. The clause to which the amendment has been moved deals with the specification of bounty. Sub-clause (3) prescribes that the Comptroller-General has to be satisfied about certain things which are listed in that sub-clause. They are not matters referred to in clause 10; they are matters separate from the matters dealt with in clause 10. Before the Comptroller-General gets to the determination in clause 10, he has to be satisfied about the matters set out in sub-clause 3. If the words sought to be removed by Senator Jack Evans's amendment are removed, with respect, what remains does not make sense. The amendment ends with the word 'unless', and then certain conditions are set out. But somebody has to be satisfied. I do not know whether the authority or the persons who are to be satisfied about those conditions have been suggested. Senator Jack Evans —Clause 10 stipulates who has to be satisfied. Senator BUTTON —With respect, the honourable senator is taking the words out of clause 6, not out of clause 10. It is in respect of those matters-matters in relation to the specification of a bounty-about which somebody has to be satisfied. For those reasons, the Government just does not accept the amendment. It is not quite in accordance with the observations made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Perhaps I could say something about that later on. The Government has written to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee concerning the points made about this legislation. If any matter arises from our communication with that Committee that it wants to take up again with the Government, we will certainly look at it. But we have set out in detail the Government's response to the various matters raised by that Committee. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.37) —This is a small point but quite an important point. I have not had an opportunity to study in detail the drafting point. If, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has said, it is common to other bounty legislation as well, it may be that quite a degree of amendment is necessary and desirable. It may be that this legislation is a good vehicle within which to have a look at the whole matter. I suggest, therefore, to the Minister that we might stand this matter over until tomorrow to give people an opportunity to have a further look at it and to have some discussion. There is no point in taking up the time of the chamber now to debate this matter back and forth. It is a matter that can be resolved very quickly one way or another. I do not imagine that it will hold up the Government's legislation program if it were to be stood over. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.38) —I appreciate the spirit of the honourable senator's suggestion. The fact is that this legislation has to be passed this week in order that it might go back to the House of Representatives. By implication, I gave an undertaking that, if there were point in my meeting with the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills about this matter, I would do so. If there were any matter which affected the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill and other bounty Bills that was of substance in the observations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, or in Senator Jack Evans's amendment-I do not believe that there is-we would certainly look at it and give an undertaking that, in respect of all those bounty Bills, this matter can be brought back and re-examined. I think that is the appropiate way to do it. I give that undertaking now if honourable senators so wish it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.39) —I do not wish my request to be taken in any way as impugning the value of the undertaking of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I again request that he considers standing the matter over until tomorrow so that we can try to get it sorted out and get it finished one way or another. It is not a matter of trying to look at the undertaking and having some long procedure. Let us get it cleared up with the minimum of fuss and delay. This Bill could be brought on tomorrow. I have no doubt whatsoever that it could be dealt with tomorrow. When it comes back on, I have no doubt that it will be dealt with expeditiously but by arrangement. Senator Button —Do you wish to address yourself to the point? You have not done so. Senator PETER RAE —I would prefer to have an opportunity to consider this matter not on the run. The report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is something which I have been trying to read ever since I got hold of it. For honourable senators to be able to refer to that report, having regard to the general speeches that have been made tonight in relation to the matter, if there were a little more time I am sure that we could get it sorted out quickly one way or another. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.42) —Mr Chairman, I apologise for having intruded earlier in the debate. I will not repeat what I have already said. I found the attitude of the Government in abandoning the Darwin-Alice Springs railway project quite extraordinary in the light of what was said by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) only a week before in a Press statement . He commended the objective of continuing the railway line right through to Darwin. He did not mention a completion date but the object of the previous Government was that the project should be completed by 1988. I thought he pointed very intelligently to the fact that this would be of national importance and of particular significance to the development of South Australia and the Northern Territory. In view of his support and the fact that he brought out the significance of the line as far as job opportunities were concerned-in fact he said that the line would enable the provision of some 2,000 jobs-I thought that the attitude of the Government in not supporting its colleague's view quite extraordinary, not in the interests of the development of South Australia and the Northern Territory, not in the national interest and certainly not in the interest of the steel industry, in particular, the steel industry at Whyalla. I note with great interest that the mayor of Whyalla has also voiced his views concerning this matter. In concert with people such as Paul Everingham from the Northern Territory he is requesting the Government to reconsider its attitude. I think it is quite unfair that the Northern Territory should be required to provide 40 per cent of the finance for this project-something of the order of $ 216m-as this would be beyond its capacity. One could point to the commitments made by successive governments to fund that railway line and to their belief that it was in the national interest to have it done. I just find it quite incredible that the Hawke Government, having regard to the interest of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in sustaining a steel industry, should abandon such a major project without proper consideration. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.45) —Senator Jessop began the original version of his speech by saying that the Government's response to the steel industry's plight was pitiful. I am not sure of the meaning of that word, but certainly we are approaching the plight of the steel industry with a lot of pity and will be announcing in the not too distant future plans in relation to the future of the steel industry in Australia. It is quite clear from the ministerial statement on the economy that the building of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway is not an integral part of those plans. Senator Jessop spoke of the great confidence that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory had in the viability and economic significance of the line from Alice Springs to Darwin. I wish Senator Jessop had told us of the Chief Minister's faith in that project from an overall economic point of view. All that the Government is asking the Chief Minister to do, if he has such confidence in the value of the line to the Northern Territory, is to put a little money where his mouth is. The Commonwealth Government will be negotiating with him regarding that matter. Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Government, I have a request for an amendment. I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Page 5, clause 3, line 4, insert 'for a purpose other than the removal of impurities from the ingot by the process known as electro-slag refining' after ' the ingot'. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the scope of paragraph (a) of sub- clause 3 (2) of the Bill so that bounty is payable on products produced from prescribed ingots which have been melted and re-cast for removal of impurities from the ingot by the process known as electro-slag refining. The purpose of paragraph (a) of sub-clause 3 (2) is to exclude from bounty products that have been produced from the melting or re-casting of a prescribed ingot. Temporary assistance on such products was not requested by the industry. However, it is intended that assistance should apply to products-mainly tool- steel bars-produced from a prescribed ingot after impurities have been removed by smelting and solidifying by an electro-slag refining procses. As there is a possibility that the refining process might be considered to be a form of re- casting, and thus excluded from bounty, it has been decided to clarify the position by amending clause 3 of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is merely to put beyond doubt what products are eligible for receipt of the bounty. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.48) — The Opposition will support the attempt by the Government to clarify a defect in its Bill. Request for amendment agreed to. Bill agreed to, subject to a request. Bill reported with a request; report adopted. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I suggest that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill be debated cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Is there any objection? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.50) —The Opposition is happy to have a cognate second reading debate on the two Bills and to follow the usual procedure thereafter. The Opposition welcomes these Bills, which relate to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its structure and function. We have no problems with regard to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. We are glad it is being considered in a cognate debate. The provisions of the Bill, which it is unnecessary to describe here, are ones with which we do not disagree or argue. This leaves the main Bill, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill, for consideration. I begin by saying that the Opposition welcomes this Bill. It is, in large, a consequence of initiatives which we began in government. The main elements of the Bill were introduced into the Parliament by us during 1982. A former Minister, Mr Staley, established the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in May 1979. The report of the Committee led to the suggestions for a major restructuring of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. A former Minister, the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair, had much of the carriage through the Cabinet and Cabinet committees of the considerations which led to this Bill. My former colleague, the Honourable Neil Brown when he was minister, produced the Bill which came before the Parliament in 1982. It was Mr Brown's ministerial statement in mid 1982 which identified the former Government's acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Dix Committee of Review and the former Government's desire to see many of those recommendations put in legislative form. Because this Bill is so much the child of endeavours by the former Government, we will want to support, encourage and endorse the Government in its efforts to achieve a stronger national broadcasting service. Although some of the comments later might concentrate upon a few areas of difference, it is important to set down that that is being done in a context of broad agreement, support and a bipartisan desire to see some of the recommendations of the Dix Committee put into effect. We see many of those recommendations of the Committee headed by Mr Alex Dix as identifying and providing the basis for such a national broadcasting service. It is appropriate to place on record our appreciation of the work which was done by Mr Dix and his co-workers on that Committee of Review. It was a daunting task which they undertook and they produced a report of distinction. They did so with expedition. I believe they have done a public service to a wide number of Australians by the way in which they approached their problems and by the recommendations which they produced. Some of the main advantages which may flow from this Bill-some of the things which the ABC can expect to achieve as a result of the passage of this Bill-were set down in another place. The legislation will be modernised; the independence of the ABC will be strengthened; the charter setting out the functions and obligations of the ABC will be clear; the statutory recognition of Radio Australia and the ABC's television news services are set out in the Bill. The legislation sets out the duties of the Board and the Managing Director. There is a major upgrading of advisory mechanisms. There is provision for an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. There are provisions for similar councils in relation to States and Territories, or any region. The position of the chief executive of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which will be called the Corporation, will be substantially upgraded. He will now exercise statutory authority. Those positive features of the legislation are ones which we endorse and with which we wish to be associated. Sadly, of course, today's debate might seem to suggest otherwise. The Opposition has several worries about the Bill. We and others will be moving amendments to various parts of the Bill. But we will be doing this against a background of support for and pleasure at the general package offered by the legislation. I might set out the three areas in which we have some concerns. First, we believe that special circumstances now exist in which several issues of equity require some delay in the implementation of any restructuring of the Commission and its members. We recommend this so that those being sued now can be seen to be able to defend themselves against those legal actions. Our second area of concern is that we wish to see the provisions for withholding pay-admittedly as a last resort-in those circumstances in which officers refuse to work as directed retained in the legislation. The third area in which we have some concern is that we believe there should be some mechanism for resolving complaints, a mechanism which should be independent of the new Corporation and along the lines of the process which operates in the United Kingdom in relation to, say, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although we have these three areas of concern, we accept much that is in the Bill and express our agreement and pleasure with much of what we read. I turn to the first of the areas of concern. Special circumstances now exist, circumstances which could not have been anticipated and which we believe have created new responsibilities. I refer, of course, to the circumstances that have arisen out of the screening of a Four Corners program recently. Without trying to canvass matters which are sub judice or to anticipate any royal commission's findings, I think I can summarise these events: First, serious allegations were made in the ABC program about the administration of justice in New South Wales; secondly, several citizens of New South Wales have commenced defamation action as a result of that program being screened; thirdly a royal commission is now examining matters raised in that program; fourthly, the Premier of New South Wales has stood aside for the duration of the royal commission; and, fifthly- here I can be more specific-some of the Australian Labor Party Ministers of the present Government in Canberra have been vehemently critical of ABC commissioners following the screening of that Four Corners program. For example, allegations of bias have been made against the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the Leader of the Government in the Senate , who is also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications. We have had the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, in which he accused the ABC of selective broadcasting or of being anti-Labor. We have had the revelation that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Button attempted unsuccessfully to influence the programming of the Australian Broadcasting Commission during the recent election campaign. None of this sequence of events could have been anticipated when the Bill was introduced. But the events raise serious questions which require consideration. I ask honourable senators to consider the position of all the people who are affected by what has arisen. The question is: What course of action taken in dealing with this Bill is likely to be fairest to the three groups most at risk? What course of action is likely to be fairest to the Premier of New South Wales and to others, such as the magistrates, who were mentioned in the program? What course of action in relation to this Bill, in the light of the events that have occurred following the screening of that program, is likely to be fairest to the ABC commissioners? What course of action is likely to be fairest to the officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who researched and produced the program? I do not think they are irrelevant questions. I do not think they are easy to answer. The royal commission could go some of the way in answering those questions. But the resolution of issues which will come before a court when the civil actions for defamation are raised may well be an essential part of seeing justice done for all the parties. Let me say that the Opposition has no argument with the proposal that the ABC should be restructured along the lines set out in this Bill. We proposed that last year. We have no reason not to want that to happen. But we believe that the commissioners who at present bear the responsibility for a program they allowed to be screened and whose reputations are in jeopardy right now should be the people who are allowed to see this issue carried through to resolution. We know that the new board must accept the defamation actions which have begun. We know there are provisions in the second of the Bills which put that beyond doubt. But if the board of the Corporation is reconstituted with different people consider what will happen if they determine, in their wisdom, to settle the defamation cases out of court. The public will never know whether the settlement out of court was made on its merits or if it was made for other motives such as, perhaps, to hush up the matter. In those circumstances the new board of the Corporation may attract odium quite unreasonably, but people will not know. If the cases are settled the present commissioners will not have had an opportunity to present or defend a case in court. Instead, that will have been done for them by their successors. I think in those circumstances the reputations of the present commissioners would suffer without them having been able to have a hand in the defence of actions taken against the ABC, and their reputations would suffer unfairly. In fact, those who are now the subject of these actions may not have had sufficient opportunity to put their case before a court at all. The public will have been denied the opportunity to judge for itself what was right or wrong, where the balance of truth lay and where the merits of the matter were. Now, consider the alternative-that the new Corporation with its new members does decide to defend the cases. Those whose reputations are at stake will still have no role in mounting or conducting the defence by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as it will then be, of decisions which they took and for which the Corporation is being sued. Given the extraordinary circumstances that have arisen, if the present commissioners were allowed to see the matter through decisions in relation to the actions would be theirs. The principles behind the Bill would not be threatened or placed in jeopardy. In fact, an alternative might be to undertake to appoint the present commissioners for the duration of these legal actions. But because we are concerned about matters of equity to all the parties concerned in the issues that have been raised by this Four Corners program we are moving an amendment at the second reading stage. I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until- (a) the legal action against the Australian Broadcasting Commission instituted by the Premier of New South Wales is concluded; and (b) an assurance is given by the Government: (i) that no action will be taken to alter the existing membership of the Commission until the Bill is again before the Parliament at the conclusion of those legal proceedings, and (ii) that there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy'. I commend the amendment to honourable senators as a genuine attempt to ensure that justice is the predominant thing we achieve while the ABC seeks to resolve the issues which arose out of the recent program. The amendment contains in paragraph (b) (ii) a rather more ominous component-an assurance that there will be no government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy. We thought it necessary to move this part of the amendment because of the events which occurred during the election. That Mr Hawke and Senator Button tried to intervene in the programming practices of the ABC during the election gives no cause for confidence about what the future holds. The events which unfolded in the Parliament as a result of questions asked here suggest clearly the need for the assurance sought in the last part of the second reading amendment. I ask honourable senators to read the answers to questions. I will not reiterate them now; they are on the public record. I ask honourable senators to look at what Ministers of this Government have been saying publicly. I ask then: Is it not reasonable to seek an assurance that the ABC will be independent of any attempt to influence its programming policy and of any attempt of the kind that was made during the election campaign ? The Opposition will move some amendments also in the Committee stage and I will speak then to each of those amendments. It might suit the Senate at this stage, though, if I were to foreshadow the general areas in which those amendments will be moved. We will move in Committee an amendment to continue to enshrine the principle that in a situation where people refuse to work as directed, they should not be paid. At the Committee stage I will give the arguments which we believe would warrant support for that amendment. I understand that the Australian Democrats were concerned previously that any directions given in relation to the no work as directed, no pay question should be lawful directions . I indicate that we have added the word 'lawful' at an appropriate spot to make sure that we are proposing that no work as directed, no pay should apply only in relation to lawful directions. I hope the words proposed will cover the concern expressed by the Democrats. Another area in relation to which we will be moving an amendment in Committee is a complaints commission. Here we have a very simple proposition. Many public organisations attract complaints. Some of the complaints are reasonable, some of them are frivolous; but there is always a problem of knowing whether they are seen to have been dealt with seriously. Justice is never seen to be done when an organisation investigates itself in response to public complaint. There is never satisfaction when the police investigate complaints against the police, or when a department is responsible for investigating complaints against that department . This is the reason that we have the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is the reason that we have the Ombudsman. This is the reason that in the United Kingdom a British Broadcasting Corporation complaints commission was established . At the Committee stage we will set out in detail our proposals in this area. The community affairs officers as proposed by the Government will go some way. Their appointment will establish an internal mechanism by which the ABC will look at complaints, but in no way can this be taken to be an adequate response to the need for an independent examination of serious complaints-not just because it concerns the ABC, but in the same way as any public body must be seen to deal with complaints in a way which is scrupulously fair. I come back to where I began: The Opposition is delighted to see this Bill before the Senate. We are delighted in general by the changes which the Government has proposed. We are delighted and pleased that the Government has seen fit to pick up so many of the recommendations and proposals of the previous Government in relation to the ABC. We are delighted to see that the Dix Committee report is being translated in such a major way into legislation. We believe it will be good for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It will be good for the new Corporation and I believe it will be good for broadcasting in this country. I ask honourable senators to give careful consideration to our second reading amendment, and to understand that it is prompted by an attempt to see justice for all those involved in the affairs currently exercising our minds in New South Wales. I commend our amendment and the Bill to the Senate. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.11) —I think Senator Baume spent more than half of his speech re-running a matter which was dealt with in a matter of public importance a couple of weeks ago, and less than half of his speech discussing the actual Bill. I am not going to fall into that same error in dealing with a matter which was more appropriately dealt with on that previous occasion, not while the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill which restructures the Australian Broadcasting Commission is being debated. I think the Opposition is showing absolute hypocrisy in its attitude to the independence of the ABC. The sins of the Ministers which Senator Baume referred to, if they are sins, pale into insignificance when compared to the actual heavying-if I can use that word- of the ABC by Ministers of the previous Government over many years, of which Mr Nixon of the Country Party was the greatest exponent. Even in Opposition they tried massive intimidation of the ABC. It is the Australian Labor Party which consistently over many years has defended the ABC and its independence. The new- found support in the now Opposition for ABC independence is quite hollow. The Bill not only deals with the restructuring of the ABC but also defines its functions, powers and responsibilities. It is perhaps appropriate that the ABC, affectionately known to many people as Auntie, should be undergoing a mid-life crisis with this profound change in structure. As Senator Baume said, many aspects of the Bill are similar to those introduced by the previous Government, but there are significant changes. I think there is clear evidence that the ABC has undergone a hardening of the arteries over the years. The report by the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Dix report, stated: The ABC has become slow-moving, over-grown, complacent and uncertain of the direction in which it is heading, despite the efforts of many talented and dedicated people who work for it. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the services provided in the past by the ABC and of the influence which it has had on most Australians. I must say that I have a very proprietorial attitude to the ABC. I believe it is mine; it is owned by all of us individually and collectively. I think most of us have a dreadful love-hate relationship with the ABC. I certainly do. It has been an important part of my upbringing from as early as I can remember. Overall I think we can be proud of it. We can love it for its traditions, its ability to do things well, its reliability and the way it can make us proud of it and proud of Australia. In his commentary on the Dix report called 'The ABC After Dix', Senator Button said: The ABC is a great national institution; it has been a vital part of Australia' s everyday cultural life since 1932. Later, Senator Button said: It has built up a faithful following over the 50 years of its existence. I think the ABC can also be so very annoying when it does not live up to its potential, when it loses some of its best staff, when it does not do things as well as it could, when it is timid and apologetic, when there is excessive management intervention with programmers or when it responds too easily to overt political pressure especially, as I said earlier, from the National Party. The ABC is annoying to me also when it has unnecessary internal fights and bickering , the sort of unhealthy competition that sometimes occurs between news and public affairs sections, when it loses its traditional rights to televise cricket matches and other great national events without a sufficient battle and when it loses its current affairs leadership. The ABC can be so very annoying when its news service is not always as competent and reliable as it used to be and when it is clearly frustrating many of its talented and dedicated workers. Unfortunately, in recent years it has lost much of its greatness. It has not demonstrated so much verve, adventurousness and confidence in itself. Since the high period for the ABC which I think was the 1972 to 1975 period of the previous Labor Government, under Ministers Douglas McClelland and Moss Cass, when there was proper encouragement, funding and freedom for the ABC, that institution has gone downhill. During that enlightened period from 1972 to 1975 morale was very high. There were new programming experiments and innovation in drama production. Where is that production now? That was the period when the go- ahead was given for radio station 2JJ as it then was-the go-ahead for FM transmission. Unfortunately, under the Fraser Government there were savage cut- backs in funding. An overall atmosphere of anti-public enterprise affected the ABC as it did other government institutions. While a little fat trimming can have a beneficial effect, wholesale amputations can have such a debilitating effect that any aims at improving efficiency are lost in low morale and internal dissension. This legislation is intended to give new life to the ABC. But that new life will not happen just through a new Act of Parliament. There must also be the right environment. No amount of refurbished legislation can help if the organisation operates under an unsympathetic Government. That was the position with the previous Government. There are many improvements that one would like to see made to the ABC. I think one of the things that many of us would like is a second national television channel so that all sorts of national events can be televised without their interfering with the normal entertainment programming of the ABC. I think it would also be generally admitted that if there has to be a priority about this matter the higher priority is a second regional radio network so as to provide country listeners with a better service and the sort of choice that is available to those who live in the cities. Generally, sufficient funds need to be available to enable the ABC to regain its leadership. I am pleased that the Bill, as opposed to some suggestions made earlier, emphasises the ABC's continuing responsibility in the music field. I think it is important for it to maintain the symphony orchestras in each State. I think it is a great pity that the other musical enterprises that it used to have over the years have gradually been whittled away. I think those that remain ought to continue to be supported. There is one aspect against which I want to speak out while we are debating this Bill. That is the question of television and radio licence fees which the present Chairman of the ABC has said she supports, I think on the basis that it would give the ABC more independence from government funding and provide a hedge against rising costs. I believe they are Professor Kramer's words. But what she overlooks is the irrelevance of licence fees when they existed. While they may have been provided for the ABC in the early years of its life they certainly were not in my memory. The money that was received from licence fees did not go to the ABC. The amount of the fees was not at all related to the ABC budget. They were just a government revenue raising matter, costly to raise at that. I believe that the previous Labor Government was correct in abolishing those licence fees. But even if there were to be a link between licence fees and the ABC's budget, if the licence fees were to be large enough for the ABC's budget-I doubt whether the amounts fixed would be acceptable to the public, let alone to those who have to implement them-there would still be a dependence on the Government legislation to keep those fees up to the needs of the ABC. I do not believe that that sort of independence which Professor Kramer suggested would arise from the reintroduction of the regressive tax that existed previously. Further, it would just make the ABC unpopular with the general public if it were seen as responsible for the licence fees. It would be especially unpopular with those who tended to use channels and radio stations other than the ABC. I do not think it would enhance the ABC's reputation. One matter in relation to the Bill to which I object is the name change. We are changing the name of the ABC from the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This was an initiative of the previous Government in its Bill last year and I think it is unfortunate that we are continuing it in this Bill. I see no reason for it whatsoever. I have seen no explanation or reason put forward. It seems a wholly arbitrary change merely for the sake of making a change. Why call the ABC a corporation? It does not operate in the market place as does the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in money-making activities in competition with commercial operators. It just seems quite unnecessary. I suppose that the least we can be is thankful that the Dix Committee's recommendation that there be a complete name change to the National Broadcasting Organisation was rejected by the Government. I was critical last year of the previous Government for not bringing its Bill on for debate last year. It languished on the bottom of the Notice Paper for quite some time. But with hindsight I think we are lucky that it was not passed then in that form. If it had been we would be stuck with a less than satisfactory Act. The new Government has improved the Bill in many ways, especially in the areas in which the Opposition is now seeking to turn back to its previous provisions. I believe that the Bill deserves a speedy passage so that without any further delay the ABC can have its new charter and its new structure and get on with its job as all of us expect it to do. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.24) —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill is essentially the creation of the Fraser Liberal Government. I say that not in any partisan fashion but to establish that the legislation is essentially bipartisan and most of it comes before the Senate supported in a bipartisan way. Well it should be supported in a bipartisan way if we are to set up the elements for the future of a national broadcasting system. Its genesis, of course, was the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, led by the distinguished Australian, Mr Alex Dix, and its report which, I think, had some 273 recommendations, many of which have been adopted and incorporated into this legislation. The legislation is overdue. I say that not in criticism of either the Whitlam Government or the Fraser Government. I say it as one who, for some years, was privileged to be a member of a Senate standing committee which inquired over many lengthy hours and days into all aspects of broadcasting and television in Australia. That Committee revealed in various reports to this Senate a variety of apparent weaknesses in the national broadcasting structure. It became quite apparent that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was a body which was internally structured in a way that it could not fully discharge its duties. There were the limitations not only of money or of channels but also, fundamentally, of the internal staffing structure. So, it is important to look at this legislation not in terms of what broadcasting and television have been in the past but what they are likely to be in the future. This charter is not a charter for that limited number of radio and television stations that we have known. Let me start by saying that television in Australia, and indeed in the world, is in its infancy. It is a new form of projection. Until now, in most countries it has depended upon the ether; it has depended upon using the various bands of the spectrum to get its message across. That in itself had two main limitations. The traffic in the spectrum-radio and television traffic-is intense for a variety of reasons. Of course television depended very much for direct sight signals over the area involved. A continent the size of Australia presents enormous problems in that regard. The result was that there has been, as I said not only because of money, a limitation in the ability to set put a number of channels. That limitation in terms of technology is no longer with us, but in terms of economics it may well be. The fact of the matter is that we should look at this legislation not in terms of simply cable television as we have known it in the past or as we presently know it in Canada and America in a form of coaxial cable with 60 or 80 different channel facilities, but in terms of the new technology called fibre optics, which embodies the ability to send a laser beam down an optical fibre to every home, building and institution. That is the technology of the decades ahead. Such a signal which can be wired into any home, as it is being done at this moment in new towns in various parts of the world, using the ordinary wire carrying the telephone service into the home, can technically carry an infinity of signals either way, and so overcome the biggest problem of broadcasting and television; that is; the limitation of the spectrum. One of the things that we have failed to do well in Australia-indeed the Senate has been a watchdog in this respect-has been the expert management of the spectrum. People cannot comprehend the spectrum. One of the most precious resources, and limited resources, that any country or the world has is the ether , the ability to control the amount of traffic in the various bands from the ultra high frequencies down to the lower frequencies and the ability to use it to its best advantage not only in civil pursuits but also in military and commercial activities. As the fibre optic technology develops, it will open a technological advantage which is wider and more challenging than perhaps is first thought. The very limitation of channels today, by the use of the ether, means that we have in any capital city three or four television stations all very similar in their nature and content and which have to compete with each other. They do not have the opportunity to diversify and there is no opportunity to specialise. We are looking at a charter which proposes the opening up a number of channels for all kinds of reasons-not just for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-and a future that has a satellite setup that, if it is proceeded with in the ordinary way, will give enormous extra opportunities to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and, I hope, to the commercial media. Along with that, of course, another technology is developing. Instead of the videotape with which we are all fairly familiar now, the video long playing disc is coming. We are all used to the audio long playing record but today it is possible to mass produce, just as we produce excellence in sound by mass production, excellence in video. Just as today we can have excellence in high quality music through frequency modulation broadcasting, so tomorrow excellence will be established in a variety of ways. The capacity to store material-and to store it indefinitely-on what are virtually discs that cannot be damaged because they are scanned by laser, is immense and opens up a real breakthrough. Suddenly we are moving from the mediocre of today. There is such a limitation to production of quality programs at present that we tend to average out the product. Tomorrow, just as every family can have the best music in the world, so we will move into the television field as well. I say those things not in some 1994 spectacle at all-not in some schoolboy ecstacy of what might happen-but to establish what is being proposed now because the charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is meaningless if we talk about one channel. How in the name of fortune can we ask people to do all the things that they are expected to do given the fact that they have one channel and they probably have in a total of a seven-day week something less than 100 hours? How can employees at the ABC be innovative, provide a comprehensive service, maintain a high standard, look towards a balance between what the commercial stations do and what the ABC does, be educational, look towards the multicultural nature of Australia and look towards the whole spectrum of opportunities all in one channel and all perhaps in a transmission day of 14 hours or 15 hours? One has to say that it is an impossibility so to do. I commend the charter. I understand the enormity of the difficulty of the Australian Broadcasting Commission today when it is torn between a competition for ratings and its overall task. Its employees ask: 'What is our job? Should we attract a larger percentage of viewers or should we do specialised programs?' I suggest to the Senate that in future a great deal of that torment may well be unnecessary because there ought to be the capacity for the individual to select from a range of programs. Once it is possible for the individual viewer or listener to be able to tune out of the mediocre and into the excellent, we will have an exciting situation. This is doubly so because we have lived with television only for a matter of a few decades. We have failed to understand the nature of television. Indeed, most of us in public life fail to understand that television sees more than it hears. It is compelling to the eyes more than to the ears. I suppose that is the experience of most members of parliament. That, of course, creates another challenge. How does one project educational programs in the best of all ways when it is the visual rather than the auditory aspect which is appealing? I approach the subject in this way: I remind the Senate, as some honourable senators with long memories may know, that we were told of the limitations of radio back in 1971-72 when I was a relatively new senator. We were told that it was impossible to have more AM stations and certainly more FM stations because the spectrum would not permit it. We fought and brought in a report. The McLean Committee of Inquiry into Frequency Modulation was set up to investigate the position in Australia and a breakthrough was made. So in terms of a greater width of radio, FM stations, community stations, public broadcasting and ethnic broadcasting are very new. One should look at the charter in terms of the ability to use what could conveniently be called cable television plus satellites for a future coverage of immense potential for Australia. That is aspect number one. Aspect number two has always been the crippling of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, by asking or demanding of it that its handling of its staff should be on a parallel with Public Service methods. That created an absolute paradox. How can an organisation, that has as one of its major activities the creative arts, have a Public Service approach? One can, perhaps, have an organised, professional, systematic, lifetime, career approach to the questions of administration and technical projection and to the planning of programs. But creativity is an entirely different thing. It has been necessary everywhere else in the world to give such organisations a much greater freedom, a freedom to move out into the community, to contract out and put people on short term contracts, so that there is a greater diversity of opportunity, a greater quality of programs. I cast no reflection at all upon any member of the ABC, past or present, because the limitations are there. They were put there by us. If we can, as we are, I hope, doing, free the Australian Broadcasting Commission from the shackles of the rigidity of the Public Service, if we can give a management role to management-I interpolate here that the general managers of the past were not in effect really general managers because they did not have the same ability as a general manager in commerce or industry may have- then we will see greater opportunities for the staff to do their job and to do it well. I commend the ABC on its journey so far. Above everything it needs a freedom in the creative art to move across a much wider spectrum. So the very nature of the structure of staffing arrangements is important. I note in the speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and in the explanatory notes to the Bill great emphasis has been put on the removal of the staff from Public Service shackles. I think that is of tremendous importance. We are constantly talking about the need for independence. It is as though independence were a goal in itself, as though there was something very special about independence. Independence in a statutory corporation is a means to an end and not an end in itself. That is of tremendous importance. When we set up statutory corporations we say that we will free them from the duress or the direct or indirect influence of outsiders, be they political or otherwise. We give them that freedom but we do that as a means to an end. We do that as an environmental thing. The end in itself is the objectivity and the integrity of the organisation. They are the goals. The charter gets to the very heart of it. Again, I make no reflection upon any member of the ABC because I believe we have been well served. It is important that there be a goal of integrity, of objectivity. We have in the past imposed enormous difficulties upon the ABC. I think the old broadcasting Act, if I remember it, talked about adequate and comprehensive programs. I think that was in section 116 or 117. What did we mean by adequate and comprehensive, when the staff of the ABC had, as I said, about 100 hours in a week in which to cover the whole of man's activities? What we are saying to the ABC is that we are going to try to establish in a statutory corporation freedom from duress, but that does not give it-it understands that-a form of liberty that approaches license. When one gives people freedom, fundamental to that freedom is the giving of a major responsibility. One is saying: 'I am giving you freedom so that your responsibility is to be objective. Above everything, your integrity is under test in that freedom. That is why we have given it to you'. That is very important, because time and again people look to the thought that freedom or independence is a goal. It is not at all in that regard. Inevitably, we ought to create a system that is not free from criticism. One of the troubles of the past has been that the freedom to criticise our broadcasting system has been shackled, largely by the constraints of our own making in this kind of chamber. One heard it even today. What do we remind ourselves of? If somebody criticises something that happened in the past the retort is that one is trying to use duress; one is trying to pressurise. It is a sad thing indeed that we have stifled the free criticism of any organisation. We do not stifle criticism of the Dairy Marketing Board, the Peanut Marketing Board or any other statutory body that has been set up. In fact, we encourage criticism here, but we have a game, the rules of which I hope will be set aside after this body is set up. I hope that we will feel free, responsibly, on both sides, to criticise. After all, in the final result we are responsible for that statutory corporation . It ought to be capable of receiving the criticism of the world outside. Nobody is saying that if we do that it is bad, that we are trying to pressurise the organisation, or that we are trying to use undue influence. Of course, there was some reason behind that in the past. No doubt it has been tried. I say that because I also want to make the point that there is a defect in this legislation. I refer to clause 82, relating to community affairs officers. Members of the existing staff and future staff of the ABC should never be frightened of public criticism. Such criticism should be part of the very atmosphere of democracy. Equally they should not be frightened of a system that hears complaints, examines them objectively and reports on them objectively. In every State in the Commonwealth we have arguments from time to time about complaints against the police. We hear repeatedly that the police ought not to hear complaints against themselves and report on whether or not they were justified. I respect the integrity of the police forces overall in the States of the Commonwealth. The worst of all worlds will occur if we set up in this legislation a mechanism so that the only way in which complaints can be judged- only on a very narrow level-is by internal staff members of the Corporation receiving the complaints and reporting on them. That does not reflect at all on any future community affairs officers or the Principal Community Affairs Officer . Caesar cannot sit in judgment on Caesar. Senator Peter Baume —It might separate the wheat from the chaff. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes. It is not a reflection on the person; it is a criticism of the system that makes that person's job absolutely impossible. If we proceed simply with this and nothing else the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will have more criticism and more complaints in the future-possibly some of them more justified-than in the past. Let us look at what a complaint must be. First of all a written complaint which is made to the Corporation must allege one of two things-that an error of fact has occurred or that there has been an invasion of privacy. That is all. It cannot be a wider criticism. The astonishing thing is that this legislation states that the community affairs officer will examine the complaint and he can decide whether to reject it and not to investigate it on the ground that, in his opinion, it is frivolous or vexatious. I believe that it is totally unfair to that officer to say to him: 'It is your responsibility to judge that matter'. Every one of us, as members of parliament, has difficulty in deciding day after day whether a letter that comes across our desk or a telephone call borders on the frivolous or vexatious or whether we should take the matter more seriously. Of course the officer has to make another decision-whether the complainant has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint. Surely any citizen of Australia who, having paid his taxes, listens to or views a program, has an interest in the matter raised. Surely every citizen of Australia has an interest in the very nature of the national broadcasting and television service. I believe this provision in the Bill is a fundamental weakness. If the matter rests here we will have the worst of all worlds. The staff will receive complaints which many times will be entirely unjustifiable. Members of the public will say: 'This is no way to handle my complaints'. They will imply, probably wrongly, that the staff officer is protecting the staff. Why should the staff officer sit in judgment? He is an interested party; he is part of the organisation that is being criticised. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot look at the British Broadcasting Corporation. It looked at the question of a complaints commission and decided that it was of such importance that it ought to have two very important elements. The first was that it should be independent of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The second element was that the complaints commissioner should be of such a stature and have such an intellectual capacity and respectability in the community that people would say: 'That complaints commission is doing an objective job'. The British Broadcasting Corporation appointed a former Lord Chief Justice to the job. It would not be a bad thing to look at that. The United Kingdom thought it was important to take complaints out of the Corporation after it initially looked at them. The United Kingdom thought the position of commissioner was of such importance that it should choose somebody of immense stature in the land to fill it. How do we shape up to this situation? How are we creating independence and integrity? The test of independence is whether the Corporation can stand up to criticism and be judged. How is its independence and integrity tested? Will this be done by members of the Corporation? There is no magic in putting human beings in a statutory corporation. They are the same human beings whether they are inside or outside it. It is the responsibility that they bring to their judgments because of the freedom that they are given that is all important. If we are sincere in what we are saying in this legislation-that we want a corporation that is independent, has integrity and can give balanced programs-we must have some ability to test those programs and some recognition of the rights of people. For example, Mr Hawke and Senator Button should have the right to go to the Corporation, and the public should have the right to know that they have gone to it so that there can be no accusations of duress against them or, as in the past, Mr Nixon. On the surface the matter must be open and information must be available for everybody to see. I plead with this Senate to take that dogfight out of politics and away from the pressurising of the community, and to set up a complaints commission which will decide whether, for example, Mr Hawke spoke too vigorously to the Chairman. Under this legislation the Managing Director and his staff, not the Board, decides whether or not a staff officer has properly disciplined another staff officer. That is an interesting situation. The management of staff is entirely under the Managing Director, so in future that contretemps could not occur. One would not go to one of the directors of the Board; one would go to the management. We are setting up new legislation for the future, not for the complaints of the past. Let us look at it that way. Let us build into it the capacity to do the new things and to do them well, but above all let us put it beyond doubt that we mean it when we say: 'Let us give these people independence so that they can have integrity, adequate and innovative programming and so that there is no longer a dogfight inside or outside this Parliament on this matter'. Therefore, I urge honourable senators, when we come to the community affairs clauses, to look at an amendment that would establish a complaints commission. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(6.55) —I support the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill introduced by the Government. I was rather interested in the speech that has just been delivered by Senator Sir John Carrick. I found the first part of the speech interesting and absorbing when he talked about the technological future of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the possibilities of fibre optics and other means of public broadcasting and transmission. However, I must say I lost Senator Sir John Carrick towards the end of his address when he talked about a proposed complaints commission. What clearly came through from his remarks is that there is a need to provide for a method of dealing with complaints. There is no argument about the fact that there needs to be a change, the difference between us is what form that change will take. I am encouraged that perhaps later, during the debate at the Committee stage, we might be able to deal with that matter more fully and perhaps assuage some of the fears that Senator Sir John Carrick has raised. It is perhaps inappropriate that these Bills are coming forward this year. Last year was Auntie's fiftieth anniversary. Perhaps we should have given her a new set of legislation to start on her next half-century of broadcasting in Australia. However, the Bill to amend the ABC last year was dropped down the notice paper and it befalls our lot, on her fifty -first anniversary, to try to refurbish the Commission and to give her a new direction and a new approach. Any legislation dealing with the ABC does require considerable and close public scrutiny. The ABC is the only truly independent media outlet in Australia. For democracy to work, the people exercising democratic decision should be informed and have available to them a flow of information that is non-partisan and does not heavily favour one particular view. The ABC endeavours to provide that service which is vital to the continuance of there being an informed democracy in this country. We contrast the independence of the ABC to the other media outlets which are privately owned and which tend very heavily to be conservative in their expression of editorial view. It is legendary that the Murdoch Press tend to reflect the views of its owner, not to mention the rather gross exaggerations of the common popular Press. The ABC has the obligation to remain truly independent and these Bills will provide the foundation for it to do so. The ABC is not only an outlet for news and current affairs. It is also a way of life for Australia. It is a means of entertainment, education, drama, music and ethnic affairs. It is a means of linking the city with the country and providing a homogenity of views for what is really the Australian personality. It is intolerable to imagine Australia without the ABC because the ABC really provides us with that extra dimension that makes us Australian. Unfortunately the ABC has a number of shortcomings. The Bill addresses itself to this fact following upon the Dix report by the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I will quote the summary of these shortcomigs of the ABC as they were found in the Dix report. Volume 1, paragraph 4 states by way of summary: It has tried to maintain an idea of Australian society after that idea has undergone changes. Its energies have been sapped by often bitter industrial conflict. It has not only slipped from the forefront of change, but threatens to be eclipsed by it. The ABC has become slow-moving, overgrown, complacent, and uncertain of the direction in which it is leading, despite the efforts of many talented and dedicated people who work for it. I think that is a fair summary of what has happened to the ABC. In the technical area, the ABC unfortunately shows, when held up in comparison to the commercial channels, many inadequacies. It is true that the commercial television channels display a greater technical competence than does the ABC. Increasingly, those commercial channels put to air news that is instantly recorded and transmitted into the middle of their bulletins by use of video materials, whereas the ABC has to close its deadline for news reporting on film because it shoots it in film, has to take it back to the studio and develop, cut and edit that film for presentation as a news service. I think it is intolerable that the ABC is in that competitive position where it is really not an adequate competitor for news . The ABC management must bear a large share of that blame. I do not believe that there are any insoluble demarcation problems within the ABC that an enlightened management could not deal with. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, pursuant to resolutions agreed to by both Houses, the President has received letters from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives nominating members of the House of Representatives to serve on joint committees in accordance with the following list: Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory: Mr Fry, Mr Hollis, Mrs Kelly, Mr McGauran, Mr Ruddock and Mr Snow. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: Mr Bilney, Mr Charles, Mr Coleman, Mr Cross, Mr R. F. Edwards, Mr Gayler, Mr Groom, Mr Jacobi, Mr Katter, Dr Klugman, Mr Lusher, Mr MacKellar, Mr Morrison and Mr Shipton. Joint Committee on the New Parliament House: Mr Dobie, Mrs Kelly, Mr Lloyd, Mr McLeay, Mrs Mayer and Mr Ruddock. Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform: Mr Griffiths, Mr Hall, Mr Hunt, Dr Klugman and Mr Scott. Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege: Mr Adermann, Mr Griffiths, Mr Holdling, Mr Jones and Mr Spender. Air Fares-Coins-Alice Springs-Darwin Railway-International Women's Day for Disarmament-Brisbane Airport-Mr K. Jones The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7 p.m. under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(7.1) —I want to use the opportunity of the adjournment debate to mention in the Senate a couple of matters that I have been unable to mention in any other way over the last few days. I mention the first matter now because I have not been able to ask a question in the Senate at Question Time over the last few sitting days. I am not particularly complaining about that, but there comes a time when eventually the subject matter of a question can get out of date unless something is done. I intend now to deal with the subject matter of the question I wished to ask. If honourable senators do not get an opportunity to ask a question during Question Time, primarily due to the length of answers by Ministers, they could ask the question that they wanted to ask in the adjournment debate. Perhaps we could have all the Ministers lined up in the chamber to take note of the questions that are asked which cannot be asked during Question Time. Senator Walters —What a good idea. Senator TOWNLEY —I think that would not be a bad idea because the questions are going very slowly. On this occasion I have not told the Minister concerned that I was going to speak but there certainly has been an attempt, I believe, to slow down the number of questions that are answered in this place. Senator MacGibbon —They're staying under cover. They're hiding. Senator TOWNLEY —It could well be that they are hiding. I was going to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who represents the Minister for Aviation today whether he had seen a recent statement in the Australian by Mr Bryan Grey. He is the managing director of East-West Airlines Ltd. The article in the Australian of 4 May stated: The political statements of the new Government indicate it is in favour of no- frills air fares. I believe-- This is Mr Grey's statement- . . . that with two super 80s operating Melbourne-Perth on a daily basis, Brisbane-Townsville on a daily basis, and Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Hobart, we could easily reduce the fare by one-third and still make a very handsome return on the operation. Does the Minister agree that the airfare reductions are a most important matter not just for the people of Tasmania but really for the whole of the country? Will the Minister ask the Department of Aviation and the Independent Air Fares Committee to have discussions with East-West Airlines to do two things: Firstly, to facilitate the East-West initiatives and, secondly, to ask the other airlines why they cannot emulate the East-West fares? I would like an answer to that question when the Minister gets a chance to read it in Hansard. Perhaps he will deal with it in due course. The Government has introduced two things that worry me. First of all, it is going to impose a 2c per litre additional duty on aviation spirit which will, in effect, impose a higher duty on it than on ordinary petrol. Ordinary petrol gives much more energy per litre than does an equivalent amount of the type of kerosene which is used in jet aircraft. I would have thought that, if anything, the duty on aviation spirit would have been less rather than more than the equivalent volume of petrol used in a car, for the reason that I have just given . I am worried also about the way in which East-West Airlines has lost its right to offer cheap fares between Melbourne and Sydney through Albury. I think that was an initiative that deserved a lot of commendation. The airline was flying full aircraft. Surely that is what an airline should be attempting to do. Actually, I flew in East-West Airlines' new F28 jet yesterday from Hobart to Sydney. It was just as good and as quick as some of the other jets in which I have travelled around the country. The jet has quite a lot of leg room. I commend it to those people who are flying from Hobart to Sydney. Senator Crichton-Browne —One class? Senator TOWNLEY —It had only one class. I think I felt so good after the flight because I was not given as much food as I have been given on some of the other airlines. I was just given a sandwich. Senator Ryan —Is this an advertisement? Senator TOWNLEY —No. Senator Ryan —It sounds like an advertisement for East-West Airlines. Senator TOWNLEY —I brought this matter up only because I have been trying for the last few days to ask a question. I have not been able to do so for one reason or another. Therefore, I am taking a little more time now than would have been available to me during Question Time. Senator Ryan —You are advertising an airline. Senator TOWNLEY —If it sounds like an advertisement to the honourable senator, then I suggest that she has a very funny attitude to life. Senator Ryan —I do not see the Senate chamber as the place for doing free promos . Senator TOWNLEY —All I said was that it was a very good service. The honourable senator has now enabled me to repeat what I said. Senator Ryan —I am sure you do not need my assistance. You have obviously decided to proceed in this fashion. Senator TOWNLEY —Perhaps the honourable senator is getting tired as the day goes on. The other matter about which I want to speak is coins. Over the years I have been attempting to get the Government to look at the whole issue of coins and notes throughout this country. I have gone back in my question file and I see that even as far back as 1972 I was attempting to get some alteration. Honourable senators have to remember that a lot of people collect coins, but not as many people collect coins as collect stamps. One person in six collects stamps and, I believe, one person in 12 collects coins. In 1972 it was my idea to get the Royal Australian Mint to strike silver dollar coins that could be sold at a premium for collectors and also would enable the Mint to make some money. The Canadian mint makes quite a deal of money by producing dollar coins that are sold at a higher rate because of their silver content. Quite a profit is made. These coins are produced over almost an entire year. In 1973 I again tried to get the Government to examine the possibility of minting a $1 coin each year. Again no change was made. In 1976 it was pointed out that the cost of producing $1 notes in this country was quite high. By that time we had had a reasonable amount of inflation and it seemed to me that we should have not only a $1 coin but also other coins that might range as high as $5 or $10 in value. Not only do we need higher coin values-of course, that would need an alteration to the Currency Act because at the moment a 50c coin is the highest value coin allowed to be printed without any amendment to that Act-but also we should look at the size of all the coins in this country. Australian coins are exactly the same size as the coins that are used in Great Britain. In no other country in which I have been have I found coins that are as heavy, as expensive to produce or as annoying to carry as the ones that we now have in Australia. Our coins could be made of a different, low-cost material, something like copper or zinc, that would not be affected by world metal prices as are silver and gold. While we are looking at this matter of coins-I believe it is under study by the Department of the Treasury at the moment-I suggest that the size of the coins should be very carefully chosen. Our 1c coin is exactly the same size as the American 10c coin. I think our 10c coin is the same size as the American 25c coin. That is a matter about which we should take a little more care. No two coins throughout the world should really be the same weight or size, for obvious reasons, in these days when machines are being used more and more as a means of dispensing all sorts of things. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why do we make them round? Senator TOWNLEY —There is no real need for coins to be round; some coins are not round. Of course, coins go into machines a lot easier if they are round; they have to go through gauges to judge their size and so on. There are many areas in which coins could be changed not necessarily tomorrow but perhaps in Australia's two-hundredth year a coin design competition could be held. Perhaps we could have the Queen on one side of the coin and even the Prime Minister of the day on the other. A special coin could be struck every time there was an election. Senator Crichton-Browne —That would cause devaluation. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not know. Some coins might only get struck once or twice and they would very quickly become collectors' items. Senator MacGibbon —The Hawke coin will be in small currency. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not want to get into that. In Tasmania one can still buy petrol after hours using machines with note acceptors. These machines are not as reliable as coin acceptors. That is another reason why we need a higher value coin. Telecom Australia is having a lot of trouble at the moment with its green subscriber trunk dialling and international subscriber dialling telephones. The coin boxes are filling up too quickly and have to be cleared more often now that the cost of a call has gone up from 10c to 20c. It is practically impossible to make an ISA call using the coins that we now have. The rate at which one has to feed in the coins makes it almost impossible to concentrate on a call as one has to keep feeding the telephone with the odd-sided 50c pieces. That is something which I think should be looked at immediately. It would save the Government money. I know that one of the arguments against it is that the Government says it will prove to people inflation is going on. People do not need a reduction in the size of coins to prove that inflation is going on. While the Government is looking at this whole matter perhaps it could decide whether we need the 1c or 2c pieces ever again. There was one other thing that I thought might be a good idea. I remember when I was younger that we used to be able to put our silver coins in the Christmas pudding. The Mint might be able to bring out a special Christmas pudding set once every four or five years. It would bring back the damaged teeth that used to make the dentists smile in the years that I was a child. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.14) —This afternoon during Question Time I addressed a question to Senator Gietzelt in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in regard to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. I say at the outset tonight that I will be addressing myself to this question and to the answer that was given. It is merely a facet of the overall argument as to whether this railway project should continue. It was my intention to take this matter up tomorrow at considerable length. However , this afternoon I was endeavouring to quote from the Hansard of 22 April an answer given by Senator Gietzelt on the matter of the railway. Unfortunately, I was unable to give the full quotation in putting my question. I will do so now. On 22 April, Senator Gietzelt stated: I am advised that it is the Government's intention to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway as part of its longstanding commitment to the completion of an all-weather standard gauge connection between Adelaide and Darwin. . . . . I recall that the then shadow Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, who is now the Minister, made a commitment during the election campaign in February that a Labor Government would continue constructon of the line between Alice Springs and Darwin, with a suggested target date of 1988, and that he would energetically seek to prepare the necessary financial and construction details of the project. I managed to read that much of the quotation this afternoon. But at that part I was requested to ask my question. I was unable to complete the quotation. The part of the quotation to which I wished to refer then was this: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. I repeat that Senator Gietzelt, on that day, said: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. In the first part of Senator Gietzelt's answer-quite a long answer-today, he said: However, subsequent to my answering that question, the Government has had to review its spending programs, having regard to the impossible financial position in which the previous Government left this country. Once again, I refer Senator Gietzelt to that part of his earlier statement when he said: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. He implied, of course, that within his sphere the situation changed, that the Government found that it was an impossible situation, so the railway could not be funded. But I refer him once again to the very firm commitment that was made during the election period. He said: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. That commitment was to the voters of Australia. As I asked this morning, does not the Minister agree that he has misled the House? I suggest, in the answer he has given today, once again he has deliberately misled the House. He continued: Certainly I repudiate any suggestion that I have misled tha Parliament. What I stated was the Government's commitment at the time the question was asked. The Australian Government hopes to be able to proceed with that commitment. Once again, I refer Senator Gietzelt to the statement that he made, namely: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. He implied that the situation has changed. The situation, with regard to the statement that he made on 22 April, has not changed. He has deliberately misled the Senate, and Mr Peter Morris has misled the people of Australia. It is an odd answer, because Senator Gietzelt then implied that there was an established procedure to have joint payment by Commonwealth and State. He implied that it was a State responsibility and that this had always been the situation. This is certainly not the case, because railways have always been, at least over the last few decades, the responsibility of the Australian Government. I refer to the building of the trans-continental line. That was completely funded by the Australian Government. I see no authority by which Senator Gietzelt can say that the railway systems have been funded through Federal and State governments. I refer him to the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway which still is part of the national scene. That was paid for completely by the Federal Government. I remind him, too, if he cares to look at the situation, that the funding was carried out by the initial planning of the then Liberal Government and, when the Labor Government came into power, the funding continued. It was funded by the Federal Government as a national project. The situation today is this: This Government has broken, as I see it, a very solemn election promise. Senator Gietzelt, regardless of what he has said in his answer today, has misled the Senate. He has played with words. I suggest also that it is clear when one looks at the situation that Mr Peter Morris gave a very firm commitment to the people of Australia that this railway would be built . But the Government, having won the election and having come into power, has broken its promise. This is not the end of the matter. My intention tonight has been merely to indicate that Senator Gietzelt has misled the Senate. Mr Peter Morris has misled the voters of Australia. This is merely the beginning of several rounds before the Australian Government honours its responsibilities to the nation. As I said before, this is only one facet that I wish to raise. There are many more angles that are yet to arise. I have one disappointment to date. People around Australia are showing their concern that this national project will not proceed. The Government is using a ridiculous excuse. It says that the project will not go ahead and it puts an incredibly ridiculous demand to the Northern Territory that it should outlay $ 200m-odd which, of course, is impossible. I suppose my biggest regret so far is to see that those who would possibly gain more benefit from this national project than the people of the Northern Territory-I refer to the Government of South Australia and the people within commercial industry of South Australia- have stood meekly by and allowed this to happen. The people of South Australia, particularly, would obtain benefit from the railway line, because South Australians are losing their industrial markets in many respects to the Northern Territory. They have lost what they have always looked upon as their market. They have lost it to Queensland. The reasons are many, but the main reason is that there is an all-weather road from Queensland to the Northern Territory. It is with regret that I see no assistance coming forward from the people of South Australia to put their weight to the wheel to have this matter reviewed. It is South Australia that will gain much benefit. Mr President, I have said enough for tonight. Once again, I merely indicate that Senator Gietzelt has deliberately misled the Senate. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(7.25) —Today is International Women's Day for Disarmament. The women members of Federal Parliament, supported by many of their male colleagues, have joined the international expression of concern by our quiet contribution today. I thought I would take this opportunity to remind honourable senators of some of the facts that are easily overlooked or missed in the discussions about questions of nuclear disarmament. We are coming to the stage when man is spending a trillion dollars a year on military activities. We have already an arsenal of over 17,000 targeted strategic weapons that can destroy all global technology and perhaps the entire species. That is how many weapons we have stockpiled at this stage. While we also have a number of people concerned about various 'isms' around the world we do not yet have a similar concern about the well-being of our planet to anything like the same extent. Rapid advances in technology make the weapons of today more dangerous to civilians than to the armed forces involved. In developing countries political processes are increasingly under military control and civil rights are widely violated. Whilst business in the military sector is booming, recession grips world markets. We have stifled economic growth, increasing unemployment and millions added to the number of impoverished, uneducated and underfed people in the world. In 32 countries governments spend more for military purposes than for education and health care combined. While nuclear missiles can go from Western Europe to Moscow in six minutes the average rural housewife in Africa must still walk several hours a day for her water supply. In the United States of America, the world's first super-power, one person in seven lives below the poverty threshold. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the world's second super- power-at least that is the current rating-the infant mortality rate is over twice the average for other developed countries. The family breadwinner in industrial countries works 1 1/2 weeks a year to pay for national military forces. Through the growth of the peaceful atom, nuclear technology and expertise have spread widely. Bomb grade material has as well. The average commercial reactor yields about 500 lbs of plutonium a year as a by-product of its operations. Plutonium in waste fuel can be separated chemically and used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Counting all power reactors now in operation, the potential from this source alone is about 7,000 bombs a year. Peaceful facilities, therefore, provide a direct and potentially clandestine route to the proliferation of weapons. Throughout the production process there are also the associated dangers of theft, terrorism, release of radioactivity and sudden catastrophe. We have already had experiences that are, even now, documented. Also, I understand, catastrophes have happened in previous years that have not been documented. Finally, at the end of the process there is a legacy for future generations in the unsolved problem of dealing with the deadly nuclear waste generated by both peaceful and military uses. At the moment the use of nuclear energy in the United States is dying, not because of what it creates-not cheaper electricity-but because of its radioactive waste. In the case of plutonium 239 that waste will be toxic for over 200,000 years. Technology and the weapons that it has created have clearly surpassed the concept of nuclear force as a means of deterring war. The jump from a deterrent against war to usable weapons of war is now a feature of nuclear strategy, particularly in the United States. It is used to justify further escalation in numbers and technology. It also greatly magnifies the risk that these weapons will be used and that nuclear war to extinction could happen. In summary, that $ 9 trillion spent for defence in the last decades appears to have diminished rather than strengthened world security. This involves the argument that if we have more and more weapons we will be more and more secure. An uncontrolled arms race threatens the safety of the very people it is intended to protect. At a time of grave economic social distress world wide there is nothing that is needed more for the health of all nations than an environment that is conducive to co-operation between countries. Instead, the dominating emphasis is on military rather than social threats to security and on military solutions to problems that, in fact, are deeply rooted in social conditions. We need to consider who makes the decisions about military matters. Few people- I dare to wonder whether there are any women in such corporations or groups-in the military industrial complex are open to what one could say is community lobbying. In fact the very notion of members of the grass roots community telephoning their military industrial complex could be a farce. The really tragic point is that that is not possible and it is not even considered. In fact , if the idea is raised at all it is seen as a farce. In other words, the broad understanding of so many people in the world, that although they do not know the details, they are sure they do not want a nuclear war, never seems to penetrate the inner chambers where the military industrial complex makes its decisions. It would be a very unusual event if any of us got to know what arguments are used by these people. What are their terms of reference? What is the evidence they draw upon before they make their decisions? In fact, because there is no way or only a minimal way of getting an input into the military industrial complex we can expect no change. One thing I would ask the Senate to consider seriously is the challenge of finding mechanisms for a grass roots comment to be taken seriously by such decision-makers and not dismissed as so much radical demonstration by yobbos or yahoos. People on the other side of those demonstrations say: 'There go the silly women and kids again '. Those demonstrators-those women and children-have a very powerful and heartfelt message that is never heard except by the media. It seems not be heeded by the decision-makers for nuclear development, particularly of the military sort. I think we have to consider mechanisms to bring about a change. I think we have to find the political courage to redirect a percentage of that military expenditure from guns to butter. This is an old argument. I think it still has its credibility. If a very small percentage-some people would say one per cent and other people claim about 5 per cent-of money currently spent on military development around the world was redirected we could eliminate starvation from our world. That is not to say that we would solve all the social problems, but we would make a great step in that direction. Much of the campaign against nuclear weapons and their proliferation seems to many of us involved in it like so much hot air or barracking for the goodies. Nothing changes. We just keep saying the same things with bigger and bigger figures. My final word to this chamber tonight is that this situation must change-that is my passionate commitment and conviction-so that we never again see a military solution to a social problem. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.33) —I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time tonight to talk about the savage attack on Queensland in the mini- Budget last week with respect to Brisbane Airport. Queensland is being plundered of far more than the $21m filched off the Brisbane Airport budget. Hundreds of jobs will be lost over this move directly and countless more jobs will be lost indirectly through the multiplier effect. Not one member of the Australian Labor Party is at all concerned about this, least of all its representatives from Queensland. I admit to having a personal interest in both Brisbane Airport and the development of Townsville Airport. Long before I became a senator I did all I could to support the sterling work that was being done by Liberals such as Kevin Cairns, David Jull, Don Cameron and Peter Johnson and, of course, by senators such as Senator Martin, Senator Collard and the other senators for Queensland in what was then the Government who put everything into getting a new airport for Queensland. When I came along I gave them my full support. So it is a personal affront to me that this move should be made, quite apart from its enormous significance to Queensland and the Queensland economy. I believe Townsville is going down the same path as Brisbane. I claim to have been the probable father of the development of Townsville Airport as an international airport, because after agitation on the subject I asked in the Senate a question which triggered the whole thing off. I asked why, since Qantas Airways Ltd was not prepared to operate out of Townsville, Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia could not operate on a sector from Townsville through Singapore, Bangkok, and Manila to Fiji. That led to a proving flight from Townsville to Singapore by Ansett in March 1980. Of course, Qantas suddenly realised that there was no reason on earth why it could not operate through Townsville; and the rest is history. I return to Brisbane Airport. In 1928 Kingsford-Smith landed there in a cow paddock. It was so wet there that by 1933 Qantas had transferred its operations to Archerfield, which was the main airport for Brisbane until the Second World War, when the Americans needed a second field; and from 1942 onwards the old cow paddock at Brisbane Airport was redeveloped. By the end of the 1960s it was apparent to Blind Freddie that we needed to so something about the enormous social disabilities we were suffering as a result of noise and air pollution from aircraft exhausts. Of course the State, under a free enterprise system, was burgeoning. A good airport is as essential for commerce and growth as a seaport was in the last century. The then Liberal Government in 1972 said: 'We will spend $1m in 1973-74, $13m in 1974-75 and $18m in 1975-76 and give Queensland the gateway to the world that it deserves'. In 1972 the Whitlam Government was elected and it said: 'Certainly we will honour this promise'. In March 1973 the Cabinet rejected the funding for Brisbane Airport. By August 1973 it had thrown it out entirely and in mid-1975 it reaffirmed the decision to throw it out. In April 1976 the Bureau of Transport Economics report on Brisbane Airport recommended that the original proposal go ahead. In December 1977, $12m was committed, and on 5 June 1980 I had the pleasure of standing beside the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, when the first sod was turned on the northern boundary of the new airport. What happened after the 1983 election? Senator Kilgariff talked earlier about broken promises, and we have a classical broken promise with respect to Brisbane Airport. The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford, went to Brisbane , puffed himself up and said-I quote him exactly: Priority for funding the Brisbane Airport development would not be changed under the Labor Government. The silly people of Brisbane believed him. What happens? We lose $20m of a $70m budget in the next financial year and $1m in the year after. That is about as far ahead as the Labor Party could look. This is not a small program. There are 350 people involved in it already and next year, 1984, there would have been 900 people involved. In 1980 prices it was a $300m development. The Liberal-National Party Government got this project going. Labor came along, implacably opposed to Queensland, and cancelled the program. Let us not beat around the bush with words. This is what it is all about: Brisbane Airport is dead until we get a Liberal-National Party Government back, which means a delay of a year to a year and a half in the completion of this airport. The cost to Brisbane of these deferments is very severe. Unemployment is the biggest single issue in the country today. Here we have a $300m program employing 900 people next year. What happens? It gets chopped for a Mickey Mouse proposal to build a few houses and get a few short term, six-month Regional Employment Development Scheme type jobs. That is a great consolation for the hundreds of men and women in Brisbane who will be out of work because of the lack of foresight, the lack of understanding and the rabid anti-Queenslandism of this southern, centralist, socialist Government. What about the social consequences? The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) is always bleating about the social consequences of noise on the residents. The shattering noise of 727s climbing over the city on full power will remain day and night, apart from the curfew hours, because there is no way in which it will be alleviated. The new airport would have alleviated it. But that is lost in nirvana now, in Never Never Land. What about the growth of tourism for Queensland? That has had the axe put through it. What about the commercial development that is going on? The net result is that we have been robbed of jobs and of essential growth in the economy of the State. What is the response from the Australian Labor Party? I have already mentioned the honourable member for Lilley. Last Friday she was reported in the Press as saying that it was justified to cut $21m in two years from the Brisbane Airport budget. She said that it was justified because there will be houses for the poor and because it is not for the rich to fly around Australia. No wonder she has become a figure of ridicule not only in her own electorate but in the whole of the State. How much of the $21m that has been chopped will provide housing for the poor in her electorate of Lilley? There is no difficulty about housing in Brisbane. There is no trouble in buying houses. One can buy as many as one likes . Senator Crowley —If you have a job. Senator MacGIBBON —The Government is going to cut jobs out; so that answers the honourable senator's question. There is no trouble in getting bank finance. The difficulty is in the ability to pay interest. Of course, one of the Government's programs-I will not enlarge on it-will put up interest payments by 1.5 per cent at least in the short term and drive people into welfare housing. I come back to Brisbane Airport. How much of the $20m will be spent in Lilley? I will tell the Senate: Hardly any at all. How many jobs will be created? How many people will be mowing footpaths and digging holes for other people to fill in? What consolation is it to people that they have lost solid jobs lasting for probably four or five years for some fanciful social theory of an academic government? What about other Labor members who are involved? What have we heard from the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)? Senator Collard —Nothing. Senator MacGIBBON —As Senator Collard said, nothing at all. What have we heard from honourable senators? Except that they fly out of it when they come to Canberra, they would not know that Brisbane Airport exists. What do they care about it? Nothing at all. No section of the Australian community in a geographic sense has had to make the sacrifices that the electorate of Lilley, the city of Brisbane and the State of Queensland have had to make for this Government. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(7.43) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow my colleague Senator Crowley in speaking here this evening to mark International Women's Day for Disarmament. I commend the efforts of all those women throughout Australia who have joined with women across the world to highlight our grave concern about the nuclear arms race and the threat to world peace. I mention particularly the outstanding and truly remarkable efforts of the women of Greenham Common. Last December 30,000 women from the United Kingdom and Europe linked arms around the base in an unprecedented demonstration of protest against the proposed Cruise missile base to be sited there this December . The peace movement has burst into new life. In the last three years it has swept through northern Europe and the United Kingdom bringing together in a broad coalition such diverse groups as environmentalists, radical Christians, the women's movement, trade unionists and other parties. Senator MacGibbon —Fellow travellers too; don't leave them out. Senator REYNOLDS —It is a pity that the honourable senator does not join. Senator MacGibbon —I am not a fellow traveller, so I can't. Senator REYNOLDS —That is quite obvious. The movement has gained sufficient momentum to make governments uneasy and to put disarmament back on the political agenda for the first time since the late 1950s. The adoption at the British Labour Party Conference of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmanent is the clearest indication yet of the peace movement's new-found potency. The sources of European anxiety are not hard to find. The stable strategic situation of the 1960s and the early 1970s has been unsettled by the great improvement, if you can call it that, in the reliability and accuracy of submarine launched missiles which give them a first strike capacity and the introduction into Europe of intermediate range missiles which significantly reduce the warning time of an incoming attack. The fuse has become shorter with each technical improvement. Strategic doctrine has also undergone change from the days when it was assumed that mutually assured destruction would promote great power caution and underwrite detente. Currently, defence planners of both East and West are actually toying with scenarios for a winnable nuclear war, truly a mad scenario. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Polish crisis and the belligerance of the Reagan Administration have-- Senator MacGibbon —Get your facts right. No one believes in a winnable nuclear war, either in Russia or the United States. Senator REYNOLDS —I think the honourable senator will find that many people are claiming that there can in fact be a-- Senator MacGibbon —The military planners do not believe that. Senator REYNOLDS —It is a pity that they are not quoted that way. Senator MacGibbon —The proof of it is that we have kept the peace for 40 years by the principle of deterrents. If the Russians or the Americans believed they could win a nuclear war we would have had a war in the last 40 years. Senator REYNOLDS —I am very glad that the honourable senator is so confident. I am afraid that thousands of people across the world are not nearly as confident as he is. The general consensus among defence analysts is that nuclear war is now more likely than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. Many would agree with the pessimistic conclusion of E. P. Thompson, Britain's leading anti- nuclear campaigner, that a general nuclear war 'is not only possible but probable, and that its probability is increasing'. In Australia until recently there has been very little sign of a resurgent peace movement. The threat of instant and catastrophic destruction has never seemed as real in the antipodes as in the northern hemisphere. But the same groups which join together in the European peace movement are now stirring in Australia. Nationwide rallies have been held. Groups of Christians have taken out advertisements in the national Press within the last few months. An international conference on the impact of nuclear war on Australia is to be held at the Australian National University next week. Women's groups today are marking this important occasion across Australia. At last Australians are beginning to question what threat a nuclear war presents in this country. What effect is there to Australians if Pine Gap, Nurrungar and the North West Cape are already targeted as priorities? What are the consequences of American B52 aircraft utilising Australian facilities? Dr Desmond Ball, Australia's internationally renowned expert on nuclear strategy, has said: By harbouring these installations, Australia has taken on the risks of nuclear war; she becomes, in fact little different from a nuclear power and must be expected to be treated as such. The increasing risk of nuclear war must inevitably re-open the debate about American bases. There can be one, and only one, issue at stake. Do they add to or detract from Australia's national security? Are they assets or liabilities? Australians must address themselves seriously to this vital question. Women are taking a leading role in highlighting the question of nuclear disarmament. Today some 84 women's groups sent the following message of support: To our Sisters in Federal Parliament Today, International Women's Disarmament Day, women all over the world are acting in solidarity against nuclear madness. Through actions such as those at Greenham Common, women are demanding peace and disarmament now. Australian women join with our sisters in Federal Parliament and around the world in united action against global violence. I seek leave to have the names of the relevant organisations incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Union of Australian Women (Victoria) Feminist Anti Nucelar Group (Canberra) Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Canberra) Women's Action Against Global Violence (Sydney) Women Against Violence and Exploitation (Sydney) Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Sydney) (Brisbane) Feminist Anti Nuclear Group (Adelaide) Women for a Nuclear Free World (Melbourne) Women Against Violence and Exploitation (Melbourne) Union of Australian Women (New South Wales) Union of Australian Women (Wollongong) Women's Electoral Lobby (NSW) Working Women's Centre (Sydney) Miners' Women's Auxiliary (NSW) International Women's Day Committee (Sydney) Women's Political Coalition (Sydney) Women's Liberation House Collective Women Speak Collective (Sydney) Women for Animal Rights (Victoria) Women's Electoral Lobby (Australia) Women's Department, Australian Union of Students Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Victoria) Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (Melbourne) International Women's Disarmament Day Peace Collective (Melbourne) Women Activists from the Newcastle Peace Forum Canberra Quaker Feminists The Women of the Canberra Programme for Peace Committee Immigrant, Black and 3rd World Women (Sydney) Women Action for Nuclear Disarmament (NSW) Women's Action Against Global Violence (Alice Springs) New South Wales Women's Services Groups (including refuges, rape crisis centres , healing centres, legal resource centres, women's centres, children's resource centres, community cottages-48 groups in all) Women's Action Group (Wollongong) Charter Committee (Wollongong) Women's Liberation (Adelaide) Women's Studies Resource Centre (Adelaide) St Peter's Women's Community Centre (Adelaide) Women's Community Health Centre (Adelaide) Senator REYNOLDS —I thank the Senate. I trust that this chamber will urgently seek to involve itself in debating some of the issues. My colleague Senator Crowley has already made an important suggestion. It is absolutely essential that we allay the fears that are so frequently expressed by women on behalf of themselves, their children and all mankind. In conclusion, I wish to read a poem that has been writen at Greenham Common and which I think is very important. It states: GREENHAM COMMON On Greenham Common the trees are bare peace in my heart, but warheads there. Greenham Common, the people's common, no longer safe to walk upon. Greenham Common, with silos beneath, shelter for missiles with nuclear teeth Greenham Common, oh Greenham Common, no longer safe to walk upon. On Greenham Common, if the atomic bomb fell five cities would burn in a nuclear hell Greenham Common, oh Greenham Common, no longer safe to walk upon. Peace is our right, thirty thousand insist- women encamped in the mud and the mist Greenham Common, oh Greenham Common, make it grow green to walk upon! Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(7.51) —Senator Crowley and Senator Reynolds have tonight expressed very worthwhile sentiments in relation to peace and disarmament to which I am sure no one can take exception. I look forward to the time when they are able to give us a more detailed plan on how these objectives might be achieved. I am very disappointed that Senator Reynolds did not respond to Senator MacGibbon's statements about Brisbane Airport. I remind Senator Reynolds that she is not just a senator for Townsville or north Queensland; she is a senator for Queensland as a whole. As a Government senator for Queensland she will have to have some answers on the subject of the Government's actions in relation to Brisbane Airport. The airport decision has been cynical in the extreme. I notice Senator Giles having a little giggle. I did not catch the comment that preceded it. I also noticed that she was doing quite a deal of chattering in a rather loud voice while Senator MacGibbon was speaking. I appreciate Senator Giles's presence here but I say to her that this is a major issue not just for Brisbane but for Queensland. The Government's bona fides on this subject are totally at stake in Queensland and it just cannot expect to have the matter brushed aside. As I have said, the decision on Brisbane Airport was cynical in the extreme. It has been interesting in the last four days since the statement on this matter last Thursday night to note the reactions of Labor parliamentarians from Queensland on the subject. Senator MacGibbon mentioned Mrs Darling. Mrs Darling was quoted in the Brisbane Press last Friday as having said: People who have neither houses nor jobs are never going . . . to fly in aircraft. That is one of the statements that gave Senator Giles some entertainment while Senator MacGibbon was speaking. It is a fatuous statement which is just meant as a smokescreen. Our concern at this cut in relation to Brisbane Airport does not relate to people flying an aircraft, which is an issue that will come up in several years, but to the people who would have had jobs and who will not have jobs and to the people who might have been able to afford a house and who will not be able to afford a house because of this specific cut. I look forward to hearing what Senator Ryan has to say on behalf of the Government and how it justifies taking $20m out of what was a job creation project in itself under the Fraser Government. One can only speculate on the issue that has been raised previously. That is that Queensland has, for all its Labor parliamentarians in the national Parliament, only one person in the Hawke Ministry. That is Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was overseas until last week. If he tried to have any effect on that decision it obviously was not very much effect. I think Mr Hayden, because he has been through this issue in several election campaigns in Queensland, would have had a better appreciation than is evidenced by this statement of what the actual implications were. What of the Queensland Labor Party? What has it had to say? The Queensland Labor Party's recent statements on unemployment have a hollow ring in the wake of the Hawke Government's mini-Budget last week. Its leader, Mr Wright, has been grandstanding on Queensland's unemployment rate as part of the Australian Labor Party's campaign for this year's State election. He has, however, been strangely silent on the effect the Hawke Government's decision to reduce spending on the Brisbane Airport by $20m will have on jobs in Queensland; not on plane passengers but on jobs. That $20m represents a lot of jobs on the Brisbane Airport construction site, as outlined in detail by Senator MacGibbon. The money will go instead towards the Government's scheme to create jobs which will last, on average, according to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), for only six months. One has to ask how much the Federal Labor Government cares about unemployment in Queensland when it reduces employment possibilities on a major airport project in favour of an ephemeral, short term scheme which will probably be of only limited benefit to the State. I ask the tough political question: Does the Labor Party have a short term political interest in increasing the rate of unemployment in Queensland? It will be interesting to see in the next few months just how much Queensland benefits from other schemes in terms of job creation, having had $20m worth of jobs, and several hundred jobs, as indicated by Senator MacGibbon, lost through this one stroke. I refer again to Mrs Darling. She said in her statement reported in the Press last week that she had fought for the airport for years. It probably feels like years because she has had a lot to say about the airport, but I remind the Senate of a few facts. Mrs Darling was elected in 1980. She has been a member of parliament for fewer than three years, although it feels longer. The Fraser Government was committed-fully com- mitted-to the present airport development program before the 1977 election. That was three years before Mrs Darling was elected. Three years before she became a member of parliament we had a commitment, and the project was under way. Less than three years after she got here, the project has been slowed down and possibly phased out. I wish her luck. I hope she has some effect on the Government in this fight she has ahead of her. She has obviously had no effect on this Government so far. In its desperate and largely futile efforts to find ways of reducing government expenditure, the Hawke Cabinet clearly saw a scaling down of plans for Brisbane Airport's redevelopment as one of its easier options. Queenslanders must regard with some cynicism Mr Keating's bland assertion that this decision will not affect the airport's completion date. Personally, I think it is the thin edge of the wedge. If it has been so easy to slice off $20m and hundreds of jobs at this sort of distance, it will be easy and tempting to start winding the operation down. If the Labor Government does that, it will do so at its peril. Certainly, the newly elected honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humph- reys) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will be delivered a very sharp rebuke by their electors on the issue of the priority of the project and by Queenslanders in particular for taking away $20m in solid jobs on a good construction project in favour of a vague six month only make jobs program. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(7.59) —I support my two Queensland Opposition colleagues in their concern about the $20m reduction in the works program for Brisbane Airport. Senator MacGibbon, with his little piece of history, reminded me that it was indeed a cow pasture at one stage. My uncle, the late Stuart Collard, ran a working dairy there in conjunction with the William Powell Home for the rehabilitation of discharged prisoners from a Brisbane gaol. Senator MacGibbon quite rightly said the land was taken over for Brisbane Airport and the farm was then moved to Oxley near Archerfield. For the last few months I have been saying that the best thing Queensland tourism has going for it is the Neville Wran Government in New South Wales. It, by all methods of obstruction, would not allow the Government to go ahead with parallel runways in Sydney. Of course, while the Brisbane Airport was going slowly ahead I thought that was great because we certainly would see international airlines using Brisbane Airport more and more, bringing tourists into the tourist mecca of Queensland. Of course we have now found that the Hawke Government is no friend of transport in any way, shape or form. We heard Senator Kilgariff speak tonight about the destruction of the incomplete Alice Springs to Darwin railway. We now know that the parallel runway proposal will not go ahead in Sydney and that the Brisbane Airport development has been slowed down. I would have liked to have heard Senator Reynolds's comments. I am not criticising her or Senator Crowley for their remarks on world peace; that is like motherhood; who can disagree with it? But as the honourable senator is in the chamber I ask: What price the domestic terminal renewal in Townsville now? Of course I have a great concern as a Queenslander and as one who has fought for both the Townsville Airport upgrading and the redevelopment of Brisbane Airport. If one looks further down the track one sees that we are unnecessarily burning thousands of gallons of fuel because of the congestion around Sydney (Kingsford- Smith) Airport. It was obvious that Brisbane Airport, when completed, would be the alternative airport that the international airlines were looking for. It would be a curfew-free airport, which meant that the airlines could keep to their timetables and would not have to hold passengers on the ground at Honolulu , Singapore or wherever. They could bring their airliners into Brisbane at any time. Obviously, this would suit many tourists who come to Australia every year; they would not have to fly into Sydney and then go to Brisbane. Of course, we have a problem now that the Hawke Government has knocked back the idea of the Brisbane Airport development being completed in good time. I remind honourable senators in the Government that tourism is probably the greatest industry in the world today and it is one of the greatest employers of non-skilled people. It is one of the industries for which Australia is a set piece, and it is one of the industries that can help Australia out of the unemployment problem which it shares with many other countries in the world today. Senator MacGibbon —Senator, would you say that Mr Keating has done to tourism what Mr Brown did? Senator COLLARD —Probably a little more subtly, but yes, undoubtedly he has. I ask honourable senators opposite, particularly those from Queensland and those who have an interest in that great State of ours, to go to their Caucus and ask the Government to reconsider the matter. It is of no use our domestic airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Tourist Commission or the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation doing anything about promoting Australia if we do not have suitable airports to bring those people as close as possible to the things they want to see most. I think all the past surveys indicate that the things they want to see most include the Great Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock. If we continue to dump tourists in airports further away from those positions, causing them to pay extra money, we will not assist the tourist industry. I ask the Government to reconsider this drastic decision to take the $20m from the Brisbane Airport development. Both Senator MacGibbon and Senator Martin have explained the ludicrous situation which has arisen from the comments of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). I have not heard the honourable member for Lilley say one constructive thing about Brisbane Airport in the time that she has been a member of parliament. Senator MacGibbon —She just ran protest meetings against it. Senator COLLARD —That is right; there have been protest meetings and there has been hypocrisy. As I said, both my colleagues have put their arguments. I have supported their arguments and I add my name to the list of those who are opposed to this retrograde step. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(8.5) —The adjournment debate has covered a number of issues tonight, and I will address myself to them briefly. Senator Townley chose this opportunity to complain about his lack of success in asking a question at Question Time. He chose to make his protest by regaling the Senate at some length-at tedious length, I might say-with his views on stamp collections, coin collections and other matters which are hardly of gripping concern to the Senate this evening. He raised a matter concerning air fares and also subjected us to a description of his recent flight from Tasmania on a new form of air service. With regard to the serious matter he raised concerning prices and the possibility of no frills air fares, I will ensure that his comments are directed to the spokesperson for the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) in this place, Senator Gietzelt, and ask Senator Gietzelt to respond to him. Senator Kilgariff also raised a question concerning the reply by Senator Gietzelt to him today in respect of the Government's intentions regarding the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. Senator Kilgariff told the Senate that he was not satisfied with the terms of Senator Gietzelt's reply. He told the Senate further that he intended to take this matter up tomorrow in the Senate, so I will not attempt now to reply on Senator Gietzelt's behalf. I simply say that I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for the Government of the Northern Territory to discuss with the Commonwealth Government the terms under which the Government is prepared to carry out its pre-election commitment concerning the funding of the building of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. Senator Crowley and Senator Reynolds drew to the attention of the Senate the fact that today is International Women's Day for Disarmament. They informed the Senate of the significance of this day, of its history, and of the range of women's organisations throughout the world which are supporting it and in particular the solidarity being expressed by women throughout the world, and many women and men in this chamber, for the efforts of the women at Greenham Common. The Government and I are indebted to the contributions of Senator Crowley and Senator Reynolds on this matter which is not only of national significance but of international significance. On behalf of the Government I take note of the matters that they have raised and also of their urgings that the Government should seek by all means possible to bring about the objectives of peace and disarmament. Senator MacGibbon, Senator Martin and Senator Collard raised in the adjournment debate their dissatisfaction with the decision of the Government announced last Thursday night to defer the funding of some aspects of the completion of the new Brisbane Airport. I stress that fact. The decision was not to abandon the project but a deferral of some aspects of it. I think the three of them expressed the view that this was an inappropriate decision, given the Government 's commitment to job creation. I simply reiterate that the Government has made this decision because it believes that the money thus saved can be better spent in widespread community employment under the community employment projects program. I point out that it will be up to State governments, local governments and community organisations in each State and Territory throughout Australia to develop employment projects which may be funded under this program. I have no doubt that the State of Queensland, local governments throughout Queensland and those organisations throughout Queensland that are concerned to create employment will actively develop projects and will indeed secure a fair and equitable share of the community development projects funds for employment projects which will be of much greater benefit to the people of Queensland generally than those concerning this deferred project. Senator MacGibbon —That has to be nonsense, if you think about it-absolute nonsense. Senator RYAN —I do not intend to hold the Senate up any longer. We have had a great deal of repetition of points, if I might say so, from Opposition senators this evening. I do not think that those senators remaining in the chamber wish to hear even more tedious repetition by way of interjection from Senator MacGibbon. Senator Martin —You have not justified it. Senator RYAN —There is no question of that decision being renegotiated or reviewed. It was a decision taken after a long time. If Senator Martin is not prepared to accept the justification that this Government has set its own priorities in the employment area and that $20m did not have as great a priority as other matters that the Government has decided to fund, this is the sad fact of being in Opposition. Senator Martin made much of the fact that this had been a priority in a program of the Fraser Government to complete this project in a particular period. I simply remind Opposition senators in this chamber- particularly those from Queensland-that there has been a change of government, that it is perfectly proper that the Hawke Government set its own priorities in this area. That particular project did not have a high priority as other projects which we have decided to fund. That is the answer to Senator Martin's interjection. Finally, I must briefly comment on the mischievous and insensitive remarks repeated by Senator Peter Baume today when he was commenting on a report from the Department of Education. Senator Peter Baume chose again to raise the question of the decision of the Government to change the head of my Department and to re-appoint Mr Ken Jones, the previous head of my Department, as head of another department. This was a perfectly proper Government procedure. It is perfectly proper that governments coming into office make changes with regard to their appointments to statutory bodies and to the appointment of permanent heads . Previous governments have done this. There was nothing new or different about the decision of the Hawke Government to make some changes with regard to permanent heads. I believe that Senator Peter Baume-and I remind the Senate that he asked me about this matter and I answered him by assuring him that the appointment was carried out properly with all procedures and conventions being observed by the Government-does Mr Ken Jones, a public servant for whom we all have the greatest respect, a great disservice in raising this matter again and in going over matters which were already properly answered by me and by suggesting that there was some impropriety or some insult to Mr Jones in the way the matter was handled. I suggested it is Senator Peter Baume who is now causing embarrassment and bringing into some sort of negative discussion the reputation of Mr Jones by repeating this nonsense. I hope that he will not raise the matter again, thus putting Mr Jones to further embarrassment and putting me to the irritation of having to respond again to this frivolous matter. Senator Martin —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a brief response to the additional issue that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) just raised in her reply. Leave not granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.13 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1983- No. 2-New (or expanded) topics to be included in the population survey in June and September 1983. No. 3-Survey of employment and earnings. No. 4-Survey of shareholdings. No. 5-Survey of cash management trusts. No. 6-Survey of community and personal services industries. Postal Services Act-By-Laws 1983-Amendment No. 1. Public Service Act-Determination 1983-No. 4. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 7 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the Minister received any further reports on the progress of the trial of members of DISK in Turkey (see Question No. 3459 of which notice was given on 16 December 1982). (2) Has the Government lodged any protests with the Turkish Government in respect of the conduct of the trial. (3) Will the Government review any decision that was taken not to protest in respect of the trial in view of the fact that the DISK defendents have all been adopted by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The Government has not lodged a specific protest about the conduct of the DISK trial. However on 14 April the Australian Ambassador in Ankara, on instructions, drew the Government's concern about the human rights situation in Turkey to the attention of the Turkish authorities. At the same time, the Ambassador also drew attention to the representation we have received from the Civil Service Association of Western Australia concerning Abdullah Basturk, the former Chairman of DISK and currently a defendant in the DISK trial. It need hardly be said that the issue of fundamental trade union rights is of particular concern to the Government. The Australian Embassy in Ankara is continuing to monitor closely developments in the human rights situation in Turkey and the trial is currently under way. Question No. 8 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the Australian Government received any information that Bashir Al- Barghuti has been under house and town arrest since 7 August 1980; if so, when did the Government first obtain such information. (2) What action has the Government taken to protest at the continued detention of the abovenamed. (3) Has the Government taken any action; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) I am advised that the restriction order against Bashir Al-Barghuti was lifted in December 1982, before this Government took office. (2) and (3) Not applicable. Question No. 21 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What are the names of the people who have been allocated work by the Telephone Interpreter Service in South Australia. (2) How much work has each of these persons received and how much has each individual been paid. (3) How many other people who are registered with the Service or who have made themselves available to the Service have not had any work, and who are they. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) To provide details of the number of jobs allocated to each interpreter and the amount paid would require substantial research which could not be justified, as the Telephone Interpreter Service in South Australia handled 6,887 jobs in 1982 alone. Moreover it would be inappropriate to provide the names of people allocated work by TIS in South Australia. However I am able to advise the TIS in South Australia currently has a panel of 224 contract interpreters on whom it is able to call to provide part time interpreting assistance in 55 languages as required. Between 1 January and 31 December 1982, 205 of these were allocated work. In the same period (1 January-31 December 1982), total expenditure by TIS in South Australia on contract interpreters was $166,167. Over the last five years, total expenditure by TIS in South Australia on contract interpreters has been: 1978-79-$69,130; 1979-80-$100,400; 1980-81-$141,427; 1981-82-$139,493; 1982-83 (to 28 April 1983)-$144,896. Question No. 85 Senator Peter Rae asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Is the list of the Commonwealth Acts which contained the provisions that permit the issue of warrants to enter and search premises still as set out in the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 674 (House of Representatives Hansard, 8 June 1978 page 3351); if not what additions or deletions are appropriate. (2) Are there any Commonwealth Acts which permit persons to enter and search premises without a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The list of Commonwealth Acts containing provisions that permit the issue of warrants to enter and search premises is no longer as set out in the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 674 to which you refer. The following Acts should be added to the list: Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act 1981 Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 Barley research Act 1980 Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Act 1974 Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act 1979 Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979-Companies Act 1981 Cotton Research Act 1982 Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 Defence Service Homes Act 1918 Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978 Distillation Act 1901 Dried Fruits (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1981 Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Act Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1981 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1982 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Excise Act 1901 Family Law Act 1974 Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1981 Fisheries Act 1952 Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979 Health Insurance Act 1973 Insurance Act 1973 Lands Acquisition Act 1955 Livestock Export Charge Collection Act 1964 Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act 1969 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 National Crimes Commission Act 1982 Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 Pipeline Authority Act 1973 Postal Services Act 1975 Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act Quarantine Act Securities Industry Act Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 Special Prosecutors Act 1982 Spirits Act 1906 Wheat Marketing Act 1979 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 Wool Industry Act 1972 The following Acts should be deleted from the list: Apple and Pear Stabilisation Export Duty Collection Act 1971 Dairying Industry Equalisation Act 1970 Dairying Industry Levy Collection Act 1970 Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Act 1971 Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Act 1971 Health Insurance Amendment Act 1977 Insurance Amendment Act 1977 National Health Amendment Act 1976 Whaling Act 1960 The Commonwealth Acts which permit persons to enter and search premises without a warrant, are as follows: Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 Air Navigation Act 1920 Airports (Business Concessions) Act Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981 Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 Atomic Energy Act 1953 Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 Bed Sheeting Bounty Act 1977 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act 1966 Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act 1982 Bounty (Books) Act 1969 Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act 1978 Bounty (Dental Alloys) Act 1979 Bounty (Drilling Bits) Act 1980 Bounty (Drilling Machines) Act 1978 Bounty (Injection Moulding Equipment) Act 1979 Bounty (Metal Working Machine Tools) Act 1975 Bounty (Non-adjustable Wrenches) Act 1981 Bounty (Paper) Act 1979 Bounty (Penicillin) Act 1980 Bounty (Polyester Cotton Yarn) Act 1978 Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981 Bounty (Refined Tin) Act 1980 Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Act 1979 Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981 Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Act 1974 Census and Statistics Act 1905 Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 Customs Act 1901 Dairying Industry Act 1962 Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 Diesel Fuel Taxation Administration Act 1957 Distillation Act 1901 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 Excise Act 1901 Fisheries Act 1952 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 Health Insurance Act 1973 Immigration (Unauthorised Arrivals) Act 1980 Insurance Act 1973 Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 Lands Acquisition Act 1955 Lighthouses Act 1911 Migration Act 1958 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 National Crimes Commission Act 1982 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 Navigation Act 1912 Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966 Ombudsman Act 1976 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1963 Pipeline Authority Act 1973 Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960 Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Act 1981 Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 Public Works Committee Act 1969 Quarantine Act 1908 Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Power Act 1949 Spirits Act 1906 Supply and Development Act 1939 Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Telecommunications Act 1975 Tradesmans' Rights Regulation Act 1946 Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 Whale Protection Act 1980 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act Question No. 95 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Does section 39A (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 enable members of the defence forces who are on service outside Australia to vote in an election. (2) Does section 39A (2) of the Act extend this concession to dependants of members of the defence forces on service outside Australia; if not, does this mean that nearly 2,000 women are disenfranchised and will the Special Minister of State take the necessary action to remedy this situation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes-Section 39A (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act protects the voting rights of service personnel posted overseas. The provisions of section 39A (1) must be viewed in the overall context of enrolment and voting rights of electors who leave Australia. Generally speaking, when electors go overseas without intending to return to live at the address for which they are enrolled, they lose their enrolement entitlement after an absence of one month. In accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, action is then taken to remove their names from the roll. These persons cannot re-enrol until they return to Australia and fulfil the requirement of one month's residence in the subdivision for which they wish to enrol. This is the case for all Australians who are overseas, including Defence Force personnel. If members of the Defence Force lose their entitlement to enrol when posted overseas, under section 39A they retain their right to vote as if they were enrolled for the subdivision in which they ordinarily lived immediately prior to leaving Australia. (2) Section 39A (2) extends this protection to persons accompanying a part of the Defence Force in an official capacity. This section applies to persons such as officers of the YMCA and similar organisations and to accredited war correspondents, but does not cover wives and dependants who accompany service personnel, rather than a part of the Defence Force as such, to overseas postings . Wives and dependants of service personnel are in the same position as other civilians who are overseas on the occasion of an election. If they are enrolled and have a fixed intention of returning to live at the address for which they are enrolled they are entitled to a postal vote. If not, they are not qualified or entitled to vote. Changes to the voting rights of the dependants of overseas Defence Force personnel are among a wide range of matters which I anticipate will be investigated by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Government will be looking at the question in the course of its consideration of the Committee's report. Question No. 136 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Is Mr Dennis Atkins a member of the Government's pool of Press secretaries. (2) Is he responsible for media inquiries relating to the Special Minister of State, the Honourable Mick Young, M.P. (3) Was Mr Dennis Atkins research assistant to Senator Bolkus during 1981-82. (4) Would the Special Minister of State describe those activities as 'non- partisan'. (5) Was Mr Atkins last employed as a journalist at the Sunday Mail at a 'C' class level. (6) Is the Government considering appointing Mr Atkins to the top-level position of representative of the Government Information Unit in South Australia . Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, among others. (3) Yes. (4) I suggest the honourable senator seek this information from Senator Bolkus. (5) Yes. (6) No. Senator Gareth Evans —On 3 May 1983 (Hansard, page 111) Senator Colston asked me as Minister representing the Special Minister of State the following question without notice: Are candidates for the House of Representatives required to certify in any way that, if elected, they will carry out their duties as elected representatives. Have any calculations been made to determine the cost to the taxpayers of the by -elections in Wannon and Bruce brought about by the resignations of the former Prime MInister, Mr Fraser, only 26 days after the recent election, and Sir Billy Snedden, merely 47 days after being elected as the member for Bruce. The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The estimated cost of the Wannon and Bruce by-elections is $280,000. While candidates for the House of Representatives are not required to certify that they will carry out their duties as elected representatives, the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that no nomination shall be valid unless the person nominated signs a consent to act if elected.