Tuesday, 8 November 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to inform the Senate that the Government Whip, Senator Robertson, will be absent this week on parliamentary business in Tasmania. Senator Jones will act as Government Whip until Senator Robertson returns. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 174 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine- (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested orgainsations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Rae (from 14 citizens) and Watson (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humbled petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique in- herent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 282 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble 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 Senator Button (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Since 1979 over 3,000 young people have participated in Youth Forum Projects. Youth Forum has the structure and network necessary to provide young people in New South Wales with the skills, information and opportunity to define and solve some of their own problems. Apart from an International Year of the Child grant of $15,000 in 1979, Youth Forum has received no government funding, rather it has utilised a total of $320 ,000, raised from the private sector. Youth Forum is in danger of closing in early October if government funding is not secured, and valuable youth skills and resources will be lost to the community. Youth Forum is an existing project which is a perfect vehicle through which the Federal Government can pursue the objectives of international youth year peace participation and development-in 1985. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should financially support Youth Forum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83. The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent. The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent. Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 28 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 28 citizens ), and Hill (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 440 citizens), Childs (from 220 citizens), Robertson ( from 20 citizens), and Sibraa (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned students and staff of Newcastle University respectfully showeth that we are concerned at the consequences for residential students at this University of the reduction by 25 per cent in the current Federal Government subsidy to residential colleges. The one residence at Newcastle University accommodates students from all over N .S.W. who wish to undertake their studies here. The reduction in subsidy will have the effect of forcing a number of students to postpone or terminate their studies. Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to take action to ensure that the full subsidy (pre 1983-1984 Budget) is reinstated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia and overseas students studying at Australian Educational Institutions, respectfully showeth that the imposition of increased overseas student visa charges will ensure that access to Australian education will only be available to those overseas students from wealthy backgrounds. Therefore, we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: An immediate freeze in the increases in visa charges and to reconsider this issue in the light of adequate access to Australian education being made available to overseas students. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that, the Senate will support the above claim. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 327 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the reports of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 22 September 1983 and 11 October 1983 , respectively, namely: (1) Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue extension to the New Parliament House. (2) The construction of pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to a number of claims which he has made about the limited market for Australian uranium, claims which he repeated on radio this morning. I refer also to a report in the Age of last Friday which purports to quote Mr A. J. Grey as saying: The Federal Government policy on uranium has placed in jeopardy potential sales from the Jabiluka project totalling tens of thousands of tonnes . . . I ask the Minister whether, if Pancontinental Mining Ltd or, indeed, any other company with rights to mine uranium, can get contracts to sell that uranium at a satisfactory price, Government policy as it has now been decided allows such companies to get export licences. Senator WALSH —The answer to the final part of the question is clearly no. If Senator Chaney read the Cabinet recommendation, which has now been made public and which was endorsed yesterday by the parliamentary Labor Party, he would know that no new mines, other than Roxby Downs, would be allowed to proceed. With respect to the earlier part of his question, that is as to the degree to which there is room in the market place for new mines, I have said before and I say again that in my judgment the existing mines, plus Olympic Dam, or Roxby Downs- if a commercial decision is made to proceed with production-can meet the likely commercial demand for Australian uranium into the late 1990s. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's judgment in these matters, but if as a matter of fact companies are able to write contracts at satisfactory prices and the Minister's judgment is thereby proved to be wrong, will export licences be available to those companies? Senator WALSH —The answer is still no and is quite clear in the decision announced yesterday. With respect to the broader implications of Senator Chaney' s question, apart from the question of contracts, the Jabiluka prospect has yet to comply with the foreign investment requirements of either the present Government or the previous Government. On those grounds, in addition to yesterday's decision, applications would have to be rejected. With respect to the decisions made by private enterprise, I note for the record that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of precedents for governments making decisions and implementing policies which pre-empt decisions that might otherwise be made by private enterprise. I refer, for example, to the existence of import quotas, hen licences and milk quotas. Even in the free enterprise State of Queensland, I notice that although everybody is perfectly free to grow sugar cane on unassigned land if they should wish to do so, it is then commandeered by the Sugar Marketing Board at a price of $1 a tonne. So even in the free enterprise State of Queensland drastic government intervention, interfering with commercial decisions by producers or potential producers, exists and has existed for approximately 60 years. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to criticisms by the Queensland Premier of the Commonwealth Government's decision on uranium mining insofar as that decision may affect the proposed uranium project in North Queensland of the French company Minatome Australia Pty Ltd? Can the Minister say how the Government's decision will affect the future of that project at Ben Lomond? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to this matter. It has also been drawn to the fact that, on 27 April 1981, Mr Lendich, who was the Charters Towers mining warden, recommended that the application of Minatome for a mining lease for the Ben Lomond deposit be rejected. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that on 7 December of that year Mr Bob Katter junior, who is now a Minister in the Queensland Government, wrote to the Queensland Premier expressing concern at the local environmental effects of the Ben Lomond proposal. He asked the Premier to ensure that any State Government decision on Ben Lomond not be made behind closed doors. Mr Katter is also reported to have said: 'I will ask the Minister in Parliament this week to give assurances that the leases will not be granted until the application has come back to the warden's court'. The application has not come back to the warden's court, as the warden had originally suggested. So, in short, it is obvious that there are clear differences of opinion, even within the now single party Government of Queensland, on the question of Ben Lomond. There is also the matter of the proposed mining venture not complying with the foreign equity requirements for uranium mines of either the previous or present Commonwealth Government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer him to a report in the Australian newspaper last week in which it was stated that a Mr Peter Niarros, a boilermaker at Mount Newman, was receiving bomb threats and was to be dismissed following his refusal to pay $20 to a union strike fund. In view of this blatant violation of Mr Niarros's human rights, will the Attorney refer his case urgently to the Human Rights Commission for immediate investigation and action? In view of the Attorney's much flaunted belief in human rights, will be give an unequivocal assurance that the human rights legislation will extend to those unions which have shown on many occasions that they will not hesitate to use standover tactics, including bomb threats and abusive phone calls, to violate the human rights and liberties of those people in our community who will not bow to their demands? Senator GARETH EVANS —Without pausing on the irony of a question about human rights emanating from the Queensland benches, I simply say-- Senator Archer —What are you trying to say? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would have quite a lot more to say if I spoke about human rights in the honourable senator's context. I have no knowledge of the particular case to which the honourable senator refers. I will look into the matter to see what course of action, if any, might be appropriate in relation to it. As to the content of the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, I shall just have to ask the honourable senator once again to curb her impatience, because all will be revealed in due course. Senator COATES —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has he now seen the published advertisement from about 150 medical practitioners in Tasmania which he referred to prospectively last Wednesday at Question Time? The advertisement claims that the signatories declare: . . . we are totally committed to the provision of private medical and hospital care for all patients who wish it. Is it true, firstly, that about half the signatories are specialists, and how often is it a question of a patient's wishes for treatment when there is a referral to a specialist? Do the doctors anywhere in that advertisement talk about the provision of care for all who need it, or do they mean that they are committed to providing expensive private care for patients who may wish it but not need it? Secondly, the advertisement says that the signatories reject the Medicare scheme. Can the Minister tell us whether the signatories think it means that if they reject Medicare their patients will not be able to claim Medicare benefits? Is there any way in which doctors can reject the benefits of the scheme on behalf of their patients? Finally, now that the names of those doctors in Tasmania rejecting Medicare are known, do the patients of these practitioners have any worries about consulting these particular practitioners again? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the advertisement which was published in the Mercury. I note that the wording of the advertisement has been amended from that which was sent to the various practitioners who were asked to contribute $20 each to put the advertisement in the newspaper. As Senator Coates said, upwards of half the people who signed the advertisement were specialists. Those who signed it apparently have some objection to receiving public funds and having any public interference in health care. I find it surprising, therefore, on looking through the list of names, that it includes one gentleman who is a professor at the university. That gentleman receives a considerable sum of money each year by way of salary from public funds as a professor at the university. I notice also that several other practitioners on the list are, in fact, Commonwealth medical officers. They receive those positions by applying for them . They are perfectly happy to receive funds from the public purse to carry out those positions. Senator Walters —So what? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator's spouse is one of those. Let us not get too sensitive about it. Let the honourable senator declare her interest when she wants to make a comment about this sort of thing. Senator Button —There are a lot of bickies in the barrel. Senator GRIMES —As my colleague said, there are a lot of bickies in that barrel; they have a lot to protect. I also note the comments of the people who signed this advertisement in that they are totally committed to the provision of private medical and hospital care for all patients who wish it. Like Senator Coates, I would feel happier if they were concerned about the provision of medical care to those who need it. The simple fact about Medicare is that those who wish to insure for private medical care can still continue to do so. Many will be able to do so at less cost than before. If these doctors were fair dinkum they could go into entirely private practice. They could see only patients who were willing to pay cash and who were willing not to claim from Medicare. They are not willing to do that. What they are willing to do is to make a lot of noise, to refuse to bulk bill and to penalise disadvantaged patients, but I predict that most of them will still take their funds from the pensioner medical service. They will still take their funds from the repatriation service. The professor concerned will still take his considerable salary from the university, a salary which comes out of taxpayers' funds. Those doctors will still continue to take advantage of the subsidies that are paid to private hospitals to treat private patients, but they will still continue to make a lot of noise. As my colleague the Minister for Health said, they will make a lot of noise but they will interrupt that noise occasionally by putting their snouts in the trough of public funding. I consider these people to be dishonest. I point out that the vast majority of medical practitioners in Tasmania did not sign this advertisement. Senator CHANEY —I remind the Minister for Resources and Energy of the answer he gave with respect to Pancontinental Mining Ltd and its possible entitlement to export uranium. As I recall, he told me that the company had not complied with the foreign investment requirement with respect to the mining and export of uranium. I refer the Minister to the 1981-82 annual report of the then Department of Trade and Resources which stated: The Treasurer has approved the foreign investment arrangements for the project- - That is, the Jabiluka project- subject to a number of conditions, accepted by the project partners, which will ensure that the Government's policy of a new minimum of 75 per cent Australian equity and Australian control in new uranium projects will be met by the time commercial production commences. I ask the Minister: Does he still say that the company is not able to proceed because it does not have further approval? Further, will he stop creating smoke- screens in trying to disguise the policy of his Government? If companies such as Pancontinental, Minatome Australia Pty Ltd and Western Mining Corporation Ltd do comply with all the requirements-environmental, price and so on-can they get export permits for the uranium that they are able to sell at acceptable prices on the world market? Senator WALSH —The statement from the Treasurer that Senator Chaney has just read said that, subject to certain things happening, the guidelines will have been complied with. Those things have not happened. The fact remains, as I said earlier, that the foreign equity requirements of both the previous and the present Government with respect to that project have not been met. The Treasurer said that if those requirements are met, then yes, the foreign investment, foreign equity or Australian equity requirements will have been met, which seems to me to be rather tortuous tautology. The fact that the foreign investment requirements have not been met was, of course, only incidental to the quite firm and unequivocal answer which I gave to Senator Chaney, and that is that under the recommendation of Cabinet, endorsed yesterday by the parliamentary Labor Party, no new mines other than Roxby Downs will be allowed to proceed. The reason for that-not the entire reason, but the chief reason-is that, in the judgment of the Government, for the next 15 years and possibly to the end of this century, existing mines plus Roxby Downs, if it proceeds, will fill the room which is likely to be available in the world market place for uranium delivered from Australia. Senator Chaney —That is the chief reason? Senator WALSH —That is the chief reason, but it is not the only one. There are other considerations and I suggest that the Opposition should reflect upon these . If we accept that judgment about commercial demand that has been made by the Government-and, granted, it is a judgment, and I remind the Senate that most of the judgments about commercial demand which have been made in the past have been shown subsequently to be over-optimistic or too optimistic, not pessimistic-that there is only room for that quantity of uranium to be delivered from Australia in that time frame, it follows axiomatically that Roxby Downs and Pancontinental are competitive, if not mutually exclusive, and without the sale of the uranium component of its total product I think it could be quite safely asserted that the Roxby Downs mine would not be viable. If the Opposition is suggesting-and this is the clear implication of Senator Chaney's question-that Jabiluka or Yeelirrie, if one likes to throw that in, ought to be allowed to proceed and sell anything up to 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake, the probable consequence of that is that the Roxby Downs project would be finished for the foreseeable future. If that is what the Opposition wants to do, to kill off Roxby Downs, it should stand up and say so. Senator Button —Let a hundred minds blossom. Senator WALSH —Yes, let a hundred minds blosssom and a hundred schools of thought contend. The employment benefits and the total product benefits of the Roxby Downs mine are very much greater than the same potential benefits from a mine at Jabiluka or Yeelirrie. That is a factor which I suggest any responsible government concerned about the extremely high level of unemployment which exists now and which on any reasonable estimate will persist at a high level for some considerable time ought to take into account. It is possible-indeed, it is more than possible; it seems highly probable-that the amount of economic rent in some of those other mines might be greater than the economic rent, if any, which is likely to be generated by Roxby Downs. However, the total value of the product, the amount of employment generated and the boost to economic activity in total from Roxby Downs is very much greater than it would be from any alternative mine supplying the same quantity of uranium, for the simple fact that the preliminary mining proposal put forward for Roxby Downs is one to produce 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake and 150,000 tonnes of copper as well as gold and silver. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who, I am sure, will agree that Australia, as a rich Western country, provides services and benefits to its ex-service clients which, though unquestionably well deserved, are generous by international standards. This is especially the case if the comparison is made with Third World countries with a large number of war veterans, including disabled war veterans. I ask the Minister: What action is he taking or considering taking in order to assist such countries in meeting their obligations to their war veterans? Senator GIETZELT —I completely agree with what the honourable senator has said, that Australia can and does provide for its repatriation clients services and benefits which are probably second to none in the world, certainly well beyond those provided to veterans in Third World countries. I fully recognise also that in this area Australia has an obligation to provide assistance, where it can, to meet the requirements of veteran communities of Third World countries. To that extent, my Department has a particular role to play in respect of disabilities. As a result, we have been requested and have agreed to arrange for three people employed by the Veterans' General Hospital in Bangkok-a doctor, a physiotherapist and an artificial limb technician-to come to Australia for a training program at the Sydney Rehabilitation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre and the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord. The program will start in February next year and run for approximately three to six months, according to the progress of training. It will concentrate on stump management and artificial limb manufacture. Currently, I am examining the possibility of a similar training program for workers from Burma, in respect of which we have been advised that there is a need for such training to cope with the large numbers of soldiers who suffered amputations as a result of booby traps set in that country where, as honourable senators would be aware, a war of sorts has been going on for most of the post World War II period. The Government has every intention of assisting in this training process and, depending upon the success which I believe will be realised in respect of Bangkok, we will extend that program to other Third World countries in our region. Senator DURACK —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the announcement he made yesterday about the establishment of a National Crimes Authority and ask him: Have all the States made firm commitments to participate in the proposed authority? If not, how many and which States have so far not made such commitment? Senator GARETH EVANS —At a round table meeting of State Attorneys-General and Police Ministers on 9 September, a general consensus was reached around the basic elements of the model which has now found its way into legislative form and which will be introduced this week. It is a consensus on the basis that the proposals were regarded by those present as appropriate to take back to their respective Cabinets for formal endorsement. That process is not yet complete, but there are no governments which have rejected in any way the substance of that agreement reached at the meeting on 9 September. I do anticipate that co- operation, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm in one or two cases, will in fact be forthcoming. Beyond that I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment at this stage before the round of further consultations and discussions with the States is complete. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 7 November 1983 by Father John Fleming headed 'Parents have the right to choose'? In that article Father Fleming claims : The Schools Commission itself has been reconstituted to give effects to the views of Senator Susan Ryan who is known to be unsympathetic to the non- government school system. He claims further that the Federal Government has moved to reduce financial assistance to private schools and to divert funds back towards the government schools, a point, he claims, that is overlooked by Catholic education officers who think poorer Catholic schools will benefit. Will the Minister put to rest these mischievous and misrepresentative claims and once again put this Government's education policy on record? Senator RYAN —I do not know whether I can put these mischievous and ill-informed criticisms to rest because there are certainly a lot of them around, but I point out to the writer of that article that there are no facts at all with which to substantiate his criticism of me and, by implication, of the Government as being unsympathetic to non-government schools. I simply point again to the increases in recurrent funding for non-government schools, which were of the order of 3 per cent for most such schools-those in category 3-a one per cent real increase for category 2 schools and indexation based on consumer price index increases for the rest of the non-government school sector, with the exception of 41 schools which have a very high level of private income and whose recurrent grants were very modestly reduced. This Government in its first Budget provided a total of $540.6m in recurrent grants alone for the non-government school sector. When we add to that the funds we have spent on special programs for schools operating in that sector the total is $626.9m. I remind the Senate that a total of 2,205 non-government schools receive recurrent grants from this Government. A number of other funding decisions have been very helpful and supportive of the non-government school sector. They include the re-introduction of retrospective cost supplementation, which may sound like a technical term but is of great benefit to the non-government school sector, particularly in terms of planning for the future development of schools and for unexpected or unbudgeted- for increases in costs. We have also increased, for secondary children in private schools, the amount of funding by $0.6m in 1984. Disadvantaged schools received an extra $0.3m in 1984. Another very important aspect of the education budget which has affected non-government schools is that we are permitting a 70 per cent forward commitment of capital funds for that sector, which again will assist enormously in the planning of new schools. Again, to assist in the planning and development of new non-government schools, we have budgeted to maintain in real terms 1983 per capita establishment grants for new non- government schools. Non-government schools receiving capital grants since March 1983 number 229. Non-government schools receiving library grants since March 1983 number 121. Since March of this year a total of 46 new non-government schools have been approved by this Government for recurrent funding. I could go on but I think this series of decisions demonstrates the Government' s commitment to the non-government schools sector-demonstrates that we are prepared to make additional funding available even at a time of economic hardship and stringency, when a number of public sector programs have had to be reduced, or not increased to the extent that this Government would like to see happen. We have made administrative and planning decisions which will assist in the stable and rational use of resources in the non-government sector. Of course , pupils in schools in that sector will all be able to benefit from a number of initiatives which have been undertaken by the Schools Commission. I do not know whether that series of decisions, repeated yet again for the benefit of the Senate, will put to rest the criticisms which have come from certain sources of this Government's approach to the non-government sector. But I suggest that, in light of the realities and the facts of the administrative and funding decisions that we have made, any criticisms or suggestions that this Government or I as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in this Government are anything other than supportive of the non-government school sector are entirely without justification. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether he is aware of a report in this morning's Australian Broadcasting Corporation's news bulletin that a United States federal grand jury has brought down an indictment against the operators of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, saying that, among other things, it falsified reports on the rate of radioactive leaks in the five months prior to the near melt-down of that reactor. Is the Minister aware of a report in the Guardian of 6 November 1983 which states that the rate of leukemia in British children resident near the Windscale nuclear reactor is 10 times above the national average and that plutonium dust from the reactor had been found in people's homes up to 40 miles away in Scotland? Did the Government and Caucus give thorough consideration to the lasting damage to the health of individuals that comes from the nuclear industry when they endorsed the massive expansion of the uranium industry yesterday? Is the Government satisfied that aiding and abetting the nuclear industry and the massive health risks associated with it are worth the short term monetary gain we get in return? Senator WALSH —I am afraid I have not heard the ABC news report to which Senator Chipp referred. I think he described it as an indictment which, if my understanding of legal jargon is correct, is not a conviction. Senator Chipp —It is a grand jury indictment. Senator Gareth Evans —It is laying the charge. Senator WALSH —Yes, it is not a conviction. I was made aware, I think yesterday, of the claim about Windscale, but at this stage I do not have any definitive comment to make on that. If I have received any definitive information, I have not seen it. The latter part of Senator Chipp's question was whether the Government gave consideration to these matters and the real or alleged dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle at various stages. Yes, the Government did give consideration to those matters and the Government is concerned about all those questions. As I said publicly in the Senate last week, I believe every responsible and sane person ought to be concerned about at least the potential dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle. But I suggest that Senator Chipp has taken a quantum leap in assuming that those dangers will be removed or lessened by the total withdrawal of Australia as a source of uranium supply. Granted, there are different interpretations and views of the likely effect on the dangers of the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle, of the storage of the wastes produced by it and the prospect of nuclear war. There are differing interpretations as to the effect of Australia's withdrawal as a uranium supplier on those very real dangers, which I think every sane and responsible person recognises. I could not say what particular factors influenced the judgment of every member of the Government or of every member of the parliamentary Australian Labor Party . But the judgment made by the majority of the parliamentary Labor Party I believe reflects the view that the most likely consequences of Australia's immediate and unconditional withdrawal as a supplier of uranium would be as follows: First, that the price of uranium on world markets would marginally increase, but that would not deter anybody who is really determined to make an atomic weapon from doing so; secondly, that potential customers who might otherwise have sourced their requirements from Australia would be more likely or even certain to attempt to source them from countries which will apply few, if any, restrictions or safeguards on the way in which the uranium may be used. Therefore the likely consequence of a complete and unconditional withdrawal of Australia's uranium supply would be marginally to increase the risks associated with the operation of a nuclear fuel cycle, the storage of dangerous waste and the prospect of nuclear war. Admittedly, that is a judgment which everyone may not share, but I believe that the majority of the parliamentary Labor Party concurred with that judgment and that it was a major factor influencing the decision which was made yesterday. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Telecom Australia recently announced the letting of contracts for the purchase of 33,000 tonnes of paper for the printing of its 73 different telephone directories in 1984. The contracts have been placed with Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd of Tasmania, Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd of Tasmania and Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd of New Zealand. In view of the high unemployment in Tasmania, why were some contracts given to New Zealand? Senator BUTTON —The Minister for Communications has furnished me with an answer relating to this question of which Senator Hearn had given him notice. I am advised that orders have been placed with the three lowest tenderers and allocated having regard to minimum production requirements and tender rankings. Under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade treaty, New Zealand content is treated as Australian content. Each tenderer advised Telecom that it would have sufficient capacity to meet the total order. The order allocation, however, also took into account the different types of paper required by Telecom and the need for security of supply, the latter being achieved by spreading the order over the three companies involved. I should point out that Telecom follows established Commonwealth public tendering processes and, where appropriate, other government policies such as closer economic relations, preference and off-sets, and must, under its legislation, achieve value for money. Telecom cannot just allocate orders on an employment in Tasmania basis, and that is the basis on which the tenders were spread, as indicated in the early part of the answer to the question. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Leader of the Goverment in the Senate. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate of the effect on the average cost of a new house of the building industry agreement? As this claim has been supported by the Government, is the Minister further able to advise the Senate of the effect on the consumer price index if this additional up to $20 a week were to flow on to analagous work groups as advocated by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan? Senator BUTTON —I am asked whether I have any information about the average cost of a house if the so-called building industry agreement is approved by the conciliation and arbitration system and implemented. No, I do not have any information about the average effect on a house if that agreement were implemented. I do have information which I can obtain for the honourable senator and give her in great detail about what it costs to purchase a house under the present Government compared with what it cost under the Fraser Government. For example, because of this Government's policies, the average mortgage repayments at present are something in the order of $22 per month less than they were under the previous Government. Senator Boswell —What about the wage pause? Senator BUTTON —We will hear about the wage pause from people such as Senator Boswell for the next 100 years, I suppose. Senator Chaney —Oh, you will accept responsibility for any rise in interest rates, will you? Senator BUTTON —Of course. We have to. I also know that the building industry, and particularly the housing industry, is in better shape than it has been for years. The Government is very optimistic about the future of that industry, as it is entitled to be on the basis of the figures. I am not a mathematician who can calculate average effects of a hypothetical wage increase. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Twenty dollars a week is the figure and that must have some effect. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle should have bided her time in patience to see whether this hypothetical wage increase about which she asked me, in fact, comes to pass. The second question she asked me is what the effect will be on the consumer price index if a $20 a week wage increase not yet granted flows to all other industries. It is quite clear that, whatever happens in the building industry agreement, as far as this Government is concerned it will not flow to all other industries, That question is based on a sort of double-barrelled hypothesis-rather like copulating soldier beetles moving around together. The fact of the matter is that none of these things is likely to happen and they are purely hypothetical questions. I suggest that if those questions become a reality Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle should address the question to me again. As far as the Government is concerned there is no intention that anything which flows out of the building industry agreement will flow to other industries. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I ask a short supplementary question. I ask the Minister: When supporting the agreement before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, did the Government have any information as to the effect that the increase to the building industry would have on building costs? Was the support of the Government simply a support for the claim itself without any information being given to the Commission on its implications? Senator BUTTON —The support of the Government for the building industry agreement, insofar as this Government did support it, was given in order that an industry which has been plagued by industrial unrest for the last five years should have two years of industrial peace. It was supported by the employers and by everybody involved in that industry. It is a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to determine. The Government's support, insofar as it was support from the Government, was also conditional, as I indicated in the earlier answer to the question, upon certain undertakings being given that there be no flow-on of the effects of this agreement to other industries. In those circumstances, I am certainly not in a position to answer the question as it is put. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald which states that excessive delays are taking place at the Sydney Passport Office by people lodging applications, mainly because of the enforcement of stricter passport control procedures? I ask the Minister: What steps can be taken by the Government to shorten these delays? Will the Government encourage passport applicants to lodge their applications at a post office rather than going to the Sydney Passport Office? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald concerning delays in passport issue at the Sydney Passport Office. It is the case that this Office receives the largest number of passport applications in Australia-over 600 every working day. The article relates to a Monday lunchtime, which, I am advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs, is by far the busiest period as one would expect for all passport offices. While the Office attempts to maintain maximum staffing at this time, staff absences and lunch breaks do mean that it is not possible to man all the interview counters in operation for this period. The usual waiting period in the Sydney office, I am advised, does not exceed 30 minutes. Applications lodged in person are processed in seven working days. If an applicant specifies a need for an urgent passport issue, provision is made to ensure that such a request is met. It has been the case since 1 October that Australian passport applications may be lodged, as Senator Sibraa said, at official post offices. This facility is now receiving wide coverage in the daily Press and in travel industry publications which is, in many ways, equally important. There are over 1,400 official post offices throughout Australia. It is clear that the use of this facility will obviate the present pressures faced by passport offices. The Government commends the use of this procedure to passport applicants and hopes, as always, that people take some notice of that commendation. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. It relates to the Government's espousal of increased participation in higher education as a policy strategy. I ask the Minister: Why will funding restraints make it necessary for universities to offer from 1984, that is, Labor's first year of funding, far fewer first year places-in some cases up to 25 per cent fewer places-than in 1983 which, of course, was the last year of Liberal-National Party Government funding? Because the restrictions could be eased if adequate funds were available, I ask the Minister: Will the Government ensure that funds are sufficient to enable first-year acceptances for 1984 to be at least equal to those of the 1983 level? Senator RYAN —I do not know where Senator Peter Baume has figures suggesting that there will be 25 per cent fewer places offered in 1984. Senator Peter Baume —It is correct. Senator RYAN —Certainly I have had no such advice from the Tertiary Education Commission, whose job it is to discuss with the various tertiary education institutions throughout Australia how many places they are able to offer. It is the Government's intention-indeed, funds have been made available to this end- that considerably more places be available during 1984. I can only comment that some institutions in areas which are over-supplied with tertiary places, such as some parts of larger cities, may reduce the number of places that they are offering; but, if that were the case, I would expect that many more places would be offered in, for example, the outer western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, regional institutions throughout country areas of Australia, and so on. But that sort of adjustment, of course, is a matter for the Tertiary Education Commission to work out, through the Universities Council with the various institutions. It is the intention of the Government that there be more tertiary places available in 1984. It is my expectation that that will be the case, and I have certainly had no advice to the contrary from the Commission. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the Minister assuring the Senate that enough funds will be available to ensure, across the system, that at least as many first-year places will be available in 1984 as were available in 1983? Senator RYAN —Funds have already been made available and allocated in the Budget to that effect. Senator COLEMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It follows a question asked by Senator Richardson on 22 September relating to increased Indonesian activity in East Timor. Given that figures reporting on the situation put the number of Fretilin members at about 100, will the Minister advise on what direct action has been or will be taken by Australia to do more than express concern at the most recent reports that 10,000 armed Indonesians have been used to repress the activities of the East Timorese people in their own country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek a very early reply. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy . Now that the Government has finally adopted its discriminatory uranium policy favouring the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia, what is the Commonwealth's attitude to the question of compensation for companies which have invested many millions of dollars in exploration and development of prospects, particularly the Koongarra and Jabiluka deposits in the Northern Territory? Has the Government considered the question of compensation for the Aboriginal communities which stood to benefit from royalties flowing from the development of these two deposits, and, if so, what is its attitude? Has the Government had any estimate made of the total losses likely to be incurred by Northern Territory development companies and Aboriginal communities in the Territory? Does the Minister agree with the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy estimate that earnings from existing Territory uranium mines-that is Jabiluka and Koongarra-could be about $9 billion by the year 2000? Senator WALSH —I am trying to do a quick mental calculation on the last part of the question-'$9 billion by the year 2000'. Senator Kilgariff —That is right. Senator WALSH —Yes, that is about correct if present levels of production and prices were maintained. The loaded terms in which Senator Kilgariff put the earlier part of the question were quite wrong. He spoke of a 'decision favouring the Bannon Labor Government and penalising the Northern Territory' or words to that effect. That, of course, is sheer nonsense. The decision made by the Government was a responsible decision made in the best interests of Australia. We were confronted with a choice of making it possible for the Roxby Downs project to be economically viable or for some alternative uranium prospect of similar output-that is, 3,000 tonnes of uranium oxide per year-to be so. I remind Senator Kilgariff that other prospects in Australia besides Jabiluka have the potential to produce that level of yellowcake, Yeelirrie in Western Australia for one. The Government was faced with the fact that Roxby Downs was certainly competitive with, and possibly mutually exclusive to, any of those other prospects. Yes, it made a decision in favour of Roxby Downs because, as I stated earlier, the total value of product from that mine, given that it is to be primarily a copper mine, is very much greater than it would be from any alternative mine producing the same amount of uranium oxide. Therefore, the total employment generated from that project would be very much greater. For those reasons-I notice Senator Chaney looking interested again; I acknowledge to him that that was not the only reason, but I believe it was the major reason for the Government's decision-the Government made a responsible economic decision in the interests of Australia that preference should be given to the Roxby Downs project. I note in closing a point which I should perhaps have made earlier: The concept of sequential development-in other words, an order of priority determined by governments-is not new and was explicitly recommended by the Fox inquiry. I stand open to correction on this, but I thought that, at least at one stage, that principle had been endorsed by the then Liberal-National Party Government. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to a recent article published in the Canberra Times which claimed that the Australian Federal Police is losing experienced investigators to the Department of Social Security and other departments? I ask the Minister: First, is it true that the Department of Social Security has been seeking to employ and is employing experienced officers of the Australian Federal Police? Secondly, is it also true that the Department is using these new employees to help with fraud investigations? Thirdly, has the money offered by the Department to the investigators been far greater than the amount received by the same investigators when previously employed by the Federal Police? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention was drawn to the statement by Mr Benson, the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Federal Police. No, the statement is not accurate. My Department has not taken any direct action to recruit Australian Federal Police officers. No Australian Federal Police officers have, in fact, been recruited by the Department in recent times. The Department uses computing, statistical and other methods such as visits to claimants by field officers to investigate and identify incorrect social security payments. The most senior investigatory position in the Department currently attracts a salary of $22,000 per annum, whereas I noted that the statement claimed that the Department was offering people salaries of more than $30,000 per annum. Field officer positions recently advertised in Queensland and Victoria offered a salary of $17,500 per annum. These field officers do not carry out the sorts of investigations that were mentioned in the article. Those cases that are not suitable for investigation by the Department, such as cheque offences, for which referral to the Australian Federal Police is necessary without exception in line with Department of Finance directions, major frauds and claims made in multiple names are referred to the Australian Federal Police and are not investigated internally by the Department. There is a series of errors in the statement. It is certainly not correct as far as the Department of Social Security is concerned. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. On 22 September, I asked the Minister: Are the Treasurer and the Minister aware that considerable success in controlling the white collar crime of arson has been achieved in the United States following the enactment of an arson reporting immunity Bill? In view of this success will the Minister hold talks with the States and the insurance industry in order that similar legislation may be implemented in Australia to assist in combating this serious and fast growing crime? As I have not yet received a response to that question in respect of which I had an undertaking from the Minister that he would have a reply produced, can he advise whether the matter has been discussed and what is the answer? Senator WALSH —I am afraid I cannot so advise. I can only apologise to Senator Archer for the delay in providing a response to the question which he asked on 22 September. I will endeavour to do what I can to procure an answer. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question, addressed to the Attorney-General, relates to the recent High Court of Australia decision granting the status of a religion to Scientology. Does this judgment extend the ability of individuals or groups to claim religious status as a means of avoiding payment of rates and/or taxes or as a means of circumventing legislation which would otherwise limit their activities? Does the Government intend to take any action to prevent individuals or groups avoiding their responsibilities in this way? Senator GARETH EVANS —Whatever one thinks about Scientology, the High Court decision provides a useful and in many ways long overdue clarification as to what constitutes a religion in this country. While the judges were not unanimous in their view, it is clear from the judgments that a religion is not to be confined to the major denominations or to a belief in the existence of a supreme being. At the same time, it is clear from the judgment that bodies which are no more than hoaxes or parodies of religion will not be regarded as religious bodies. Senator Georges —How do you determine that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that it will be a close thing in many instances. What exemptions from taxes should be granted to religious bodies is a matter for decision by governments, both Federal and State. The Commonwealth has no plans of which I am aware to reconsider any of its laws in the light of this High Court decision but this may be something to which we will need to pay continuing attention in the light of any response the decision generates. Let me make one further point clear, lest there be misunderstanding about the implications of the decision. The fact that a body has religious status in the sense that it would be recognised as a religion by the High Court on the criteria just enunciated does not make it exempt in any way from the ordinary laws of the land. Justices Mason and Brennan made the point quite clearly in the following terms: Conduct in which a person engaged in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural is religious but is excluded from the area of legal immunity marked out by the concept of religion if it offends against the ordinary laws-that is, if it offends against laws which do not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religions or against conduct of a kind which is characteristic only of a religion. Senator Missen —Victorian football should qualify. Senator GARETH EVANS —Victorian football would have some chance on these criteria but I am not sure whether it involves a commitment to a supernatural being, thing or principle. Maybe it involves a supernatural thing. Clearly we are in the realm of high order metaphysics with this particular judgment and I commend the reading of it to honourable senators. It is highly entertaining in many ways. Senator WATSON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has not the Government's apparent foreign policy of 'friends to all and commitments to none' had a backlash from our Association of South East Nations neighbours, Commonwealth countries and significant trade partners? Has such an academic and indifferent approach to the feelings of our treaty countries not resulted in our loss of a significant amount of goodwill and maybe a loss of trading opportunities? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that the honourable senator's question seems to amount to some kind of suggestion that ASEAN foreign ministers have suspended ASEAN-Australia dialogue and to the extent that he has based that suggestion on Press reports, it should be said, and said immediately, that those Press reports are incorrect. In practice, the ASEAN-Australian Forum is only one aspect of our dialogue in our relationship with ASEAN, others being the ASEAN, plus foreign ministers, meetings, the ASEAN-Australia consultative meetings and-this is particularly important in the context of the trade relations to which the honourable senator referred-the ASEAN-Australia economic co-operation program. To the extent that there are more specific matters that arise from the honourable senator's question which deserve further reply from either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Trade, I will refer the question to them to see what they might be interested in saying. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Earlier in Question Time today, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, named my spouse as one of the signatories to an advertisement which appeared in a Tasmanian newspaper. During his tirade he mentioned not only my spouse but also Professor Correy, or a professor-there was only one professor, a Professor Correy- who signed the advertisement. Senator Grimes said that the people who signed the advertisement were interested only in penalising the disadvantaged. It is on those grounds that I rise to refute the statement. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I believe that to make a personal explanation at the end of Question Time involves a matter of a personal misrepresentation. Last week the good senator claimed that her spouse had been misrepresented. Now it seems that she is talking about another group of individuals in the community who, she claims, have been misrepresented. I wonder whether we will have the situation where, at the end of every Question Time, honourable senators will seek leave to make a statement of this type. If that is the case, the Government will have to reconsider whether it will give leave with such liberty as it has in the past. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, sought to claim that someone who had not been a member of parliament for many years was misrepresented. If we like, we can go on like this all day. In the past a personal explanation has been made about a personal misrepresentation. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on the point of order. As a matter of strict correctness, one could properly say that a personal explanation has to relate to the honourable senator claiming to have been misrepresented. Mr President, I draw your attention to the practice which is, it appears to me, growing in the Senate of raising in answers to questions or in debate the associations which honourable senators have with other people, whether they be through marriage or whatever, and the rolling up of general sorts of sneering references to people who have some form of association with senators and members seeking, in the process, to disparage a senator or member. Senator Peter Baume —Guilt by association. Senator Chaney —An interjection from behind me states that it is a form of guilt by association. Indeed, I think that is what it is. I believe the desire on the part of honourable senators to explain references which have been made to individuals who are personally associated with them-in this case a double association was raised in the answer-arises from that practice which I think is highly undesirable. I would have thought that where an individual is associated with an honourable senator in some way in the course of comment in the Senate and criticism is made of that person as an associate of the honourable senator, then it would be in order for that point to be clarified. To adopt an unduly restrictive ruling in that matter would, I think, be most unfortunate. I agree with the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, that in the end the remedy will come in a refusal to grant leave for honourable senators to make personal explanations. I understand that that is the ultimate check that would be made on any abuse of the personal explanation procedure. I think that in those cases where there is a rolling up of some third party with the name of the honourable senator who seeks to make a personal explanation, some latitude would be desirable. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walters claims to have been misrepresented. It was obvious to the Chair when she started to make her remarks that she would have sought leave to make a personal explanation. I then invited her to seek leave to make a personal explanation and leave was given by the Senate. I remind Senator Walters that whilst she is entitled to make a personal explanation, she is not entitled to engage in debate in doing so. I now invite her to complete her personal explanation without debating the matter. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr President. As I said, I have risen because of Senator Grimes's statement that the people who signed the petition are interested only in penalising the disadvantaged. I am very proud of my husband. I am very proud of the reputation which he has in my State. I do not think there is anything that Senator Grimes could do in any way to besmirch my husband's reputation. He spent years and years working in an honorary capacity at the Royal Hobart Hospital. He gave one and a half days of his time every week in an honorary capacity-and when I say that I mean completely honorary capacity-until 1972 or 1973, I think, when the position was finally done away with. I do not expect Senator Grimes to understand what is behind the thinking of people like my husband who are willing to give of their time without any payment whatsoever to care for people. I do not expect Senator Grimes to understand that. However, I refute the suggestion that people, including my husband, who signed the petition are interested only in penalising the disadvantaged. These people have worked for nothing, year after year, looking after people who are disadvantaged. Senator Grimes also mentioned Professor Correy. Professor Correy, likewise, gave 20 years of his time in an honourary capacity- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to Senator Walters that she is now starting to debate the explanation. Senator WALTERS —Could I speak to that point, please, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, I invite you to make a personal explanation and in doing so you are entitled to make that personal explanation in respect of yourself. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr President. Professor Correy is a very close colleague of my husband and a very close friend of mine. The PRESIDENT —I suggest to the honourable senator that if she wishes to make remarks of this nature she do so during the adjournment debate this evening. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, could I seek leave to make a very short statement ? Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Thank you very much. I thank Senator Button for granting me leave. Senator Robert Ray —It was Senator Grimes. Senator WALTERS —I thank Senator Grimes. Senator BUTTON —I grant it on the basis of a special relationship with Professor Correy. Senator WALTERS —I will not answer that or it might appear in Hansard. Similarly , Professor Correy worked for 20 years in an honorary capacity at the Royal Hobart Hospital. He has now reached the height of his profession as Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Tasmania. He is a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council and is the second President of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and consequently is held in very high regard by all Tasmanians and by all his colleagues, obviously with the exception of Senator Grimes. He has chosen to take a salaried position as professor. As such, it is true-and this applies to the other people whom Senator Grimes tried to write down-that he accepts a salary from the Government. But he believes in free enterprise. He does not believe in the nationalisation of doctors. It is for that reason that Professor Correy signed that declaration. His statistical research on infant death and mother mortality has been taken as a model throughout the whole of Australia. He has done more work in the medical sphere for this country than Senator Grimes will do in a lifetime in this Parliament. It ill becomes Senator Grimes to make statements such as he made, particularly in relation to these two fine men, but also, indeed, in relation to any of the other people who signed that petition. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Senator Walters has tried to make out of the answer to the question a personal attack by me denigrating the professional esteem of the two doctors she mentioned. As it happens, I have been closely associated with one of those doctors for 20 years. As for the other doctor, as Senator Walters may well know, I have no argument with his professional capacity. In fact, he delivered my son. I think I know both of them pretty well. I do not know Senator Walters's spouse as well as she does but I certainly know Professor Correy very well. What I do know and respect is their professional ability. Where our differences lie is in our politics. I do not necessarily respect or agree with their politics. When those two doctors and the other doctors signed the advertisement they signed, they signed it in a political capacity. They claimed that what this Government was doing was nationalising medicine. It clearly is not. They claimed that what this Government was doing was preventing them from delivering private medical practice to their patients, which it clearly is not. In making those political statements, in getting into the political kitchen, they have to accept the fact that there will be a bit of heat and that they will get a reply. They got a reply. I wish Senator Walters would recognise that. When she tries to paint anything I said as denigrating them professionally, I think she is the one who is playing that party political game. In finishing this explanation I say what I said before. When one of the other signatories to that letter, as a member of a medical organisation, signed an advertisement in the 1980 elections urging people to vote against the Australian Labor Party I got stuck into him too. He rang me, and he accepted that he was playing politics and that he had to cop it back. All that is published I say is that if any of those people wish to sign an advertisement denigrating this Government or this Party they will get a reply from me-I believe that they know that they will get a reply from me-of that type. It is reasonable for me to point out that people such as that, who apparently denigrate government interference in medicine and government participation in the delivery of medical supplies and at the same time accept considerable incomes from the same public purse, are being inconsistent. That is all I said and that is all I will say in the future. I suggest that at least one of those doctors whom I know well accepts that when he enters into the political sphere in that regard he must cop what he gets back as part of the political sphere. Maybe the other one does not, I do not know, but I will have a talk to him about it the next time I see him here. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-Annual Report 1981 -82-pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982 2. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1982-83 3. Insurance Commissioner Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973 4. Department of Defence-Annual Report 1982-83 5. Defence Budget-Text of a Statement made to the House of Representatives on 3 November 1983 by the Minister for Defence 6. Australia's Defence Industries-Text of a Statement made to the House of Representatives on 3 November 1983 by the Minister for Defence Support 7. Overseas Visit to Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, 1-16 August 1983-Report tabled by the Minister for Defence Support in the House of Representatives on 3 November 1983 8. Study to Develop a Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000-Report together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Minister for Resources and Energy 1. 9. Industries Assistance Commission-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973-together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year on reports made to the Minister Annual Report 1982-83 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I think we ought to have a fairly close look at the insurance situation in Australia. Some of the comments made by the Acting Insurance Commissioner, Mr Smith, demonstrate that the matter certainly needs some attention. Mr Smith, in his report, said: In the longer term it is hoped that the insurance market, while remaining competitive, will be able to support itself and provide a reasonable return to investors. He said further that the deterioration in the required solvency margins of all insurance companies under the terms of the Insurance Act was consistent with the poor results being returned in the industry generally. There have been quite a lot of mergers, takeovers and withdrawal but the industry is still not doing enough to keep claims down and premiums at a reasonable level. The number of companies in the 20 per cent to 25 per cent solvency margin has increased from six in 1980-81 to 17 in 1981-82. This is getting too close to the line. The deficit for private sector direct underwriters was $430m for the year ended 31 December 1982. This is comparable with the figure of $429m for the year ended 31 December 1981 but is substantially higher than the figure of $227m for the year ended 31 December 1980. This gave an accumulated deficit for the three years of $1,086m. The deficit for the reinsurers deteriorated from $58m in 1981 to $81m in 1982. The public sector deficit deteriorated from $123m in 1981 to $325m in 1982. That is an alarming trend. It will take a lot of action to restore what is considered to be a safe and reasonable margin in business. As it turned out, I asked a question today concerning arson, the cost of which in Australia is now estimated at between $400m and $600m a year. We are making inappropriate moves to try to control it. Following upon a question that I asked a couple of months ago, I state that it is absolutely urgent that there be a conference between the insurance industry and government at all levels to set up some sort of mechanism whereby problems of arson can be thoroughly investigated and reasonable action taken. The huge cost to Australia does not stop with arson . Criminal fraud in relation to workers compensation, motor vehicle insurance, theft and a whole range of insurance aspects is extremely high. I believe that, until we are able to offer immunity in the reporting of insurance fraud, overall losses and premium statistics will continue to deteriorate. At the moment the insurers of Australia are probably spending 50 per cent more than they should. Approximately double what would normally be spent is being spent because of insurance fraud. I urge the Government to take steps to look at this problem. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Ministerial Statement Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. When the statement was made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in the other place last week I put out a comment praising the Government for a significant change in emphasis in its defence policy which will provide, perhaps for the first time, an army capable of defending Australia. I said that I hoped the Government would maintain the direction for a much more flexible force, as indeed was mentioned on page 21 of the Minister's statement as follows: . . . it expects the Army of the future to be a leaner, more mobile, better co- ordinated and harder-hitting force, geared to operating across the sweep of our own territory. We have not reached that stage yet, but I believe at least we will move in that direction. I hope that the Government maintains that view and resists the blandishments of those who still seek to return to the more old fashioned concept of a military force tied in with the logistics and requirements of our allies absolutely and designed apparently for foreign adventures but of not much use for the defence of our homeland. I think events of the past have made it pretty clear that we cannot have both those things. On page 22 of the statement the Minister said: Specialisation in mechanised operations, presently limited to company scale is intended, over the five year program, to be extended to develop the necessary doctrine and command and control skills. Then this comment is made: At present only a company specialises in parachute operations and that too will be extended gradually. It is the word 'gradually' that worries the Australian Democrats. If we are to have an army with the logistics and sweep and capacity to defend this country, its parachute force must be expanded not gradually but quickly. On page 23 I noted this comment: A start will be made on a new Army Parachute Training School at Nowra, at a cost of about $5m. There again I think the Government is making an error of emphasis if it thinks we have all the time in the world to begin these things and it starts such an important project with an allocation of a very small sum of money. Senator Peter Baume —How much should it be? Senator MASON —I would have thought it would be worth while getting a really competent army parachute training school up within the next two years. Senator Peter Baume —How much? Senator MASON —I would have thought not less than $50m. I think that is not an excessive sum of money, Senator Baume, to achieve that end-to make sure we have a significant part of our Army capable of moving quickly, by aircraft and which can be dropped confidently to meet any kind of enemy. If we have not got that we have got nothing. We have the ridiculous situation of having a lot of Centurion tanks lying around at Puckapunyal. They cannot even be moved north because the bridges and roads cannot carry them. That sort of army we do not want. Senator Georges —No. One good thing can be said about HMAS Tobruk; it can shift those tanks. Senator MASON —Well, most of the tanks do not work. If it is any news to the honourable senator, the Army does not have the spare parts for them. On page 23 it is mentioned: Important base facilities developments for Army will continue, including the new Armoured Centre at Puckapunyal . . . Great stuff! We make the same mistakes over and over again. I would have thought we might have decided to have another significant armoured area somewhat further to the north so that parts of the country other than Victoria might have some sort of facility to defend themselves against foreign attack; so that armour could be got into position reasonably quickly. I think that the points on page 22 concerning logistics are excellent, especially this remark: New utility helicopters, mentioned earlier in the context of their potential for commonality with our maritime needs, will be needed for Army to retain and strengthen its ability to respond quickly to the kinds of incidents that might credibly arise with relatively little warning in our remoter areas. We require parachutes, decent anti-aircraft equipment and helicopters. These should go ahead of any other requirements. This would then allow the Government to achieve the flexible and hard-hitting army that it says it wants. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.30) —This situation is a bit awkward because it points up a difficulty we have when important ministerial statements, or at least, ministerial statements on important matters, are simply tabled in this chamber and not presented in a way appropriate for debate in this place. These two statements should be debated together because they really deal with the general matter of defence and were dealt with in that way in the other place . The statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) is very disappointing. As I said, it deals with a most important matter. But it seems to me that this Government has failed so far to come to grips with the question of a defence policy. As the Minister says, the 1983-84 defence budget is largely a holding operation. In every area of difficulty and certainly of importance in defence policy we seem to be presented with the answer that the Government is reviewing this or that matter. The argument that is brought to bear by the Minister is that there are constraints because of the great backlog of projects which has been inherited from the previous Government. Of course, that Government made very major decisions as far as equipment was concerned. They were necessary decisions. They were decisions which are vital for the defence of this country. The mere fact that this Government has inherited them should, I think, be a matter of satisfaction to the community. Indeed, it should be a matter of some relief to this Government that it has inherited very clear policies in regard to defence equipment purchases over the ensuing years. That does not relieve this Government of the need to treat this matter as an ongoing policy and the requirement for further decisions to be made by it. A good example is the decision the Government made to pay off the HMAS Melbourne and to withdraw the fixed wing naval aircraft, the Skyhawks. Yet the Government has not made any decisions, as far as we are aware, in relation to the acquisition of equipment to replace such big losses in the equipment of the Australian defence forces. As I said, we are simply given the answer that these matters are under review. In the fairly near future the Government has to make decisions on these matters and cannot simply say that it is reviewing them. The Kangaroo 83 exercise, in fact, pointed up very clearly the deficiencies that we have in the protection of our off-shore areas as a result of the Skyhawks having been withdrawn. In fact, that exercise showed up the difficulties of protecting naval forces participating in it as a result of the absence of the Skyhawks and the limited range of Mirage aircraft. It was only when the New Zealand Skyhawks came on the scene that adequate protection was made available. So I believe that this statement generally is disappointing. The Government has very little new to say in it in relation to defence, apart from what it has already said and done up to now. The question of where this Government is heading in the long term in relation to defence is one with which the Government must come to grips in the very near future. Debate (on motion by Senator Hamer) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.36) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement on the report of a 'Study to Develop a Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000'. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The study was initiated by the previous Government and undertaken by the Department of Resources and Energy under the direction of an independent steering committee. Detailed information was supplied by eleven consultants in thirteen reports. Discussions were held with water authorities in all states and some 140 submissions were received in response to a public invitation. The report indicates that, in general terms. Australia has sufficient surface and underground water resources to meet anticipated needs to the year 2000, and while regional or local shortages already occur and will continue, these can be overcome by long-term planning and increased expenditure. The study identifies eight major issues facing the water industry over the next two decades. They are : Protection and improvement of water quality; more efficient use of currently available water supplies; the conservation of existing water supplies by more appropriate allocation and financial policies; co-ordinated management and use of water and land resources; adequate provision for in-stream uses; improvements in data collection and analysis and information dissemination; provision of adequate funding for water resources purposes, including research; continuing Commonwealth Government involvement. The Government's 1983 election policy included a commitment to determine national water resource priorities on the basis of this report. Discussions have already been held with the States in the Australian Water Resources Council on the main issues raised in the report, and their views will be taken into account by the Government in formulating its response to the report. The report draws attention to the general neglect of water supplies for country towns, many of which are quantitatively and qualitatively inadequate, the latter sometimes to the point of being a health hazard. The Government shares this concern. $20 million has been appropriated in the 1983 Budget for the twin purposes of stimulating employment and arresting previous neglect of water supplies to country towns. The provision of water supplies is however primarily a State Government responsibility. It also notes that traditional pricing and other policies have favoured irrigators-who use 74% of all water-to the detriment of country town residents. Moreover pricing policies have encouraged irrigation practices which are economically wasteful and sometimes environmentally damaging. The report is explicitly critical of these policies and recommends changes (see 6.26, 6.27 and 6.30). The government notes with satisfaction that some State Governments have made policy changes in accord with these recommendations. Many generations of Australians have imbibed the conventional wisdom that irrigation will drought-proof the country. This belief is explicitly refuted by the report: 'Irrigation development of itself does not mitigate the effects of drought. It may even exacerbate the effects of drought if heavily stocked irrigation properties are subject to water supply restrictions. Fodder produced under irrigation is mainly for on-farm use, and sales of fodder are insignificant in the context of demand under drought conditions.' Finally, it is recommended that in irrigation development, priority be given to the completion of projects already under construction. The appropriation of $46 million in this year's Budget marks the completion of the previous Government's national water resources program. The 'Water 2000' report will provide the basis for new water resource policies and programs to ensure a more effective allocation of funds to meet clearly defined objectives to deal with issues raised in this report of particular concern to the Commonwealth. In this context, I refer to arrangements for establishing an interim council to examine the case for an institute of freshwater studies, and discussions now in progress with the states on a new Commonwealth/States water resources assessment program. Copies of the thirteen reports prepared by consultants will be lodged with the parliamentary library and libraries throughout Australia which provide a particular focus on water resources. Copies of the report now being tabled are available through commercial outlets of the Australian Government Publishing Service in the capital cities, and there is also a limited number of the consulant's reports available through these outlets. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I would like to speak very briefly to the report. I understand that other Opposition senators may also wish to speak to it. This report, which is entitled 'Study to Develop a Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000' addresses one of the major issues which Australia as a country has to face. We are fond of describing ourselves as the driest continent. Those of us who fly from the east to the west and back again on almost a weekly basis are, I suppose , as aware as anyone of the enormous tracts of Australia which are devoid of any evident water supplies. I think that when one drives fron Perth to Adelaide one crosses one's last running stream at Northam, which is 60 miles out of Perth-I suppose that is 100 kilometres out of Perth-and one does not strike a running stream until one hits Adelaide. That is a fairly remarkable piece of geography and, I suppose, a fair sort of indication of why the previous Government saw fit to commission this report. I think it is becoming quite evident, even to urban Australians, that water resources are something which cannot simply be taken for granted. Again, if one moves around the country what is readily evident now is the quite different water quality in the different State capitals. I have been fond of complaining about the quality of water which is enjoyed, or not enjoyed, in the city of Adelaide. Of course, the previous Government provided some funds to take action to improve water quality for South Australia. But I was somewhat shocked when people who came from Melbourne to stay in Perth complained just as loudly of the water in Perth as I have heard people complain in Adelaide. In my own city of Perth we have moved steadily towards the use of ground water for domestic purposes. It is certainly true that one can taste and notice a difference in the water quality in that city. I think that quite clearly this is an issue which we need to take very seriously both at the national level and, of course, at the State level where the primary responsibility for water resources lies. I think it will be increasingly important that we ensure that Australia's development in other senses is matched by the skills that we show in managing our scarce water resources. For that reason I welcome this report which, I emphasise, was initiated by the previous Government and by the previous Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick. I believe that the information and the studies which have been provided in the 13 reports by 11 different consultants will provide very useful working material for those of us who are responsible for considering policy in this area in the future. So my only point at this stage is to stress what I see as the importance of this report to Australia, or its potential importance, and to thank the previous Minister for having initiated what will, I think, be a most useful study which will be used well into the future. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.39) —This report has been tabled by the Government some six months after it was received from the authors. It was tabled in a tabling statement which reveals that the Government has done nothing to reach decisions at this point on the report, even though it said many months ago that it would await the report, make its decisions and act upon them. First let me say this: As one who was privileged to commission the report, I believe that it is a first class report. I commend the work of those who took part in preparing it. I commend the reading and study of this report to all honourable senators. Against that background I point out that this report follows the worst protracted drought Australia has ever had. One would have thought that there was a sense of urgency about it, a sense that the Government should do something. It comes at a time, incidentally, when the national water resources program-this is its fifth year-is in the process of being terminated. It comes at a time when the Government, in its Budget, has said nothing at all about implementing any future programs. In the tabling statement there is some suggestion that discussions are going on now. No State Government can plan its work ahead if it does not have a few years of lead time. Quite clearly, at this moment the States know that, at the very best, they have months, not years of lead time. But to point out the grave defects in the Government's attitude to this report, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the report places great emphasis upon the formation by the previous Government of the National Water Research Council. The report itself states that the Council itself is of very great importance to the future and that its work should be facilitated. The National Water Research Council was formed by the unanimous recommendation of the States, with the agreement of the Commonwealth, under my ministry. It was formed by a recommendation of the Australian Water Resources Council-a body that receives high commendation in this report. The National Water Research Council was formed after the Australian Water Resources Council had looked at the idea of establishing an institute of freshwater studies and rejected that idea. We had a situation in which the Australian Water Resources Council had rejected that idea and had recommended the establishment of the National Water Research Council. This report stresses the importance of the National Water Research Council. What has the Government done? It has suspended the work of that Council and is contemplating establishing an institute of freshwater studies. That is about the level of the action of the Government. Quite recently the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said that he would wait to see what these recommendations were before he evaluated the bicentennial water resources project study. Fundamentally, all the principles in this report are precisely the principles for which the study of the bicentennial water resources project was instituted. These include the greater efficiency of existing water supplies, including town water supplies, the Kalgoorlie pipeline; the Wimmera pipeline; the filtration plant in South Australia; and the facilitation and aggregation of existing projects such as Glenbawn Dam and, of course, the River Murray. Every principle that had been laid down-I mentioned to the Senate previously that a study of the bicentennial water resources project had been referred to the Chairman of this Steering Committee prior to its adoption by the previous Government-is entrenched in this report and nothing is being done. The sad fact is that this country, after the experience of recent years, cannot afford to waste time-it cannot afford to waste months and months- in not planning ahead. No State can afford not to know what moneys will be available to it in the coming year. In fact the destruction of the planned extension of four years of the national water resources program is one of the most serious defects that one could inflict upon a State. It is impossible now for the States to plan for the future. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.44) —I also welcome this report and regret that we do not have two or three hours in which to debate it. I think it is a very critical subject that we in Australia face. Water is our most vital resource. I compliment the former Minister, Senator Sir John Carrick, for taking the initiative to set in train administrative arrangements which led to this report coming before us today. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) was quite right when he said that even the waters of Western Australia are not much better than those in South Australia. We tend to become pre-occupied with the River Murray. Naturally South Australians being at the end of the River Murray system, are very conscious of the need to protect that water resource against pollution and continued devastation that can arise out of indiscriminate irrigation practices. I know that a lot of the rivers in Western Australia have a high salinity level, probably in most cases exceeding the level that is laid down by the World Health Organisation. This particular report makes a comment on a broad range of subjects. I referred to some of these points in my speech last week on the River Murray Waters Bill which gave the River Murray Commission overdue authority or responsibility for making recommendations with respect to water quality. I was critical that its responsibility did not go far enough because any one of the parties to the River Murray Waters Agreement can disregard or veto any recommendations that are made. I notice that this report mentions flood plain management. It mentions that it has received increasing attention in recent years but much remains to be done. At page 60 of the report it is stated: All governments should make a commitment to a program of floodplain management to reduce the risk in existing flood-prone areas to acceptable levels by the year 2000. I also mentioned in my speech last week that I think the water position in Australia is so critical that by the year 2050 many people fear that our water resources will be fully committed. Therefore, now is the time to take action. Now is the time to spend millions of dollars-not a million or two, but probably billions of dollars-to ensure that our water resources will carry us beyond the year 2050. I note in the report also that the question of diversion of coastal rivers is mentioned. Page 63 of the report states: The seasonal discharge of vast quantities of water from eastward-flowing rivers in New South Wales and Queensland has long stimulated interest in the possibility of diverting the flows . . . It goes on to say: The Queensland Government has recently completed a desk-top study of the 1938 Bradfield Scheme to divert the waters of the Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers to the inland. It went on quite properly to point out: On present indications, the capital cost of diverting eastward-flowing rivers across the Divide cannot be justified by water use for agriculture alone. Multi- purpose schemes, probably including pumped-storage hydro-electricity projects or the use of water for major energy, energy-related or mining projects, could change the economics of inland diversion proposals, but each would have to be evaluated on its merit. I was thankful that the Fraser Government in the last election campaign advocated that money should be provided-if it had been returned to government it would have provided sufficient money-to conduct a feasibility study into this particular question. A lot of other matters are mentioned in this report including the question of ground-water. I do not know whether we have done sufficient research into the quantity of ground-water available but if we have the research is unco-ordinated . We have not done sufficient work on studying its rate of replenishment and the average water table that should apply to ensure that that particular resource is not mined and that the water table is preserved at an optimum level. All these matters need to be dealt with. Some of them are covered in this report. I commend the report to the Senate and suggest that the Government through the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), should take a more positive approach to the vital water resources of Australia. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.50) —I do not know whether Senator Sir John Carrick intended to make anything of it, but he referred to the report being tabled six months after it was first received by the Government. That delay was due to printing difficulties; it was not intentional on the part of the Government. Secondly, Senator Sir John Carrick was critical of the fact that no new policy has yet been announced to replace the previous Government's policy, which was due to expire at the end of this financial year. The Government has appointed an interim council for an Institute of Freshwater Studies and will be awaiting the report from that council. The appointment of such a council is a seemingly simple matter. I must confess that, for various reasons which were beyond my control, it has taken very much longer than I expected and very much longer than I would have wanted for that council to be appointed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The time provided for the consideration of government papers has expired. Senator WALSH —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 209th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-The 209th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is an examination of reports of the Auditor-General 1980-81. Each year the Committee examines all reports of the Auditor-General. In respect of the reports of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1981 the Committee sought written submissions from nine departments in respect of 11 of the items raised. After discussions with the Auditor-General and departmental officers the Committee selected four of those items for public inquiry. Public hearings on 20 May 1982 occurred in respect of the Department of Finance in relation to expenditure in excess of warrants of the Governor-General and closing of accounts at year end, including moneys unbanked, and in respect of the Department of Social Security in relation to the national benefits system and assistance for homeless persons. EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S WARRANT The Auditor-General noted that payments in 1980-81 from the Commonwealth public account, charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund under a special appropriation provided by the States Grants (Tertiary Assistance) Act 1978, had exceeded by $5 ,100,372, the amount specified in the warrants of the Governor-General. Although expenditure in excess of appropriation was not involved, a further warrant should have been obtained from the Governor-General before moneys were withdrawn from the Commonwealth Public Account for the purposes of the appropriation. CLOSING OF ACCOUNTS AT YEAR END A major objective of the Department of Finance accounting system is the production of accurate financial statements pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of the Audit Act 1901. In this context the closing of accounts at year end is an important process. An important audit objective of the closing of accounts procedures is to provide assurance that the receipts and payments of the financial year are reflected in the annual financial statements. In this regard the Auditor-General considered that the incidence and variety of deficiencies disclosed in 1980-81 suggest that adherence to the closing of accounts directions is inadequate in some departments. NATIONAL BENEFITS SYSTEM The Auditor-General's 1980-81 report referred to an in-depth audit of the national benefits system undertaken during the period from October 1980 to January 1981. As a result of the investigations, the Auditor-General reported that he considered that the development of the national benefits system was not adequately controlled and, to some extent, did not proceed in accordance with generally accepted practice. The Committee considers that the NBS project was inadequately controlled and recommends that the Department should in future ensure that adequate records are kept to ensure proper asessment of the cost- effectiveness of such projects. The Committee also recommends that the management and implementation of large automatic data processing projects such as the NBS be under the overall control of one individual senior officer, to be designated as the project manager, with sufficient delegated authority to ensure the project's success; in addition, that for all future pilot projects the Department develop an integrated pre-implementation testing procedure covering ADP system logic, support machinery and staff training. The Committee will continue to monitor the overall operational effectiveness of the national benefits system. ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELESS PERSONS In his report of 30 March 1981 the Auditor-General referred to an in-depth audit of capital assistance grants, under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974, to two organisations for the construction of homeless persons centres. The assertion was made that one of these projects appeared to represent significantly less value for money as a homeless persons centre than the other. Identified as the most significant contributing factor to this situation was the failure of the Department of Social Security to promulgate standards and guidelines for use by organisations in establishing and constructing such projects with capital assistance provided under the Act. Subsequent matters raised by the Auditor-General were mainly related to the future administration of the homeless persons assistance program. It was suggested by some that costs per bed could measure the value for money of homeless persons projects. The Committee considered that a direct comparison of average costs per bed is not an entirely valid guide to 'value for money' for homeless persons centres. The Committee concludes that emphasis on a cost per head basis ignores the other important functions that are provided by homeless persons projects and suggests that for cost comparison purposes, where multipurpose complexes are involved, a formula be developed on the basis of weighted averages between overnight accommodation and other facilities, and services provided. The Committee approves of detailed departmental standards and guidelines which organisations and their architects are required to observe when planning, designing and constructing homeless persons facilities, as a guide to the nature and extent of Commonwealth financial assistance. The Committee recommends that detailed departmental standards and guidelines be incorporated, along with physical building standards and guidelines, into a comprehensive program manual. The Committee does not suggest that there should be complete standardisation in the facilities or design of homeless persons centres but rather that the Department draw on experience with both homeless persons and nursing home programs to develop a program manual. The Committee considers that a program manual would be of immeasurable assistance and guidance both to organisations embarking on homeless persons projects and to the departmental staff evaluating and administering the program, without sacrificing the necessary degree of flexibility required for the successful development and administration of community welfare projects. The Committee also recommends that the Department of Housing and Construction provide a design service to organisations embarking on a homeless persons project. The design services would include evaluation of the architectural design plan in terms of compliance with the program manual. I commend the report to honourable senators. Assent to the following Bills reported: Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 1983 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1983 Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1983 Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983 Archives Bill 1983 Copyright Amendment Bill 1983 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 1983 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to give effect to principles agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments relating to the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Honourable senators will be aware that comprehensive protection of the Great Barrier Reef has long been our policy. It was a Labor Government which put in place the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act in 1975. Since coming to power in March this year, the Government has given life to the provisions of that Act. Zoning plans for the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections of the marine park were tabled in May 1983 and I expect them to come into operation later this month. In August three further sections of the marine park were proclaimed, with proclamations for two further sections coming into effect on 30 October 1983. The addition of these sections means that this Government has increased from 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent the portion of the Great Barrier Reef Region included in the marine park. Approximately 344,000 square kilometres of the region is now marine park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is by far the world's largest marine park. In addition to proclaiming areas of the marine park, the Government introduced in September 1983 regulations to prohibit oil drilling in those small parts of the Great Barrier Reef region not included in the marine park. Recovery of minerals, including oil drilling, is prohibited in the marine park by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. In 1981 the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage List, thereby bringing international recognition to the importance and uniqueness of this vast complex of coral reefs and their associated life forms. While these initiatives are vital to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, a significant action the Government must take to guarantee the Reef's protection is to strengthen the management arrangements with the Queensland Government. It is with this intention in mind that this Bill has been introduced in Parliament. The basis of agreement between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments for day to day management of the marine park provides for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to undertake management of the marine park subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Commonwealth is to fund 100 per cent of an initial capital works program for each section of the marine park , with all other capital and recurrent costs of management of the marine park being shared equally between the two governments. With regard to Queensland national and marine parks within the outer boundaries of the marine park, Queensland is to fund 100 per cent of the costs of the capital works with the recurrent costs for management being shared equally between the two governments. The agreement also provides for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to administer funds from both Governments for these purposes. Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act as currently drafted, the Marine Park Authority cannot administer funds for the purposes described in the basis of agreement. This Bill will enable the Marine Park Authority to fully implement the agreed management and cost-sharing arrangements. In addition, clause 3 (b) of the Bill ensures that the Marine Park Authority will be able to contribute to complementary management of Queensland national and marine parks adjacent to or near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and other areas judged to be intimately associated with the marine park. Such areas are inseparable from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The additional cost to the Commonwealth from this extension is estimated to be $200,000 per annum. The Bill also contains minor amendments with regard to tabling and disallowance of zoning plans. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for two amendments to section 33 of the principal Act. The first is to ensure that zoning plans are tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the plans have been accepted by the Minister. This amendment, while not precluding early tabling of zoning plans, will guarantee there are no undue delays. The second of the amendments in section 33 is to reduce the disallowance period for zoning plans from 20 to 15 sitting days. This amendment brings section 33 into line with tabling provisions in other legislation and provides for adequate time for the Parliament to consider zoning plans while enabling the plans to come into operation earlier. Some eight years ago, the then Minister for the Environment, Dr Cass, introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill. The first section of the marine park, the Capricornia section, was proclaimed in 1979, followed by the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections in 1981. Proclamations were announced on 31 August 1983 of three further sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, namely the far northern, central and southern sections. These three sections of the Marine Park cover that area of the region north of the Cairns sections and the main reef structures south of the Cairns section not covered by the Capricornia section. The Townsville and inshore southern sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were declared by proclamation of the Governor-General on 30 October 1983. These declarations now complete the establishment of Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The two new sections cover an area of approximately 68,000 square kilometres and include waters inshore of the central, southern and Capricornia sections, between the Cairns section in the north and the Great Barrier Reef region boundary in the south. The criteria used to determine the inclusion of areas in these sections were as follows: Areas where there are significant fringing or inshore reefs or areas of coral growth; areas adjacent to land areas which are subject to conservational management, such as national parks; critical habitats of endangered species, such as major dugong feeding areas and turtle nesting areas; areas which are important to the conservation of species of the Great Barrier Reef region, such as breeding or nursery areas of fish, or of prawns and other invertebrates; and heavily-used tourist areas associated with the natural resources of the Great Barrier Reef region. Existing or potential port areas and areas adjacent to significant agricultural , industrial or urbanised areas were excluded from the Marine Park. Unless there are overriding conservational reasons, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority did not seek the inclusion of port areas in the Marine Park because the involvement of the authority in port administration would not be practicable and the use of the western boundary of the Great Barrier Reef region as a boundary for the entire length of the Queensland mainland could have placed unnecessary restrictions on Queensland local authorities and involve the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in minor administrative matters. The total prohibition of other activities, such as the commercial extraction of sand or gravel from close to the shore, may not be warranted on ecological grounds. Common sense dictates that this would be an excessive Commonwealth Government restriction on normal state activities. Some concern has been expressed that parts of the Great Barrier Reef region left out of the marine park may be unprotected. A major fear was that drilling for oil could occur in these areas. To ensure that this does not happen, by regulations effective as of 1 September 1983, we have prohibited oil drilling in these areas. Should there be any proposals for developments in these excluded areas in the future which might adversely affect the Great Barrier Reef or the marine park, we will act quickly under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to ensure control of the proposed development. The Great Barrier Reef region has been acknowledged by the Commonwealth Government as a priority research area. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has responsibilities for carrying out or arranging for research relevant to the marine park, for co-ordinating research in the region and for reporting the findings to both the Australian and Queensland governments, through the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The Authority also participates in the Australian Marine Research in Progress program and conducts programs which complement research by other organisations and individuals. The Authority will be funding about 60 research and monitoring projects in 1983-84, costing about $360,000. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 requires the Authority to prepare zoning plans for areas that have been declared to be parts of the marine park and to recommend regulations that should be made under the Act. On 26 May zoning plans were tabled for the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections of the marine park- an area of some 35,000 square kilometres. These zoning plans are to come into operation on 7 November 1983. The existing regulations applying to the Capricornia section are to be repealed and replaced by general regulations applying to all the zoned sections of the marine park. The Authority began on 1 September 1983 a public participation program seeking representations regarding the zoning for the far northern section-approximately 80,000 square kilometres or 24 per cent of the reef region. I urge all interested individuals or organisations to respond to this invitation. As soon as is practicable, the Authority will be developing zoning plans for the areas south of the Cairns section. As part of Authority policy to review zoning plans every five years, the zoning plan for the Capricornia section will be reassessed in 1986. The zoning and management plans developed by the Authority are derived from the belief that opportunity for human enjoyment and use of the reef should be maximised, consistent with the conservation of the natural qualities of the reef which give it its unique value. The marine park is also an excellent example of Commonwealth-State co-operation. The officers of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service carry out management policy for the Authority and a number of Queensland agencies contribute in the development of policies for the region. Tourism is a significant growth sector in our economy. The Great Barrier Reef region and adjacent mainland centres currently attract approxiamtely two million visitor trips per annum, with 150,000 of these to the island resorts. Recently, there have been a number of expressions of interest by companies and individuals in establishing additional tourist facilities directly on the Great Barrier Reef , providing tourists with alternative access to the reef. The Government is aware of these proposed developments and recognises the need to facilitate access to the reef. Accordingly, this is a matter being examined by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. An extensive commercial fishery, largely for prawns, is dependent on the living resources of the reef region as is the recreational fishing, mainly for reef fish and mackerel. The commercial fisheries catch in the Great Barrier Reef region in 1979-80 was estimated to be in the order of $30m for approximately 8.5 million kilograms of product. The recreational catch in the same year was estimated to be of the order of seven million kilograms of product. To impart knowledge of the reef and to create a caring attitude to this unique natural wonder are among the challenges of the program of management. A balance must be struck between the various interest groups which make proposals concerning the use of the reef, and conservation of the reef's natural qualities. The underlying philosophy is management by education. It is recognised that there must be rules and regulations, and penalties for breaches, but ultimately the success of the park will depend on people accepting the need for management and co-operating by regulating their own activities themselves. The Authority places great emphasis on establishing and maintaining liaison with the many and diverse user groups that depend on the resources of the Great Barrier Reef. Intensive public participation programs have been conducted in connection with the zoning of each section of the marine park. The Authority recognises that regular users of the reef have a wealth of information which can supplement that of scientists and managers. Daily aerial surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef is conducted in order to protect the reef from illegal activities and marine pollution. The Great Barrier Reef is accorded a well deserved place as one of the great wonders of the world. It is the largest and most complex expanse of living coral reefs on earth. Encompassing many unique forms of marine life, over 1,500 species of fish and more than 400 species of coral, the reef has for ages been a rich part of the environmental heritage of all Australians including the Aboriginal peoples who have fished its bounty for thousands of years. Australia' s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is truly an outstanding achievement in the world-wide attempt to establish a balance between our use of natural resources and the conservation of the environment upon which our very existence and the quality of that existence depend. In concluding, I wish to emphasise that while the Government has made the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park a reality, the tremendous task of managing the marine park lies before us. The provisions of this Bill will give strength to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with regard to complementary management arrangements with Queensland and streamline procedures for bringing into force zoning plans for the marine park. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 3 November 1983. GROUP B Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $493,045,000. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.03) —For the convenience of the Senate I will now answer some matters which were raised on the last day on which we considered these votes. Senator Martin raised a matter relating to the issue of Medicare cards to an overseas visitor in Australia. Details have been sought from the Health Insurance Commission and I am advised that under the current health insurance system Commonwealth benefits are payable to persons who are members of a registered medical fund. It is therefore possible for an overseas visitor to enrol in a fund on arriving in Australia, and after serving the required waiting period, obtain benefits from the fund. Given that such persons have an Australian address while in Australia, they are indistinguishable from Australian residents when they enrol in a fund. Under the Medicare program, visitors to Australia will be eligible for Medicare benefits if they are permitted to be in Australia for more than six months. The enrolment form for Medicare seeks information regarding the duration of stay in Australia to determine whether a Medicare card is to be issued. At this point in time the card referred to by Senator Martin could only have been issued to a person who was a member of Medibank Private or an aged pensioner. Because overseas visitors who are members of Medibank Private are indistinguishable from other members of Medibank Private, it was inevitable that some overseas visitors would be enrolled. However, the process used for selecting Medibank Private records has ensured that any such person issued with a card who is still in Australia on 1 February will have been in Australia for more than six months and hence will have an entitlement to Medicare benefit. When the person leaves Australia before 1 February, the card may have been issued unnecessarily, but the person will not be able to obtain any benefit from it. The number of overseas visitors who at any time are members of Medibank Private is considered to be extremely small. Senator Walters, on the same day, sought details of the backlog in the processing of bulk- billing claims from Tasmania. Bulk-billed Tasmanian claims are processed by the Moonee Ponds centre in Victoria. Figures representing the backlog of claims bulk-billed by Tasmanian practitioners are not readily available. This is because separate statistics are not maintained for these clams at the various stages of processing. Claims received from Tasmania are counted on receipt and allocated batch numbers which identify their State of origin. All batches of claims, that is Victorian and Tasmanian, are then processed in order of the date of batching. Claims which are rejected and need to be re-examined are dealt with in the processing run order. At present at Moonee Ponds there are 282,170 claims awaiting processing and a further 208,408 claims which have been rejected require examination. It is estimated that there are 26,000 Tasmanian claims awaiting processing, with a further 18,600 to be re-examined. The current work bans by the staff of the Moonee Ponds centre make it impossible to predict accurately how long it will take to eliminate the backlog. However, the situation has not deteriorated since the work to rule bans were applied in early October. However, the bans on the dispatch of cheques to doctors in private hospitals in Victoria and Tasmania were lifted on 3 November 1983. All cheques held up as a result of the work bans have now been posted. Senator Teague raised some questions in relation to the Medicare levy. The office of the Commissioner of Taxation has provided the following information: In debate on the Appropriation Bill No. 1 on 3 November, Senator Teague asked whether there was an anomaly in the operation of the Medicare levy in its application to the case of Defence Force personnel and their families. Senator Teague cited for comparison the cases of a serviceman with a working wife and another whose wife has no separate income. He suggested that it was anomalous for the serviceman to be required to pay half levy in respect of his spouse and the dependent children in each of those cases when in the former case the working wife was also required to pay Medicare levy on her own taxable income. By way of explanatory comment, the general operation of the levy in the two circumstances identified by Senator Teague is accurately described. A serviceman who qualifies for free medical care under Defence Force medical arrangements but whose dependants are not covered by those arrangements is required to pay levy at half rates. It is also true that such a serviceman's wife who has a separate taxable income will also pay levy at the normal rate of that income, subject to the application of the family income threshold and the upper ceiling as appropriate to the case. Leaving aside any reductions or effective exemptions through the operation of the threshold and ceiling, the Medicare levy rate is, in its general operation, set at a flat one per cent of a person's taxable income. In a one-income family, that one per cent is paid by the income recipient: in a two-income family both income recipients pay one per cent of their respective taxable incomes. Essentially then, the initial calculation of levy paid by each individual taxpayer is made without regard to family circumstances-those circumstances being relevant only in application of the thresholds and ceiling. Seen in the context of the general operation of the levy, the fact that a Defence serviceman with one or more dependants, including a working spouse, is required to pay half levy compares favourably with the position that both income recipients in a two-income family not covered by free medical arrangements are required to pay the full levy. Senator Walters sought details in relation to the increase in staff numbers from 1982-83 to 1983-84 for the Department in the categories of permanent staff, temporary staff and part time staff. The number of permanent, temporary and part time staff employed by the Department of Health on 30 June 1983 was 4,343 permanent, 407 temporary and 72 part time respectively. At 30 September 1983 the corresponding figures were 4,341 permanent staff, 476 temporary staff and 110 part time staff. These numbers represent officers actually working and do not include those on long term leave, sick leave, long service leave and the like. The increase in the numbers of temporary and part time staff was mainly the result of general increases in recruitment and the employment of staff to assist in the processing of the backlog of bulk-billed medical benefit claims. Senator Peter Baume sought information as to the current situation in regard to the pharmaceutical cyclophosphamide, which has been removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has removed cyclophosphamide tablets and injections from the list. This action results from a failure to resolve a pricing disagreement with the manufacturer. The firm concerned, Bristol-Myers Co. Pty Ltd, the Australian subsidiary of a large international company, unilaterally implemented large increases for the prices to chemists of the range of cyclophosphamide preparations. The Government is not able to control manufacturers' prices for pharmaceutical benefits and, when faced with unilateral price action on the part of firms, has the option of either paying the increased prices or removing the items from the list. If the other firms with pharmaceutical benefits system-listing drugs were similarly to increase their prices, the additional cost to the Government would be over $400m a year. The current PBS drug price arrangements rely for their success on co- operation between the Government and the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In this case the co-operation of the firm concerned was not forthcoming. It has not been prepared to compromise on the prices it charges for these preparations. If the firm were to revert to acceptable prices the Government would be happy to return promptly the products to the benefits list. The Government is sympathetic to those patients affected and the Minister for Health is examining changes to the PBS drug pricing arrangements which could minimise the adverse financial effects of this situation on patients. In the meantime, there is no provision in the National Health Act for financial assistance or part subsidy to persons meeting the cost of drugs such as cyclophosphamide which are not on the benefits list. In the meantime the Minister suggests that as most cyclophosphamide used in Australia is supplied through public hospitals, patients may be able to arrange for their supplies from those sources. The Minister will be writing shortly providing more detailed information as to arrangements made in that area. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.11) —I thank the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, for those answers. I refer him to page 2229 of Hansard , which relates to the matter raised by Senator Teague concerning the Medicare levy and servicemen. I want to confirm that what the Minister said today is correct and therefore that what he said in the Senate on 3 November may in fact be incorrect. Senator Grimes —That could be right. Senator PETER BAUME —I want to get it quite clear. The Minister said: It is my understanding that the serviceman with the dependent spouse pays half the Medibank levy, but the serviceman without a dependent spouse-in other words, a serviceman whose spouse is working-does not pay half the levy. In view of the Minister's explanation today, what he said last Thursday is incorrect. I wonder whether he can confirm that that was in error; otherwise, the situation is only made more confusing. While the Minister is getting advice on that, I want to comment on pharmaceutical pricing. I put it on the record that if we are to talk about Bristol-Myers being a large international company, we might also draw attention to the fact that what we have in Australia is a brutal monopsony in terms of drug acquisition and that the Government has used its monopsonistic position quite ruthlessly over the years to effect control of the market to the detriment of drug companies. My concern in raising this matter had nothing to do with the battle that goes on between government and the drug companies; it had to do with the patients caught in the middle. I am disappointed that the answer we have received will not provide for the patients any adequate relief. They are still the meat in the sandwich. The Minister said that the people who need the drugs can go to a hospital outpatients department, but unless they have access to a hospital within reasonable distance they do stand to be disadvantaged. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the point made on page 2229 of Hansard so that we can be quite certain what the situation is in relation to the Medicare levy. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.13) —What I said today is correct and if that is at variance with what I said on 3 November, then what I said then is not correct. The serviceman who qualifies for free medical care under the defence medical arrangements but whose dependants do not qualify certainly pays the levy at half the rate. Senator Peter Baume —You drew a distinction between the wife who worked and the wife who did not work-the wife who was dependent and the wife who was not dependent. Senator GRIMES —I should not have drawn that distinction, if that is what I did. It is also true that a serviceman's wife who has a separate taxable income will pay the levy at the normal rate. The gist of the answer I have given today is that, if we take into account the separate thresholds and ceilings in regard to these levies, families of ex-servicemen compare favourably with others. If I did give an answer on 3 November which misled the Senate, I apologise for that although at the time I did say I would clarify the situation. I am glad I have done that. I agree with what Senator Peter Baume has said about cyclophosphamide, that the important thing to patients is whether or not they can get it. As I said, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has said to me that most cyclophosphamide is provided through public hospitals so patients may be able to arrange their supplies through those sources. I have requested the Minister to make arrangements so that patients can get their supplies through those sources while he is sorting out the problems with Bristol-Myers and the other companies. As the Minister said in his letter to me, he is shortly writing to me with detailed information about that and I will certainly provide the Senate with that information when it arrives. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.16) —I do not wish to prolong debate on these estimates. I apologise to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for not making the information that I am about to give to the Committee available to him before his earlier response. In fact, it only came into my hands after I had heard in my office his statement on the parliamentary broadcast. It relates to an overseas visitor who has been sent a Medicare card. When I raised this matter in debate the Minister said it was possible that this person had joined a medical benefits fund and it would have been because of that that a Medicare card had been sent out. My information is that ther person in question, who came from and has returned to Fiji, did join Medibank Private for the purpose of having some medical insurance for medical treatment here. However that membership of Medibank Private has lapsed. In fact, Medibank Private sent a reminder notice to the address given about payment of the subscription. This raises the issue of whether Medibank, in automatically issuing Medicare cards, used lists of subscribers who were currently financial or allowed to slip through some previous subscribers who were still on its lists as unfinancial-if it is possible to be an unfinancial insuree. That is how people who might have been temporarily insured could have received the card. I ask the Minister if he can check whether Medibank has in fact used lists that are to some extent out of date in issuing the Medicare card. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.17) —I thank Senator Martin for that further information. It was not clear to me from her information just how long ago the person left Australia and for how long Medibank Private membership had lapsed. As Senator Martin may know, health insurance funds continue to cover people for two months after they have ceased to pay. It may be that it was in those circumstances that the card was sent out. I repeat the information I gave before; there is no means of distinguishing from Medibank records whether or not it is an overseas visitor who is enrolled. If that visitor leaves the country before 1 February then certainly the card will have been issued unnecessarily. That would not affect the system very much. The number of overseas people who are members of Medibank Private is said to be extremely small. I think it is as much a matter of convenience as anything else that the Health Insurance Commission, which is going to run the Medicare system, used its mailing system together with the mailing addresses obtained from the Department of Social Security in providing cards to those who were apparently eligible. Obviously, this is a small area in which anomalies arise, but I do not think that in the long term it will create much difficulty in the overall running of Medicare. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.18) —I want to comment on this situation. The Government has chosen to use Medibank as the agent for Medicare and has also decided that anybody who is insured with Medibank Private will automatically get the card without having to go through the screening process; that is, they do not have to fill in the form that everybody else has to fill in. This indicates that overseas people who have their wits about them and are currently members of Medibank Private, or who become members, will get a card and, after 1 February 1984, will be able to come to Australia and receive free medical treatment to which they are not entitled. I am sure that has occurred to the Minister. It could be a significant loophole. Perhaps it would be worth checking whether Medibank Private can give an indication of how many of its members come into the overseas category and whether some system might be devised some time in the future to filter these people out of the system so that they do not have Medicare cards for free medical treatment at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.20) —Certainly it did run through my mind when I was sitting there ruminating over the situation. I will try to seek the information which the honourable senator requires. I suppose the advantage to Australia in that situation over the United Kingdom, which used also to be in a similar situation, is that the cost of fares to and from this country from most places is considerable. The cost is such that one would have to have very expensive and considerable medical treatment to justify paying the fares to and from this country to get into the basic medical system, that is, the Medicare system. However, I am not denying the fact-it certainly occurred to me-that it is theoretically possible for people to wander in and get into the medical system, as people used to wander in and out of England to get into the dental system. I will ask the Health Insurance Commission to let me have information on how we can overcome that problem, if it is a problem. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.21) —I do not want to prolong this matter unduly, but I point out to the Minister that, as I understand it, the cost of air fares to and from the United States of America is less that the cost of a week's treatment in hospital in the United States. Whilst that might be of some consolation to the Minister, in the case of low income people, it would not be an accurate statement in the case of other people. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.22) —I appreciate what Senator Martin is saying. I am just saying that to be able to arrange a flight to Australia, pay the fare and conveniently adjust one's ill health to take advantage of the system is not really a very easy thing to do. I would have thought that the United States of America was the last place from where people would come to do this sort of thing. I would have thought that people from some of the Pacific islands were more likely to do so, but in those situations the people involved would be unlikely to be able to pay the fare. I appreciate the potential anomaly which I think and which Senator Martin thinks may arise. I will seek information on it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.23) —At page 162 of the Hansard record of the hearing of Estimates Committee B, I am recorded as asking: What is the estimated cost at the moment of fraud related to pension prescriptions? I was referring to patient fraud. Mr Shields answered. Half way through his answer he said: I am expecting a report from our regional officers on 23 September on 100 particular cases where obvious invalid numbers have been on prescriptions. It is just a random selection of 100 numbers and I hope to establish from that a guide as to the factors that are causing this to occur. I have not yet received that report. I wonder whether we can have some indication of what was arrived at as a result of that report. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.24) —I have not received such a report either. If such a report was made and the calculation was made from it, we should have received it. I understand that the officers present know nothing about it. Therefore, I apologise to the honourable senator. I will ask the Department to get the information, if it is available, and provide it as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.25) —I have another question. I refer to page 167 of the Hansard record of Estimates Committee B concerning item 09, incidental and other expenditure. At the time I commented that a large amount of money was involved in that item and I received a breakdown of some of the costs involved. Can I have a breakdown of the incidental and other costs? There is an increase of 53 per cent. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.25) —We are scurrying around trying to find the breakdown. The officers do not seem to have the breakdown of that fine detail. Again, I will have to take the question on notice . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.26) —At page 175 of Hansard I asked: What do you anticipate the whole of Medicare is going to cost? Mr Pflaum replied: The additional expenditure represents-- I interrupted and said: No, the cost of the whole system, in other words, a brand new system. I have not received that information. I have the additional costs only. I do not want the additional costs. I want the whole cost of Medicare, which includes all Commonwealth payments to hospitals, et cetera. I do not want the additional costs of Medicare as I have been given. As I asked for during the estimates, I require the whole cost of the new system, the whole cost of Medicare. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.26) —What Senator Walters wants apparently is not the additional cost of Medicare, once it is introduced, but a breakdown of the costs of the existing health insurance system which will also be part of Medicare. It is a figure that I do not have. I am afraid we will have to take that question on notice too. I am sorry about that. What the Department will have to do is break down the cost of the existing health insurance scheme and get out of it those sections of the scheme which are incorporated in Medicare. I would have thought that most interest would have been in the additional costs, but if Senator Walters wants the full costs we will certainly try to get them for her. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.27) —I do not think the Minister quite understands what I mean. As I understand it, Medicare is a whole new system. If we were asked after 1 February what sort of a health care system we had in Australia I for one would say: 'We have a Medicare system'. That is what it is called. As I understand it, that system covers all health costs. That is what I am after. We are told by the Government that Medicare will be paid for by a one per cent levy . People believe their health care is now being covered by a one per cent levy. We in this place know that is not so. We know that the one per cent levy covers a fraction of our health costs. I want the total health costs which Consolidated Revenue as well as the one per cent levy pay for. I want the cost of Medicare as a whole new health system and the cost of our new health system as a total. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.28) —I now understand what Senator Walters is saying. Of course, the basic premise that the honourable senator comes up with is quite wrong. Medicare is not a whole new health system. We already have a health system which provides for public hospital treatment, for instance, for pensioners and others. We have a contribution to the cost of treatment in private and public hospitals. The one per cent levy pays for the additional costs to bring everyone into that health care system. I do not think anyone has ever pretended that or suggested that it is otherwise. It is quite wrong of Senator Walters to suggest that what we are introducing is something which does not incorporate aspects of the previous health insurance system. Of course it does. I think it is quite wrong of Senator Walters to give that impression. As I say, we will try to get out for the honourable senator the costs which exist in the present scheme and add to them the additional costs of Medicare and get her a total cost. I would not have thought that there was any confusion in the community that that was so. We have free hospital care now for some people. We intend to add to that free at the point of service-I am not saying it does not cost anything; I am saying 'free at the point of service'-care for others. We have medical benefits now. We are going to add to those medical benefits under Medicare. The one per cent levy will pay for those additional costs. It will not replace the costs which existed under the previous health system. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.31) —As I do not agree with Senator Grimes on that point, I would like to ask for the figure that I am wanting. The Minister might like to fiddle around and say that if we deduct the health insurance rebate from the costs, what is left will not be part of Medicare any longer and so on. That is an alteration. I want the whole cost of the health care system that we will have after 1 February. The Minister is saying that we already have a system of free hospitalisation for the disadvantaged, that they will come under a new system and will be issued with a new card, et cetera, and we will all have the same health card. I want the total cost of the health care system that we will have after 1 February. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.32) —Until a couple of questions ago I understood what Senator Walters wanted. My main objection is that Senator Walters is suggesting that the Government is suggesting that the one per cent levy is going to pay for all of the existing health insurance system plus the additions which will make up Medicare. We have not suggested that; we are not suggesting that now. It is quite wrong for the honourable senator or anyone else to set up straw people like that and then knock them down . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.33) —I have only a couple more questions, one of which is very short. Can the Minister give me the breakdown of the pharm-pay system? I would also like a breakdown of the expenditure of $736,000 in respect of furniture and fittings. I would be grateful if I could get that information. I would like to ask a question on another small point. The Minister may remember that I asked for information in regard to permanent, part time and temporary staff. The Minister gave me information in regard to June and September. Could I also have the proposed levels for December this year and March next year? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.33) —I will obtain the figures for the matters raised by the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.34) —I thank the Minister. I originally asked for the information in respect of every department in Group B. The Minister has given me information in regard to June and September for the Department of Health, and I thank him for that. Can I also have information for June, September, December and March for the other departments in Group B? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.34) —Yes, I will certainly obtain that information for the honourable senator. I might also obtain some costing as to how much it costs to get all those figures out. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.35) —I wish to put a few questions to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). The first concerns some apparent conflict between the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Right to Life Australia Association over the question of foetal tissue and medical experimentation. All I wish to establish is a matter of fact and procedure. I believe I am correct in saying that the NH and MRC has approved the use of foetal tissue for experimentation on certain conditions, one of which is that only spontaneous or legally aborted foetuses should be subjected to experiment and then only with consent. The Right to Life Australia Association has written to parliamentarians and made a contrary suggestion. The Association has actually suggested-and I will quote from its letter: An essential factor in this research is the use of 'functional' or 'living' tissue, the only source of this being babies who have been purposely aborted. Babies who are spontaneously aborted have already died in the womb. It would help us if we could be advised as a matter of fact whether the NH and MRC means what it says, that only spontaneously or legally aborted foetuses could be subject to experiment and also advised of the means by which the Council will seek to have that set of guidelines implemented. If the Right to Life Australia Association is wrong on a matter of fact, I may so wish to advise it. The other matters I want to raise relate to public health. I am not quite certain how the Commonwealth sees its role as a promoter of public health in Australia. For example, I am not quite sure whether the national community health program which is contained in division 325.3.08 relates to this. However, I refer the Minister to recent information that has emerged which has emphasised once again that as recently as 1980 only just over a quarter of one-year-old children living in inner Sydney had been fully immunised and that only 40 per cent of 12-year-old children had been fully immunised against polio virus. The figures for western Sydney are even more disturbing in that of 93 children studied only a quarter were found to have been fully immunised and 46 per cent had been vaccinated for everything except measles. The study gives a number of examples of non-compliance in the prevention of what are quite preventable and quite severe diseases of childhood. Perhaps I can link that with other observations that have been made about cigarette smoking and the efforts by a number of State governments to involve themselves actively in promotional programs in favour of non-smoking. Can the Minister tell me what action the Commonwealth is taking to join such a set of anti-smoking programs in the interests of public health as a health promotion activity? In particular, can he tell me what action the Commonwealth is taking to try to prevent the recruitment of minors particularly children of nine, 10, and 11 years of age who are below a proper age to use addictive drugs? What is the Commonwealth doing to protect them? Finally, the Minister will recall that the previous Government had a goal, which it accepted as policy, to reduce cigarette smoking throughout Australia. I ask the Minister whether the present Government has adopted and holds to that goal. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.38) —As to the matter arising out of correspondence from the Right to Life Australia Association, I was certainly under the impression that the National Health and Medical Research Council conditions for the use of foetal tissue involved only legal and spontaneous abortion and I assumed that meant from early spontaneous abortion. But I will have to obtain from the Department of Health or the NH and MRC details of their views on the comments of the Right to Life Australia Association because I think that this is of importance to many people and we certainly need that information. Senator Peter Baume —Do you have a copy of their letter? Senator GRIMES —I do not believe I have a copy. It may be in the mountain of mail on my desk. However, I would be grateful if the honourable senator could give me a copy. As to the very real difficulty about the role of the Commonwealth in public health and the effectiveness of public health measures, I would have but this to say initially: Senator Baume, Senator Walters and I and others have for a long time been concerned about the effectiveness of public health programs and in particular the effectiveness of public education programs in the maintenance of health standards in this country. Some years ago in a report we pointed out that unless one can first set one's goals and aims and then judge the results of any program against those goals and aims one cannot effectively evaluate the success , effectiveness or otherwise of various programs. I, like Senator Baume, was concerned about reports-in fact I have made inquiries about reports-which suggest that in at least some populations in Australia the rate of immunisation against poliomyelitis and measles and full immunisation of children in general is only 25 per cent. Certainly, this partly reflects the complacency which arises in our society when we have a long period without diseases of this type. But Senator Baume and I are old enough to know what it was like when they were around. I would have thought that if the criterion is to have an effective level of immunised population, at least for those pockets of population quite clearly the program is not working. The same, I suppose, may be said for the anti-smoking campaign. I dare say we have the perennial problems of State-Commonwealth demarcation in both these areas. It is my understanding that it is this Government's goal to reduce the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco and other associated drugs of addiction in this country. I will seek confirmation of that from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), but it is my understanding that that goal has not changed. I certainly view with interest the efforts of some State governments-in particular the Western Australian, South Australian and New South Wales governments-in trying to counteract the effects and depredations of tobacco consumption in their communities, both by advertising and by imposing fairly hefty financial restrictions on those who smoke in those States. The Government has maintained its ban on cigarette advertising on radio and television. I believe that there is a Federal responsibility to co-operate with the States to do more. I will ask my colleague, the Minister for Health, what action has been taken at Commonwealth-State Ministers meetings and what action he contemplates taking in the future. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.41) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his answer. He might help me by advising what is being done in the Australian Capital Territory, where the Commonwealth has a direct responsibility. Do we have a compliance failure in immunisation and vaccination in the Australian Capital Territory? If so, what are we doing about it? What is the approach being taken here about recruitment of minors, infants in that sense, into cigarette smoking? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.42) —I will certainly see whether we have any information about the incidence or the rate of immunisation in the Australian Capital Territory. I have not that information available. I am not conscious of any programs in the Australian Capital Territory the equivalent of programs about smoking in some of the States, in particular the recruitment of young people, particularly young females, to the smoking habit. Again it is information that I will have to seek from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.43) —I have not been able to find in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1982-83 any provision for the establishment of the office of care for the aged, which I had understood the Government would establish and bring within the Department of Health. This was a matter on which there was some commonality between the previous Government and the then Opposition in that both indicated prior to the election that they wished to establish an office of care for the aged to bring together some of the disparate arrangements that there are to service that part of our population. The difference between us was that the then Government left open the question of its ultimate place of location within the administrative arrangements. That was in part because of some public views which were abroad at the time that it should go to the Department of Social Security. There were at least some groups concerned with the care for the aged who regarded the Department of Health as a rather unsympathetic home. This very clear commitment on the part of the Government does not appear to have been implemented as yet and there does not appear to be any financial provision for it. At the same time there is, I think, all-party agreement that there is a need to bring those services together and to get a higher degree of co-ordination and rationalisation. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes): Just where has the Government got with that proposal, not only how far has it got in planning that office but also when will the office be established and in which department will it lie? There have been reports of some rivalry between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. I do not know whether the respective Ministers are competitive also and have some sort of territorial view of it, but obviously it would not be the wish of the Opposition to see this very desirable reform held back by interdepartmental rivalries, still less by ministerial rivalries. It would be helpful, I am sure, to all of us if the Minister could tell us where the office of care for the aged is at and in which department it will reside. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.45) —As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has said, there is commonality of view on both sides of the House that there should be an office of aged care or care for the aged to deal with the problems of the frail aged. Certainly, in the lead up to the elections it was suggested by the Australian Labor Party that it might be appropriate that that office should be in the Department of Health along the lines suggested in some reports which had come down. Let me first of all make it clear that yes, we do need an office of aged care and, yes, it is firm government policy to have such an office; secondly, the matter is being discussed at the moment within the Government at the social policy committee level of the Government Party. Discussions have been held between the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and me, being the Ministers responsible for the three departments predominantly involved in this area. There is no territorial rivalry between Dr Blewett and me . I perhaps would be less than honest if I said that I could say the same thing about the departments. Certainly there is a view in the community that the Department of Health may not be the most appropriate place for the office of aged care. The decision that there shall be an office of aged care remains firm party policy. Now that the Budget is out of the way I would expect a decision on the administrative arrangements for that office to be decided in the very near future, although I would not like to put a week or a day on it. Senator Chaney —Would you like to put a month on it? Senator GRIMES —I think it will be a matter of weeks. I point out that there are not only the two alternatives of the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security. I have said in this place many times there is a possibility that we will divide the Department of Social Security into two departments, one which administers predominantly service provisions or subsidies and another which looks after income support. Other possibilities exist, apart from those. I think the important thing is to get those disparate elements dealing with the care of the frail aged together, to get a more rational policy on the distribution of public funds available for the care of the aged, which I suggest we have done in the Budget and which will be further advanced by health legislation which will be introduced this week or next week. The reason that there is no appropriation in the Budget for the establishment of such an office is first of all that that decision had not been made at the time of preparation to the Budget. I would not see necessarily the combination of those two elements, particularly those in the Department of Health and those in the Department of Social Security, as requiring any increased appropriations. In fact in the long run there will certainly be an increase in the economic efficiency of having a single office of aged care. I do not see any need for increased expenditure in the establishment of such an office. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP C Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $101,878,000. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.48) —I want to raise a number of matters on these appropriations. The first matter I want to raise is this question of the resource rent tax which has been mentioned by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), the responsible Minister. It has been mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on a number of occasions also. I will allow myself some introductory comments on the assumption that Senator Walsh might join us any time now, although I am sure any response transmitted to me from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) will be very valuable. Of course, a very important line of argument has been put forward by Senator Walsh and, indeed, by the whole Government-that they are not as other men; they are, in fact, economic rationalists who are concerned with reality, with sound economic principles. The argument has also been put that they are against ad hoc, inefficient and punitive forms of taxes and regulation and, of course, are in touch with commercial reality. Indeed, a great deal of the decision-making of the Government seems to have been sheeted back to commercial reality. I address this question of a resource rent tax with that broad background because I believe that the Government is showing rather less reality than its rhetoric would admit. I will mention some of the things that have been said by the Government and will try to hold up against those statements what it is actually doing. I will then put some questions to Senator Walsh. For example, Senator Walsh was reported in the Australian of 6 October as blaming coal's current problems: . . . to a significant extent on ad hoc taxing policies. The result we now see, a few mines still recording good profits, many mines sub marginal and some unnecessarily closed because demands by the workforce and some governments are not flexible downwards when prices fall. If a properly designed rent tax had existed since the start of the coal export boom in the 1960s, that damage would have been avoided. Earlier in the year on 16 June in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Senator Walsh said: The sum of Government charges and a wages explosion have made sub marginal many producers who need not have been. If a proper rent tax had applied from the late 1960's wages would not have exploded in the way they did. And if taxes had been levied on rent instead of production, they would automatically fall in the present recession. I note Senator Walsh's readiness, in theory, to accept a fall of taxes when recession strikes. Whilst I again appreciate the economic logic of that, I note that the recession has struck and that the coal industry is in trouble. But I do not notice that Senator Walsh has moved to lift some of the levies which he could have lifted if he wanted to apply that principle before the resource rent tax was introduced. I suggest to the Government and to Senator Walsh that there is no need to await some brilliant new tax to follow that principle. It would be quite open to him to adjust the present systems of imposts and levies upon, say, the coal industry, if the Government wished such rational economic principles to apply. In particular, I draw Senator Walsh's attention to the coal export levy, which seems to be causing a great deal of distress to the industry. Again, in June 1983, Senator Walsh said: The introduction of a resource rent tax is seen as replacing these inequitable and inefficient systems with a system better attuned to the taxation of economic rents in the extractive industries. He was supported in August by the Prime Minister, who said: The Government is developing a proposal for a resource rent tax which would rationalise the present complex and arbitrary system of taxes, royalties and other charges on mining and energy projects. I raise this matter now because one gets the sense that the Government is not quite matching its action to its words. I would be interested to hear from Senator Walsh the extent to which detailed work is being done within his Department or within the Department of the Treasury to ensure that the proposal for a resource rent tax can be subjected to proper government scrutiny and, one would hope, to proper public scrutiny, in the way that Senator Walsh agreed might be done when responding to me in the adjournment debate a few months ago, when he agreed to the release of information up to the point where it might be used for commercial reasons. I think it is terribly important that that sort of information be provided because, whilst it is true that one can establish a nice theoretical argument, and one certainly can find in economic textbooks a nice theory about a resource rent tax being equitable and economically efficient, there are an awful lot of factors which are unlikely to appear in the economic textbooks and in the sort of broad theories which are being pronounced by Senator Walsh and by his Prime Minister. It is important that we examine very carefully any propositions that might be put forward against the realities within which any policy would have to operate. We have to remember for a start that it is unlikely that the tax can be imposed on a single homogenous product. We have to remember that this tax will be imposed on companies. It will have to be imposed on companies which are operating in a variety of commercial arrangements, sometimes as sole traders, sometimes as joint venturers and perhaps, occasionally, in partnership. We have to remember that any tax, when applied, will have to fit within the very complicated Commonwealth-State arrangements which we have in a federal Australia. There was a hint-perhaps more than a hint-in a recent response from Senator Walsh, that perhaps the Government has really given up on the proposition of a resource rent tax imposed and administered by the Commonwealth in relation to commodities other than oil. Senator Walsh said in this chamber recently that it was not part of the Government's policy to demand that any tax should be administered by the Commonwealth. Maybe Senator Walsh now has in mind moving to a situation where a resource rent tax would be encouraged at a State level. If that is so, I think it would be a very desirable thing to have that as part of the public understanding of what the Government is seeking to achieve. Senator Walsh correctly drew attention to the fact that, to take an example, within Queensland there was a movement within the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party prior to the election to acknowledge the desirability of changing the approach to a resource tax in that State. I suppose one of the most commonly held views within the industry would be that the rail freight situation in Queensland is a very good example of an undesirable form of taxation of resource projects and that a shift to a totally different form of taxation is justified. I note that Senator Walsh is now in the chamber. Perhaps he did not hear all of what I said before his arrival. Senator Walsh —I have some notes on it. Senator CHANEY —Fine. I have asked for some indication of where the Government and the Department are with respect to devising a tax proposal. I am now simply raising some of the questions and, in particular, the question whether the Government has, in fact, moved to a position where it would be prepared to see its role simply as encouraging the States to enter into more satisfactory taxing arrangements for commodities other than oil. There are, of course, a series of examples of the States seeking to tax their mining industries on a profit-based system. A very early example of this is provided by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. A more recent example is the agreement entered into between South Australia and the Roxby Downs joint venture . More recently again an arrangement has been entered into by the Government of Western Australia with respect to the Argyle diamond mine. In each of the latter two cases, as I understand it, the arrangements were made by the former Liberal State Governments. I mention that merely to indicate that it is not necessarily just a Labor Party view that a profit-based tax on a particular project can be the most appropriate way to get a return for the public. But again, I think there is a caution in that from the point of view of looking at the possibility of a Commonwealth-based tax. The caution is that in each of the examples that I have mentioned one has not a general tax regime which the industry can look at and say: 'That is the regime under which we will have to invest'. Instead, there is a situation where a specific negotiation or specific arrangement relates to a particular project. It seems to me that that is a very long way from the sort of broad proposition which has been advanced by Senator Walsh on behalf of the Government as to what it has in mind. I would not profess to be expert in this area but the other international examples of which I am aware include, for instance, the example which may well be influencing the present Government in the light of Dr Garnaut's role within that Government-a precedent which was established in Papua New Guinea with respect to the operation of CRA Ltd at Bougainville. I understand that Dr Garnaut had a lot to do with working out that proposition. Again I remind the Committee that that is an example of a specific arrangement being entered into with respect to a specific project. There are some very significant implications for the Commonwealth if we get the sort of shift in policy which would be involved in saying to the States: 'You set about rearranging your taxation systems so that you cream off what the present Government regards as the rent'- that is any profit which is over and above what would be required to attract the investment. There is already a problem for the Commonwealth, I would suspect, in the mechanisms which the States have found to do that-whether it is above economic rail freights or whatever-in that the Commonwealth income tax base is being eroded each time what would otherwise be profit, and subject to Commonwealth tax , is shifted into the State arena. So I would also add this question to the list of inquiries that I have of the Minister: What consideration is being given to the potential effect on Commonwealth revenue if we go down the track that was hinted at by Senator Walsh in the Senate recently and encourage the States to enter into taxation arrangements which effectively remove a substantial element of the profit of the resource industries of Australia and put them into State coffers? There are a number of other matters I want to raise. My time has nearly expired but as this is a Committee debate I will have the chance to come back to them. Perhaps I should leave the matter of resource rent tax at that point and give Senator Walsh a chance to respond. I also wish to raise some of the other objections about the proposal in order to get some response from Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.03) —I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of this Committee debate and therefore, as Senator Chaney has noted, I did not hear everything he said, but I have some notes that have been prepared by officers and I think I can respond if not to all then certainly to the great majority of the points he raised. He raised the question of whether the Commonwealth is contemplating applying a rent tax only on oil. The answer at this stage is yes. We would like to see the concept extended to at least some other minerals, but the Commonwealth, given that 90 per cent of oil is in what is constitutionally Commonwealth territory, can do pretty much what it likes within that area. The primary taxing right for other minerals resides with the States. The Commonwealth really does not have much option other than to move in the area in which it has constitutional authority and hopefully by persuasion and/or education it will convince the States that there ought to be substantial changes made to some of the tax systems which exist. Senator Chaney has noted-and I accept this-that with both the Argyle diamond project in Western Australia and the potential Roxby Downs project in South Australia, moves away from pure production based taxes were initiated by Liberal Party governments. I acknowledge that and that the Liberal Party therefore obviously does not necessarily resist any change to traditional royalty type taxes. But the movements that have been made with respect to Roxby Downs and Argyle and also with respect to Broken Hill, although based on profits, can still adversely affect both the marginal project and the treatment of marginal ore from an existing project. They do not fully achieve the efficiency objectives of a proper rent based tax. It has been brought to the attention of this Government, as it was brought to the attention of the previous Government, that although the Broken Hill royalty is profit based, as it is presently being applied it is impeding, if not endangering, the development of a new ore body under which a proper tax regime would be economic. Some discussions have taken place between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments in an attempt to resolve the Broken Hill problem. I understand that Senator Chaney pointed out that the Commonwealth could move unilaterally to drop the coal export levy which applies to high quality coking coal from mines in production in, I think, mid-1979 or mid-1980. That is true. However, we see little point in the Commonwealth forgoing revenue unless there is some agreement with the State concerned that there will be some more fundamental change in the system in the direction that the Commonwealth prefers. With respect to a general discussion paper on the subject, I hope-I cannot guarantee this-to have available for Senator Chaney and, indeed, for anyone who wants it, a background discussion paper some time next week. I also understand that Senator Chaney drew attention to the administrative difficulty in some circumstances of applying a rent tax. This also was acknowledged by the Government. I do not know whether Senator Chaney mentioned it but Cooper Basin is such a project where there are difficulties not only because there are, I think, 11 companies in total involved, but also because the proportions of ownership held by those companies varies quite considerably at different parts of what is essentially the same oil and gas field. This is complicated further by the fact that at least three different products-some people might go so far as to say four-are produced from that field. We recognise that there are administrative problems in applying our preferred policy in that context, and those problems are receiving attention. Finally, Mr Chairman, Senator Chaney raised the question of the possibility of State governments introducing a rent type tax and thereby eroding the Commonwealth's corporate tax base. Under some circumstances, of course, that can happen. Under present circumstances, with generally depressed prices for most metals, I think it is unlikely to happen in that State charges for many projects are demonstrably in excess of the amount of economic rent which those projects are currently generating. If rent type taxes applied by the States were in existence the Commonwealth's corporate tax base would expand. But I do recognise that that is not necessarily the case and probably will not always be the case for some of those projects. I do not think that is an insurmountable obstacle because a properly functioning Commonwealth Grants Commission, at least at the time a review is made, ought to be capable of taking into account structural changes in the taxation system which affect the revenue capacity of the Commonwealth vis a vis the States and the relative revenue raising capacities between the States. In saying that I note with regret that, in my view anyway, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has not always properly addressed itself to that question. Indeed, in a report issued in, I think, June 1981 the Grants Commission, in my view, seriously misunderstood the concept of taxing effort in that it concluded that because Queensland was making a greater taxing effort than other States, particularly with coal, in imposing both high royalty charges and rail freight charges in excess of the actual cost of supply, it therefore ought to be rewarded by higher Commonwealth grants. Put in a slightly different way, and assuming that the findings of the Commission-although they are not on matters of fact-were correct, what Queensland was, in fact, doing was undermining the Commonwealth's corporate tax base. The Grants Commission proceeded from there to conclude that it ought to be financially rewarded by the Commonwealth for so doing. I thought that was a rather untenable proposition and a very serious misapplication of the principle of taxing effort by the Grants Commission which, when properly applied, should be applied to the taxation effort, or impost if you like, imposed by State governments on their own citizens in the form of, for example, drivers licences, vehicle fees and charges for State services. I believe that a properly functioning grants commission ought to be capable of and should not have any particular difficulty in taking into account changes in the revenue potential between States caused by structural changes in the taxation system or the revenue raising potential of the Commonwealth and the States. For that reason, I believe-I think I have said it in this chamber before -that the argument as to whether any particular tax ought to be applied or a tax on the resources ought to be applied by the Commonwealth or the States is rather specious. I have put the view that it is not the collection agent which particularly matters; it is the system which is most important. It is quite clear that at least one State is not at all receptive at this stage to changing its own tax system. I have equally little doubt that that State will ensure that, if the Commonwealth applies a rent tax over which State taxes and charges take priority, there will be little or no rent left to tax anyway. For that reason, I do not envisage for some time the policy objective applying to anything other than petroleum products or, at the very worst, petroleum products off-shore. However-although I am aware of the cynical comment which is sometimes made about economists, that is, that the most irrational belief that economists hold is their belief in the ultimate rationality of man-an operating model of a rent tax applied to petroleum products will persuade and educate the States at some time in the future to review their attitude to their own taxation systems. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.13) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) for his response on a number of points. I wish to raise a number of other matters with him and also to seek further clarification on some of the matters already addressed. Senator Walsh both opened and closed his comments with reference to the fact that the Government was now looking to a resource rent tax to be applied only to oil at this stage. Indeed, in his final remarks, Senator Walsh said that at worst it might only be applied to off-shore oil. I suppose that that is an acknowledgment with respect to that part of Australia's oil which comes from the on-shore region. The same complexities can arise with respect to the dealings with the States. One would need a high degree of State and Territory co-operation to achieve 100 per cent of the objective with respect to oil. Turning to the question of other minerals, it also appears from the final words that Senator Walsh used, that the policy objective with respect to other minerals has simply been postponed, although he talks of persuasion. He talks of persuasion through the working model of a successful resource rent tax on oil. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he has any time-table in mind at all or whether, in fact, he is telling the mining industry that as far as the Government is concerned no proposal is now being advanced in a formal sense and that there is no risk of the imposition of an on-shore resource rent tax with respect to any other mineral including coal, but that rather the Government has simply set itself the task of working with the States to try to achieve what it sees as economically efficient and rational taxing arrangements for minerals. I think that is an important question for the Minister to answer, because one of the disadvantages in even considering changes in these areas is that talk of change induces uncertainty. I do not think that there is any doubt that uncertainty is an enemy of investment. I believe that if the Government has a clear mind on this matter and if, in fact, the question of a resource rent tax can be put aside for commodities other than oil, that should be very clearly understood in the industry so that we lose one of the disadvantages of the speculation which has existed since Senator Walsh and his predecessor promoted the idea of a resource rent tax on a much wider basis. I would also like to get confirmation from the Minister that he has accepted, as intimated by his use of the words 'persuasion' and 'education' that the imposition of a resource rent tax in those areas where it would impinge upon the independent capacity of the States to raise revenue will be a matter of agreement with the Commonwealth seeking to change the minds of the States and to obtain their agreement rather than the possibility of a coercive approach, which was hinted at in a fairly unsubtle way by the Minister's predecessor, Mr Keating . Senator Walsh —April 1981. Senator CHANEY —In April 1981, was it? That is a matter on which I have, on previous occasions, sought some firm commitment from the Minister. Again, I think that is important to the atmospherics within which business is conducted in Australia. I am sure that the Minister would be anxious to see continued investment in the resources industries of Australia. I think that it would be helpful if that suggestion could be finally put to bed. The question of the administrative problems which are recognised by the Minister and his pointing out that these are problems which can be ironed out, remind me of the ironing out which the Government did with respect to another anomaly in the taxation system shortly after it took office. Under the Minister' s predecessor, Senator Sir John Carrick, the Department was working on the problem which I think was colloquially known as the black hole problem with respect to the excise which was imposed on old oil. The effect of the taxing arrangements there was to ensure that at certain points in the production scale a loss was incurred when one moved from one level of production to another because a change in the rate of levy was imposed. There was general agreement that the black hole situation was illogical and needed to be removed. Under Senator Sir John Carrick work was being done, as I understand it, between the Department and industry to achieve a more sensible arrangement. But the fact is that the more sensible arrangement which was brought in by the present Government was an arrangement which also raised considerable additional revenue and, with respect to the Bass Strait producers, as I understand it, involved fairly considerable imposts. I guess that they recovered some of those imposts for at least the time being in overturning the pipeline arrangements in Victoria. I seek some assurance from the Minister that, in making rearrangements, he will adhere to the views on replacement tax which he has expressed in the Senate and elsewhere and not use the resource rent tax, if it is introduced, on even off-shore oil as a means of, in fact, considerably increasing the impost which the Government places on the industry. In other words, it is one thing to produce a more rational, more logical and more economically efficient system but it is another thing, under that guise, simply to impose large additional imposts on an industry which is already very heavily taxed. I seek an assurance from the Minister for Resources ane Energy that the making of changes will not be simply a cover for very significant traditional revenue raising. I was also interested in the Minister's comment that present State charges are usually in excess of the rent which is accruing to- Senator Walsh —Right now. Senator CHANEY —Senator Walsh says 'right now'. I understand the Minister's interjection because, of course, we are at a time of low profitability. Therefore, on the theory he is advancing obviously much less economic rent is available. I am curious about his remark because it suggests to me that the Minister does have in mind some fairly definite figures as to at what interest rate investment would be attracted; in other words, the point of entry to the resource rent tax. It is in fact that sort of information which I think will need to be exposed by the Minister if we are to get rational and informed public debate about what the Government might have in mind. I would be interested to know whether, in any assessment the Minister has made of the imposts which are made upon State charges, any precise figuring is involved or whether he is simply making a broad statement which is based on the fact that at a time of low commodity prices and, of course, steeply rising costs within Australia, including some government imposed cost rises, he is aware of the fact that the profitability of most sections of the industry is pitifully low. I would appreciate his advice on what assumptions, if there are any assumptions, underlie that particular comment of his. Another point the Minister made was that it is not important which agent imposes the tax but rather it is the taxing system which is important. He said that a lot of the arguments in this area are specious. That seems to me to make as generous a theoretical assumption as the theoretical assumption that underlies the Government's whole approach to this resource rent tax. The Minister said quite explicitly that he was approaching the matter on the assumption that one had a Commonwealth Grants Commission which was properly functioning. I would appreciate any advice the Minister can give us as to whether the Government has in mind changing the operations of the Grants Commission and, in particular, whether the Government has in mind, if it does get a properly functioning Grants Commission, making automatic the application of Grants Commission findings. I think Senator Walsh will be aware of the very great political difficulties which accrue when there are substantial shifts in taxing arrangements, no matter how well justified those shifts might be in terms of economic theory. The fact is that there are rates of change which are very hard to impose above a certain rate for sheer practical reasons-systems are in place, administrative arrangements are in place and costs are in place. It does seem to be one of the defects of the Commonwealth Public Service, if I may say so, particularly in the Department of the Treasury, that there is often a failure to take into account simple practical reality-what is on the ground and what is functioning-in the belief that great shifts can be made on the basis of some macroeconomic theory without regard to reality on the ground. I would say that the Minister's suggestion that a lot of the argument is specious is in fact a suggestion which is based on a view as to how the system can operate and will operate under his Government. That argument is in itself specious. I would appreciate his comment on that point. I return to the resource rent tax more generally and the proposition that the Government will impose a resource rent tax in the area of oil or, at a minimum, in the area of off-shore oil production. I put it to the Committee that one needs to bear in mind the practical realities which face us in the market place and the effect that that proposal can have on exploration. I am conscious of the fact that I make these comments in the context of probably three or four months of the best news that the exploration industry has had since 1978. We have had the Jabiru find and a series of lesser very positive results from the exploration activity that has been going on in the last couple of years. The fact of the matter is that Australia is not seen as an intensely prospective target. The fact of the matter is that the new oil policy, on all the evidence I have been able to obtain, is an important element in maintaining incentive to bring people to Australia and to keep them here putting their money into the very expensive business of exploring, particularly off-shore. Quite clearly, if a resource rent tax on oil is introduced, even on offshore oil, that will of itself reduce the average return which can be expected from investment in oil exploration in Australia. There is no other mathematical possibility. If we lop off more of the peaks then we lower the average rate of return. This must affect incentive. It must affect the figuring of those who have to work out where they are going to put their money in an industry which more often produces a zero result than a major profit. It was put to me very well the other day by an oil explorer who said: 'One of the major problems this industry has is that there is too much oil in Fortescue'. Of course, all that he was saying was that the existence of Fortescue, that very large pool of oil, which will, of course be very profitable to those who have it once it is extracted and sold, is, of course, a great temptation to the Government. It is the desire to get some greater slice of that, beyond 46c in the dollar which accrues in the way of normal income tax, that is, I am sure, at the heart of this push for a resource rent tax on oil. I put it to the Minister that whilst, from a revenue gathering point of view, that is a very tempting target it does need to be remembered that from the point of view of justifying the very large expenditure which is involved in oil exploration, it is the possibility of the occasional very good result which keeps explorers in the field. I express concern about the extent to which the Government is taking into account the need to maintain a high level of interest in oil exploration in Australia. I think we run a very great risk of responding too much to the fact that in 1983 there is something of an oil glut around the world, there is an excess of petrol and there is a sense that the importance of the oil search has levelled off. That, of course, will be added to by the very hopeful news which has come from Jabiru over the last month or two. I want to say very seriously to the Minister in this Committee debate that one can respond too much to the immediate situation. I think that it is in the longer term interests of Australia that we should not take action which will discourage oil exploration in what is not a particularly prospective continent. The last point I want to make at this time is that I ask the Minister for some response on the point that resource rent tax does promote inefficiency in one important respect. If a resource rent tax is imposed on a highly profitable project the fact is that the managers of that project will, to some extent at least, lose incentive in maintaining a high level of efficiency and a high level of cost consciousness. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.29) —Mr Chairman, I wish to interpose a short matter so the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) may then follow me and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) can then answer all questions at the one time. I wish to speak in relation to a different matter. A number of times in recent debates in relation to uranium reference has been made to the Ben Lomond deposit and the company, Minatome Australia Pty Ltd which, it has been suggested, holds the rights to that deposit totally and which is a company wholly owned by the French Government. It is my understanding, as a result of some research that Minatome has sold its interest, which was 73 per cent in the joint venture, to Total Mining Australia-that is a subsidiary of the Francaise des Petrol, 35 per cent of which is owned by the French Government, by various banks which do include some of the nationalised banks in France, but not wholly by any means and a cross-section of individual shareholders. It is a listed company on both the Paris and Tokyo stock exchanges. The endeavour, which has come partly in questions to the Minister as well as from the Minister in some of his answers, is not perhaps quite fair in justifying some of the discriminatory policies which he has been advocating. The company is a relatively broadly held company in its shareholding. It is not simply the doppo of the French Government. It is, after all, a brother government of the Minister's own Government, the socialist Government in France which has meant that it has the bank part of its shareholding partly nationalised, because that is what the French socialist Government has done. I simply refer to this so that the debate can proceed on the basis of a greater degree of accuracy than perhaps it has in the past. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.31) —I thank Senator Peter Rae for his assistance in this matter. I had just a couple of other things that I wished to say. It will help the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in that he can answer these matters in one bite. The point I was making, Mr Deputy President, before you drew my attention to the fact that my time had expired, was that one can, in the imposition of a resource rent tax, for all these highly appropriate theoretical economic reasons, introduce a new reason for inefficiency and waste. If a company is in a situation in which most of the profits that it makes are being siphoned off by a tax, there is much less incentive for a company to control its expenses and costs. I do not believe that it would be realistic to respond to that by saying: 'The Government or the departments will be very carefully monitoring costs to make sure that no more than is reasonable is claimed'. That suggestion would open up an administrative nightmare and would be quite unrealistic. It is a simple fact that if there is no real gain for the company in its being frugal, careful, efficient and productive, those qualities will suffer. That is a simple rule of human nature, and it is one of the reasons why the theoretical attractions of a resource rent tax are not as attractive in practice as they are when set down on the pages of a paper or a text book. I noted that the Chief Economist for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, who might, with BHP's interest in Fortescue, be thought to be speaking from a particular vantage point, was quoted recently as saying that if a resource rent tax is implemented it will be because pragmatism has succumbed to economic virtue and emotive appeal. There is a lot to be said for the point of view put forward by Mr Brunner. Looking at the actual circumstances in which the tax has to be imposed and at some of the other points I have raised, I believe that the attraction of it becomes much less. If, indeed, what we are looking at is simply a covert means of getting around the new oil policy because that policy is thought to be too generous, I would put the view that the fair and just thing to do would be to introduce a new taxing regime which applies to those finds which have not already been made. In other words, if we want a different new oil policy in the future, it ought to be a policy which applies to finds subsequent to the new policy change, because I think resource developers quite properly complain when the basis of their investment is subsequently varied by government to their commercial detriment. That is a bad thing. It is something which has certainly at times occurred under governments of all political persuasions, and it is something which we ought to try to avoid in the future. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.34) —I shall work seriatim through the points raised by Senator Chaney. He asked whether, in view of the comments I had made, there was any risk of imposition-I think they were his precise words-of a rent tax on any commodity other than petroleum products. First, the use of the word 'risk' presupposes a couple of things: it is a bit loaded. It assumes, implicitly anyway, that there is ubiquitous opposition from the industry and from the States to the introduction of a rent tax; and while there is opposition, it is by no means ubiquitous in either case. Senator Chaney —Well, I am really asking for a clearer statement. You can put aside the loaded word and substitute some other word. I really want to know the facts. Senator WALSH —It is important to put on record the fact that discussions are proceeding right now-I do not know about 'right now', but discussions have been held between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government to see whether agreement can be reached on a superior system of taxation for Broken Hill, because it is acknowledged by the producers and by both governments that the existing tax arrangements are impeding the development of a new ore body. This draws attention to the fact that the existing tax regime can actually damage the industry, and a number of companies accept that. However, to return to the substantive question, I do not believe that I can give a definite answer to that, because this Government does not have total control. This Government has made its intention very clear; that is, that at least for those on-shore commodities which at times or continually have a high component of economic rent , the tax system ought to be changed. We do not, however, have control over the timing of that change, or, arguably perhaps, whether change takes place at all. Senator Chaney also referred to the apparent change from a confrontationist approach by the Australian Labor Party to the States a couple of years ago on this question to one of agreement. I believe that he is correct in reaching that conclusion, although I should add that the Commonwealth would probably review its attitude if, for example, we had reached agreement with six States on a particular taxation change and only one State, or even conceivably one Territory , were precluding the application of what everybody else had agreed to do. The Commonwealth might then have to consider more coercive action, which would probably have to be indirect but, nevetheless, coercive against the one State which was out of step. I acknowledge that the former Government had initiated procedures to change the levy system to eliminate the black hole problem. Indeed, it is scarcely conceivable that any government could have been negligent enough to have allowed the pre-existing situation to continue when the theoretical damage which it could inflict because of changing production levels in various fields was no longer theoretical but was something which was actually likely to happen or was happening. It is correct, as Senator Chaney has siad, that the new system introduced was not entirely revenue neutral. There was a marginal gain to Commonwealth revenue vis-a-vis the system which it had replaced. That does not necessarily mean that the producers were worse off, however, because the black hole might have been worse for them, although I am not sure how one measures up against the other. Senator Chaney —Different producers are affected, perhaps. Senator WALSH —As I said, I am not sure how one measured up against the other. This takes us to a much more important point. The Bass Strait producers had revised and significantly increased their estimate of production from the excise -free Fortescue field. The Government's view was that it would have been a serious breach of what had been bipartisan policy for almost eight years to impose a levy on the Fortescue field. There was, however, no moral problem for the Labor Party in imposing a rent tax on Fortescue, because it has been explicit Labor Party policy ever since 1977 that there would be a rent tax and that the distinction between new and old oil would disappear. In that context, and also in the context of a desperate need for revenue, the Government made a decision not to attempt to impose a rent tax or excise on Fortescue, even at the increased level of production. It made a judgment to extract, through the new levy arrangements somewhat more revenue from existing fields, than would have been extracted under the old arrangements. On balance, I do not believe that the producers have done too badly out of it. Senator Chaney asked for an assurance that if or when the rent tax on oil is introduced-I acknowledge that the Labor Party in isolation does not have the numbers in this House to pass legislation on this question, which is why I say if or when such a tax is introduced-the same thing will not happen; that is, that it will not be used to camouflage what is, in fact, an increase in total taxation. While revenue will increase to the extent that it will apply to both old and new oil-I cannot give any binding assurances on the question-the general intention of the Government is that although the base of the tax will be broadened by the inclusion of new oil, its depth will probably be shallower. How those two factors would trade off in terms of total revenue is a matter on which I do not believe I can give any assurance. Senator Chaney took up my comment that by the time the States had finished imposing their taxes and charges-in some cases charges well in excess of cost-on the mining industry or sections of it, there was no economic rent left to tax, and asked how I had arrived at that conclusion. The figures I now cite are not precise, because I do not have the precise figures in front of me, but a survey conducted by the Australian Coal Association-indeed, I think it commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to do the survey about the end of 1982-concluded that roughly one-third of coal mines were showing a negative rate of return on capital, about one-third were showing a return of something like 3 per cent, and the remaining third were operating reasonably profitably. I do not think that the report cited a maximum rate of return for any mine included in the survey. Quite clearly, there is no economic rent in a mine or a project that is showing a negative return on funds and no economic rent in a project that is showing only 3 per cent return on funds. That was substantially the basis for my statement that there is little or no economic rent at present, once the States have finished imposing their charges. I will cite one more specific example, again from memory, but I am pretty confident that the figure is correct. Mt Isa Mines Ltd had a return on funds in its last financial year-I am not sure whether that was calendar year 1982 but it was the last financial year for which an annual report was available-of 1.4 per cent. Again, it is quite clear that with that sort of return on funds there is no economic rent being retained by the company. It does not necessarily mean that there was no economic rent to start with, but that by the time the States had finished imposing their charges there was certainly no economic rent left in the hands of the company. Senator Chaney took up the question of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and my reference to its proper functioning. I meant by that a grants commission which was applying properly the concept of taxation effort. I defined that as a tax which affects individuals rather than corporations, which has the side effect of undermining the Commonwealth corporate taxation base and which applies the principle of equalisation. There is a great deal of room for judgment, admittedly, in the the concept of equalisation. I believe that the conclusion of the Grants Commission report of 1981, regarding the taxing effort made by the Queensland Government, to which I have previously referred, was conceptually wrong. Senator Chaney asked whether this Government would automatically accept Grants Commission reports. I think that the answer to that would have to be no, because I do not believe that if a grants commission comes up with a conclusion based on that sort of reasoning it ought to be accepted by a government. He made the point, correctly of course, that Grants Commission recommendations have been varied in the past by governments for political or other reasons. He put that in the context of its being a negative act. That may not have been his intention, but that is the way it came through to me. I do not think it need necessarily be regarded as a negative, because although political intervention, or variation of a recommendation of the Commission, can take place for cynical or unsavoury reasons, it can also be designed to correct errors that may have been made by the Commission. One such political intervention which could conceivably be made should be one that took account of structural changes in the taxation bases of the States and/or the Commonwealth. We recognise that the treatment of exploration for oil is particularly important, in that most exploration activity is non-productive. For that which is successful in finding substantial fields of free-flowing oil, profitability of the project from that point on is not in doubt because there is a secure market at high prices. Senator Chaney stated quite correctly-indeed, it is no more than a mathematical truism-that if the peaks of potential or actual profitability are lopped off by a rent tax, the average level of profitability falls. That, of course, is correct in isolation, but it need not be treated in isolation. Senator Chaney also argued that this would then have an adverse effect on exploration effort. If that were the only change made, his conclusion would probably be correct. But the Government proposes-I acknowledge that we have not yet reached a conclusion about the details-to include in the rent tax base in some way an allowance for expenditure on the exploration of barren ground. If we succeed in doing that, it will at least partially and maybe even entirely offset the deterrent effect on exploration to which the honourable senator has referred. I also note in passing that plenty of people, including at least one foreign company, are currently exploring for oil although they know that they face a resources rent tax. Senator Chaney also suggested that the Government is pushing the rent tax policy because it provides a mechanism for imposing a tax on excise-free Fortescue oil. It will certainly have that effect, but that is not the intention. It has been clear Labor party policy since 1977 that such a tax should apply. That pre-dates the discovery of Fortescue. The question of managerial efficiency being affected at very high marginal tax rates is acknowledged. Obviously, if the marginal tax rate is 100 per cent, to company managers or owners it is indifferent whether expenditure is incurred in tax deductible ways or not. Therefore, the maximum marginal tax rate obviously has to be something less than 100 per cent. The point at which that deterrant effect to efficient management actually becomes a serious problem is a matter for judgment and argument. I make the point, however, that in the absence of a rent tax a similar effect can take place and, indeed, I believe has taken place. When the lowest cost coal mines were operating at extremely profitable levels, tonnage was more important to the total income of the companies concerned than was cost per tonne. Under those circumstances, there is likely to be a greater managerial concentration on maintaining output than on resisting cost increases. There was one case where, in present value dollars, there was a $150 a week one- off increase in wages which flowed on to the industry generally. I acknowledge quite freely, as I have in private correspondence recently to the company concerned, that that is not the only such example of a huge one-off increase in wages. Indeed, the next time it happened was in New South Wales and the increase was granted by a government authority. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Collard) —Order! The Minister's time has expired . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.50) —To assist the Minister, if he has not finished in answer to Senator Chaney, I indicate that I express an interest in any further information he may have. I pose two other questions to him. The first concerns a speech that he made on 4 November to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in which he dilated at some length on resource rent tax and the general economics of the resources sector, particularly the effect of the size of a deficit on a budget. He made the following statement: Some calculations of the 'cyclical' component of the deficit measures the difference between the deficit at present unemployment levels and what it would be if unemployment was 6 per cent. In other words, 6 per cent unemployment is assumed to be normal and permanent. Was the Minister conveying the idea that for the future his Government believes that 6 per cent unemployment will be the normal base for what is to be regarded as full employment? I remind the Committee that in the late 1940s the Chifley Labor Government produced a White Paper which asserted that from thence forward full employment could be regarded as between 4 per cent and 5 per cent unemployment. It sought for some years to establish a base for educating the Australian people to believe and accept that proposition. My recollection is that from 1950 to 1965 and beyond unemployment rarely passed 2 per cent and was frequently below 2 per cent, so that assumption was wrong. I refer that matter to the Minister as part of this general discussion on the economics of resources . I remind the Minister of this assertion made by him: Probably too much attention has been focused on the deficit ever since it became politically expedient to do so in 1975. . . . the common denominator is not the size of their deficit-which varied widely-but the existence of an effective prices and incomes policy. Broadly, my second question relates to the fact that I have not heard the Government put forward an enduring reason why it recently allowed the Bass Strait producers to export a certain quantity of indigenous oil. My recollection is that it is something in the order of 600,000 barrels, but that may be wrong. As I understand it, even though import parity pricing has produced a situation that has greatly changed in the short term the outlook for Australia and has extended the duration of self-sufficiency of the order of 67 per cent to 75 per cent for, say, the next five years or so-that is against the more negative calculations of the past-all the projections made show that there is no guarantee at all that in the 1990s supplies of Australia's indigenous oil will not fall away heavily and that we will be dependent either upon imports of more oil or upon doing without it. I remind the Committee that on present dollar values every 10 per cent fall in our self-sufficiency means a $1,000m-$1 billion -increase in our foreign exchange requirements. That, in itself, would have a drastic effect. I wonder whether the Government has considered the fact that we are in a temporary flush period. Yes, Jabiru might look good; nevertheless, the long term future of Australia lies in ensuring the storing of oil for the future rather than in selling any present surpluses. They are the two points on broad economics that I want to pose, for the moment, and I repeat that to facilitate matters I would be interested to hear any further comment that the Minister may wish to make in regard to Senator Chaney's series of questions. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.55) —I had not quite finished with the matters raised by Senator Chaney. I think I am quite entitled to say that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is certainly not a disinterested party in this debate about the resources rent tax. I believe I could quite safely say outside the chamber that BHP's views on government policy are affected by the company's vested interests. Companies are entitled to lobby for what they perceive to be in their interests. If I remember correctly, Senator Chaney put the proposition that if the Government wishes to proceed with a rent tax it should consider restricting it to new oil, defined as oil not presently discovered. Leaving aside the revenue and othe implications of that, such a move would not achieve the efficiency objectives we are seeking with the rent tax. On the question of whether new oil-I suppose for the present we are talking overwhelmingly about Fortescue-ought to be subject to any tax other than a corporate tax and the existing royalty, it is argued that from 1975-some say 1976-it had been a bipartisan policy that no excise would be applied to new oil. In the 1977 Budget, if I remember correctly, the previous Government said that it was contemplating a rent tax on oil or petroleum in general. In 1978 it announced that it had decided not to proceed with a rent tax on petroleum. By that time the Australian Labor party had stated as a firm policy intention that it would apply a rent tax which would apply to both old and new oil. So arguably there was a short period between, at the most, September 1975 and July of 1977 when there was a genuine expectation that neither party would impose anything but corporate tax and, for off-shore areas, the existing royalty on new oil discoveries. That ceased to apply in 1977. A more important point is that at the time the new oil policy became a bipartisan policy the administered price of Australian oil was something like $6 a barrel, if I remember correctly. In 1978, by administrative decision, the then Government lifted the price of Australian oil to full import parity, which I think was about $14 a barrel, although not all of that price increase accrued to the producers. A progressively larger proportion of that increase did accrue to the producers. That also was a pretty profound change in the ground rules about which I do not recall hearing any complaint from the oil producers. Not surprisingly, complaints about changing the ground rules are somewhat selective. There are no complaints about changes in the ground rules when they favour producers; there are complaints about alleged changes when they disadvantage producers relative to what applied before. I refer to Senator Rae's question about Minatome Australia Pty Ltd. He is not here at the moment, but I guess I am probably as big an offender as anyone here in regard to this matter. People tend to refer to that company name as a sort of shorthand expression for the organisation involved in the Ben Lomond project. From memory-if I am substantially in error I will have it changed later-about 93 per cent of the project is foreign owned, and a substantial proportion of that 93 per cent is held directly or indirectly by the French Government. Senator Sir John Carrick referred to the speech which I gave to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia last Friday and the reference to the cyclical component of the deficit. The speech really reported on the fact that some calculations which have been made of the cyclical component of the deficit have attempted to measure the difference between what the deficit would be with a notional unemployment rate of 6 per cent and no other changes, and what it would be with an actual unemployment level of 10 per cent plus. He asked whether the Government regarded 6 per cent unemployment as normal. I certainly do not. I would be extremely suprised if anybody in the government regarded it as normal of if they did not have as a policy objective ultimately getting unemployment down to below 6 per cent. But any realist must accept that for the next couple of years anyway it is unlikely to fall below 6 per cent. It is highly unlikely that the sorts of growth rates which would have to be achieved to get unemployment down to that level can in fact be achieved in a couple of years, particularly when one considers possible changes in the work force participation rate. For unemployment to fall to 6 per cent within a couple of years, growth rates of 7 per cent to 8 per cent would probably have to be achieved in both of those years. I do not remember when a growth rate of that order was last achieved in Australia. One would probably have to go back to the 1960s. It may well be that it has never been achieved. Certainly over the last decade only in one calendar year or one financial year-it does make a difference, but I am not sure whether it was a calendar year or a financial year-has a growth rate of even 5 per cent actually been achieved. Senator Sir John Carrick referred also to the 1945 White Paper on full employment which set as a policy target the achievement of unemployment of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. That is an observation which has been made commonly enough before. People's perceptions of what is achievable are heavily influenced by their recent experience. In 1945, after the very recent experience of the Great Depression, an unemployment target rate of 4 per cent to 5 per cent was probably regarded as extremely ambitious. It may be that for similar reasons , having experienced unemployment in excess of 5 per cent, if not of 6 per cent, for almost all of the last seven or eight years, some people may have come to regard 6 per cent unemployment as normal. I think that the real point of Senator Sir John Carrick's question was: Is it the extent of the Government's ambition to reduce unemployment growth to 6 per cent? The answer to that is no. The honourable senator referred also to the size of the deficit. Again, in the context of the CEDA speech, the point I was making there-it is a point which I have made before in this chamber-was that throughout the last decade half a dozen countries have maintained low rates of unemployment and ipso facto rates of economic growth high enough to maintain those rates of low unemployment in spite of increasing productivity of labour and in some cases increases in population and, for almost all of that same period, low rates of inflation. The Budget deficits recorded by those countries varied enormously. For example, Japan ran a Budget deficit of the order of 5 per cent or 6 per cent of gross domestic product for three or four years in succession. Yet, with the exception of the inflation burst of 1974 or thereabouts, in every other respect it had a very credible economic record, one which was certainly vastly superior to that which was achieved by Australia. The common denominator in those half a dozen countries was the existence of an effective prices and incomes policy. That is just a piece of history from which people can draw different conclusions. It seems to me that the most rational conclusion to draw from that-the conclusion which this Government has drawn-is that a prices and incomes policy is the peg upon which an effective economic policy should be hung. That is the policy of the Government. Senator Sir John Carrick also raised the question of the export of crude oil from Bass Strait. Effectively he asked: Why has the Government allowed it? As Senator Sir John Carrick is obviously aware, there is a difference between total self-sufficiency and what I have been terming technical self-sufficiency, that is, for technical reasons, to supply the whole range of end products of petroleum it is necessary to import-we can quibble about the exact figure- something like 30 per cent of our total crude oil requirements. When we talk about self-sufficiency we are really talking about 70 per cent of total consumption of oil products in Australia. Currently we have production potential in excess of that technical self- sufficiency. The indications are that that could persist for some years to come. The final outcome will depend on further assessment of and exploration in the Timor Sea area. I do not want to overstate the fact that the prospect of the degree of surplus capacity could both increase and be maintained for a longer period. But one thing we do know is that there is production potential surplus to the effective demand from the domestic market right now and some reasonable expectation that that will continue and may even increase. In other words, we are facing a situation in which at the margin there will be no sale for Australian crude unless it can be exported. Firstly, the Government would be confronted with the problem of allocating to producers and potential producers who would be allowed to supply the domestic market and, secondly, it would have a pretty devastating effect on exploration activity, especially if it were perceived that an excess capacity would continue for some time. For example, outside the Cooper Basin area, for which a market for additional gas discoveries is foreseeable, nobody would seriously look for gas in Australia because the market is saturated for a couple of decades hence. Perhaps there are some minor exceptions to that, such as the area around Darwin, but in general outside the Cooper Basin area nobody seriously explores for gas because they cannot see a market for it unless it is in sufficient quantity to be exported. It was principally for that reason that the Government made the decision to allow the export of Australian crude production surplus to the requirements of local refineries. One more point which I think is worth making is that prior to having made that decision the Government-I was not reticent about the Government's motives in this-had twisted the arms of Australian refiners to induce them to take up a greater proportion of domestic oil production to replace some of what they were then importing. We did that principally for revenue reasons. There was a potential loss of revenue to the Commonwealth of $400m or thereabouts. As far as I know there was no serious criticism of the Government for doing that. Conceptually there is no difference between twisting refiners' arms to make them take up a greater proprotion of Australian crude or of allowing Australian producers to export. I know that Senator Sir John Carrick has not put this argument. Some people put the argument that under no circumstances should we be exporting Australian crude because it is a commodity which will be under supplied in the long term. If that argument were carried to its logical conclusion we would deliberately shut in Bass Strait production and would have to import greater quantities. All things considered, the Government made the judgments that it has. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.09) —I wish to pursue this matter for a moment. I refer to what the Minister described as technical self- sufficiency. As I understood him, he said that regarding oil products Australia has a technical self-sufficiency rate of 70 per cent and that the other 30 per cent was in the nature of grades of oil that we have to import because the nature of Australian crudes is not such that it would satisfy that demand. Is the Minister saying that since the Australian crudes are at the lighter end of the barrel-I understand that they are at the lighter and the middle distillate end-we require an import of foreign crudes of the order of 30 per cent to meet the middle and heavier ends of the barrel? Is he saying also that a significant part of the 30 per cent that is imported is not in fact similar in terms of grade or quality to Bass Strait crude? If his logic follows that we will not use more than 70 per cent of our crude and therefore we have the choice of either leaving it in the ground or exporting it-the projection that I last saw was that by 1987 or thereabouts Australia might be, in the very short term, as much as 77 per cent self-sufficient, with that figure falling away in a year or two after that towards 70 per cent-is he saying that there is a possibility that in the future there will be frequent and larger exports of indigenous crude from Australia? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.12) — Senator Sir John Carrick raised the matter of the 30 per cent or thereabouts of crude which is imported. I am sure that Senator Sir John Carrick is pretty familiar with these things but he apparently wants them put on the record. One traditionally refined product has been imported to northern Australia and that continues. The Government has made no attempt to stop that. Senator Sir John Carrick may want to argue that we could have banned the imported refined product to northern ports and insisted that the product come from Australian refineries. That is an option that the Government could have taken but decided not to for a number of reasons, one of which is that the cost which somebody would have had to bear would almost certainly have been considerably higher in those northern ports. He asked whether any of the oil which is being imported is similar to Bass Strait oil. I cannot give an absolutely definitive answer to that. I think possibly there are times when it does happen because purchasing decisions are made by something like five, six or seven different companies which make commercial judgments from time to time for a variety of different reasons. It may well be that the occasional cargo of, for example, light Indonesian crude similar to Australian crude comes into Australia. The companies might have some reason, which is not easily apparent, for doing that. However, they are minor exceptions. I believe that the general proposition that there is a technical need to import about 30 per cent of our crude holds up. One qualification can be added to that. It would be possible substantially to decrease the percentage of our oil supplies which are imported if a higher proportion of topped crudes were imported instead of full crudes, regardless of their source. The proposition which was put to me and which I accepted, was that Australian refineries with the exception of one would require substantial technical adjustments which would have involved significant expense and probably a time lag. That is, I suppose, an option that is available to a government in the future if we achieve 77 per cent of total self-sufficiency, as Senator Sir John Carrick suggested, in 1987. I do not have any problem accepting that as a possibility. Therefore, in the technical sense and given a considerable surplus of local production, a government has available to it an option of by some means or other discouraging the import of whole crude and replacing it with topped crude which produces relatively much higher proportions of lubricating oil, bitumen and heavy products and much lower proportions of petrol and distillate which can be produced in high proportions from Australian crude. However, no decision has been made to do that. The decision was made some months ago not to try to push refiners in that direction in any direct way and it has not been contemplated at this stage that they be pushed that way in the future. However, it is an option which I would say should not be ruled out if it seems to be the desirable course to follow some time later when the relativity of supply and domestic demand for Australian crude is clearer than it is now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.15) —Further to that, perhaps the Minister would be good enough in due course-obviously not now-to look at the question of 70 per cent of technical self-sufficiency and supply the Committee and me with a comparison between the 30 per cent imported in normal times and not in fortuitous shipments and the percentage of those imports that is in fact comparable in terms of the fraction with Australian indigenous crude. The answer to this question is not for now. However, perhaps it could be supplied in due course because it will take some compiling. I think it is very important that we understand this matter. My point, of course, is this: Australia is always in a difficult situation with regard to foreign exchange and it would be a good thing if we could save our oil. I presume that if we sell it abroad we would earn some foreign exchange. However, equally, if we can use it ourselves or keep it in the ground it must make better sense in the long term. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.17) —I am not certain whether the information Senator Sir John Carrick seeks can be supplied. I would expect the country of origin to be available to the Department of Trade. However, we may, to some extent, be relying on company information. I will endeavour to get the information that the honourable senator is seeking. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.18) —I seek clarification of several matters in respect of which the Minister has responded. Firstly, the Minister mentioned that there is a certain selectivity in the opposition by some mining and oil exploration companies to changes in the ground rules in relation to the resource rental tax. Would the Minister mind naming those sorts of companies? I am interested only in the significant companies, for example, the publicly listed type of companies. Secondly, the Minister suggested that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd may not really be against a resource rental tax although there may be certain opposition by that company's vested interests. Can he explain just what he meant by that? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.19) —My reference to selectivity was not selectivity to a resource rental tax per se but selectivity in responding to changes in the ground rules. The point I was making , perhaps not as clearly as it should have been made, was that the ground rules about the price of oil were very substantially changed by the previous government in 1977 and again in 1978 in a way that provided a windfall gain to the Australian producers. I am not aware of any of the Australian producers complaining about that change to the ground rules. But some of the Australian producers, and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is the major company that I have in mind, have complained about what they regard as changes to the ground rules through the application of a rent tax which incorporates new oil. A similar complaint was made to me recently by the representative of another oil company which is, I think, not currently an Australian producer. With regard to Senator Watson's specific question about BHP, he apparently interpreted my comment as meaning that it is a particular individual in BHP who is responsible for the opposition. That may be so, but if it is I am not aware of it. The point that I was making is that BHP is currently the 50 per cent owner of an oil field which has the capacity to produce 27 million barrels of oil per annum and it is excise free. The net gain to the company would be somewhat less than the gross gain, but the gross gain to the company of that excise free status would be $350m to $400m. So BHP obviously has a very strong vested interest in maintaining freedom from tax other than corporate tax and royalties for that particular oil field. With its proposed takeover of the Utah Development Company's coal operations, again BHP would be financially advantaged at the same level of total industry taxation if taxes on coal continued to be levied on output, as with minor exceptions they are, rather than on economic rent or profit. All I was saying was that it is not surprising that criticism of this proposal has come from that company. But a number of other companies which I do not think have a particular vested interest one way or the other have, in public and in private, supported the Government in its objectives. Finally-Senator Sir John Carrick has been reading my recent speeches so he would be familiar with this-as far back as 1971 the former Chairman of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, Sir Maurice Mawby, drew attention to the damage which was being inflicted on the extractive industries by charges based on production. Granted he did not, in 1971 at the Garran Oration, recommend that a resources rent tax be introduced. Possibly nobody had suggested it to him at that stage. What he did in fact suggest is what I think would be generally regarded as a more radical solution and that is that State governments ought to take equity in resource development projects. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.22) —There are a couple of matters I wish to raise with the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh), one of which arose out of a comment he made, or one of which was anticipated by a comment he made in answer a few minutes ago, when he referred to the problem which faces explorers; that is, that there is really no point in discovering a deposit of gas in most parts of Australia because there is a glut in most of Australia. Senator Walsh —They might find it when they are looking for oil. Senator CHANEY —Quite. The fellow who made the comment about one of the problems of the industry being that in fact there was too much oil in Fortescue said: ' and the second problem for the industry is that there is too much gas being found'. The difficulty that explorers face, and I think this is a severe practical difficulty which needs attention by government, is the lack, in most parts of Australia, of a suitable holding tenement. In at least one State I think there is an arrangement whereby somebody who finds a resource which cannot be developed because of the immediate market position is able to get a tenement which relieves such a person of the requirement that there be immediate development or further extensive exploration. I ask the Minister whether this problem has received any consideration from him or from his Department and whether any action has been taken to encourage the States to develop some form of holding tenement which, whilst avoiding the possibility of useful resources being locked up and held for reasons purely internal to a company, acknowledges the reality which was referred to by the Minister himself in Committee a few minutes ago; that is, that in some areas such as gas there simply is no current market. Given the variability of the world energy scene and so on, and given Australia's need to go on discovering oil and so on, I believe it would be an extremely good thing if explorers felt that if, in the course of exploring for oil, or indeed in the course of exploring specifically for gas, they were to find deposits they would be putting themselves in a position from which at some future time they would get some commercial advantage. The second discrete matter which I raise with the Minister relates to these appropriations and perhaps to Treasury appropriations. I refer to the question of prices surveillance of petroleum products. The Government has, as I understand it, indicated its intention to establish a prices surveillance authority which will, as part of its functions, establish justified petroleum product prices on an Australia-wide basis. I ask the Minister whether that authority would be looking at wholesale or retail prices, or both? I also raise with the Minister a matter which I raised in the adjournment debate some time ago. I have not had any response, so perhaps it was never drawn to his attention. I refer to the dual authorities which at present exist with respect to prices in this area. We have around Australia a series of State authorities which fix the price of petrol. In some cases they fix wholesale prices and in others they fix both wholesale and retail prices. We have the authority which was established under the previous Government which also sets a price and there is, I think, a very real problem for the industry in this duplication of authorities. A lot of politics is involved in fixing the price of petrol. It is quite good politics in the short term to restrict the price of such a basic commodity. I think Senator Walsh would, in his economic rationalist role, agree that the unreasonable squeezing of profits to a point where investment becomes unrealistic is not sensible in the long term. At the moment this problem is masked in Australia by the energy situation, by the fact that there is a surplus of product around and there is a lot of competition and a lot of people are trading, at least intermittently, below the prices which are set by these various authorities. But I do think that in the longer term we have an unhealthy duality of bodies interfering in this area and I should like to know whether the Government's new proposal is one which will endeavour to come to grips with that and to remove some of the duplication which at present exists. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.29) —I will answer those questions in the morning, Mr Temporary Chairman. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 21 October 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.01) —I had all but completed my contribution on the Sex Discrimination Bill. This is my third attempt at completing the speech. When I last spoke, on 21 October, I was making the point that really there is nothing particularly novel in this Bill. I mentioned the fact that in South Australia we have had sex discrimination legislation since 1975. That Act was, in fact, modelled on the United Kingdom Sex Discrimination Act of the same year. I was about to remind the Senate that New South Wales also has had, since 1977, anti-discrimination legislation, including provisions which make unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status. Victoria has had its Equal Opportunity Act since 1977. That Act also outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status. So there is nothing new in the concept of this Bill. It is true that the Bill includes outlawing discrimination on the ground of pregnancy although, in South Australia, the Sex Discrimination Tribunal has been including pregnancy under the heading of indirect discrimination, so even that concept is not novel. So rather than argue, as some have, that this Bill introduces a new type of legislation, I see it as a logical progression towards the goal of ensuring for all Australian women the right not to be discriminated against in certain specified areas critical to their well-being, on grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. In conclusion, it was said by a delegate from a developing country to a conference in Copenhagen about which I spoke on the last occasion, that to talk feminism to a woman who has no water, no food and no home is to talk nonsense. It has been said by some that to talk sex discrimination legislation with so many already unemployed in our society is to talk nonsense. I suggest to the Senate that we must develop all facets of our society. It is not possible to package neatly different areas of social and economic development. There is a need to progress on many fronts, of which this is one. Full justice and equality for women in Australia is a right not yet fully realised. This Bill makes a contribution to that goal. I attempted, when my speech was being broadcast, to allay some of the fears that had been expressed and put very seriously and genuinely by some Australians about the purpose and policy of a sex discrimination Act. I hope I was successful on that occasion. Matters concerning the deficiencies in this Bill, of which we see a number, will of course be the subject of Opposition amendments at the Committee stage. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.05) —At the outset I would simply like to address a few remarks in reply to a comment made by Senator Harradine in his speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill. He quoted an article from the Canberra Times of 7 October in which a statement that arguments against the Sex Discrimination Bill circulated by the New South Wales Right to Life Association were not considered plausible by officers of the Attorney-General's Department was attributed to a spokeswoman from Senator Ryan's office. Senator Harradine produced a letter from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to the effect that the Department had not considered the arguments put forward by the New South Wales Right to Life Association. In fact, the inquiries came to Senator Susan Ryan's office and had been checked by lawyers in the Office of the Status of Women. They gave the opinion that was reported. The report, which appeared in the Canberra Times of 7 October, that advice relating to claims by the New South Wales Right to Life Association had come from the Attorney-General 's Department was an assumption on the part of the journalist and an incorrect one. I am very proud to be here today to debate this very important Bill. As no doubt honourable senators know, I am the first woman member of the Australian Labor Party from South Australia to come to Canberra. I come, as Senator Hill said, from the State that introduced the first sex discrimination legislation in Australia. As a matter of interest, South Australia has a long list of firsts for women. The University of Adelaide was the first university in Australia to admit women to degrees. The South Australian Government passed the first parliamentary Bill for the enfranchisement of women. In 1894 all South Australian women over the age of 21 became entitled to vote and stand for election. It was the first State in Australia to so allow. In 1896 the first election in Australia in which women voted was held. The first woman political candidate for federal election, Catherine Helen Spence, came from South Australia. (Quorum formed) South Australia was the first State to have a female inspector of schools, a woman called Blanch McNamara. We had the first woman factory inspector. We had the first woman elected to the council of the University of Adelaide. Helen Mayo was elected to that position in 1914 and served on the council for 46 years. In 1919 the first Australian woman local government councillor was elected. In 1965 the Hon. Justice Roma Mitchell, who had been the first female Queen's Counsel in this country, was the first woman in Australia to be appointed a judge. She was appointed to the South Australian Supreme Court. In 1975 the sex discrimination Act of South Australia was the first such Act to be introduced in Australia. We had the first Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. In 1982 the South Australian Health Commission became Australia's first major statutory authority with equal numbers of men and women appointed as commissioners. This year the University of Adelaide established Australia's first research centre for women's studies with a full time director. In fact last Sunday but two the South Australian Minister for Health, Mr Cornwall, appointed the first women's adviser in health in Australia. Whilst it is a matter of considerable pride that I am here and whilst it is a matter of distinction that I can list those achievements for women in South Australia, I am drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that despite those achievements for women we still need this legislation. It is necessary for both men and women in Australia. I will quote from the preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It states: Discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity. It is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their communities. 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 their countries and of humanity. The program of action adopted at the Conference of the Decade for Women in Copenhagen in 1980 puts it another way. I am sure I remember Senator Hill quoting this too. The Conference pointed out that women are 50 per cent of the world adult population; one-third of the official labour force; perform nearly two-thirds of all working hours; receive only one-tenth of the world's income; and own less than one per cent of world property. This legislation is not designed to redress all these inequities as they relate to Australian women. It is, if one likes, a precondition for the establishment of some sort of equality. As an example of the inequality of women's representation generally in jobs perhaps some statistics about this Federal Parliament and about women in parliaments in Australia are illustrative. Since federation only 20 women have served in this place, and that includes those women here today. In both Houses there has been a total of 29 women. For all the governments of Australia since their formation a total of only 110 women have served. However, there are some heartening signs that those numbers are increasing, albeit slowly. In 1980 there were 550 women out of a total of 8,845 persons serving in local government in Australia. Since June 1982 there have been 62 sitting women members of parliament in Australia-a mere 8 per cent. However, following the Queensland election those figures would have increased slightly. The purpose of this legislation, briefly, is to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and to make unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in certain areas, most particularly in employment, education, matters of finance and accommodation. The Bill also provides for a prohibition on sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions; and very importantly it promotes recognition and acceptance of the principle of equality of men and women. The Bill is designed to complement existing State legislation and it allows for the concurrent operation of State and Federal laws. It will make a number of very practical changes to assist women who have been the victims of discrimination. The Federal Government legislation will apply across all States, and where there is no State legislation it will apply to all people in that State except State government employees. It is a hope of myself, and the majority of people in this Senate, certainly honourable senators on this side, that those States and Territories currently without sex discrimination legislation will introduce it in the future. In the case of Queensland we may have to wait some time. It has been claimed that there is widespread antagonism and opposition to this Bill. I would like to list some support for the matter of balance in the record. I have a number of quotes. One from a recent Women's Electoral Lobby newsletter in South Australia, dated September 1980, states: The Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women of Australia; the United Nations Association of Australia, the Union of Australian Women, Women and Development Network, the Women's Electoral Lobby and the Young Women's Christian Association of Australia, congratulate the Government on its recent action in ratifying the Convention . . . We have perused the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, with some care and, in general, are pleased with the provision it contains. We believe that every person in Australia should have the right to pursue their occupations and interest uninhibited by arbitrary discrimination based solely on their sex. Therefore we- that is, all those above listed women's groups- strongly urge you to support the immediate passage of the Bill during this session of Parliament. The Catholic Church, in a recent newspaper called the Southern Cross in South Australia, on 1 October had this to say: The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace strongly supported the Government 's initiative in preparing legislation to eliminate discrimination against women . The Age, in its editorial on 13 July, stated: At the philosophical level, there were those who wondered whether human values should be expressed in legislation, or whether the cause of anti-discrimination would be better served by strong educative campaigns. While there is some appeal in this idea, the fact remains that not every member of the community is fair- minded. Some, in fact, are brutishly intolerant. In such cases, there is a real, as well as symbolic, value in having the country's chosen values spelt out in legislation. Like a Bill of Rights it establishes a code of conduct to which the community is expected to adhere. It went on: . . . Sexual Discrimination Act is no guarantee that in every case women's rights would be respected and equality recognised. . . . Nonetheless, the Government's Bill does set an ideal against which the achievements of women can be measured, as well as a mechanism for bringing complaints and resolving disputes. On those grounds, it is a marked advance. Discrimination against women exists in many forms and it is especially the case for migrant and aboriginal women. It has been estimated that 53,000 outworkers in the clothing industry make up sweatshop labour and produce about 70 per cent of all the clothes made in Australia. These women, mostly migrants, earn about $ 108 for a 40-hour week. The award for factory machinists is $210 per week and includes sick and holiday pay, workers' compensation cover, penalty rates and long service leave-all of which these sweatshop women miss out on. Pat O'Shane, a person well placed to describe the situation for Aboriginal women, reports that it is actually very difficult to have any reliable or coherent facts and figures about Aboriginal people. In large part that was due to the fact that what was meant by the word 'Aboriginal'-how Aboriginal people should describe themselves-was not cleared up or established until the 1976 census. Even then Aboriginal people preferred to describe themselves as Aboriginal, so estimates may still be suspect in terms of the figures given. In the 1976 census 13,778 Aboriginal women were listed as being in the labour force, comprising 30 per cent of the total Aboriginal labour force. The unemployment rate as at 1976 was 25 per cent. One thing is certain, Aboriginals are concentrated in the lowest status, lowest paid jobs. I think it is important to mention in passing that discrimination does exist against men and any of us can remember examples. From my own experience I know the battle male nurses had in being allowed to participate in midwifery. I do not believe, as some of the knockers of this Bill do, that the legislation will threaten or undermine women. Rather it will enable them to make a choice about whether they want to stay at home an rear children or go to work. The United Nations Convention and this Bill do not denigrate men or women in any way. Rather they give men and women the opportunity to take advantage of avenues open to them if they should desire. I disagree entirely with Senator Shirley Walters, who was reported in the Age on 10 August this year as having said: The Convention is a formidable threat to freedom of religion and the protection of women and the family in this country. In fact, by legislating for the rights of women and opposing any discrimination against women, this Bill celebrates women and acknowledges their right to personhood, to dignity, to respect, and to freedom from discrimination. It enshrines their place in our society and it enforces their worth. In fact it does all the things that the Opposition-Senator Walters in particular-claims that it wants. But it is the Opposition which presents women as stuck in stereotyped roles. It keeps women locked into those roles. It keeps women locked into poverty. It keeps women locked into dependence, all justified by its argument of preserving and persevering with the family. It really seems to be arguing, I think, for preserving the status quo and the existing power structures in our society. But I think it is important also to say that many men do not like being stuck in stereotyped roles. The perpetual position of breadwinner is a very unfreeing situation for many men. It is no dignity to be bound into stereotypes of poverty and dependence. Dignity, I may say to Senator Walters, is consequent on freedom, and very particularly, the freedom to choose. The tragedy of handicapped or retarded people, I would argue, is their reduced option for choice. Other people make their choices for them. That is their loss of particular dignity. Perhaps, too, it is argued that people will make wrong choices, therefore we should not allow them to make any. I disagree entirely with this position too. I do not believe that because people make wrong choices we have any case to deny them their right to make a choice-their right to choose. Education, information and support are what people need-not restriction. This Government actually acknowledges the people of Australia as adult. It is legislating to protect their right to be free of discrimination, to be free to choose. The antagonists have based their criticisms on sweeping generalisations. There will be no foreign control or intervention in our laws, as has been claimed by many and certainly the misinformation of the many letters sent to me and, I am sure, to other honourable senators, conveys a remarkable misunderstanding of this Bill. In fact, their attitudes, I think, are well captured by a splendid line in a play. (Quorum formed) I think there is one gain from a quorum having been called. I will be able to read this great quotation to the whole Senate, or at least to a quorum of it. A recent play by Steven Sewell called The Blind Giant is Dancing contains a line which captures exactly the attitudes of some of the Opposition senators. Sewell described what he referred to as, 'a voodoo bag of misogyny and sado-masochism'. There will be no forcing of people to adopt prescribed roles. Unfortunately, the roles of women have been stereotyped. Women are still to a great degree seen as home-makers, secretaries, nurses and nothing more. That is not to say that those positions are limited. In fact, they are splendid, especially for women who choose to be in them-or men, for that matter. I quote from the Boyer Lecture given in 1979 by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): If a woman sees her happiness and complete fulfilment in terms of the family home, this should be thoroughly respected; we should abhor any perverse discrimination which attributes any inferior status to such women, who will continue to constitute a significant proportion of our community. For those women who wish, or feel it necessary, to engage in paid employment outside the home, we should regard it as an obligation upon society to ensure, either at the workplace or other acceptable locations, completely adequate child -care facilities as a matter of justice to the mother and child. I think there are a number of areas on which this legislation will have particular impact. In regard to the area of educational institutions, while we may wonder whether changes will have an effect out into the community, I think it is quite clear that they will, although there may be some time lag between the changes in the educational institutions, particularly tertiary institutions, and the impact in the community. But anybody who is looking for increased access to educational opportunities for women and girls, will be heartened by the provisions of this Bill. Of course, the other educational role that is very important to consider here is the educative role of the legislation per se. Whatever else we can say about it, there has been to date a considerable community debate; at least, I think, there has been a debate on one side and a slanging match on the other. In the past, girls have been discouraged away from science, engineering and such areas of secondary and tertiary education, including mathematics. This is really in large part due to a subtle socialising of women and young girls. If we eliminate the participation of women the equality of the employment pool is reduced. This will and has deprived employers of at least half their potential employees. Recently the Government introduced two new programs to redress this imbalance. They are the New Opportunities for Women Program and the Technically Speaking Program. The other area that is important to look at is employment. Two thirds of Australia's working women are confined to three major occupational groups, clerical, sales and service-jobs which have a low status and low pay. It is in these very areas that employment prospects have diminished as a result of technological change. Women, if they are to have access to employment, will have to look at preparation for areas of technology. Australia's industrial future is intimately tied up with those areas in which technical development is happening, so women need to be attending to those prospects while they are in secondary and tertiary education areas. It should also be mentioned that the traditional areas of work for women tend to be tedious and monotonous. I presume that that is a description of much work but, in fact, there is little opportunity for promotion in many women's jobs. Women, of course, as a consequence have suffered more fatigue and health hazards, and reduced job satisfaction. The other area, I think, that is particularly horrific if we look at the figures is the area of the consequences of women being denied work and/or education. That means that women finish up very largely among the poor. They are very much more represented among the poor in our society than are men. This is partly due to the reduced options for women to work. It is due to the limited areas where women can apply for work. It is also due to the effects of unemployment over the last couple of years. In large part, women belong in the part time employment areas. Some 36.4 per cent of all employed females, compared with 6.2 per cent of males, are in part time employment. According to recent figures, only 5 per cent of apprentices are women. Only a small percentage of women acually work full time. In 1981 those women received on average 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. Even if we adjust that figure to take into account women being on a reduced income because of part time work, the average woman's wage is still only 80 cents, as compared to the male earning a dollar. Yet many more families would be in poverty if women were not in paid employment . Data from the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty of 1975 shows that the number of poor families would have doubled if married women had not had paid work. Women's incomes are, in fact, a very important part in the consumption patterns and income distribution. Yet discrimination against women in education, training, employment, tax and social security systems have combined with domestic division of labour to perpetuate the occupational segregation which keeps women in that lowest paid bracket. Lower income and part time women workers too are also in a poor bargaining position. Consequently their wages lag behind those of men. The present economic recession has severely affected women. Whilst part time employment opportunities for women have grown, this has been at the expense of full time work. Where part time work is casual, those workers are denied such things as fringe benefits, sickness benefits, holiday pay, et cetera. Certainly in South Australia and in some other places in Australia we have permanent part time work with some of those rights attached to part time work. But it still is reaching only a small percentage of the women who are involved in part time work . During the recession, the first group of people to be blamed has been married women. It has been said that if married women get out of the work force there will be jobs for everybody. As a matter of fact, the work done by women is never the work for which men apply. Married women tend to do the lowest paid and the meanest work. In fact, men and young people do not wish to compete for those jobs. This Party in government has the only and the only true policy for women. This legislation is one part of that policy. The Liberal members on the other side of the House do not have a defined policy and, as reported in the Press recently, divisions have surfaced on the question of women's rights. They have even left it to a man to be the shadow Minister in charge of women's affairs. The President of the Young Liberal movement was reported in the Australian Financial Review of 7 June 1983 as saying: He had been shocked by the vigorous campaign being conducted by some Liberal parliamentarians, and stating that there was clear evidence that the Liberal Party was out of touch with the attitudes of young women who in recent years have swung strongly to Labor. I would like to add that I think they are out of touch with more than that. Judith Roberts, the former South Australian Chairman of the Liberal Party was reported in the Advertiser of 6 October 1983 as saying: The attitude of the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party to this proposed legislation 'demonstrates a lack of conviction about equality . . . for women', . . . She went on to say: This is a fundamental issue of human rights and must be supported if the Liberal Party is to have any credibility at all. Even more exciting than the division amongst the Liberals is the extraordinary exercise that Mr Doug Anthony indulged in when explaining the position of the National Party of Australia on this Bill. He actually said all the right things and then worked out why he was against it. The Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, in his statement, said: The Party acknowledges that discrimination against women does exist in certain areas and must be eliminated . . . Much of the criticism of the Bill has been uninformed, emotional and misleading . He went on to say: The result of provisions in the Bill may encourage women into the workforce, and will require the further growth of child-care facilities to enable parents to combine family and work responsibilities. We support freedom of choice for women , and the need for adequate child-care facilities to meet the specific needs of the community. However, the National Party does not wish to hasten the institutionalisation of society. We seek to strengthen and encourage the family unit, and help women faced with the choice between home making and involvement in the work force . . . The National Party, on balance, opposes this legislation. That balancing act I think is nothing short of farce. I will not speak about affirmative action other than to say that a Green Paper will be tabled shortly by the Government and further discussion about affirmative action will take place then. We do need this law. The Office of the Status of Women, in a paper of July this year, said: People sometimes argue that the law has no role in solving problems based on attitudes . . . While laws alone will never be enough . . . they are in many respects very important. Laws stand as a clear statement of public policy and have an effect on conduct by protecting people against discrimination and giving redress to those discriminated against. Anti-discrimination laws also offer support . . . give reasons to change behaviour . . ., think about what they have been doing and, perhaps, change their attitudes. Laws based on conscience are likely to be obeyed-even if they are not they still establish a standard of behaviour . . . Finally a law offers to those who are discriminated against a source of courage and an awareness of rights . . . This Bill, I think, should be viewed with pride in the opportunities it will encourage for women, rather than a fear that changes might occur. I commend the Bill. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.34) —I wish to speak to the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. I wish to say that I completely and utterly support the anti- discrimination attitude. I believe in it. I practise it. I am appalled at this nonsense before us that purports to be a Bill to cover it. I am both affronted and disappointed by this rather poor effort to legislate on this issue. I find that people who believe that it is possible to legislate against what is normally covered by the hearts and minds of people always fail. Who really believes that this piece of legislation does anything more than try to appease a tiny minority of motivated people? I have been the recipient of a considerable number of representations on this subject. I have had many letters, petitions and telephone calls. I have had no petitions in support of the legislation; I have had four letters in support of it; and I have not had one caller at my office in support of it. All the other representations made to me have been opposed to it. I have had masses of those sorts of representations. I have never found it desirable to speak on one of these types of debates in the Senate before. Several aspects of the legislation have encouraged me to do so on this occasion. Firstly, without any doubt this is the worst presented Bill that has ever come before the Parliament in the last eight years. I think that on that account it needs to be given some consideration. With 53 Government amendments already, it is still rotten legislation. There are nearly as many amendments to come from the Opposition. We have had the view expressed that the Bill should be passed in whatever form it is in. That has been said even before the Government's first 53 amendments were produced. At that stage I suppose it would have been fair to say that it was 53 amendments worse than it is now. The other point is that I am sure that many of those who are promoting the Bill as a great advance for women are not really in the position where they can make those claims any more than I can. I do not believe that the people who are supporting it so strongly are by any means what one could call average women in society. I would be foolish if I took no notice of the enormous number of letters and contacts I have been getting on this subject. They have put a far more plausible case against this particular legislation and the way it is to deal with the subject than I have heard from anybody speaking in support of it. Many people-I am one-have a genuine desire to support genuine equality but the only people whom I have heard speaking so loudly about this legislation are people who I believe, in most cases, have already achieved what they seek to claim for others. In some ways they exude pity for women with non-similar goals. I do not think, for instance, that the previous speaker in this debate, Senator Crowley, could really say that she had been discriminated against because she is not adopting the traditional role and things like that. I have heard other speakers in similar positions. Frankly, I do not think any of us here are typical people in the community. I believe that most members of parliament are people who have set certain goals and seek to achieve certain ends. As such, that makes us quite different in the average person's point of view. Not one Bill or even dozens of Bills are going to change the natural characteristics of men and women. I do not think we would really want to do that. It may be an annoyance to some that we cannot legislate to cover that. But I do not think any amount of legislation will change the fact that most ordinary, natural women are homely and caring, that they are not wildly ambitious, that they are not naturally dominating and that they are mostly inclined to avoid authority. They are, by nature, more cautious and more considerate. It strikes me that clause 5 (1) of the Bill makes it an offence for those characteristics to be taken into account. Men, by nature, are more likely to be leaders, providers and protectors. We can legislate all we like, but we will not change that. But it is to be an offence to discriminate by reason of a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person, or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person. I find that absolutely extraordinary. Why do women want to be like men, or men want to be like women? Senator Crowley —We do not. Senator ARCHER —I should think not. What has become wrong with being what nature provides? Surely, I do not want to see women become so equal with men in Australia that they are out digging drains, shearing sheep, slaughtering beasts or occupied as undertakers, sawmill operators and so on. Do we want equality, or do we want just the bit off the top? Most of the people I have heard have all sorts of aspirations for being the managing director but do not see that they should make the cups of tea or clean the waste paper baskets. I have seen equality in various places, and I have learned a certain amount about it in various places. I have seen equality in China. I have not seen it in Ethiopia or in Vietnam, but I understand that it exists there. I am not sure that we want that sort of equality. But if we established that, at least we would be in good company. Looking at the list of the countries involved in this sort of legislation-not the countries that have signed the original document but those that have actually legislated-I find that it runs: Austria, Barbados, Bhutan, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde , China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, the German Democratic Republic, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, St Lucia, Sri Lanka, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sweden, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. That is the list of those that have legislated in support of ratification. There are 49 countries there-19 communist countries, 24 developing countries and six others. Countries not appearing on the list include the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, or France, for instance, and all the others of which we know. But we are in amongst all the communists and most of the developing countries, and I guess that puts us in the right place! I wonder why the good news has not yet reached the countries I have just mentioned. This is the list that was in operation as at 26 September 1983, as I was told by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I appreciate that this Bill grants rights. But in my experience, rights can best be described as something one seeks to obtain by getting it from someone else. The Bill covers sex discrimination but it does not cover, say, employer discrimination. Employers only provide the jobs. How can the average small business hope to cope with these very poorly defined and even less understood provisions? In my opinion, people in that situation will take the only action that is open to them and they just simply will not employ. When I look at this sort of discrimination, I think it is just as much out of order to discriminate against older people, or left-handed people, or large people, or younger people- as it now is. Who will look after them? Shall we have new Bills for all those as well? What about accommodation discrimination? Letting agents, for instance, usually vet prospective tenants and they do not let to known unsatisfactory, inappropriate or unfinancial applicants. If they do and the property is wrecked or the rent is unpaid, the agent may be sued. Now, if he does not let, he probably will be sued. So that is the only difference this Bill will make. All sorts of groups have written in about this matter. One that I noticed recently was the Institute of Public Affairs. It is not like that Institute to become involved in matters of this nature, but I was interested to find that it had invited Dr Clair Isbister along and had made a very substantial statement which I found quite interesting. I shall wait on the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is in charge of the Bill, to tell us in due course where the information in that submission is wrong. I also got a copy of the information that Dr Chipman produced. Again, I should like to know where Dr Chipman is completely wrong. The Bill also is a clear attack on our federal system. I believe in that system. The strength of the country is our federal system. For the Government to have to take recourse to both foreign affairs powers and corporation powers to try to achieve something like this is absolute nonsense. I do not know why we have to go on in this way to achieve something that is substantially in force anyway, but which should exist for everyone. I am concerned about the question of intimidation, which may even turn into blackmail in many cases. There is no provision in the Bill for the people who are actually accused. With the sort of publicity that such a charge would provide, I do not overlook the fact that it will be very common for employers of labour, in particular, to be blackmailed and certainly to be even paying, whether or not the charge is genuine or can even be demonstrated to look as though it is genuine. I am somewhat surprised about the scale of the penalties. The Bill provides enormous penalties. There is no doubt that a penalty of $5,000 is enormous. In New South Wales these days one can even plead guilty to stealing $60,000 and get fined only $4,000, so one can see the relativity and the magnitude that is involved in this matter. We have heard much talk here about civil liberties and about a crimes commission. All I can say is that one can get far greater protection from the law if one is a suspected crook of great magnitude or a drug dealer than one can get if one comes under the provisions of this legislation. I find the pregnancy question very interesting. The discrimination that it creates is every bit as great as the discrimination that it avoids. If we are going to look at the question of providing pregnant women with time off, of considerable duration, what about the temporary employees? What happens to them? I presume that they have no rights at all. Pregnancy leave is clearly the first step towards family leave. What happens when we reach the stage at which all women in the work force become entitled to, say, seven years of family leave? Senator Giles —It affects fathers, too. Senator ARCHER —Many have laughed at this proposition besides the honourable senator, but it may have escaped her attention that the Press has stated that one group has already been granted, or has bought, as the case may be, seven years' family leave. I quote from the Age of 13 October. The article states: Victoria's teachers are entitled to seven years' family leave without losing their jobs or rights under a new agreement between the State Government and the three main teacher unions. . . . . Under the agreement, seven years' leave without pay can be taken by all teachers to look after their children. They were previously entitled to 18 months. How could anyone, apart from the Government, run a business in which people were allowed to have seven years off? I believe that someone who had had a job as a temporary employee for seven years would feel a bit upset if somebody came in and said: 'Look, that is my job, move over'. But what will be next? We know what will be next, I think, because Senator Ryan has made it adequately clear that she is really after affirmative action and that, in those areas where women may clearly be superior or successful, half of them should be moved out for men. I do not see why, in certain occupations, women should have to move out to make room for men, any more than the other way round. But I would certainly feel quite embarrassed if it was a fact that Senator Ryan, for instance, had to retire from the Senate because the people of Canberra were already represented by Senator Reid. Will there be burning of books and that type of thing? The people who are talking about sex discrimination are not leaving any stone unturned in enunciating their aims and ambitions. For instance, a document has been circulated widely in Tasmania by a gentleman who was a former Minister for Education in Tasmania and Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in that State. I understand that he now works for one of the unions there. The document, entitled 'What can you do about sexist material in schools?', says in part: Burn it! Lose it! Glue the pages together! Hide it! Take it out on permanent (eternal) loan! It continues in this vein. Is this what we are after? I recall that in Nazi Germany and places like that it was found to be highly satisfactory to burn books. Most of such enterprises start in such a way. At Winnaleah School in Tasmania they burnt the Bibles because they claimed they were sexist. According to a recent correspondent in the Press, this type of anti-discrimination teaching is being circulated. The item in the Hobart Mercury of 1 November 1983 is one of the sickest things I have ever read. It is headed 'Removal of books' and states: I feel that the public should be made aware that there is more to the removal of books from the Winnaleah School library than generally realised, and I quote from the so-called literature recommended for non-sexist teachers and their pupils. From the 'Combat Sexism Kit' Book I for teachers: '. . . the marriage law is the most damnable outrage upon women that was ever conceived.' From the same kit -Book II for students, the story is told of the breast-people and the breastless ones-the only difference being that the breast-people gave birth. And I quote '. . . one day the breastless ones noticed that breast-people were getting strong and skilful . . . The difference and the progress of the breast-people, so startled and frightened the breastless ones. . . . So the breastless ones committed the first crime-they took possession of the lives of the breast-people and their little ones, robbed them of all they created and produced, took away their freedom and made them slaves. Their crime was known as ''marriage'' . . . With no excuse for their behaviour, the males invented a lie to justify their crime . . . When resistance continued, the males wrote their lies in books, and these books were The Bible, The Koran and the texts of Hinduism. To be assured of power, what was written became law and those who broke the law were punished, so the right of males to enslave females became legal and from then on the males were men and the females women.' What sort of sickness is it that leads to such garbage being put out in the name of sex discrimination? I was appalled at the comments made on this matter by one of the female senators of this chamber. This sort of thing is just revolting, especially when perpetrated in the name of what is supposed to be progress. I find this Bill terribly verbose. I cannot see any reason why, at the time it was formulated, it did not in an educative way provide a framework which could be added to. Instead, we all have to go through this exercise. We will then spend years, I trust, going over it trying to tidy it up in some way. I say that the vast majority of reasonable, sensible and practical issues are well and truly already in place. So much of the Bill is untidy and unclear. Many concerned people have asked advice of me. It does not really matter much, but if I ask three people I usually get about four answers. Everything in the Bill is so woolly and imprecise. I do not see why, out of this absolute fuzz, we should put people in the position of running the risk of being convicted of offences. All the amendments that we have ahead of us now tend only to make it all that much more difficult to sort out. As honourable senators will be aware, the Senate has already been the subject of considerable influence. A considerable number of petitions have been presented. This afternoon I had the numbers of petitions for both sides of this question taken out so that I could cite them here and enable honourable senators to see the relative desirability or undersirability of the sex discrimination legislation, as it is seen by the people who have bothered to do something about it. Between 3 May 1983 and 8 November 1983 the United Nation Convention, which has now been ratified, produced 161 petitions, with a total of 56,810 signatures , that it be not ratified, and 24 petitions, with 1,314 signatures asking for ratification. There were three petitions with 116 signatures in favour of the Bill itself and six petitions with 365 signatures against it. Petitions asking for amendment amount to 110, with 20,542 signatures, and petitions asking for referral to a committee amounted to seven, with 452 signatures. Those are the numbers to date. Those people have seen fit to have their feelings noted, to make sure that they could be considered in the chamber and the Parliament of this country could see the amount of consideration that should be involved. I support anti-discrimination. The Bill in no way makes it possible to achieve that. In fact, I cannot imagine many ways in which it could be more counter- productive. I find that very sad indeed. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the mish-mash that we have and to withdraw it now and start again with the value of the experience that we have been able to put together so far. I oppose the Bill totally and utterly in its present form, but I still support the concept, if properly presented. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(8.59) —The object of the Sex Discrimination Bill is to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women-to eliminate so far as possible discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in certain areas, to eliminate so far as possible discrimination involving sexual harrassment in the work place and in educational institutions, and to promote recognition and acceptance of the principle of the equality of men and women. The Bill before us is one stage in a process of political struggle and activism stretching back many years. In spite of those struggles, sexual inequality in our society has persisted and in some areas, especially during a recession such as that we are in at present, the problems that people face have sharpened. I do not intend to speak at great length because Senator Walters has already displayed tonight part of a tactic of a section of the Opposition-deliberately to delay this Bill becoming law, deliberately to try to filibuster and prevent its passage. I prefer to take the world view and repeat, a bit like a commercial , what Senator Crowley and other honourable senators have said-that at the United Nations Conference on the Decade for Women, held in Copenhagen in 1980, it was pointed out that women make up 50 per cent of the adult population and one-third of the official labour force; that they perform two-thirds of all working hours; that they receive one-tenth of the world income and that they own less than one per cent of property. That is what this Bill is about. It is the beginning of an attempt to redress a world phenomenon. Australia is playing its part in trying to change the situation under which women have been discriminated against. In Australia, the female average wage is about 78 per cent of the male average wage. Surveys carried out by the Australian Council of Trade Unions indicate that there are significant differences between the incomes of males and females, particularly in over award payments and superannuation. I speak with some experience because I was secretary of a printers union in New South Wales which amalgamated with another printing union. I discovered that women in the other union had had their male rate taken from them in 1937. Significantly, this happened because of the threat of cheap Japanese imports at that time. Those women had far lower over award payments than men. That is one of the most insidious ways in which women in this country are exploited. In the late 1960s we were able to sustain a political and industrial campaign so that those women could redress their situation. The significant thing is-it is true of this legislation-that we were able to use consciousness raising techniques and get people to see that women were being unfairly treated. My colleagues, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and Senator Zakharov have drawn attention during this debate to some of the other inequalities that exist. I refer to just some of them. Nearly two-thirds of women are employed in only three occupational groupings-clerical, sales and service, and sport and recreation. Women are seldom found in key decision making positions. In 1983 women filled only 14 per cent of administrative, executive and managerial positions. Only 5 per cent of all apprentices were female. If we take out the hairdressing industry, that figure becomes 2 per cent. Women are more vulnerable to unemployment than men because they tend to be concentrated in those industries I have described, and particularly in unskilled and part time jobs. In times of recession like we are experiencing at the moment this vulnerability is reinforced by the attitude that women's jobs are of secondary importance. The fact that such an attitude is still prelevant demonstrates how fragile and superficial is the concept of equal opportunity. This points to the urgent need for this sex discrimination legislation. A British study shows that fewer than one in five male workers now conform to the traditional stereotype of being the sole financial support for a wife and dependent children. An article by Yvonne Preston in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald refers to the Australian figures and states: In practice, less than 20 per cent of all Australian families now fit the ' ideal' mould of working father, fully dependent wife and dependent children. So it can be seen that this idealised version of the perfect family that has so often been promoted is not based on fact. A growing number of women make a crucial contribution to family support. According to the ACTU figures, 42 per cent of all married women are in the labour force. A complete reappraisal of the way in which jobs and incomes are allocated between men and women is needed on the grounds of family needs as well as equal opportunity. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy President, I was about to refer to the need of working women to have child care facilities available when Senator Walters began competing for the title of Tasmanian backwoodsperson of the year. Senator Martin —A point of order, Mr Deputy President. It should be pointed out to the honourable senator that it is in order to draw attention to the state of the House, that there is an obligation to keep the House, and that no Ministers were present. In view of the priority the Government has given-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is your point of order, Senator Martin? Senator Martin —My point of order is that the honourable senator has no right to cast aspersions on Senator Walters's right to call quorums. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —On the point of order-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have ruled on that and need no further assistance. There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —I think it is worth while pointing out that there was an agreement, which, of course, Senator Walters refused to have anything to do with . Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is this a new point of order? I have dealt with the previous one. Senator Chaney —I want to make it quite clear that there was no agreement with respect to quorums. I made it clear to Senator Button that I was in no position to commit my Party on that, and I did not commit it on that. If this Government wants the Senate to sit, it has to sit subject to the normal conditions which require the Senate to be kept if any senator draws attention to the state of the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —These matters are not points of order and should not be debated. Senator Childs has the call. Senator CHILDS —This Labor Government recognises that Australian women do not yet experience total equality with men, nor full participation in all aspects of our society. I read that from the platform of the Australian Labor Party. The Sex Discrimination Bill indicates that the Government is committed to redressing these inequalities. I contrast this with the attitudes of members of the conservative parties. Senator Chaney —Do you support the 53 amendments? Senator CHILDS —We could not have an example of more extreme behaviour. If we look at the Liberal Party, although I am inclined to call it a Tory party, considering the way people have been behaving, we can see that it has been torn apart. On the one hand we have the anti-feminist fringe. People to the left, right and centre are taking different positions on this legislation. There is also the hard core of people who are resisting this elementary change. On the other hand, in the same political party, of which Senator Walters is a member, we have enlightened people. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that the Hon. Ian Macphee wrote to all Opposition back benchers saying that the campaign against the Convention and the Bill 'has been led by women from privileged backgrounds who seem intent on preventing less privileged women from achieving a similar equality'. That is what Ian Macphee said. We are all aware that the New South Wales Young Liberal movement, at its State Conference in June, condemned the opposition to the Sex Discrimination Bill as being spearheaded at the Federal level by Senator Walters. Those are the voices of other people within the Liberal Party. I add the voice of Dame Beryl Beaurepaire who stated: Australians of true Liberal principles have no alternative but to support it. That is, the Sex Discrimination Bill. I pay tribute to Senator Hill who spoke earlier tonight. He reflected the better traditions of liberalism in this country. The opposition to the Bill is being mounted by a small minority, a particularly vocal minority, sometimes getting down to one or two people. These are the people who, with their twisted interpretations of the Bill, are seeking to mislead people in Australia. Indeed, they are frightening people in Australia with their misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise, of the Bill. Of course, Senator Walters was joined recently in her opposition to the Bill by the Leader of the National Party in Australia, Mr Doug Anthony. I again quote from today's Sydney Morning Herald. In that same article Yvonne Preston stated: Doug Anthony is the latest vocal exponent of the line. He appealed at a recent National Party Federal Council meeting to the silent majority whose voices, he said, had been drowned out by trendies who threaten the Family . . . So now Doug Anthony is on the band-wagon of trying to frighten people. Another group in this conservative reactionary organisation is the Australian Festival of Light. A resource paper circulated by the Festival of Light claims that Australia should not ratify the United Nations Convention because those countries which have ratified it include most communist regimes, many totalitarian dictatorships, but few democracies and only one English-speaking country. Of course, Senator Archer repeated that. He ignored Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria and all the other countries which have taken that stand. If no other country were doing this Australia, because of our traditions, should be going forward. As was demonstrated earlier tonight by Senator Crowley, we have been first before and there is no reason, if a thing is principled and correct, why we should tail behind other countries. Unfortunately, this is scaremongering of the lowest order. It is racist and bigoted. The Festival of Light also argued that the definition of discrimination in the United Nations Convention is so broad that the end result could be mixed public toilets, mixed hospital wards and mixed prisons. That sort of way-out statement should be treated with ridicule. Unfortunately, we are talking about a world wide movement; it is part of the conservative movement in the world. The illiberal movement in the world uses the fears and knowledge of people facing a world recession. It uses their fear that the family is being undermined by the economic crisis which we are facing in order to frighten them and in order to use their fear for its own political purposes. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an article in the International Herald Tribune dated 5 October which is about Senator Edward Kennedy. It is headed 'Kennedy Enters Moral Majority's Den' . The article draws attention to the fact that Senator Kennedy went to a meeting of the Moral Majority and contested the point of view of the conservatives in America, the people who tried to use the mailing out of documents to three million people to try to frighten them and to involve them in political issues in their concerns about religious or moral questions. I seek leave to have that article incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- KENNEDY ENTERS MORAL MAJORITY'S DEN Liberal Senator Lectures on Church and State at Fundamentalist Campus By Celestine Bohlen Washington Post Service LYNCHBURG, Virginia-Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a favorite foil of the Moral Majority in its crusade against liberals and big government, came to the bastion of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's conservative fundamentalist empire to warn of the dangers of mixing religion and politics. In remarks Monday night that his staff billed as his most significant since he spoke to the 1980 Democratic National Convention, Mr Kennedy advised that ' people of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord.' 'I respectfully suggest,' he said in a pointed reference to the lobbying efforts of the Moral Majority and other conservative groups, 'that God has taken no position on the Department of Education-and that a balanced-budget constitutional amendment is a matter for economic analysis, not heavenly appeals .' Conservative groups favor abolishing the Department of Education and support a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr Kennedy said there is a temptation for men and women of faith 'to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone's freedom is at risk.' 'The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives,' he said, citing abortion and prohibition as examples where 'the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.' The Senator homed in on several issues, including abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment and, most prominently, the nuclear freeze, all frequent targets of Mr Falwell's sermons and mailings to the three million members of the Moral Majority. On the nuclear freeze, which he supports and whose supporters have been branded by Mr Falwell as 'freezeniks,' Mr Kennedy stressed the importance of public debate. 'What the opponents have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is true or false.' 'There is no morality in the mushroom cloud,' he said. Mr Kennedy spoke at Liberty Baptist College, the education arm of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, where Mr Falwell preaches. The college's chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, which claims to be the largest in the country with 270 students, this week distributed 600 leaflets outlining Mr Kennedy's record on such issues as abortion, the nuclear freeze and homosexual rights. 'Kennedy represents everything that is wrong with American society,' said the group's president, John Pyle, 22. 'He is the antithesis of good government, constitutional government and the Judeo-Christian ethic. He is everything people look to when they point to the liberal label.' Mr Kennedy's appearance at Liberty Baptist College was somewhat of a fluke. Several months ago, it was reported that the senator had mistakenly received a Moral Majority membership card in the mail. That prompted a letter to the senator from Cal Thomas a vice president of Moral Majority, urging him to keep the card and to stop by for a '50 cent tour' of the college if he was ever in the area, according to Mr Kennedy's aides. 'It was a very breezy, light letter,' said Melody Miller, assistant press secretary to the senator, who she said 'wrote back that he would be delighted, and while he was there would like to speak. They fell off their chairs, gulped and said okay.' Mr Kennedy was brought to Lynchburg in Mr Falwell's private plane and dined at this home before the speech. The senator's appearance was billed as the first half of a 'liberal-conservative' debate, with Representative Jack Kemp, Republican of New York, invited to speak for the conservative side. His address will not be until next month, however. Laying out his standards for dividing religious beliefs and public policy, Mr Kennedy took a jab at President Ronald Reagan, who, Mr Kennedy said, told an evangelical gathering in Dallas that he endorsed their efforts. 'To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state.' Mr Kennedy said. Senator CHILDS —The Bill which is before us today is not about the spread of communism or the provision of mixed toilets. The Bill is about eliminating discrimination, about ensuring equality of opportunity. It extends the right of individuals. It does not entail any measures of compulsion or conscription. The aim of the Bill is not to force any profession or trade to employ 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women, as some opponents have claimed. The Bill does not force women to go out to work. It implies that women should have the option to work and the option to have economic independence. The Bill does nothing to undermine the traditional role of women as child bearers and homecarers. What it recognises is that women should have alternative lifestyles and social roles from which to choose. That is what it is all about. The Bill's efforts to promote equality of opportunity and to extend the right of all individuals can only serve to improve family relations, not undermine them. Let us not over-idealise traditional family life. I agree with the information provided by Senator Tate when he spoke in this debate on 21 October that studies undertaken by the Institute of Family Studies in Melbourne show that the stereotype roles of husbands and wives can cause marital breakdown. Relationships between partners will be much healthier if they are based on equality and individual fulfilment. I suspect that some of the conservative opponents such as Senator Walters are living with the concepts of their grandparents as far as relationships are concerned and do not realise that young people are much more into sharing problems and roles. I am afraid the reason the Liberal Party lost the last election was that its policies and attitudes, as articulated by people such as Senator Walters and Senator Archer, were incompatible with the experience of young people today. The need for federal sex discrimination legislation is supported by evidence from my own State. I do not think that Senator Archer could comprehend that there has been legislation, as Senator Crowley pointed out, in South Australia. I draw attention to that fact that anti-discimination legislation has been in effect in New South Wales since 1977. In the year 1981-82-the latest year for which figures are available-437 complaints of discrimination on the grounds of sex were lodged with the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. This represented 47 per cent of all complaints lodged. Ninety-four per cent of complainants were female and most of the complaints concerned employment. The number of complaints concerning sexual harassment doubled from the year 1980-81 to the year 1981-82. I could spend the next 10 minutes, having been involved in industry, describing the examples of sexual harassment of which I am aware. Unless we identify and challenge the problem we will not get an attitude change. It is not something that will go away overnight. We must get an attitude change by drawing people's attention to the fact that sexual harassment itself is absolutely untenable. This legislation is a major step in raising the consciousness of people and showing them that discrimination is just not on, from now on, in this modern society in which we live. The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board is currently conducting a research project and is investigating the problems of women being denied credit because of their sex or marital status. An analysis of complaints already received indicates that marital status and sex do affect lending decisions. The assumption that a male head of a household is needed to make financial decisions is still widespread. The New South Wales experience indicates the volume of discriminatory practices that occur. It also demonstrates the importance of having appropriate legislation and machinery to redress this discrimination. I had an interjection earlier tonight about my attitude in regard to the 53 amendments. I think that some of the amendments are unfortunate, but this legislation has to become law so we have to accept them. The Bill represents a genuine attempt by this Government to meet criticism of the legislation. Every person other than the lunatic fringe in this society accepts that the amendments have to be put in place on that basis. The legislation has a dual role. It must remedy particular abuses; it must also draw attention to the general nature of discrimination. It must make the community aware of its existence and make this an issue. This Bill is one step in the process of attempting to achieve full equality for all Australians. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.21) —I rise to support the second reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. I indicate that I will be supporting this Bill through all stages of its passage. I hope that some improvements will be made to it at the Committee stage. However, I regard this as an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it will soon be passed by this Parliament. I listened to a number of speeches that were made on this Bill and in particular to the worries which Senator Archer, for example, had tonight. I note that he objects to many other forms of discrimination. I do not know what he has done about it. I say in regard to discrimination covered by this legislation in regard to sex, harassment and so forth that it is high time that legislation was put down, enforced and made effective. One must realise that the Bill before us seeks to implement, in part, the terms of a convention-the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I think that honourable senators ought to be reminded that this Convention was signed in 1976 by a delegation of very distinguished women from this country led by the then Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott. It was important that the Convention should be signed and ratified. I regret there was a delay in the ratification while we endeavoured to get States and other organisations to comply with the provisions of the Convention so that we would not be embarrassed when it came to ratification. I think this Bill has had the support of the Liberal Party of Australia generally. I am proud of the fact that legislation of this type has been supported by the Liberal Party for many years. Although there are some in my Party who now appear to want to slide away from that support, I believe it is important that we have opposed discrimination which women in the community have suffered for many years. It is important that we do all we can in that regard. I want to draw attention to the fact that there are four objects in this Bill. I think the Bill reasonably implements them. The first object is to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It is important to point out that the Bill does not implement all the terms of the Convention; only some parts of the Convention are being implemented. Yet one would not get that impression from the nonsense which is talked in the community about how the Convention has been signed by a number of communist countries and therefore the Convention must be very wicked. I believe that the Convention is an admirable document which sets out very fairly the objects we should seek to remove discrimination against women. The second object is to eliminate so far as possible discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accomodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It does not cover all the areas of discrimination. It covers areas in which the Commonwealth has jurisdiction and in that regard I think it is important that the Commonwealth should do its very best to ensure that those discriminations are removed. The third object is to eliminate so far as possible discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work place and in educational institutions. I think the terms of the Bill set out quite fairly the ways in which that is to be done. The amendments which the Government has already indicated it is including are designed to ensure that that does not become an exaggerated objective, an objective by which unfair actions would be taken under the guise of removing such harassment. The fourth object is to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. I shall say more about that towards the end of my speech because I believe this Bill not only makes provision and legal arrangements to enforce this but also is a great educational opportunity for us to try to change the views of many men who over the years have believed that they have some God given right to dominate women. One has to face the fact that this country is very spotty so far as our actions are concerned in removing discrimination. Three States already have legislation. The Bill contemplates the marrying and working together of Federal and State legislation in this area. But there is no such legislation in the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland. It is to our eternal disgrace that there is not yet legislation in those States. I believe it is coming fairly quickly in Western Australia but I see very little signs of it in the other two States. I believe that Australia stands to be condemned, and is condemned and criticised, in instances where States show no sign of imposing laws to stop this discrimination. When this debate commenced Senator Durack said that this was the first opportunity to legislate and that we, in the Opposition, when in Government, would have in due course legislated. I am sorry that we took so long about it. I think we should have moved much more quickly. I think that our legislation would have been timid. I think that this Bill, while not the last word on the subject, is one which goes a considerable distance. One must remember that this Bill does not include affirmative action. Yet one would never believe that from some of the representations we receive. This provision has been temporarily dropped from the Bill. Of course, the situation is that many women will continue to suffer some discrimination and lack of equal opportunity for some years. There has been a great deal of hysteria in the course of this general debate. One has received all kinds of representations. Senator Archer very happily gave us the number of petitions that have been signed and sent to this place. There is no doubt that in regard to the organisation of that sort of influence, the anti-sex discrimination people have had the major effect. They have made representations and they are well organised. For example, I have a file of correspondence which has come to, I think, all members of the Parliament in the last week or two. The file is very interesting. It is made up of photostat letters; none of them has been personally signed. Nobody was prepared to sign a letter. Letters have been written and in many cases obviously photostated on the same photostat machine. The envelopes were addressed by different hands from those which wrote the letters. All of the letters were delivered to the Parliament last Monday and again this Monday, thereby saving the postage. All members were given a rather stereotyped letter indicating how fearful people were of how they were going to be changed from women into men, how they were going to be forced into the workshop and how the family was going to be ruined. There are minor differences between the letters. However, this is a crude form of propaganda. I am sure that many of these people are quite sincere in their belief that the Bill might do what they think it will do. However, when one reads the letters one realises that they are all out of date. They have not taken into account the amendments which have already been put down by the Government and by other honourable members. Senator Walters —But there is no guarantee that they will be passed. Senator MISSEN —That is what Senator Walters might think; I think that they will be. Clearly, there is a great deal of nonsense in these letters which we are expected to read because they are photostated and given to us. I do not intend to waste postage by writing replies. I make now my statement that I believe that they do not show any real argument whatsoever against the Bill. What they show is that a number of people have been grossly misled into thinking that the Bill says things which it does not, and that it will do things to the family which it will not. A fog of deception has been raised by many of the people who have objected to it. Some of these people, of course, are in the group which I would call-- Senator Button —Most of that fog comes from a fog horn too, Senator. Senator MISSEN —Well, I suppose it does. There is one noted lady in Victoria, Mrs Babette Francis, well named, who has been bashing away and insulting our shadow Minister for some time. She went to the remarkable extreme of getting her husband, who happens to be a Queen's Counsel-of course that impresses members of parliament-to write a legal opinion saying how right she was. I wonder what would have happened if he had not written that opinion. Unfortunately, many of these women who want to be doormats have not been given information about the Bill. They are told stories about the Bill and they have written letters dutifully. I regret that they are so misled and so misunderstanding of the vital needs which women have. This Bill does not take away rights of women. It gives greater rights to women. It means that those who want to go out into the work force, those who want to have education, those who want to join clubs, those who want to be active in different ways, can do so. It does not take away from anybody the rights which they already have. There are, of course, reasonable criticisms of the Bill. They have been raised and they are raised by, among others, my colleagues on this side who have amendments which they wish to move. I hope that the Government will be sensible enough to accept the genuineness of that action. It will not come from the photostated letters, the crudities that we had years ago when we had the Family Law Bill first before the Senate and when we had the amending Bill before the Senate recently. They have learned not to have everybody using the same envelope and putting several petitions into it, but they have not learned very much about how to put to members of parliament in a reasoned way their personal views. As I said, the Bill has Liberal support. Senator Walters laughs. She might not be a Liberal. I do not know. But the Bill has general Liberal support. It is supported by the Liberal Party and I am proud of that fact. The Government and its Ministers have already foreshadowed many amendments in the Bill. I think in some respects they have probably gone too far insofar as they will put in amendments to satisfy the predilictions of some honourable senators to say that it is not about abortion, it is not about this and it is not about that. I do not think it matters, though it clutters up the Bill to put into it various provisions which perhaps are not strictly necessary. But if it removes the possibility of people making this criticism, I suppose that is all to the good. In regard to our Party, I pay tribute to the shadow Minister responsible for this matter, the Hon. Ian Macphee, for the way in which he has handled this Bill over a long period. I believe that he has been the subject of a completely unnecessary and completely scandalous campaign of denigration because of the way in which he has handled this matter. He is obviously a man who sincerely believes in the elimination of discrimination. I know personally that he has been of this opinion for many years. He has fought strenuously for it and he has been unfailing in listening to criticisms and in trying to accommodate views of people, very often unreasonable people, in regard to this Bill. I pay an enormous tribute to Ian Macphee, who I believe is something of a hero insofar as the handling of this Bill is concerned. I cannot say altogether the same of my National Party of Australia colleagues. I see that they will ultimately oppose provisions. They will vote with us, I think, on the second reading of this Bill, but obviously after that they will slope off in various directions. I believe it might have been better if we had not bothered to try too many compromises with them and we had gone our separate ways from the beginning. However, my colleagues have tried to keep a unity of purpose in this regard and I suppose I have to some extent been one of the unfortunate victims of this because I will vote for an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill-what we often call a pious amendment-part of which I do not agree with at all. But I am assured that it will not succeed, so I can do that with a fairly clear conscience. Senator Walters —Why don't you cross the floor? You have the opportunity. Senator MISSEN —Opportunity is not what I want. I do not want the opportunity of doing things. No, to keep the National Party honest I am prepared to stay with even a nonsensical amendment. Senator Childs —How could you keep the National Party honest? Senator MISSEN —We can always try. I turn to the proposed amendment. I think one ought to make one's attitude clear. The amendment, which is to be moved to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, seeks to include: . . . , but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; Quite frankly, I think the Bill does need a reliance on the external affairs power. I think it is important that we should not be relying merely upon the question of whether it comes within other powers that are not comprehensive, for example, and that we go to education. In regard to the reliance upon the trading corporations power, if someone is in a trading corporation, of course that person comes within Commonwealth jurisdiction. But if that person is a single trader, he might otherwise be able to discriminate to his heart's content. I think that is unfortunate. I think it is therefore important that we rely upon the external affairs power. I am not frightened of the powers of the Commonwealth. Where the courts have said that they exist and they are dealt with reasonably, I believe that the Commonwealth is under a duty to exercise its powers. The second part of this proposed amendment, which I also find strange, states: (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; Of course it is not being used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth. It is either within the power or it is not and it is clear, from recent cases, that it is within the power. The third part of our pious amendment states: (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or alter their view of their responsibility towards their spouses or children; I quite agree with that. I do not think it does, but it is practical, I think, to make that clear. The fourth provision states: (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles shall be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; The foreshadowed amendments to the Bill possibly already cover that, but I think it is probably wise to make it clear that it is not intended to do that. In the last case: (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill. Of course it does not do that and it cannot be implied that it should do so. But if it saves the worries of some person by stating that, I have not objection. So I will vote for that motion of principle or pious amendment, as I said, but I make it very clear that if I thought the first parts of it were to be adopted that would be a different matter and I would have to reconsider. I do not intend to make a long speech in this second reading debate. I think the important thing is to go into the Committee stage and to ensure that there the best provisions are made. I think important machinery provisions of the Bill are somewhat defective and I regret that the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills has not previously picked these up and really concentrated on them. I hope it will. Some provisions in the Bill are dubious from a civil liberties point of view. There are reversals of the onus of proof. There are provisions which state that the rules of evidence shall not apply. This legislation will be enforced by the Human Rights Commission, a commission of laymen, which will make decisions that will not necessarily be based on rules of law. Those decisions will then be prima facie evidence before the court which hears the appeal. The court will be bound to accept that evidence unless rebutted. So the onus would be very much on someone who wanted to prove to the contrary. I think there has been an oversight in this Bill in that we are not just dealing with an organisation that will inquire into sex discrimination. We are making provision for people actually to make judgments, and award thousands of dollars in damages and are binding courts in regard to evidence which may be based merely upon the view taken of a person by such people. The court will not be able to look at the real evidence. Certainly, I think there are still in the Bill problems relating to the machinery provisions that need to be solved. I look forward to doing that at the Committee stage. This Bill is an important educative measure. I think it will make people realise that if they have discriminated in the past, if they have taken the arrogant view which many men have taken, their ways may well be changed. The conciliatory provisions of this Bill may be very important. But I think it is important to realise that we live in a society which, for 150 years, has been male dominated. We live in a society which has denied to women education and equal opportunity in business. That is obvious from the very few women who hold high positions in society compared with the situation in some other countries. Women have been afflicted with this discrimination and it is essential that something be done. The position in relation to clubs also is very important. I know that the Bill deals only with situations in clubs where women are accepted. It does not deal with the situation that exists in one sex clubs. On the other hand, it seems to be important that business women should be able to go and hear about day to day affairs and what is going on. They are restricted in life in many ways. Many able women in this community with high qualifications cannot get the sort of decent jobs which they ought to have. Senator Martin —It is degrading discrimination, isn't it? Senator MISSEN —It is degrading discrimination, I agree. No doubt many women have gone to their graves without ever having overcome the problem. It is degrading for our country not to have used the facilities and abilities which women have. It is all right for some people who have written to me to say that women like living with their husbands and being homemakers. But we know there is a great variety of women in positions in society these days. We know of the problems of single women with families. We know that there are women in this society who have never had the chance to get married and who are left, after their parents die, without the opportunity to retrain and go into the work force if they so wish. Senator Martin —Those who do not have the support of husbands. Senator MISSEN —Yes, the percentage of women, as Senator Martin said, who do not have the support of husbands is very considerable. We can no longer say that the family unit comprising a wife, husband and children is typical. There are many other varieties of life style and women should be able to take up each opportunity that comes their way. I am, therefore, very pleased to see this Bill come forward. I realise that it contains defects. I regret the pettifogging way it has been approached by many people in the community and the way in which many people have deceitfully tried to dissemble the Bill and the great purpose which it will serve. I will certainly support it with every effort, to ensure that we have excellent legislation which will be enforced by the Commonwealth and of which we can be proud. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(9.46) — First and foremost, I wish to congratulate Senator Missen upon his constructive and fair approach to our sex discrimination legislation. It was a contribution which, along with that of Senator Robert Hill would, I feel quite confident, make J. S. Mills proud to have them call themselves liberals. I am also relieved to hear Senator Missen, as a legal man, give his opinion of the Bill. I was much happier to hear that opinion than I was to accept those of Dr Isbister, Professor Chipman and Charles Francis, Queen's Counsel. I had some doubts about the integrity of an opinion that came from the husband of Mrs Babette Francis, the leader of Women who Want to be Women. It occurred to me that it was about as valuable as would be the opinion of Mrs Eileen Bond, shall we say, if asked what she thought of the ethics of the New York Yacht Club. We would get an interesting opinion but not necessarily an unbiased one. Senator Martin —But a superior one-from Mrs Bond, I mean. Senator GILES —No doubt. Very briefly I wish to respond to some of Senator Archer's reservations because I join Senator Missen in feeling that he has been grossly misguided. One of his problems with the convention-I have heard this from a number of other sources also-is that countries with which Australian commonly compares itself, such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, have not yet ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. People who make this criticism fail to understand that all four countries have had in place, for many years, laws of one sort or another which seek to do exactly what our Sex Discrimination Bill seeks to do. In many cases those laws are much stronger, have much wider application and attract much more severe penalties. For example, in the United States, which has a Bill of Rights, a number of pieces of legislation-I am thinking specifically of that applying to education-contain sections which prohibit completely and explicitly all disrcrimination on the grounds of sex. The United Kingdom has had sex discrimination legislation-I think it is called equal opportunity legislation-since 1975. Senator Martin —Plus the European Court of Justice. Senator GILES —Exactly. In Canada, which also has a Bill of Rights which protects, to a degree, the rights of women as well as of everybody else, a number of the provinces have also very strong and comprehensive sex discrimination legislation. New Zealand has its Human Rights Commission. Another misapprehension of Senator Archer related to what he described as affirmative action. This is not the affirmative action which we hope one day to introduce in this Parliament, because what he was describing was the notion of quotas, a concept which is accepted in very few parts of the world. Scandinavian countries have come to grips with it in some respects, but we are talking about the type of affirmative action that will be very thoroughly discussed and presented to us , we hope, within the next 12 months. It is along the lines of what was being discussed by the previous Liberal Government, which produced, as fruit of the endeavours of the National Labour Consultative Council in 1980, guidelines for employers entitled 'Equal Employment Opportunities for Women'. Substantially, what is being advocated in that document, which was put together by the Women's Employment Committee of the National Labour Consultative Council, a committee consisting of employers-the Confederation of Australian Industry-employees-the Australian Council of Trade Unions-and the Federal Government, is what we will be advocating. Mr Acting Deputy President, I request leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Senator Martin —Which government was that, Senator? Senator GILES —Well, it was whatever government was in power in November 1980. Senator Martin —That would have been a Fraser Government. Senator GILES —I think that would be correct, yes. Leave granted. The booklet read as follows- SECTION I INTRODUCTION Employers, trade unions and Governments agree that discrimination against women in employment is unacceptable in Australia today. All are becoming increasingly aware of the need to demonstrate their commitment to non-discrimination by introducing positive procedures to promote Equal Employment Opportunities. This paper suggests possible action for those wishing to encourage Equal Employment Opportunities in their enterprise. It is not meant to be a complete prescription for every enterprise or work situation, given the wide variations which exist in circumstances and conditions. In particular, the degree to which an enterprise will be able to implement the guidelines will to a large extent depend on the size of the enterprise and the number of its employees. The paper should therefore be seen as providing a set of guidelines from which policies and procedures suited to the needs of the individual enterprise can be developed. While recognising this practical limitation, the NLCC believes that the use of the guidelines will make an effective contribution to the achievement of equal opportunity in Australia. International Standards International labour standards condemn unjustified discrimination. In 1973 the Commonwealth Government with the full support of major employer organisations, trade unions and State Governments ratified International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) 1958, which prohibits discrimination in employment and occupation on seven grounds including sex. National and State Committees on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation were set up to investigate complaints of discrimination in all aspects of employment. The Committees do not have a statutory basis but are able to report the matter to the Minister who may name discriminatory employers or organisations in Parliament. In 1975, the United Nations International Women's Year, the ILO adopted the Declaration of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment for Women Workers and a Plan of Action which provides guidelines on measures which might be taken to meet the objectives of the Declaration. The National Labour Consultative Council (NLCC) has prepared these Guidelines for Employers on Equal Employment Opportunities for Women as a contribution towards implementation of the ILO Plan of Action in Australia. Legislation Several Governments in Australia have introduced anti-discrimination legislation to lend force to their policies of equality of opportunity and non- discrimination in the workplace. The various Acts provide sanctions against those who infringe the law, and resulting newspaper accounts of discrimination cases often attract publicity which may adversely affect the discriminatory enterprise or organisation. In the industrial sphere the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission accepts that it has a role to play in the elimination of discriminatory practices. The NLCC has endorsed the inclusion in Federal awards of anti-discrimination clauses . Trade Unions The trade unions' peak council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), has adopted a Charter for Working Women. This Charter emphasises the unions' policies of elimination of employment discrimination and promotion of equal employment opportunity. Many unions have also established committees to examine the particular employment problems of their women members. Management A well planned Equal Opportunity policy for women employees not only results in equitable treatment of individuals but has advantages for employers. It allows optimum use of all human skills and talents available both inside and outside the enterprise. It may help to reduce recruitment and training costs by assisting in the retention of skilled women. It could also encourage women to seek employment with the enterprise as, by adopting Equal Opportunity policies, it will be seen to be responding to social change. This may also improve the image of the enterprise in the eyes of customers, clients and associates. SECTION II ESTABLISHING AN EEO PROGRAM Responsibility Management should be responsible for, and totally committed to, the implementation of the EEO program, Unless such a commitment exists at all levels of management the program is unlikely to succeed. The oversight of the Implementation and development of the program will normally be the function of the personnel department, and those responsible should pay regard to the need for: The preparation of an EEO policy statement, and a program, for its implementation. Circulation of information to employees on the operation and progress of the EEO program in the enterprise. The collection and analysis of relevant employment data (eg. employee numbers, length of employment, duties, work skills of employees etc) (see Section III). Preparation of EEO plans embracing specific EEO tasks (Section IV and V). The development and implementation of evaluation procedures for determining the effectiveness of EEO program and plans (See Section VI). EEO Policy Statement The first step in the introduction of an EEO program is for the employer to decide on broad goals for introducing Equal Employment Opportunities into the enterprise. A brief policy statement should be prepared for circulation to employees. This statement, expressing the employer's commitment to EEO, should also explain the policy and the intention to introduce an EEO program to implement that policy. Employee Meetings Meetings between the employer, manager and employees should be arranged. Employees should be encouraged to accept and enter into the spirit of the policy . It is important to encourage employees to make suggestions and ask questions about EEO. This participation will help all employees to understand the implications of the Policy in terms of hiring; employer advertising; promotion; training; employment conditions; and opportunities for women and men to take up work previously restricted to one sex. Publicity The policy should be publicised within the enterprise. Information can be placed on notice boards or articles placed in work newsletters or journals where these exist. This can be a continuous arrangement as policies and programs are developed. Unions It is essential that unions be consulted during the development and implementation of EEO policies which affect their members. Employees who are union representatives should be specially invited to briefing sessions and be given the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the details of the program. Periodical discussions with union representatives to discuss progress towards EEO goals should be arranged. Development of EEO Plans EEO Plans must be developed to implement the broad goals and objectives of the EEO program. The plans should detail specific EEO talks to meet these objectives (see Section IV). The plans should embrace recruitment, staffing, training and other personnel responsibilities appropriate to the firm. SECTION III INFORMATION REQUIRED Information should be collected to indicate the general situation of female employees in the enterprise and pinpoint areas where action may be needed to eliminate discrimination. Relevant data will vary from one enterprise to another and according to the size of the organisation. However, some general information which might be collected may include: (i) Present staffing-comparative numbers of men and women in various occupations by location age and length of employment length of time in present job (ii) Recruitment Selection and Promotion number and type of vacancies Advertised in a year whether advertised within and/or outside the enterprise or through other means (such as employees recommending friends) comparative number of men and women applicants who apply, are interviewed, and are appointed/ promoted Information on who interviews applicants-male or female interviews (iii) Education/Skill Qualifications qualifications of applicants and Appointees by sex relevant experience in both paid and voluntary work (iv) Staff Turnover by sex by qualifications by age (v) Personnel Development Assistance to Employees: Comparative numbers of males and females time off to attend courses sponsorship to attend external courses-including management courses nominations for internal or on-the-job training courses paid leave to attend full-time training-courses e.g. University apprenticeship training courses (vi) Staff Profiles Many organisations or enterprises may also gain valuable information from a series of interviews of women and men on their experience within the organisation. Some of the topics which might be covered are general perceptions of employees on comparative opportunities for men and women within the enterprise (e.g. in promotion opportunities, courses, business travel etc). present educational qualifications of employees and future career opportunities . When assessing educational qualifications, due regard should be paid to the general standards that could reasonably be expected of each particular age group . general perceptions relating to comparative opportunities for men and women in promotion, business trips, special assignments and courses, present educational qualifications and own future career opportunities, whether or not interviewees have ever had counselling, encouragement or career advice from a more senior officer in the organisation. information might also be gained from interviews or surveys of people leaving the organisation. SECTION IV EXAMPLES OF EEO TASKS This list is not exhaustive and each firm will need to make its own list to meet the objectives of its EEO program. Job Advertising When advertising use words which have no gender e.g. 'person' and 'applicant' advertisements should be worded to encourage applicants of both sexes, e.g. ' men and women may apply' Check any drawings, photographs used in job advertisements to ensure both women and men are portrayed as workers check publications carrying vacancy advertisements to ensure that they have significant numbers of women readers consider placing advertisements in women's magazines ensure that in-house advertising is non- discriminatory. Recruitment and Selection advise employment referral agencies of the introduction of the EEO recruitment policy direct recruitment programs to females as well as males especially when recruiting in educational institutions give all persons in the enterprise access to vacancies and ensure, where appropriate, that all vacancy information is circulated within the enterprise include women in informal advice of vacancies occurring ensure that job qualifications and specifications are inherent requirements of the job and do not explicity or implicitly exclude or discourage women from applying revise job applications forms to eliminate discriminatory questions review all aspects of staff selection e.g. tests, interviews, assessments to eliminate discrimination. Training and Staff Development include EEO segments in in-house training courses where appropriate eg induction, personnel courses where the need exists special training programs for females should be developed eg career counselling, confidence building, assertive training review existing development programs to ensure that women receive adequate attention eg in -access to part-time study courses -access to awards or scholarships -nomination for internal courses, conferences -sponsorship to attend external management courses or conferences -where possible work-rotation for women to areas where few or no women have worked before -opportunities to receive training in operating new equipment identify and remove discriminatory barriers to transfer or promotion within the enterprise progressively revise employment conditions to eliminate sex discrimination in salaries, job classifications, superannuation etc where possible introduce measures to enable employees to combine domestic and work responsibility, eg flexible hours establish a method of hearing grievances and complaints of discrimination develop career counselling assistance identify the present skills of women employees maintain comparative statistics for men and women Public Perception of the Organisation review publicity and publications to ensure that the image of the enterprise is non-discriminatory review policy arrangements to ensure equal treatment of men and women clients, customers and associates. SECTION V INTERVIEWING APPLICANTS Women and men applicants should be interviewed in the same way, using the same objective selection criteria. These, combined with common-sense and courtesy, create a favourable impression of an organisation. Interviewers should be most careful to ensure that there is no suggestion in any remarks made at the interview that married women are less entitled or less deserving of employment or promotion than other applicants. Assumptions about Women Workers Some interviewers may need to revise their own assumptions about the working patterns and lifestyle of women, because many common assumptions about working women today don't fit the facts. These assumptions may include: Women only work for a few years between school and marriage; Women wouldn't want to travel; Women with family responsibilities wouldn't/shouldn't work overtime; Women wouldn't want to work in an all male environment. The facts show otherwise: Many women in the community now continue in employment after marriage; Two-thirds of all working women are married; The ACTU Maternity Leave test case has opened the way for provisions allowing many women to return to work after child bearing; Most of the 160,000 sole parents in charge of families are women; Some women with family responsibilities are prepared to make arrangements to cope with absences from home to allow them to work overtime or travel for their employer; Many women are now working in jobs regarded traditionally as men's work. Shortlisting All applicants should be shortlisted according to the selection criteria for the job and not on false assumptions about women's working patterns. A lack of facilities should not be used to eliminate women from consideration when shortlisting applicants for positions in traditional male areas. Organisations may already have separate facilities for female staff located nearby or it may be possible to make alterations to existing facilities at comparatively low cost to provide for women. Any barriers, attitudinal or otherwise, to the employment of women in any area should be discussed with persons responsible for the Equal Employment Opportunity program in the organisation. Preparation Beforehand, the interviewer needs to determine selection criteria and list the special requirements for the job. Such requirements might include: Working overtime (How long? How often?); Travelling for the organisation (How long? How often?); Lifting heavy weights (continuously or occasionally?); Shift work (continuously or occasionally?); Driving and maintenance of a vehicle. At the Interview The questions asked at the interview should focus on the job criteria and special requirements of the position. Generally interviewers should put the same questions and offer the same information about the job to men and women applicants. Often interviewers ask women such questions as: ''Are you married?''; ''When are you going to start a family?''; ''What child care arrangements do you have?''. What they really want to know is: Whether an applicant will stay in the position; Whether they will be able to fulfil the requirements of the job; Whether they will be able to work regular overtime; or Whether they will be frequently absent from work. Questions should be framed to discover the applicant's willingness to comply with the job requirements: ''Would you be able to see the project through to its completion in September?' '. ''Are you prepared to work overtime twice a week and spend three days travelling each month?''. Another legitimate source of information on an applicant's work pattern and attendance record will be the reports provided by referees. The terms used at interview require sensitivity on the part of the interviewer. A women feels patronised if she is addressed as ''dear'' or ''girlie'' or ''lass '' or if she finds she will be ''joining the other girls'' in the organisation, no matter how kindly the words are meant. The drawbacks of the job should not be overstated to women applicants. The positive side as well as the disadvantages should be covered. Temporary transfers to other locations need not be described as unrelieved harshness; The problems that may arise if lifting heavy weights is required should not be exaggerated given that there may be other people to help with lifting, or mechanical aids to be used, and employees can be taught the correct way to lift. Application of Equal Employment Opportunity principles in selection interviewing will assist you choose the best person for the job. Interview Summary Interview men and women in the same way with objective selection criteria. Prepare objective selection guides and questions. Don't use inappropriate criteria. Avoid using marital status as a criterion. Do not use assumptions when establishing the criteria for a shortlist. Don't make assumptions about applicants. Avoid questions unrelated to job requirements. Avoid using patronising phrases. Don't overstate to women the drawbacks of the position. SECTION VI MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF EEO PLANS At least once a year there should be a review of the total EEO plans for the preceding year and the overall progress of the EEO program. In small enterprises this could take the form of a staff meeting at which EEO achievements and results are discussed and original objectives and tasks reviewed in the light of experience. In large organisations there should be a detailed review of the EEO program, focusing on achievements and results. Whether progress has been adequate or not, and whether the objectives are ambitious enough, is essentially a decision for top management. In the light of the annual review existing EEO plans may need to be revised, new objectives formulated and new tasks devised to overcome the specific problems encountered in the past year. Senator GILES —I think much of the criticism of our Bill, about its drafting, about its ambiguity and all the rest, is very familiar to those of us who have been aware of delaying tactics which are being used. Once again, I was extremely relieved to have Senator Missen's opinion that although the Bill is not an unqualified technical success, at least it comes close. The history of anti- discrimination legislation in Australia is quite long. I do not think many people would be aware of the fact that in 1923 the Western Australian State Government adopted a Bill on the Status of Women. It is a one clause Act and it is still on the books. It set out originally to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status in relation to vocation and occupation. During the Committee stage debate the marital status qualification was taken out, as was the reference to occupation. The effect of that Act ultimately was to allow women in Western Australia to be admitted to the Bar. In 1973, when the Whitlam Government ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, State committees were set up to deal with complaints of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. These committees worked on the basis of education and conciliation. I note that earlier in this debate conciliation was being advocated as the way in which complaints of discrimination should be dealt with. In fact that is the way they have been dealt with for the last 10 years in Australia, more or less with success. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that conciliation is still a very large part of our Bill. The committees had not been functioning for very long; in fact it was only in December 1974, at a meeting of those who chaired the State committees-at that time I was chairing the Western Australian committee-that it was obvious to all of us that there must be legislation to back up the committees if we were at any time in the near future to be able to eradicate the systemic discrimination which was so pervasive in Australia. In 1975-of course this is history-the Racial Discrimination Act became law. This was intended by the Whitlam Government to be the forerunner of what was to be a national Act to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex. That opportunity was not available to us, but in 1979, at a meeting convened by the National Women's Advisory Council, which had been set up by the Fraser Government, the question of sex discrimination legislation was very thoroughly discussed. The consensus at that meeting was that Australia needed sex discrimination legislation, and the sooner the better. In 1980 the Fraser Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I have described previously in an adjournment debate in this place how that Convention was preceded by a Declaration of the United Nations which, by 1980, had been in existence for 35 years. In 1983 the Australian Labor Government ratified that Convention. Mr Acting Deputy President, like Senator Missen and Senator Archer I have received a great many letters which fortell doom and gloom for the family and for Australian society if and when this legislation becomes law. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, legislation very similar to that which we propose has been in existence since 1975 in South Australia, since 1976 in New South Wales and since 1976 in Victoria. I would like to quote Carmel Niland, President of the New South Wales State Anti-Discrimination Board, who said: There is no evidence in New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia of devastation of the family through anti-discrimination legislation. If we are to believe the dire prognostications of those who oppose the legislation on the ground of galloping moral terpitude, the effects should surely be obvious by now. I have conscientiously searched all the material sent to me over the last few months, some of it from genuine although misguided people, for evidence of the catastrophies that have been predicted. Unlike one of my correspondents, I am delighted, not dismayed, to find that 'mothers' rooms ' in some airports have been renamed 'parents' rooms', thus catering for the many fathers travelling with young children. Yet this fact is held out as evidence of South Australia becoming the Sodom or Gomorrah of the South. I believe that the introduction of this legislation and the other initiatives of this and various State governments, far from weakening, will lead to a greatly enhanced quality of relationships within that very resilient institution, the family. Some of the less palatable aspects of the family-its nuclear structure and its patriachial dominance-are already in the process of modification. This does not mean that the majority of Australians will not continue to seek the comfort and companionship of everyday existence within the more or less conventional family structure. A brief look at Australian demographic changes since Federation demonstrates how drastically the family has changed and also how the family shows no sign of diminishing as the primary domestic organisational focus of the majority of Australians. It is a family which in many cases would amaze but probably delight our grandmothers who, around the turn of the century, would expect to spend most of their lives bearing and rearing children. The average age at marriage at the turn of the century was quite high by today's standards, about 25 years of age. The average number of births per marriage was six or seven, and most families would experience the loss of at least two children during infancy. The youngest child, born when the mother was well into her forties, maintained her in her child-rearing role well into her fifties-and the average age at death in 1910 was 63. Our grandmothers expected nothing but an adult lifetime devoted to child bearing and rearing. In the most recent decade 90 per cent of women are shown to be married by the age of 35, and of those women who are now 30, 77 per cent married in their early twenties. Child bearing is postponed for a range of reasons, but predominately because of financial constraints and expectations, and the average two to three children of most marriages are at school by the time the mother is 35-still young, with another 35 years of active life ahead of her. The perceptive woman of the 1980s sees her life in stages in a way which would have been impossible for her great grandmother, for whom mothering was a life sentence, often with hard labour. This human rights legislation gives official recognition to the limitations which have been imposed upon Australians-particularly women but not only women-educationally, industrially and socially. In calculating the Australian award earnings every three months, the Australian Statistician looks at 2,500 common awards for males and 500 common awards for females. It has already been pointed out tonight that the work force in Australia is the most concentrated of all the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as far as women's occupations are concerned. The average woman earns only 67 per cent of average male earnings. Although equal pay for equal work is largely an industrial fact, equal work is still a long way off. The typical Australian woman seeking a job after some years out of the work force and lacking formal qualifications, as most Australian women do, is at an enormous disadvantage. This legislation is just one step-although a very important one-in the gigantic task of equalising the opportunities of average women and average men. For too long the achievements of women have been described in terms of the achievements of the gifted, the outstanding and the survivors in the jungle of socio-sexual Darwinism. For those who insist that Australian women experience very little in the way of discrimination, I would like to include a few examples of the cases that have come to me continuously over the years. Just recently we have had extreme difficulty in persuading the defence forces to accept two young gifted women musicians into the Fifth Military District band. They were rejected on the grounds that women musicians in military bands may be required during time of war to become stretcher bearers. Arguments of this nature are never used to prevent women from becoming nurses. A shire council in Western Australia followed the rather regrettable lead of the Rockhampton City Council and decided that its young women employees should resign on marriage. In Western Australia women are not permitted to work underground in the mining industry. Males are not allowed to train as dental therapists. In one mining district trade apprentices are provided with married accommodation, so long as they are male. Women trade apprentices are not. The excuse that is being used for this is that accommodation is provided only for the recognised breadwinner. It is obviously too much for this mining company to recognise women as breadwinners. Women bus drivers have been restricted to two routes on both occasions a long way away from where those women live, on the grounds that there were no facilities-the euphemism for toilets-in the other depots. Senator Martin —Is this Western Australia you are talking about? Senator GILES —It is Western Australia. Things will change there very soon. At a country golf club where women have recently been allowed to become full members, they are still not permitted to play on Sundays. For many women that is quite a penance because that is their only day off. Senator Martin —Are these working women you are talking about? Senator GILES —I am talking about working women. Yes, working women do play golf . Very recently I have had complaints of women applying to become, in one case, a surveyor and, in another case, a draughtswoman. In each case they were refused interviews on the ground that males only were required to apply for such jobs. Senator Martin —How long ago was this? Senator GILES —It was quite recently, within the last year. One of the more cheerful stories that I have to tell honourable senators is that women who had been banned from the two-up schools in Western Australia when they were illegal are now allowed to play. Since 1 August regulations have legalised two-up, whether it is played by males or females. Senator Martin —When did that happen? Senator GILES —Very recently. In closing, I would like to deal very briefly with a particular demonology which seems to have developed recently around the word ' feminism'. There are two reasons why I believe this needs to be dealt with, one of them being that the word itself is being misused in a quite scandalous fashion. The other reason is that, following from that misuse, good, strong, sensitive and independent women are denying their feminism because of lack of understanding. I went to a number of dictionaries and found that they all agreed that feminism is the theory that women should have political, economic and social rights equal to those of men. The second definition is that feminism describes the movement to win such rights for women. There are many things that a feminist can be. A feminist may be male or female; hetero, homo, or bi-sexual; Christian, Jewish, Moslem or humanist; man-hating or loving; loving women and loving children; black, yellow or discoloured; active, passive or closet; radical, moderate, subversive or overt. Like any 'ism', feminism is a state of mind. Rebecca West, I think, wrapped it up very well when she said: I am not too sure exactly what feminism means but I do know that I am called a feminist every time I make a statement which differentiates me from a doormat. I am also happy to be able to report that Women Who Want To Be Women have been superseded by Women without Wettexes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.07) —I would like to quote Tolstoy. He wrote: It is a basic tenet of Christianity that all men are equal not only because of their equal relation to the Infinite but because they are brothers. That seems to me to be so simple that I do not understand the complexity needed in this field. There is no argument between the two parties on the desire to remove all discrimination-anything that is wrongly discriminating in our race, creed or sex. It fascinates me that the Government never seems to mention creed. It does not worry about discrimination as regards religion. It is interested only in discrimination on the grounds of sex. That fascinates me. I do not have an inferiority complex as far as my sex is concerned-not like the feminist women opposite. They have a great inferiority complex which comes out in their demands to be called spokesperson, chairperson, Ms, his/hers and anything else you like to bring forward. I have no inferiority complex at all as regards my sex. I believe that my sex is equal in every way to that of the opposite sex. I do not believe that it is necessary to alter the English language, as do the feminists opposite. I believe that we have only to look at the Oxford English Dictionary to find out the meaning of 'man'. It is the first meaning listed under 'man' in the Oxford Dictionary. The meaning of 'man' is: Human being, individual of the genus homo, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech and upright posture, a brother and fellow human being . That is the description in the English language. When we use the word 'man' in the way we so often do, it is used as a common noun. But the inferiority complex of the women opposite makes them go for spokesperson-I must not be called a spokesman-chairperson, his/hers and Ms. I am frankly fed up with the inferiority complex of some of my sex. To my knowledge, no Bill has come before the Senate that has been so ill-prepared. It is appalling and a gross insult to the Senate that a government has brought forward a Bill that has to have 53 amendments made to it by the Government itself before it is even debated in this place. Yet, those amendments themselves create further anomalies and infringe our civil liberties. There is no excuse that this legislation is being rushed. The Government has had plenty of time in which to prepare it. Indeed, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) when in Opposition brought forward her own Bill. Senator Crowley —What did you do with it? Senator WALTERS —Senator Ryan had plenty of time from when she first brought forward that Bill to iron out any problems. She has not attempted to do so. I can only conclude that the Minister and the Office of the Status of Women's Affairs have decided that the end justifies the means. They have no concern about the civil liberties that have been infringed in this field. Indeed, not one Government supporter so far speaking on the Bill has even mentioned the 53 amendments, far less the civil liberties that have been infringed. They have glossed over these amendments as though they have not occurred and as though there has not been so much pressure put on the Government that it has been forced by members of the Opposition and by public opinion to bring forward those 53 amendments. Caucus has done very little in this regard. It has tried to control some of the feminists amongst the women by saying: 'We will not allow you to conscript women into combat duty'. Caucus has said: 'We will not have that. We will not allow it '. Caucus has also said to Senator Ryan: 'We will have none of your affirmative action, so get that out of your Bill'. It was part of Senator Ryan's original Bill. Senator Ryan told us last August that she would bring forward a Green Paper to educate us on the great asset of affirmative action. We have not seen that Green Paper yet. I do not believe we ever will. It is now November and we still have not seen the Green paper on affirmative action and nor are we likely to see that Green Paper because there are many men in the Caucus who will keep that well under wraps. When the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was first debated in this place it was not debated when it should have been; it was relegated to the adjournment debate . This is an indication of the importance that the men of the Labor Party gave it. It was not given pride of place when debated in the Senate. Senator Ryan had to bring it up during the adjournment debate. What a place for debate of an important convention that was to be ratified. Senator Ryan brought it up during the adjournment debate. All the women around this place sneaked in during the adjournment debate to debate the United Nations Convention. It was there they were forced by the men of this Parliament to debate the need to ratify the United Nations Convention. I opposed it then. I was told that I was being hysterical when I said that I believed that Convention infringed the religious freedoms of any country. Senator Ryan will remember, now that she is in the chamber for the final couple of speeches in relation to her Bill, that we debated this subject on the air in Hobart. She said that any government that tried to infringe religious beliefs would be barmy. I cannot remember the exact words she used but that was the inference. But, of course, then she brought it in in her own Bill. The Bill infringed the religious freedoms we know in this country. This is one of the areas from which the Government has been forced to withdraw. Senator Ryan has been forced to withdraw this in one of the 53 amendments. Let us get it quite clear. It was the intention of the Government to infringe religious freedoms in this country. It was never otherwise; it was the Government's intention. During a debate that Senator Giles and I had on The World Today, Senator Giles made that perfectly clear. When I was referring to my wish for an amendment to allow the church schools to be able to abide by their religious beliefs, Senator Giles said: 'As I understand it, the particular part of the Bill that relates to those employees may in fact be amended simply to allow for a cooling-off period of two years or a phasing-in period so that the matter can be examined a little more closely'. Senator Giles said: 'I would be very distressed if I thought that this Government were to continue to support the very bigoted and biased approach that is still evident in some sections of our education system.' What right has Senator Giles to say what is bigoted in our religious freedoms? She may not have any religious opinion at all. She may well not have any religious beliefs. But she has no right, nor has the Government any right, to interfere with the religious freedoms of our country. So let us make it perfectly clear: This was the original intention. Senator Giles made it very clear in that debate that she certainly opposed any amendments that would give the religious freedom that the Opposition demanded. Now, the Government has seen fit to make amendments because so much objection has come in from the people. What sort of pressure has there been? The Senate itself has received petitions signed by 79,166 people objecting either to the Bill or to the ratification of the United Nations Convention. We have had petitions signed by 1,430 people saying they want the Bill and they want the ratification of the United Nations Convention. We do not know how many petitions have been received by the House of Representatives because the Minister has not bothered to count them. They all come to her office. I rang the Minister's office and asked for the figures for the House of Representatives. She has not even bothered to find out the numbers of people in Australia who have requested that this Bill not be gone ahead with and that amendments be made to it. She is so arrogant she has not even bothered to count them. We do know the figures for the Senate because the Senate Clerks have counted them. The House of Representatives does not count them. We do know that 1,000 telegrams were sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the Lodge the other day. He received 1,000 telegrams in one day. But the Minister for Education and Youth affairs has not bothered to find out what sort of opposition there is to her Bill. She has just told us all that we are hysterical. Indeed, Senator Giles and Senator Ryan in their patronising ways, have said in the past: 'There are genuine but very misguided women around'. How misguided has one got to be to object to a Bill when the Government indicates it will move 53 amendments of its own before it is even debated in this place? They are not misguided. Those women knew exactly what they were opposing. Let us examine what people like the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) have said in relation to this matter. I have had a letter sent to me by one woman who wrote to Mr Hayden asking that her will be taken into consideration. Many honourable senators have received these sorts of letters. She told me that Mr Hayden said that he would be opposing the sex laws. In reply to her letter he said: Unfortunately, my 'will' on these matters is just the opposite of yours and even more unfortunately, I have taken a vote to establish which of our two ' wills' will win out in this contest of 'wills'. It is my melancholy duty to advise you that you lost the vote. Honourable senators opposite obviously find that very amusing. It is an extremely arrogant and rude method of answering a constituent and just as patronising as Senator Giles saying tonight that there are genuine but misguided people. The women of Australia have not been misguided. They knew that there was something wrong with this Bill. They asked, and Senator Ryan has now come forward with 53 amendments from the Government. The Opposition is putting forward 20 amendments. Government senators interjecting- Senator WALTERS —We have Senator Harradine's amendment and those of the Australian Democrats. There are over 80 amendments to be put forward to this wonderful Bill with which there was nothing wrong. We had quotations tonight from Senator Crowley, saying that the Women's Electoral Lobby was all behind it. Of course it was; it put out this silly pamphlet, saying about these 'misguided' women: Maybe they haven't read the documents. Maybe they have read the documents but can't understand what they are about. How patronising can one get? It says: Maybe they don't want to read or understand the document. All that was done before the Government put out the 53 amendments. There has not been one word from these groups which have supported the Bill since the 53 amendments have been put forward; but having talks with WEL now, they say: 'For heaven's sake, it needs amending, and it needs amending badly'. It is quite incredible. I want to know where I was wrong when I first objected to the Bill. I want to know where those 70,000-odd women were wrong when they objected to the Bill before the 53 amendments were put forward. We now know that the Government agrees that there were gross problems with the Bill, and it will now alter it. However, many civil liberties will still be infringed. Senator Tate did not mention civil liberties being infringed. He did not mention much about the Bill at all. But he was frankly dishonest in what he did mention. He said: Even within Australia it needs to be conceded that there are sub-groups and groups within our culture engaged in quite discriminatory practices. Senator Tate —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I ask that the assertion that I was frankly dishonest in debate in this chamber be withdrawn. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw. Senator Tate wilfully misled Parliament when he said: Even within Australia it needs to be conceded- Senator Tate —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I object to the assertion that I wilfully misled the Parliament. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator can object as much as he likes; I do not have to withdraw that. It is not unparliamentary to say that he has misled. Senator Tate —You can say that I misled, but not 'wilfully'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Senator Walters, I ask you to withdraw the word 'wilfully'. Senator WALTERS —Right, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Tate misled the Senate when he said: Even within Australia it needs to be conceded that there are sub-groups and groups within our culture engaged in quite discriminatory practices. Some Aboriginal tribal groups, for example, subject young women, I believe in a disciminatory way, to the wishes of elder men within the tribal clan through forced marriages. That has been a matter of public notoriety from time to time. Then again, some sub-cultures within our migrant community deal with women in a most horrific way. Senator Tate went on to describe that. When I interjected and said 'And where does the Bill deal with that?', Senator Tate did not answer. He did not answer because the Bill does not deal with that in any way. He did not answer because he wanted the people of Australia to believe that the Bill did deal with this sort of thing. There is no point in his mentioning it if he does not believe, or if he did not want people to believe, that the Bill would right that sort of discrimination. The Bill has nothing to do with that sort of discrimination. That is my main complaint. The Bill does not cover it in any way. Nor does it cover anything to do with the exploitation of prostitutes by men. There is nothing in the Bill about that sort of discrimination-nothing in it about really exploiting women; not a word. There is a difficulty of interpretation in this sort of legislation and a difficulty in trying to legislate against discrimination. All I can say is that we have to look at some of the proposed amendments to find out just how difficult that is. As I said when we debated the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Againt Women, the interpretation is the very difficult part. I did not interpret the Convention in the way in which some women did, some of the more conservative groups, such as Women Who Want to be Women, who have been denigrated in this place tonight by several remarks from the Government side of the chamber. But as it turns out, they were right, because what we must understand here is that this legislation goes to all sorts and all types of women. Whilst I did not interpret-and I give credit to Senator Ryan, too; she probably did not interpret it so-the sexist books and education sections in the Convention as meaning getting rid of the Bible, some people did interpret it in that way. They were told that they were mad, that they were ratbags and that that was not the interpretation. However, in one school in a small country town we find that people interpreted it in that way. Seventy books, including the New Testament and the Old Testament, other religious stories and animal books, were removed from a Tasmanian school library and destroyed on the ground of their being sexist. Is that not an appalling indictment of the Bill? Is that not an appalling indictment of this international Convention? Is that not just what I said when I debated the subject? I said that the interpretation was so difficult and so broad that the Convention could mean anything that anyone wanted it to mean. Indeed, that is how that Headmistress in the Winnaleah District High School interpreted it, and she burnt the Bible, the New Testament and the Old Testament. She said that it was a sexist book. She took it out of the school library and burnt it. When we were told of that by some of the more conservative groups, Senator Ryan laughed and said: 'What rubbish; that could not possibly happen'. All I am saying is that this Convention, on which the Bill relies, is so difficult to interpret and is so wide that anyone can interpret it in any way that he likes. It has been misinterpreted. Nevertheless, the radical feminist who took out the Bible and burnt it, and other radical feminists, will interpret it in the way that is wished. This has proved beyond any doubt that that is so. With the problems of interpretation we come to consider who will be the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder who it will be. Senator Gietzelt —Certainly not you. Senator WALTERS —It certainly will not be me, but I would bet my bottom dollar that it will be another woman. If we have to put up with one of the Wendy McCarthys of this world, who could well end up as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, imagine the sorts of interpretations of which we shall have to beware. I am really concerned about this Bill. I have great concerns about the freedoms that we have known in this country previously. I have great concerns that, whoever is appointed Sex Discrimination Commissioner, we shall have to worry about how she interprets the legislation along with how the Human Rights Commission then gets it. We have had figures thrown at us by Senator Ryan, Senator Giles and Senator Crowley, telling us how women do not attain managerial positions. One can do anything one likes with figures. Those honourable senators can give us the figures on how little women in the work force earn compared with men. But I have some figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that I would like to cite. Debate interrupted. Wilfred Burchett-Consultation with Women's Groups-Abolition of National Women's Advisory Council The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.30) —I can remember that when I was a young psychology student I was mildly amused at the response that the renowned psychologist, Carl Jung, made to an interviewer's question. Having declined to answer some personal details about disagreements that he had with Sigmund Freud, he was asked whether he would mind if the details became known after his death. Jung replied that he would not mind. My mild amusement was due to the ambiguity of Jung's reply. He did not indicate whether he did not mind then, or would not mind after his death. Of course, after death none of us can mind what is said about us. However, we would prefer that anything said about us would not be embarrassing or hurtful to those whom we have left behind. My days as a student of Latin are far behind me, but I can remember reading: 'De mortuis nil nisi bonum', that is, 'Do not speak ill of the dead'. I would commend that approach to Brigadier P. J. Greville. I would also commend it to the editor of the Pacific Defence Reporter. Both Brigadier Greville and the Pacific Defence Reporter are guilty of a disgraceful exhibition, of condemning a person who cannot speak in his own defence. In the latest issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter an article appeared with the title, 'Wilfred Burchett'. Wilfred Burchett died on 27 September this year. Despite what Brigadier Greville thought about Wilfred Burchett, he would have retained much more respect if he had said nothing about him, rather than write about him in the style of an embittered old man. I shall quote from that article shortly, but I firstly point out that Greville erred when referring to a former senator in this place. In the article, he said: Burchett made the mistake of suing Senator Keane . . . Senator Keane died in 1946, so I presume that the Brigadier meant Senator Kane. However, these are some of the matters stated by Greville in the article in the Pacific Defence Reporter. I will quote a few of them. The article opened in this way: When I heard over the radio of Wilfred Burchett's death I confess to feeling a little satisfaction. What a way to open an article about a person who has died! The article goes on in a worse fashion: Burchett had talent and without doubt could act bravely; but he was a very dishonest man. There is evidence that at times he even believed his own lies. If we think that is bad, worse is still to come. Later on in this article, Greville says: The Australian Government should have charged him with treason . . . Even further on, he said: Wilfred Burchett was a traitor. The support he received from the Australian Journalists' Association disgusted me, not because he was a communist, but because these journalists cannot understand the enormity of his treason. In another part of the article, referring to how Burchett left Australia, he said: . . . he slunk out of the country as befitted a traitor, to die in exile. In his article Greville stated that he was disgusted with the support that Burchett received from the Australian Journalists Association. I am disgusted at the attitude of Greville and the Pacific Defence Reporter in attacking a person no longer able to defend himself. Many people do not agree with Greville's assessment, but this is not the point that I am making. If Greville felt so strongly about Mr Burchett, he should have said these things while Burchett was alive. It seems uncharacteristically cowardly for Greville to wait until a person has died to launch a vitriolic attack on him. Both the Brigadier and the Pacific Defence Reporter should be aware that often there is dignity in silence. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.35) — Today I received an invitation from Senator Ryan inviting me to come to morning tea to meet and consult with some women and women's organisations. In the invitation, Senator Ryan said that she was meeting with leaders of some 30 key organisations for discussion on a consultation mechanism at Parliament House on 9 November. I was invited to morning tea with these representatives and Senator Ryan. Attached to that invitation was a list of the groups invited. As background, I will quote from an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Mr Macphee on 6 October. In relation to consultation with women, he said that it would be effective for: . . . women members of Caucus to constitute a group which would have the responsibility for this process of consultation. Such consultation was to be with women and women's organisations. That answer was given in response to a question by Mr Macphee about what the Prime Minister intended to do now that he had abolished the National Women's Advisory Council. I perused the list of women invited by Senator Ryan and, I gather, by the women in Caucus. I find it quite fascinating that the women of Caucus have not seen fit to ask so many of the women's organisations with which they have nothing in common. If the women of Caucus are to form a committee composed only of those women with whom they hold close views, or a committee with only one or two representatives of groups with which they do not altogether agree, such as Judith Cooper of the Catholic Women's League-who is probably the only such representative; there might be one or two others depending on the representation from the particular group-I do not think it will be a very representative committee. The women of Caucus have deliberately left out all the women represented by the Women's Action Alliance. They obviously do not believe that the Alliance, which represents thousands upon thousands of women throughout Australia, has anything to contribute. They do not want to have anything to do with the group calling itself 'Women Who Want to be Women'. They have derided that group tonight in the Senate and have called it 'Woman Who Want to be Doormats', just because those women happen to be the sort who want to stay at home and bring up their children . They have not invited any of the hard working women from the various pregnancy support groups around Australia. They have nothing in common with them either and do not think that those women have anything to contribute in the way of advice to the Government. They have not invited any of the women from the Right to Life Association, because, in the view of the women from Caucus, those groups have nothing to contribute to this Government. They have, of course, included such groups as the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the Federation of University Women, the Union of Australian Women, the Australian Women's Education Coalition, the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations through its representative Wendy McCarthy, the Australian Council of Trade Unions Women's Committee, and the National Council for Single Mother and Her Child. Two women from the Beryl Women 's Refuge are representatives. The women's refuges are very well represented thoughout the groups. There are two from that refuge. However, the Government has not seen fit to invite any of the other groups I have mentioned. I would be most interested if Senator Ryan could give us some explanation as to why this Government is willing to hear only the views of a certain section of Australian women. I ask her to respond to my request. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(10.40) —I want to add a few words to what Senator Walters said this evening about the invitation that we received from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, to go and meet with some of the women tomorrow. I just want to say that I also felt rather sorry that other women's organisations which would be in a position to speak for quite a lot of women throughout Australia had not been invited. Women Who Want to be Women had a meeting in the Brisbane City Hall which attracted 3, 000 women. That is a fairly strong organisation throughout Australia. Senator Walters mentioned some other organisations, including the Women's Action Alliance, Pregnancy Help and Right to Life. I also noticed that the Mothers' Union, the Anglican Women's Organisation, was not asked to go, although I was pleased to see that the Catholic Women's Organisation was invited. I think, too, that perhaps women from some of the other political women's organisations, such as Liberal Party and National Party women, could have attended to give a consensus of ideas. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) likes to talk about a consensus of ideas and when he is talking about doing away with the National Women's Advisory Council it would have been very good for a meeting such as that being held tomorrow to have heard the points of view of differing political shades of opinion. The Prime Minister always seems to need people to advise him. He had to have a lot of people advise him at the National Economic Summit Conference and now he has the Economic Planning Advisory Council. From the number of jobs that have been provided so far, I do not think that these groups have been able to advise him too well. All I hope is that the women's organisations that come to advise him do a better job. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to invite some of these other women's organisations to come to morning tea tomorrow. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.43) —I wish to add briefly on behalf of the Opposition to comments made on the subject of the meeting of women here tomorrow . I know that the Opposition's spokesman on the status of women has very strong views on this and will state them in another place. I received a letter from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, inviting me to morning tea tomorrow. It referred to a list of the women's organisations invited and an agenda, although I did not receive them; I received them from another woman who was invited. I want to make sincerely a couple of comments to the Minister which I may not be able to make tomorrow. We have been invited to a morning tea at 10 a.m. when the Senate will be sitting. At that time Appropriation Bills will be at the Committee stage and I have an interest in some of the departments with which we will be dealing. As you know, Mr President, there is no way we can anticipate at what time departments will be called on. I have particular responsibilities for the Opposition in relation to certain departments and, whilst I have accepted Senator Ryan's invitation, I have indicated to her office that it is subject to the Senate's program, which is unpredictable when it comes to the subject of Appropriation Bills. I say to Senator Ryan, as a Senate Minister, that it is unfortunate that we have been invited to a function that coincides with a sitting of the Senate and at a time when Senate business will be considered. It may be necessary for us to be here. It is less important for members of the Government to be present for debate on the Appropriation Bills in the Committee of the Whole than it is for Opposition members. If it happens that Opposition senators such as Senator Walters, Senator Bjelke-Petersen or I have to be here in order to carry out our own senatorial duties-particularly our Opposition senatorial duties-I hope that will not be misconstrued as a lack of interest in the proceedings tomorrow. A second comment I have to make is that I am disappointed by the program. I addressed a question to Senator Ryan in the Senate some time ago-before the question addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that has been referred to earlier in this debate this evening-on the subject of the abolition of the National Women's Advisory Council. I believe that Senator Ryan's answer to my question was the first statement made by a Government member on the Government's intentions in relation to the National Women's Advisory Council. Senator Ryan said in her answer that it was the intention of the Government not to proceed with the National Women's Advisory Council and that in its place a broadly based women's group would be set up. No further elaboration was given. The matter was pursued by Mr Macphee, the Opposition spokesman on the status of women, in the House of Representatives. There were questions and answers and additional information was given by the Prime Minister, as was referred to earlier. That was again of a general nature, but not of a mollifying nature. I say in all sincerity to the Government that I believe the Liberal and National Parties in government, through the National Women's Advisory Council, tried very sincerely to get a very broad cross section of opinion from Australian women. The National Women's Advisory Council had ten members but always we strove to have a divergence of opinion. Certainly there were women on that council whose liberal inclination in politics was well known. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire was such a women. I would like to pay tribute to Dame Beryl and say that it is thanks to her and the respect she commanded within the Liberal Party, and particularly with the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, that great progress was made on issues related to women and also the acceptance of the National Women's Advisory Council as a body that had a real status and a real role as a special body advising government on matters relating to women. I think Dame Beryl did a quite outstanding job. Some expected that she would be a very conservative women, but I think those people who expected that would have been very surprised by her attitude to women's issues. She made a very real contribution, both in a personal way and as Chairman of the National Women's Advisory Council. There were other women on the Council from time to time whose politics were clearly not Liberal and they were chosen for that reason. There were Aboriginal women, women with trade union backgrounds and women from isolated areas. There was a very broad range of backgrounds. The most recent chairman, Mrs Quentin Bryce, had no political affiliations as far as I am aware. Nobody could claim in relation to her public activities that she has done anything other than try to advance the cause of women. She has certainly not been a sycophant to the previous Government, the present Government or to the Queensland Government. She made a very valuable contribution in her declaration of support for issues of importance to women, including anti-discrimination legislation. She played a major role on this subject, particularly in the State of Queensland. I therefore would like to add a plea which has been made in other areas. Whilst I note that the National Women's Advisory Council will be represented tomorrow, and the name Quentin Bryce appears on the list of those invited, the contribution that has been made by individuals and various chairpeople on the National Women's Advisory Council should be considered in this broadly based group that the Government is setting up to advise it. A point of view put forward at one stage was that the women of Caucus would advise the Government on matters relating to women. Of course the women of Caucus will play a role in relation to policy because they are in government but one of the things that I fear most, whether in government or in opposition, in relation to policies for women is that easy divisions can be made. I believe it is important that whatever group, or whoever, is advising the Government in addition to its parliamentary party be clearly seen to be broadly based, be drawn broadly from the community. Therefore, the advisory group will have a status and an acceptance in the community which will enable some bipartisanship in approach to these issues. I do have some feelings about the actual personnel who have been invited to attend tomorrow's meeting. I am pleased to see certain people on the group, such as Quentin Bryce and Joyce McConnell from the National Women's Advisory Council and previously from the National Council of Women. Mrs McConnell has played a very prominent part in relation to women's issues. I reiterate-I say it with as much heartfelt sincerity as I can-that it is important that we not look at numbers on this issue but at what can be contributed. I am not happy about the agenda, of which I now have a copy. There does not seem to me to be much scope for contribution between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3. 30 p.m., 10 a.m. until 10.30 being set down for an informal coffee break. At 3. 30 p.m. there is to be afternoon tea and at 4 p.m. the delegates are to depart for Canberra Airport, according to this agenda. There will not be much opportunity for a real thrashing over of issues. I note that speeches will be made by Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, by Senator Giles and by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Government is in government and it can set the agenda, but in the time that is available for discussion, under the heading of items such as 'outline of options', I hope there will be real options. I am sure that Senator Ryan, as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, appreciates the seriousness of the issues that I address. The thing that upsets me more than anything is not the personalities of the personnel who end up advising the Government, but that an opportunity is being provided for extremist groups to claim that this organisation, whatever it is, is not broadly representative of the women of Australia, that it leaves out a significant point of view among women which the Minister, I am sure, would be the first to agree is not easily generalised on. I hope that the proceedings tomorrow will be very brief when it comes to speeches from politicians. I hope that the women of Australia who have been invited to proceed in these discussions will be given a very real, searching and in depth opportunity to make a real contribution to the direction of government policy in relation to women. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women)(10. 53) —There have been a number of contributions to the adjournment debate tonight. I will comment briefly on those contributions by Senator Walters, Senator Bjelke -Petersen and Senator Martin. I think it is predictable, but unfortunate nonetheless, that Senator Walters chose, characteristically, to be totally negative about a very constructive exercise in which the Government is involved. She chose to focus on her criticisms of the very wide ranging group of women's organisations that will participate in tomorrow's exercise and chose not to address herself to the real purpose of tomorrow's exercise. Senator Bjelke- Petersen repeated some of the negative comments of Senator Walters, although I think she did add a more positive note to her contribution. Senator Martin made some constructive suggestions in a spirit of co-operation about the management of tomorrow's affairs. I simply say that the purpose of tomorrow's exercise is to devise a consultation procedure that will satisfy our policy of having broadly based consultations with all women's groups throughout Australia. At the conclusion of my comments tonight at the end of the adjournment debate I will table the list of delegates because the claim that the range of organisations which is to be involved in tomorrow's meeting is not broadly based is absolutely ludicrous. It is an extremely wide ranging organisation covering Aboriginal women's groups, working women's groups, defence forces wives associations, the major ethnic women's organisations and church women's organisations. It does not, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen pointed out, include political organisations. That was a decision that I took in consultation with my colleagues after some discussion, because we decided that there would be perhaps some anomaly in inviting women from other political groups to advise the Government on specific matters of policy although, of course, they are free to make their views available to us, and often do, by way of written comment and submission on particular items. The Australian Labor Party is not included in the list of invitees tomorrow for the same reason. These are community women's organisations. They are major women's organisations. They are organisations which have shown themselves over a number of years to be prepared to be constructive and co-operative with governments which are prepared to improve the status of women. I do not think there is any point in consulting women's organisations if those organisations have a record of negative participation in public debate. In response to Senator Martin's comment about the incomplete nature of my answer to her and also an answer given to the honourable member for Balaclava, Mr Macphee, on our intentions with regard to the new women's consultation process, I simply point out that the whole point of the exercise tomorrow is to hear the views of this very large and diverse range of women's organisations on what sorts of consultation mechanisms they believe would make government aware of the views of women throughout the community. A final form for the new consultative mechanism will not be decided until after tomorrow's exercise. I am very confident about the worthwhile nature of tomorrow's exercise. It is an exercise of consultation on a much wider scope then anything that the previous Government ever attempted, although is is unfortunate that Senator Martin will be otherwise engaged at the time that Opposition women have been invited to meet the representatives of women's organisations. It is a fact of parliamentary life that whenever we decided to have such a meeting it would have been the case that some or other woman senator would have had some conflicting duty. Nonetheless, I hope that Senator Martin, who has a very strong record in support of women's rights, will meet with the representatives of women's organisations. Of course, many of them will be known to her. I am very confident that the exercise tomorrow will be very valuable, in the first place, to the Government and, secondly, of course ultimately-this is our intention-to women of Australia generally. I will be very happy to report to the Senate on the adjournment debate or on any other appropriate occasion the results of those consultations and deliberations. To complete the adjournment tonight, I table the list of delegates. In doing so I point out that the particular delegates coming from organisations were nominated by those organisations themselves. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 249. Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 248. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 258, 259, 260, 261. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 253, 254, 255, 256. Judiciary Act-High Court Rules (Amendment)-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 257. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 247. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 246. Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 250. Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 252. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 251. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- National Memorials Ordinance- Determination naming two Divisions in the Australian Capital Territory, dated 27 September 1983. Notice of Variation to the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its environs (79th Series-Variation 1), dated 2 November 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 244 Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Why is Trans Australia Airlines purchasing freight space from the Interstate Parcel Express Company and utilising their aircraft at a time when TAA has excess aircraft and crews, in view of Government's recent capitalisation of TAA by a further $130m and their recent reported trading loss for the 1981-82 financial year. (2) Why did TAA contribute in the order of $5m in revenue a year to IPEC for the freight space to Launceston and to the eastern seaboard capitals. (3) Why has TAA recently entered into an agreement to charter a Boeing 727-100 freighter from Bloodstock Air Services at a cost of some $5m per annum, part of which has been paid in advance. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The honourable senator will be aware that the principal demand for air freight services involves the carriage of freight between centres overnight. Because of curfew requirements at Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, such services between the major eastern State capitals can only be provided by non-jet aircraft. The only non-jet aircraft in TAA's fleet are F27s which are now being phased out of service by TAA due to their inefficiency. TAA has advised that its options were to retain some F27s, purchase specialised non-jet aircraft or charter suitable aircraft from other operators. Of course, the choice of aircraft used by TAA to provide its air freight services is a matter for the commercial judgment of the airline. TAA has also advised that the arrangement which TAA has with IPEC is cost effective, allows use of suitable non-jet aircraft (IPEC's Argosy pure freighter aircraft) and is consistent with TAA's on-going fleet rationalisation program which is effecting considerable economies. (3) TAA has entered into an agreement with Bloodstock Air Services to utilise its pure freighter B727-100 aircraft instead of TAA's B727-200 passenger aircraft which have been operating freight services between Perth and Melbourne. The Bloodstock Air Services aircraft is flown by TAA crews and is specially fitted out as a pure freighter. TAA has advised that the aircraft has significant advantages over TAA's passenger aircraft for cargo operations. In this regard, TAA has advised that the pure freighter aircraft requires 70 per cent less ground handling effort, can carry a greater range of commodities, provides a 15 per cent increase in weight payload and a 50 per cent increase in available cubic space. TAA considers the arrangement with Bloodstock Air Services allows an evaluation of pure jet freighter operations which will be of considerable assistance in assessing TAA's future needs in the cargo area. In relation to financial aspects, I am advised that the charter rates for IPEC' s operations and for the use of Bloodstock Air Services aircraft were struck using normal commercial negotiating procedures. The agreement reached by TAA on these financial arrangements was a matter for decision by TAA. Question No. 290 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) What are the curfew requirements at Brisbane Airport. (2) How many times was this curfew broken for each month from January to August 1983. (3) For each occasion: (a) What airline was involved (b) What was the time of departure or arrival, and (c) Why was permission given to land or take-off in the curfew period. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) The curfew at Brisbane Airport prohibits the operation of turbo-jet aircraft in the period between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., subject to the following operational contingency provisions: 1. An aircraft bound for a curfewed airport shall depart only if the estimated time of arrival will be at, or before, the start of the curfew. However, if the aircraft is subsequently delayed en-route by unforecast headwinds, thunderstorms, operational conditions, traffic, et cetera, it may continue and land. 2. An aircraft shall not depart from a curfewed airport unless air traffic control has been advised that the aircraft doors are closed, or the aircraft has requested a push back or taxi clearance at, or before, the start of the curfew. 3. The curfew does not apply to an aircraft when operational safety is involved or when it is engaged upon a flight for urgent medical, flood or fire relief purposes, to an evacuation flight undertaken to save some person from grave or imminent danger, or to a flight which has an in-flight medical emergency. 4. Except for Essendon, all curfewed airports may be nominated and used as planned or unplanned alternates. An aircraft diverting to a curfewed airport may not land during the curfew if it has sufficient fuel to hold until the end of the curfew. Once it has landed at a curfewed airpot, a diverted aircraft shall not depart again during the curfew. Dispensations from the conditions of the curfew require the approval of the Minister for Aviation. The Minister may, at his discretion, approve operations in the following situations: (a) when exceptional passenger hardship is involved ; (b) for humanitarian reasons; (c) for delayed flights by visiting Heads of State, the Governor-General and the Prime Minister; (d) when the aircraft involved is assessed by the Department of Aviation as a ' low noise' aircraft (except at Avalon and Essendon). (2) Records of all flights in curfew hours at Brisbane Airport by jet aircraft classified as low noise by the Department of Aviation are not kept beyond a period of one month. However, flights in curfew by airline jet aircraft occurred in the months of January (1), May (1) and August (1). These flights were in accordance with dispensations given from the conditions of the curfew and as such did not 'break' the curfew. (3) 26 January: (a) Qantas (b) Takeoff 11.30 p.m. (c) To avoid hardship to 100 passengers which would have resulted from delay due to mechanical problems. 27 May: (a) TAA (b) Land 11.14 p.m. (c) To avoid hardship to 78 schoolboy passengers which would have resulted from delay due to weather caused refuelling stop en route. 31 August: (a) Qantas (b) Takeoff 11.31 p.m. (c) To avoid hardship to 232 passengers which would have resulted from delay due to mechanical problems. Question No. 313 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Were any flags of a foreign nation flown outside any post offices on Queensland 's Gold Coast on 19 August 1983, if so: (a) What were the names of the post offices, and (b) In relation to each of the post offices concerned (i) what foreign flags were flown, (ii) how long had they been flying, (iii) for what purpose were they flying, and (iv) are the foreign flags still flying. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission: Yes. (a) Southport post office. (b) (i) to (iv) Flags, the property of the Southport Chamber of Commerce, are flown from Gold Coast City Council-owned flagpoles located on the Council-owned footpath in front of the post office. Question No. 357 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Has the National Health and Medical Research Council recently adopted new standards for wines and spirits. (2) Is the effect of the change such that wine and brandy can now be made from a number of substances which were previously assessed as of 'inferior quality' that is skins, stalks, seeds, dried grapes and grape essences in fact without any grape juice at all. (3) Will the new standards also lead to a higher permissible content of methyl alcohol in spirits, an ingredient which attacks the optic nerve. (4) Will the effect of this change mean that hitherto banned imported brandy will be allowed into Australia, with consequent effects on the local industry. (5) Will the Government review the new standards, with special regard to the health of Australians and that of the local industry. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The standards were reviewed over a period of three years with the involvement of Federal and State health authorities, other Federal departments, an academic food technologist and representatives of the liquor industry. (2) No. The question fails to recognise that traditional wine making practices have always used skins, stalks and seeds in order to produce characteristic products. For example, skins, seeds and stalks are used to supply colour, tannin and flavour in wine and they provide much of the flavour and almost all of the colour in red wines. By allowing contact for a lesser period of time ros'e wines are produced. White wines may also benefit in flavour from limited periods of contact with seeds and skins. Thus, far from being substances of 'inferior quality', skins, seeds and stalks are essential to many traditional wine making processes and their exclusion would materially change the nature of these products and could well lead to attempts to reproduce colour and flavour by chemical manipulation. The addition of excess quantities of dried grapes for wine production is prevented by the requirement in the Standard which limits the total addition of water to 30 millilitre per litre of the finished wine. I would point out that the wine making industry was well represented on the working party which drew up the revised standard and they would certainly not have agreed to proposals which would have affected the quality of their products or jeopardised the viability of the industry's domestic markets or export potential. (3) No. In fact, the reverse is the case. The previous standard set no limits for methyl alcohol content of spirits. The revised standard breaks new ground in establishing control limits. However very little scientific data are available on which to base a level of chronic methyl alcohol ingestion which would saturate the body's normal detoxification system. The figure of eight grams of methanol per litre of ethanol was arrived at by consideration of world wide regulatory figures and what data are available as a maximum permitted figure for use until a more definitive schedule of values could be developed. It is entirely in accord with current regulations in those countries which do set limits. Methanol limits are kept under continuing review by the food committees of the NHMRC and will be modified as new data become available. (4) No. Contrary to recent statements concerning this matter, the importation of grappa has been permitted for many years. Under the new standard, the methanol content of such products will be regulated for the first time. This can hardly be considered a weakening of regulation or a relaxation of control on imports. Highly ethical associations representing both the wine and spirit industries were involved in the revision of the standards and were in full accord with the decision reached on these matters. These representatives saw no danger to their industry arising from the new standard. (5) All standards are kept under continuing review and modified as new information of significance becomes available. When information of substance is obtained on this issue it will be specifically reviewed. The health of Australians is always the first consideration in such issues. The best interest of the industry involved is a major secondary consideration. Neither is threatened by the revised standards for wines and spirits. Question No. 362 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) How much Australian military aid has been given to the Philippines in each of the last five years. (2) For what specific purpose was such aid allocated in each instance. (3) Has this military aid been provided even though the Australian Government has received advice that the Philippines faces no external threat. (4) Will the Government re-assess its aid program in view of the fact that the military is used in the Philippines to repress democratic trends in that country . Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The value of assistance provided under the defence co-operation program to the Philippines over the last five years is as follows: Financial year $m 1978-79 0.090 1979-80 0.804 1980-81 1.161 1981-82 1.917 1982-83 1.520 (2) Over the period defence co-operation activities have included: Projects DART target ranges. Under this project, Australia provided 150 DART target mechanisms, designed and manufactured by Australasian Training Aids Pty Ltd, Albury, New South Wales. In support of the equipment, Australia also provided spare parts; training for Filipino personnel in Australia; two Army personnel for six months to advise on the use of the equipment and two Army personnel for 18 months to advise on the establishment and operation of a maintenance and supply system. The DART mechanisms are currently grouped in seven sets in different locations in the Philippines. They are used regularly for small arms training by the Philippines Army, the Philippines Navy (Marines), and on an ad hoc basis by the Philippine constabulary. Nomad Maintenance. Following purchase by the Philippines Air Force of 12 Nomad aircraft in 1975 this project was set up in 1981 to assist with the establishment of a maintenance and supply system. Under the project, Australia has provided training of Filipino personnel in Australia, spare parts, and a six -man (since reduced to four) Army advisory team. The aircraft are used for the movement of small numbers of personnel and freight, liaison and casualty evacuation. Medical equipment. Australia has provided 50 medical kits containing instruments, stores and pharmaceuticals for use by medical officers in the field . Training Under the training program Australia has provided training and study visits for a total of 414 Filipino personnel as follows: Study Trainees Visits 1978-79 31 11 1979-80 34 6 1980-81 103 12 1981-82 87 11 1982-83 112 7 The principal types of training provided are: Navy Training technology, administration, executive officer, advanced clearance diving, and advanced quartermaster gunnery courses. Army Australian Command and Staff College; Officer Cadet School; Women's Royal Australian Army Corps Officer Cadet School; battlefield data processing courses; and infantry, artillery, ordnance, transport, provost, engineering, electrical and mechanical engineer, electrical and mechanical engineer, and medical corps training. Air Force Basic engineering, flying safety, air photography, flying instructor, aeromedical evacuation, air traffic controller, air movement, management, C130 technical skills, and aircraft inspection techniques courses. Other Filipino service personnel also undertake courses at the Joint Services Staff College, the Australian Administrative Staff College and the Australian Joint Warfare Establishment. Occasional study visits are undertaken to training organisations in the Australian services, and groups of Filipino officers attend annual regional defence seminars sponsored by the Department of Defence. Most Filipino servicemen attend an Australian language and cultural familiarisation course at the Defence Co-operation Language School, Royal Australian Air Force, Laverton, before commencing other training courses. (3) and (4) The broad objective of Australian participation in defence co- operation programs is to promote the national independence of participarting countries. The programs represent a practical expression of our interest in regional security and promote contacts with the governments and defence forces of countries with which we have shared strategic interests. Such co-operation can enhance factors which directly or indirectly support our own security and that of neighbouring areas. The small Philippines program concentrates on the provision of specialist training in Australia and the transfer of specialist skills related to equipment developed and manufactured in Australia. While serving the overall strategic interests of both parties, these activities clearly do not imply on the part of either government, endorsement of each or all of the policies of the other. Question No. 364 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Is it desirable for Australia to create a closer relationship with South East Asian countries; if so, in what way does the Government see this being achieved. (2) Will the Government be considering in the long term, seeking membership of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Labor Party came into government with a firm commitment to further Australia's relationship with its South East Asian neighbours. It is this Government's belief that Australia should enjoy close relations with South East Asia. We have sought to achieve this, in particular, by consolidating and strengthening our existing dialogue relationship with ASEAN. The ASEAN-Australia Economic Co-operation Program-(AAECP), the ASEAN-Australia forum, the ASEAN- Australia consultative meetings, and the ASEAN-plus foreign Ministers' meetings, are all important aspects of our dialogue relationship. Australia's friendship with ASEAN, however, does not preclude it from developing mature and productive relationships with the other countries in South East Asia. We look forward to peace and stability for all nations of South East Asia, and we support ASEAN's concept of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality for the region. (2) In view of the economic and social dissimilarities between Australia and ASEAN, we believe that at present the ASEAN-Australia dialogue outlined above is a more appropriate and mutually profitable relationship than would be Australian membership of ASEAN. I believe that the present dialogue enjoyed by Australia has satisfied many of the needs which first caused this question to be raised in the 1970s and has proven mutually beneficial to both sides. Question No. 383 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is the Minister examining the ramifications of the decision by the Full Bench of the Federal Court to allow a Sydney dealer, Zyfert and Muller Automotive Services, to circumvent the motor vehicle plan. (2) Will the Government take immediate action to plug the loophole in the law to prevent such circumvention occurring again; if so, when; if not, why not. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) From my examination of the Federal Court decisions in this matter there does not appear to be created any opportunity for the circumvention of the motor vehicle plan. (2) Future importations of this class of vehicle will be kept under review to ensure that the Government's assistance measures for the motor vehicle industry are not undermined. Question No. 385 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is the Government considering relocating the parcels post section of the Customs Service from Maffra Street to Customs House, William Street, Melbourne, so dividing the points of customs entry and parcel delivery involving importers in calling to two widely separated points for one item. (2) Why is the proposed relocation being undertaken. (3) Has the Government considered the effect of any such move on the costs imposed on small importing companies; if so what are the effects in terms of additional costs; if not, why not, and will the Government now undertake such an assessment. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There is no proposal to move the Melbourne Parcels Post Customs Section from the Maffra Street Mail Exchange. However, I understand that the Collector of Customs for Victoria has announced his intention that the checking of import entries for commercial consignments imported by mail be carried out in the invoice room at the Customs House rather than at the Maffra Street sub-office. This change will not take place until the move of the Customs Service to the World Trade Centre is finalised. (2) The proposed change aims to help maintain the level of service for all importers by combining the resources of the invoice rooms of the small Maffra Street office with the larger office at the Customs House. It is expected that the merging of the staff will give productivity gains that will benefit the whole of the importing community. (3) I am aware that several importers who import only through the mails have expressed concern that the changes would create additional costs to them-I have in fact received representations along these lines and the Collector of Customs has been asked to consider this aspect of the proposal. I am advised that the Collector believes that many importers will find that the new procedures will offer cost advantages. To enable importers to fairly judge this he has arranged for Customs entries, for goods imported by mail, to now be accepted at the Customs House. The Collector is also maintaining an invoice checking facility at Maffra Street until the move to the World Trade Centre takes place by which time all importers will have had the opportunity to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed change. Importers are being encouraged to discuss their particular problems with responsible officers and to personally try the alternative procedures. Question No. 387 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What Aboriginal land rights applications have been received by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. (2) What claims are currently being heard. (3) What claims are still outstanding. (4) What claims are in the hands of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or awaiting ministerial action. (5) When is it anticipated a decision will be made on these claims. (6) How many Aboriginal land claims have not yet been made. Senator Button —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The net number of Aboriginal land claims lodged since the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 came into effect is 60. This total takes account of claims which were later replaced, withdrawn, or amalgamated with others. A listing of all applications, with their current status, is contained in the following schedule. (2) The Jawoyn (Katherine area), Murranji, Warumungu, Kenbi (Cox Peninsula), Beetaloo and Upper Daly River claims have been partly heard. A High Court decision is awaited before the Warumungu and Beetaloo hearings may proceed. (3) Thirty-one claims, which are listed in the schedule have yet to be heard. The hearings of nine of these are scheduled to commence in 1984. The Cox River, Mt Allen, Nicholson River, Mt Barkly and Ngadi Warlpiri claims have been heard, and the Minister is waiting for the Aboriginal Land Commissioner's reports. (4) The Finniss River and Daly River (Malak Malak) claims are awaiting ministerial decisions. (5) The Finniss River and Daly River claims involve complex issues of potential detriment to other parties, and it will be some months before decisions can be made. A working party of Northern Territory and Australian Government officers, and the Northern Land Council, is currently studying detriment issues involved in the Finniss River land claim. (6) The number of future claims cannot be forecast. The rate at which applications have been lodged has slowed; only two new applications were received by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in the year ended 30 June 1983. Question No. 431 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: Will the Government at the time of the referendum in February next year, conduct a poll seeking the views of the people on the development of the uranium industry in Australia. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There is no plan to hold such a referendum.