Wednesday, 16 November 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. 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 shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have encated 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 Jack Evans (from 20 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 437 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 75 citizens), Durack (from 510 citizens) and Robertson (from 26 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 in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 158 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 13 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 organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 42 citizens) and Watson (from 25 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 Senator Durack (from 26 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies, which are neither departments nor statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible. Assent to the following Bills reported: States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983 Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 River Murray Waters 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 (10.04) —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 last occasion on which there was a substantial increase in the size of the Parliament was 1948. In the 35 years since then, Australia's population has doubled approximately. The tasks of Government and of individual numbers have grown profoundly and people's expectations about what their representatives can achieve have increased markedly. It is essential that our Parliament is able to cope with these changing demands and to meet the needs of the 1980s and beyond. Past practice suggests such adjustments are rare and therefore it is necessary for legislators to consider problems in the future as well as their immediate circumstances when considering an increase in the size of the Parliament. The importance of this principle was not lost on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In a detailed and reasoned response to the submissions it received, the majority of the Committee recommended that the number of senators representing each original State be increased from 10 to 12, with a corresponding increase in the size of the House of Representatives of 23, and the Government has accepted that recommendation. The reasons given by the Committee for its recommendation are compelling. First and foremost is the question of our increased population. In 1947, the census year prior to the last major increase in the size of the Parliament, the population was 7.5 million-now it is over 15 million. Since 1949, average enrolments for House of Representatives divisions have risen from 39,948 to the current figure of 74,989 . But of greater significance is the fact that Commonwealth Government activity has grown enormously in the last 35 years, without a corresponding increase in the number of senators and members. There is now more legislation passed with a flow on need for more committees, and more Ministers-the Ministry has increased in size by 70 per cent since 1949. The annual volume of legislation has grown almost fourfold in the last 60 years. For example, in 1924, 65 Bills were proposed, and in 1978 the figure was 240. There has been a great expansion of Federal Government responsibilities since World War II through the regulation of the national economy and the creation of a welfare state. The role of Parliament, the duties of parliamentarians and the expectations of the electorate have changed dramatically during this period. Today the Parliament through the ordinary back bencher is expected to be conversant with these new policy trends, and to be a watchdog holding the Government accountable to his or her constituents. In particular, Parliament has set up a wide range of committees which can only function effectively if there are sufficient parliamentarians to be called upon to perform the committee tasks . Yet the pool of members and senators available for these assignments has been eroded over the years through the increase in the size of the Ministry and shadow Ministry. Furthermore, under the present arrangements the ordinary member has difficulty coping with the flood of constituent problems which have escalated with the growth of poverty and unemployment. No wonder people become cynical about their politicians when so many of their federal representatives are placed in the position of not being able to serve their constituents let alone play an active legislative role in their national Parliament. The increase in Government business that has occurred in recent times has significantly altered the balance between the Executive and the back bench. It has meant that Parliament's independence in relation to the Executive has suffered. It is interesting to note when considering the increase in Government business since 1949 that the numbers of those who report on it in the Parliamentary Press Gallery have increased fourfold since then. There are those who argue that Australia is already overgoverned, that there are already too many politicians. This is a simplistic view. Nevertheless, it is superficially appealing. I reject the approach which adds up all the members of parliament in Australia and divides that number into the population and then produces some overseas country to prove that we have too many MPs. The functions of our parliamentarians differ too much from overseas to make such contrast valid. If we were to use that technique to compare ourselves with the United Kingdom then we would rationally have to ask whether local authorities and county councils which perform functions in education, social welfare and housing, here the function of State governments, should be included. For those who are fond of such comparisons, however, I should point out that in the United Kingdom, the 650 lower House representatives have on average 65,692 electors in their constituencies. In the case of the Canadian lower House, the number of electors per member is 56,349. New Zealand's 92 constituencies average only 22,117 electors each. In Australia, the 125 members of the House of Representives have on average 74,989 electors in their divisions, well ahead of the others. The real question is: Do we want the members and senators to be able to carry out their tasks, of representing their constituency and making a real contribution to the formation of national policy? The Bill before this Senate will provide more adequate and more realistic representation for all Australians. It will redress the ludicrous situation that has developed whereby twice the population since 1949 are governed by the same number of representatives. It will allow more time to be spent by members on representing their constituents. It will train more adequately our future Ministers. It will permit the improving committee system to become more effective in improving the legislature's oversight of the Executive. It will increase the relevance, not just the numbers, of back benchers. There will always be some public opposition to increasing the number of parliamentarians. This is as inevitable as it is, in some ways, unfortunate. However, this does not constitute a valid reason for simply putting off what must eventually come. The time is appropriate to make these changes now-now that we are updating and consolidating our electoral legislation and now that we are preparing to move into the new Parliament House. As the Committee recognised, this is a matter of principle, and as such, must eventually outweigh any short term unpopularity that may attach to the legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Australia in the 19th century showed the way to the world in electoral reform in making democracy work. As early as 1856 Victoria turned away from the violence and corruption of open voting to a secret ballot for its new parliament . Four other States, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, followed within three years. Western Australia dragged the chain a little, but by 1877 the secret ballot was in operation throughout the whole of Australia. We were also the leaders in abolishing the property vote and establishing payment for members of Parliament, both crucial democratic reforms which took powers away from the rich cliques and gave it to the people's representatives. In female suffrage, while New Zealand was the first to give women the vote in 1893, South Australia followed within two years. After federation women were able to vote, in the first elections under federal law in 1903. Compulsory enrolment came in 1911 and compulsory voting in 1924. While Australia once led the world in electoral reform we have had a patchy record since. There has been no substantial overall review of Commonwealth Electoral Law in over three-quarters of a century and no major consolidation since 1918. Despite the many fundamental changes which have occurred in society since the turn of the century most Australian Governments have not attempted to amend our electoral legislation to reflect those changes. Their failure to act has usually stemmed from a perceived partisan advantage resulting from the decay of the system. One vote, one value was eroded by manipulation of electoral boundaries, people were disenfranchised by excessively complex voting systems, by rigid and complicated enrolment procedures. For example, even the introduction of proportional representation in the Senate while conceived as a stabilising, fair system has, in practice, disenfranchised up to 10 per cent of the electorate through a tendency to encourage informal voting. The size of electorates and the increasing complexity and weight of demands on members have denied the electors the services they deserve and have a right to demand. The skyrocketing costs of modern election campaigns have threatened to create a situation where the national government can be delivered to the party with the best bagman. It is essential for public confidence in the political process that no suggestion of favours returned for large donations can be sustained. However, it is not only the potential of corruption in the financing of multimillion dollar campaigns that should be a matter for concern. A serious imbalance in campaign funding threatens the health of democracy. My party pledged itself to electoral reform before the last election. We have been anxious to work towards co-operation and agreement. All parties are diminished when democracy fails to function. It was because of this that the previous Special Minister of State, the Hon. M. J. Young M.P. moved to establish a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and obtained the agreement of the House and the Senate in May of this year. This reflected his longstanding concern about the quality of democracy in this country. His confidence in the value of such an inquiry was well justified by the result. The inquiry was most comprehensive: there were 212 submissions considered by the committee, not only from political parties, but also from large and small organisations, academics, local government bodies and individuals. The scope of the inquiries covered not only questions of major public policy, but also topics like the problems of handicapped persons and the disenfranchisement of the members of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition, both topics to which they were able to propose solutions. What was impressive about the deliberations of the committee was the concern of all members, of whatever political party, to produce an effective report. While inevitably there were differences, I would like to quote the chairman of the committee, the member for prospect (Dr Klugman) who stated: 'In view of the highly political questions involved, where every party would be expected to look to its own advantages, the committee's deliberations were examples of rational discussion. I especially thank the opposition members for co-operating in helping to design reasonable methods for introducing public funding of elections and in reaching a voting system designed to reduce the large number of unintended informal votes for senate elections, two questions which might have been expected to produce extreme polarisation of viewpoints.' I believe the proposals contained in the Bill are of a non-partisan nature. The Government in considering the committee's report has been able to adopt it in full except for some largely mechanical changes in relation to the proposed electoral commission and its procedures in relation to redistributions. On our side we in the Labor party were prepared to give ground. On the question of Senate voting we accepted a compromise. On Senate voting, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Committee to provide firstly that a voter may mark one square indicating the adoption of his preferred party's how-to-vote ticket and secondly for the validation of any person's vote up to the point where the voter's intention remains clear. It has been a matter of notoriety that the complexity of the ticket has contributed to a substantial informal vote and also just as significantly to the throwaway vote, known as a donkey vote. The Joint Committee had before it federal material from the Australian Electoral Office which showed how the most trivial mistakes were the major factors in the Senate informal vote . The figures were taken from an analysis of the 1977 Senate and House of Representatives vote. The Senate informal vote was 9% nationwide compared to 2.5 % for the House of Representatives. Of the Senate informal votes almost 8 out of 10, 78%, had been disqualified on one of two grounds: incorrect numerical sequence or some squares left blank. This meant the disenfranchisement in that election for the Senate of almost 600,000 Australians, more than the population of Tasmania. The situation is palpably absurd and this legislation will go a long way towards correcting it. In addition never again will a political party be able to influence the destiny of a nation by cynically cluttering a state senate ticket with dummy candidates. Other reforms-party affiliations of candidates on ballot papers, mobile polling for people in remote areas and hospitals, provisions for itinerants-will restore votes for many previously disenfranchised. So soon after the Queensland election it is hardly necessary to remind the Senate that the gerrymander is alive and flourishing in Australia. Research undertaken by the Australian Electoral Office shows that widespread cynicism about gerrymanders in Australia is a significant factor contributing to apathy and reluctance to enrol, particularly among young people. We can do something here about meeting and dispelling that scepticism at a national level. According to the Joint Select Committee, there is '. . . great merit in the existence of an Australian Electoral Commission with a statutory basis and which is seen to operate independent of political influence.' The Bill provides for the establishment of a truly independent electoral commission to be made up of: (i) a Judge of the Federal Court of at least 3 years standing appointed by the Governor-General in Council from a panel of three nominated by the Chief Judge; (ii) the Electoral Commissioner (a position replacing the Chief Australian Electoral Officer); and (iii) a Permanent Head of the Public Service or a person of equivalent status in a commonwealth statutory authority. The Electoral Commissioner would be a full-time executive officer of the commission, while the other two members would be part-time. The Commission's areas of responsibility will be: (i) the current functions of the Australian Electoral Office; (ii) the conduct of educational programs for voters and potential voters; (iii) the implementation and administration of public funding of election campaigns; (iv) the implementation and administration of legislation governing disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates, and of electoral expenditure of candidates, parties and organisations; (v) periodic redistribution of electoral boundaries; and (vi) the day to day administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. An independent commission is needed to take the drawing of electoral boundaries and the general operation of the Electoral Act out of the control of the whims of the government of the day, whatever its political complexion. A crucial part of the legislation provides that the final determination of electoral boundaries and names is not to be subject to Parliamentary veto, but it may be reviewed by the Federal Court, through a prerogative writ, if prima facie the criteria set out in the legislation are not followed. It will not be subject to any process of approval by Parliament or any disallowance motion by either House. This has been done quite deliberately and after the fullest consideration of the Joint Committee's recommendation. This Government is determined once and for all to establish fair and impartial procedures for honest redistributions. We owe this to the Australian people. There will be no need for any Royal Commissions on this topic in future. Within a state the redistribution committee under the Australian Electoral Commission will consist of: (i) the Electoral Commissioner; (ii) the Australian Electoral Officer for the particular State; (iii) the State Surveyor-General; and (iv) the State Auditor-General. Under the legislation, regular redistributions will take place. Their timing will be beyond the reach of Governments. Redistributions will, in general, occur in each State and the Australian Capital Territory at least once every 7 years, when one-third of the divisions within a State deviate from the State average enrolment by more than 10 per cent, or when population shifts require a change in the number of divisions in a State. The Government believes that the independence of the Commission must be reinforced by a similar faith and trust in the integrity and independence of our political parties. The cost of electioneering these days in any of the western democracies would have been unthinkable to the politicians of say 1949 let alone the founding fathers of federation. The estimated cost of the federal election campaign earlier this year was $12 million. It is simply naive to believe that no big donor is ever likely to want his reward. The price of public funding is a small insurance to pay against the possibility of corruption. The whole process of political funding needs to be out in the open so that there can be no doubt in the public mind. Australians deserve to know who is giving money to political parties and how much. I might say that concern about potential corruption is by no means confined to members of the Labor Party. According to a final point of the joint committee even the National Party federal body 'accepted in principle that large undisclosed donations could provide the potential to corrupt the political process . . .'. The move to public funding and disclosure is not as radical a step as has been suggested by some sectors of the community. Indeed the list of countries which have taken up public funding and disclosure shows that Australia will simply be catching up with the rest of the world in this important area of reform. Austria , West Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada and the United States of America-all have embraced this co-called radical step. It's time that Australia also recognised the essential reasons for supporting public funding. Public funding ensures that different parties offering themselves for election have an equal opportunity to present their policies to the electorate. Without it, worthy parties and candidates might not be able to afford the considerable sums necessary to make their policies known. In this way, public funding equally contributes to the development of an informed electorate. As well, it helps counter the problem created by the mounting costs of political campaigning due to the increased use of television as a medium of communication. It is often alleged that public funding would only serve to assist the government of the day more than those parties in opposition. Overseas evidence suggests that this is just not so. American figures show that during the 1980 presidential elections, the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan received $29.4 million by way of a government subsidy. This was exactly the same amount that the incumbent Jimmy Carter was given. In our proposal, funds will be distributed strictly in accordance with votes received. It has been a long time in Australia since one party polled more than 50 per cent of both the Senate and the House primary votes combined. In the specific provisions for public funding, the government has been prepared to go to substantial lengths to meet the Australian Democrats and the Liberal Party. The Australian Labor Party's submission to the joint committee sought 10 per cent as the minimal formal vote target before a registered party became eligible for assistance. The Democrats proposed no threshold and the Liberals one of 5 per cent. The legislation before this House provides a figure of 4 per cent. The rate of public funding is to be as follows: at a double dissolution, or a combined House of Representatives and half Senate election, 60 cents per House of Representatives vote and 30 cents for each Senate vote; for a House of Representatives election (and by-elections) 60 cents per valid first preference vote; for a half Senate election 45 cents per valid first preference vote; and these amounts to be indexed to the CPI. An essential corollary of public funding is disclosure-they are two sides of the same coin. Unless there is disclosure the whole point of public funding is destroyed. The legislation lays down that donations for federal election purposes of $200 of more to a candidate and $1000 to a party be disclosed and the donor identified. Radio stations, television stations, printers and newspapers are required to report electoral expenditure to the Electoral Commission. These organisations must identify the source of the funds. Anonymous donations above the set limits cannot be accepted by candidates or parties. If such donations are received a matching amount must be paid by the recipent to the Commonwealth. The Joint Committee on Electoral Reform will closely monitor the effectiveness of these provisions. Mr President, the Bill before this House is the first major overhaul of our electoral legislation since 1918. Amongst other things, it seeks to consolidate the various pieces of legislation which until now have governed the electoral process; to remove or bring up-to-date many out-moded provisions; to remove certain anomalies; to extend the right, and in the case of aboriginals, the obligation to enrol and to vote; to make it easier for electors to get on the rolls and stay on the rolls; to alter polling procedures to make voting more accessible to previously disadvantaged groups and to make the voting process simpler. For example, the Bill provides that there must be a sufficient time between the announcement of an election and the close of rolls for that election. The previous Prime Minister demonstrated only too well that without this sort of provision the cynical exercise of the strict terms of the law could effectively stop many thousands of people from enrolling and voting. There will be new provisions enabling Australians living temporarily overseas to retain their enrolment whether or not they have a current permanent address in Australia. In so doing, the Bill at last makes proper provision for the families of servicemen overseas so that they do not lose their entitlement to vote. Special arrangements are being proposed for such handicapped people as quadriplegics; for electors in the Antarctic who previously have been disenfranchised and also for itinerant persons who up till now have not been catered for at all. The Bill will also seek to make the voting process easier. In future, for example, electors will be able to vote as an ordinary voter at any polling booth within their division instead of only within their subdivision. Mobile polling facilities will be provided in the outback and for patients in hospitals and similar institutions. A register of postal voters will be established so that people in remote areas or people unable to attend polling booths can be sent an application for a postal vote immediately an election is announced. I would also add that the Government has accepted the proposition that the polling hours for Federal elections should be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. This will bring our polling arrangements in this regard into line with the majority of the states and make it less confusing for electors. As I have mentioned, the Bill also proposes that the party affiliations of candidates can be shown on ballot papers. Additionally, new procedures are proposed for the marking of ballot papers which will make it harder for a voter inadvertently to vote informal. It is proposed that it will be possible for an elector voting for the Senate to indicate his choice of candidates by reference to a registered party ticket. We are confident that not only are these proposals intrinsically fair and reasonable but they will act significantly to reduce the informality rate in Senate elections in the long run. Mr President, Honourable Senators will be aware that in recent months the Government has demonstrated its concern for and interest in electoral matters. We have already taken steps to ensure that the Australian Electoral Office is provided with adequate funds and resources: provision has been made to increase significantly the Aboriginal Electoral Educations Program; funds have been provided for the development of a substantial computer installation; and just recently we provided over $3 million to enable the office to conduct an education and enrolment campaign. Honourable Senators will be well aware of the concern which the Government expressed when the results of the Electoral Office research showed how many eligible people were not on the electoral rolls. The legislation which I am now putting before honourable senators should be considered against this background of our deep and demonstrated concern. Australia must have an electoral system designed for the people it serves. The Government believes that the changes proposed to our electoral machinery are both timely and sensible, yet at the same time they preserve the basic elements and broad principles which are already at the heart of the current system. On the other hand, the major overhaul undertaken will we believe improve the electoral administration; make the whole electoral process of enrolment and voting easier and simpler for the elector, and ensure that we have an electoral process which is modern and free from any allegations or even possibilities of corruption or political pressures. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I have great pleasure in bringing before the Senate this Bill which will finally, after 8 years of neglect by our predecessors enable us to establish the Inter-State Commission. It has been a long standing commitment of the Australian Labor Party to establish the ISC. We see the ISC as an important vehicle for promoting the rational development of national transport policies. The Government's action today fulfils an important election promise in the transport field. As honourable senators know, the Inter-State Commission Act was passed with bipartisan support in 1975 but was never proclaimed by our predecessors. Proclamation of the Act was arranged by this Government and the Act came into operation on 27 September 1983. The purpose of the Bill I bring to the Senate today is to update a number of provisions in the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 to take account of legislative developments since 1975. The proposed amendments are necessary to enable the Commission to become operational. They are essentially of a technical nature and the purpose and powers of the Commission will remain the same as those embodied in the 1975 Act. An Inter-State Commission is provided for in Sections 101-104 of the Constitution. When the ISC we propose to establish is seen in its Constitutional context, it is clear that its purpose is to assist in the improvement of inter- state transport-and certainly not to hinder it through undue control and regulation, as has been inferred in some quarters. Establishment of the Commission will complete the Constitutional coverage on inter-state transport matters. Section 92 of the Constitution protects freedom of trade among the States. In a complementary way, the Constitution provides for an Inter-State Commission to watch over and advise this Parliament on such matters. The Commission we shall establish will in fact investigate and advise Government on allegations of discriminatory practices, inequalities, inefficiencies and anomalies in inter-state transport. Governments and Parliaments have frequently been advised to establish the Commission. The most recent occasion was the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania which recommended such action. A similar recommendation was made by the Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania in 1976. The Commission provided for in the ISC Act is an investigatory and advisory body with Royal Commission-type powers. Its reports and recommendations will be tabled in the Parliament. It has no regulatory or judicial powers and will investigate only those inter-state transport matters referred to it by the Minister for Transport. The ISC will be required to carry out wide ranging investigations covering economic, social, institutional and legal-constitutional issues affecting inter- state transport. There is no other existing organisation that is equipped, or empowered, to carry out such inquiries. The ISC meets the need for an ongoing independent body that performs these functions. While in certain circumstances there will be a need for ad hoc inquiries to handle matters falling outside the scope of the ISC, in general, ad hoc Commissions and Inquiries are expensive to establish and lose all the expertise gained when they are disbanded. The ISC will accumulate and retain such expertise. In conducting its investigations the ISC will operate, in many ways, like a transport users tribunal. It will consult with and examine the submissions and evidence of the private citizen, unions, business, the community, employees, transport users and suppliers and governments. Users of transport have no single entity in Australia to which they can take any problems they encounter with anomalies, discriminations and inequalities that exist in our national transport system. At present they can only appeal to operator controlled organisations (both government and private) whose own interests are generally paramount. The ISC will be a major vehicle for getting the facts out into the open when it examines inter-state transport problems. It will have a significant role in keeping each transport system ''honest'', and will develop a fund of expertise that will be invaluable to the development of national transport policies. Let me now turn to some of the specific provisions of the Bill. Section 6 of the 1975 Act, which excluded any examination by the ISC of matters relating to the operation of the former Airline Agreements, is to be updated to exclude matters covered by the new 1981 Airlines Agreement and the related Independent Air Fares Committee Act. The objective, as previously, is to exclude the Airlines Agreement from the ambit of the ISC, together with fare determinations. However, as domestic air freight is no longer regulated through the Airlines Agreement, it will now come within the ambit of the ISC. Other sections of the Act need amendment because of changes since 1975. The salaries of the President and Members of the Commission are adjusted to present day equivalents. Penalties are updated and sections 22, 23 and 24 are replaced to take account of legislative developments in the fields of retirement benefits and the Public Service Act since 1975. There are also a number of minor amendments included so that the ISC Act will conform with current administrative procedures and legislative drafting practices. As I have mentioned, the powers and scope of the Commission provided for in the 1975 Act remain unchanged. The Commission is expected to be established very early in 1984 and action is already underway to make appointments to the Commission. It is important we appoint people of the highest calibre to perform this important Constitutional role. In accordance with its status as a national body with Constitutional authority, the Commission will be located here in the national capital. It will have a relatively small body of supporting staff to assist in the running and administration of inquiries and to provide analytical and technical advice. The cost of running its operations in 1983-84 is estimated to be of the order of $250,000. In a full year, when fully staffed, the amount would be approximately $1.5 to $2.0 million. More precise figures will depend on the administrative requirements of the President, when appointed, and discussions with the Public Service Board and other provisioning Departments. It is not generally appreciated that for nearly every $10 of gross national expenditure, $1 is spent on transport infrastructure and services. The transport and storage industries employ about 350,000 people or about 5.5 per cent of the workforce. This excludes the large number of people employed on their own account, or for companies whose transport operations are incidental to their main operations. Transport is clearly a significant part of our economy. The value of benefits to be gained by transport users from the ISC's role in bringing about a more rational, effective and efficient national transport system, will vastly outweigh the very modest cost of the Commission. Government decisions in the transport area consequently have a wide ranging effect on most areas of Australian economic and social activity. One of the first tasks of the Commission will be a review of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Before the final terms of reference are determined the Minister for Transport will be consulting with industry associations, unions , interest groups and the Tasmanian Government. More generally, and in keeping with the Government's policy of consultation and reconciliation, the Minister for Transport will be consulting with relevant State Governments and other organisations that may be affected by any proposed reference to the Commission. As honourable senators will be aware it is the policy of the Government to ensure that the functions and efficiency of Government authorities are regularly reviewed. It is the Government's intention that the ISC's operations will be reviewed within the first seven years of its life. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Rae) adjourned. Debate resumed from 7 October 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.10) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) will be handled on behalf of the Opposition by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack. Until 30 seconds ago it had been proposed that we would have a long and interesting debate upon the establishment of a Senate select committee on animal welfare. It was anticipated that the motion which would have been moved by Senator Chipp would have been supported by a member of the Government and the position of the Opposition would have been laid down by Senator Scott. But that matter will be dealt with a little later this day. In light of the fact that the Opposition is not opposing the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and because the view of the Opposition generally with respect to legislation should be laid down, I propose now to defer to the shadow Attorney-General. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.11) —I have a very simple task in stating the Opposition's position in relation to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We support it. We do not propose any amendments nor does the Bill seem to need very much debate in this chamber. The Bill is along familiar lines now. It is introduced in each sitting period of this Parliament to carry out a miscellany of amendments to various Acts of Parliament within guidelines which have now become fairly well established. These are guidelines which were laid down once again by this Government in the previous session and with which the Opposition agrees. We followed these guidelines very substantially when we were in government by ensuring that the Bill contained amendments of a technical and non-controversial character. I think that some amendments of great importance occur in this legislation. Indeed in this Bill there is a provision to amend the Judiciary Act in regard to the power of the High Court to remit major proceedings for judicial review of Commonwealth officers, which have been traditionally in the original jurisdiction of the High Court, to the Federal Court. That is a very important development and reform, but nevertheless it is one which is non-controversial and is appropriately placed in this legislation. From the Opposition's point of view the only other matter I would like to mention is the decision to amend the Economic Planning Advisory Council to include a representative from small business. Honourable senators in this chamber will recall that when that legislation came up for debate in this Parliament that deficiency in the legislation was emphasised by the Opposition. Naturally we are very pleased to find that our views on that subject have been accepted and that in the future there will be a representative of small business on that important Advisory Council. Apart from those comments, Mr President, I have nothing further to say in relation to this matter but to reaffirm the Opposition's support for it in its entirety. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.14) —I do not propose to delay the passage of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill any further. I thank the Opposition for its support and co-operation in having the Bill dealt with quickly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.16) —I move: (1) That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the question of animal welfare in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) interstate and overseas commerce in animals; (b) wildlife protection and harvesting; (c) animal experimentation; (d) codes of practice of animal husbandry for all species; and (e) the use of animals in sport. (2) That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the Committee be contained in a subsequent resolution. I seek leave to have my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- 1. REASONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE The Australian Democrats, in introducing this motion, are taking a vital initiative towards the development of guidelines for the treatment of all species of animals found on the Australian continent, irrespective of the type of relationship they share with humans, and for the protection of their rights. This includes animals kept as pets, commercial animals and those still living in their natural state. Our policy has always been to extend care and concern to all animals in a meaningful way. Now, as a positive step to put that principle into effect, the passing of this motion will result in the establishment of a Select Committee which will look into all aspects of animal welfare and will hopefully recommend the means to overcome any deficiencies it finds. The Democrats believe that it is important that uniformity be applied to animal welfare across the nation, and that response to pressure groups be balanced and not just an ad-hoc reaction to a particular situation. It is also important that all aspects of animal lives are covered by the inquiry. There are many methods of handling animals which have become almost traditional and are now carried out without any thought as to the suitability of the method because 'it has always been done that way'. It is essential now to review those methods so that new methods can be evaluated and all unnecessary suffering of animals be prevented. We feel sure that most commercial animal breeders and other people who work with animals have an affectionate regard for the animals under their care and would co-operate with reasonable controls and suggestions to reduce stress or pain inflicted on their animals. Many will welcome help in identifying procedures which can be moderated or changed to the advantage of their animals; particularly when they realise that the Select Committee is giving an evenhanded view, balancing the requests from animal liberationists with the practical considerations of animal husbandry where necessary. 2. THE PARTICULAR REFERENCES The particular references listed in the motion ensure that the inquiry will cover the most important areas of animal concern. I would like now to make a brief statement on each of the areas involved. 2A. Overseas and Interstate Trade and Commerce in Animals (i) Interstate Trade Transportation of stock animals in Australia is a seriously neglected area of animal welfare. The result of this neglect is an ever-increasing incidence of cruelty to the animals involved and an ever-spiralling cost to the producer who must bear the consequential losses. Animal production loss in each state differs, but in general there is no stipulation that animals shall only travel for a certain number of hours. There is no requirement which makes one person responsible for the animals at each point of the journey and so responsibility for injury and death is abnegated or denied. Local abattoirs are closing down with the result that stock animals are being transported further and further across state borders making the issue a federal matter. Horses, for instance, may be loaded in Queensland, travel 2 or 3 days in a truck as it is being loaded in various points, then stand two days in a sale yard at Homebush, N.S.W., without food or water, prior to being sold and trucked out. Cattle also often travel long distances and there are many instances when they arrive at their destination with their tails badly damaged from friction from rubbing up against the back of a truck, permanent sores forming on their hips from jolting around for hour after hour, and crippling foot injuries due to improper flooring. In 1975 (the latest figures I could obtain on this matter), there was a loss of $20 million from bruised carcases alone, and this does not include losses from death, weightloss, heat damage or contamination of carcases. An inquiry is urgently needed into ways of supervising journeys of stock animals, of improving sale yard conditions, of relating the types of transport used in moving animals to prevent unnecessary injury and stress, and of defining the responsibility of sellers, transporters, buyers, auctioneers and agents. (ii) Overseas Trade Over the past decade there has been an increasing public outcry over the shipping of live animals overseas for slaughter. For instance, in 1981 the RSPCA stepped in over the export of over 100 live horses to Japan for fattening and killing for human consumption. There were also a large number of demonstrations that year where animal liberationists combined with trade unionists to oppose the export of 5.7 million sheep, mostly to the Middle East. In spite of these protests the number of sheep exported increased to 6.2 million in 1982. The British Veterinarian Association policy is that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. This is certainly not happening with the overseas trade in livestock here in Australia. There is also considerable evidence that the live sheep export trade is depriving Australian firms and workers of income as our industry is shipped overseas. The Democrats believe that it would be far more economical and humane to slaughter animals in Australia. 2B Wildlife Protection and Harvesting (i) Endangered species It is estimated that at present about 30 Australian native species are threatened with extinction. An Endangered Species Act is needed for the protection of the habitat of these species and we urgently need scientific research to find out how much land must be set aside and what other measures are necessary for their continued survival. Australia is a signatory to the International Agreement-C.I.T.E.S. (Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species), and as Minister for Customs I became aware of the hard work being done by customs officials in stamping out the illegal trade being done in these animals and birds. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work necessary and we must investigate the need for additional funds and personnel in this field. (ii) Kangaroos Over the past two years there has been increasing pressure put on both State and Federal governments to come to grips with the need to protect endangered kangaroo species while allowing farmers and national park managers to protect their crops and environment from the damage caused by large kangaroo populations . At the extremes of the argument are those who believe that no kangaroo should ever be shot, no matter what the circumstances, and those who believe that the kangaroo meat and fur industries should be actively promoted by government as an alternative primary industry. There has been considerable argument over the numbers of kangaroos in Australia over the past four years. Australian Government figures are given as 32 million in 1980, 36 million in 1982 and 19 million in 1983. These figures indicate that either the numbers of kangaroos vary incredibly from year to year according to the previaling weather conditions or that there is something wrong with the way figures are collected. In either case I believe that we must hear professional opinion on this matter so that the Government does not continue to leave itself open to criticism, as it has done recently, over the arguments it presents to counter the kangaroo lobby. Since the election the Hawke Government has continued the line of the previous Fraser Government on this issue with the result that the United States has now lifted its ban on the import of kangaroo products. We believe that the new Government has not had an opportunity to look at the issue dispassionately yet and that if it had it might well have decided to take a different line than the one it has taken so far. We are particulary concerned for example, that the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 has not been proclaimed yet. In the meantime the argument has taken a higher profile on the international scene, with the European Parliament considering the issue along the same lines as it considered the annual seal hunt in Canada. Given the international disrepute that Canada has gained over that issue, Australia needs to be very certain of its facts about kangaroos and make the necessary changes to current government policy as soon as possible, so that the same disrepute does not occur here. 2C Animal Experiments Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of all animal welfare matters in Australia is the use of animals for experiments. Although many questions have been asked in State and Federal Parliament over the years we still have no figures available as to how many animals are being used in experiments in this country, what types of animals are being used or for what sorts of research. There is virtually no legislation to protect animals used in experiments. The various State Acts are totally inadequate, with the result that anything can be done to a dog or a cat behind closed laboratory doors without the researcher being answerable to anyone except his or her own peers. The National Health and Medical Research Council does have a code of practice to govern the use of animals in experiments which states that: procedures likely to cause pain of more than a trivial extent must not be carried out without the administration of an anaesthetic. However, this code is, we believe not being enforced. We are appreciative of honourable members (such as Ralph Jacobi) who have raised questions from time to time. We believe this is a bipartisan matter of moral and ethical concern which should not be related to party politics. Of the five areas listed, this area is one which I am personally most concerned about. It horrifies me that in this day and age, we are so insensitive to animals that we continue to use them unnecessarily in experiments such as when testing out a new brand of lipstick. It also seems incredible to me that we continue to use animals as human substitutes where there are such strong differences between the animal being experimented on and human beings, that they make the results of the experiments worthless. I think my series of questions concerning the use of animals in experiments addressed to Senator Ryan, as Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology in the Senate, and the answers she gave, clearly illustrate the lack of action by the Government in this area. Of the 23 questions I asked her, nine received the reply ''National statistics are not collected'' and a number of others received replies like ''information not available'', and ''I am not aware of any plans''. What is urgently needed is a system which is publicly accountable such as that in Great Britain where statistics are collected by the Home Office and it is known how many animals are used. No animals should have to suffer pain in any experiments as modern analgesics and anaesthetics are now more sophisticated. The Government must encourage the use and development of alternative techniques and animal welfare representatives should be represented on committees involved with animal experiments within the research establishment as is the case in Sweden. 2D Codes of Practice of Animal Husbandry for all Species Over recent years there has been much publicity about the keeping of hens in confined cages all their lives to produce eggs cheaply. Up to four hens can be crowded into a cage with a sloping wire floor where each hen has a quarto page space in which it lives virtually its whole life being jostled by its companions . Pigs are also crowded indoors on cement or slashed floors, they are fed on artificial foods, never knowing sun, fresh air or exercise. As long ago as 1965, in the Bramely Report, a committee of agricultural experts in Britain stated that even animals that were kept indoors for generation after generation, did not lose their instincts to scratch in the soil, to make a dust bath, etc. Although this term of reference refers to ''Codes of Practice of Animal Husbandry for all Species'' it is hoped that the committee, if established, will look at the possibility of recommending uniform national legislation relating to animal husbandry for stock animals under this heading. This is because Codes of Practice have no power under the law and are therefore meaningless. No matter how cruel a farmer or grazier may be, he or she cannot be prosecuted or convicted. Codes of Practice have been used as a way of watering down legislation and a way of escaping from the responsibilities of the law. If the Committee decided to be serious about the need for animal protection, they may have to recommend proper uniform laws across Australia, not meaningless statements which cannot be enforced. At present each State has its own animal protection Act and these vary from State to State. So long as different laws apply to different farmers in different States, some will be penalised while others will be advantaged and general confusion will reign. 2E Animals in Sport Finally, I want to make reference to animals in sport. Senators will recall the outcry last year about rodeo events such as calf-roping. A calf may be travelling at 30 or 40 kilometres an hour when it is tackled or suddenly thrown by a rope tightened around its neck. Overseas studies have shown a calf which has been roped even once suffers injury such as bruising of the larynx, rupturing and haemorrhaging of the muscles, and even paralysis. Other sporting activities using animals are also of concern. The use of the whip in horse racing should be investigated and extraordinary events such as wild cow milking and greasy pig chasing ought to be assessed. There is also the problem of indiscriminate shooting of wildlife for sport. All these issues must be investigated. 3 CONCLUSION The Democrats are not saying that every concern advanced by animal welfare organisations or every person espousing their case is justified. There are also many practices adopted by some extremists in the field which we question. For instance, some of the more graphic literature circulated by some groups is more reminiscent of that from the discredited Right-to-life than that from the responsible conservation societies with which I normally associate animal welfare groups. In my opinion the case for better care and a more considered approach towards animals is clear. There is no need to overstate the case, and to do so can only result in responsible people questioning the validity of the case being put. Unfortunately in this area, emotion is often confused with facts. Animal Welfare is a highly emotional issue. With the establishment of this Committee we will have the opportunity to come to terms with the facts. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.17) —I wish to address myself briefly to the proposition that Senator Chipp has put to the Senate. I want to express the view that, whilst we would not be seen to oppose the establishment of such an inquiry, I believe that such an inquiry is premature and that it fails to take cognisance of a very widespread and in-depth inquiry that is already taking place through departments of agriculture and through the Australian Veterinary Association and in various other fields. I will address myself briefly to those areas of inquiry in a moment. There is indeed an enormous amount of in-depth research being carried out now into the welfare of animals as there has been for several years past. I suggest that the people involved in these investigations and inquiries are people basically without peers in their own particular sphere of knowledge and it seems to me somewhat unlikely that a Senate committee can assemble donors of information who are better informed in this area than the people already investigating it over the whole canvas of the Australian animal welfare area. I also make the point that the welfare of animals in Australia is very significantly in the hands of the operators of primary industry. It is indeed their business to ensure that over and above their particular love and concern for animals-I am quite serious about this-the general nutrition of animals, their freedom from disease and the improvement in their breeding circumstances are improved continually and maintained at the highest possible level. That is not only in the interests of the animal husbander himself but also certainly in the interests of the Australian economy which is dependent for about 50 per cent on the earnings of the primary industrial field. Indeed, it is significant employment-wise not only to the 150,000 or so primary producers in this country but also to the 3 million to 4 million Australians who are at least indirectly, if not directly, involved in some areas of primary industry. The other fear I have-it is only a fear and I trust that it certainly will not eventuate-is that there is a real possibility that an inquiry such as this, if not handled with care and with proper guidelines, may resolve itself into a media operation which is directed towards argument based significantly on emotion rather than logic. This, should it occur, would be a most unfortunate happening. It would be a negative contribution to the welfare of animals and, indeed, in a broader sense, to the Australian economy. I draw attention, briefly, to the concern for animals and the evidence of it in inquiries that are already under way. Back in 1980 concern was expressed about the transport of brumbies from Northern Australia, about the pig and poultry industry and about the transport by sea of livestock. That concern has triggered off widespread inquiries and recommendations. I think it is pertinent that we should be aware of what has, in fact, been occurring and what has been achieved. A sub-committee on animal welfare was formed on the initiative of the Australian Agricultural Council through its Standing Committee on Agriculture. This sub- committee was to report on all animal welfare issues to the Standing Committee on Agriculture through the Animal Health Committee. I will name just a few of the issues in order to identify the extent and depth of this inquiry. The inquiry covered the level of uniformity in the codes of practice and legislation in this area. It covered the question of transport of livestock. It covered the question of intensive farm practice, which is applicable more to the pig and poultry industry, perhaps, than to other livestock industries. It covered the matter of extensive livestock management which, of course, refers to the large scale or extensive grazing of cattle, sheep and other such animals, to the mustering, marketing and control of feral animals, to animal experimentation and livestock slaughter. To name those few areas is to indicate the depth and breadth of that inquiry. I think it is pertinent also to consider the composition of the sub-committee on animal welfare because it, too, is widespread in its interests, its abilities and its skills. That sub-committee comprises representatives of the departments of agriculture in each State, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Australian Bureau of Animal Health and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. Finally, other committees are represented from within the Australian Agricultural Council. Since 1980, 10 codes of practice have been drafted by this sub-committee. Four of them have already been approved by the Australian Agricultural Council. They relate to the pig industry, the domestic fowl industry and the road and rail transport of livestock. In June this year the sub-committee released, for public comment, two more codes of practice relevant to air transport of livestock and to the intensive husbandry of sheep. The other model codes which are still being developed are referable to sea transport, to humane destruction, to the capture and care of feral animals and to animals in slaughtering establishments. So I again stress the point that the investigation is intense and is widespread and is certainly responsible from the very nature of the composition of the sub- committee itself. Mr Deputy President, it is worth mentioning that animal research is funded through the Department of Primary Industry and is now subject to ethical evaluation. Surely this is an important step that has been established. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has been responsible for the development of this ethical evaluation and such evaluation will affect a whole range of research areas-the Australian Meat Research Committee, the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee, the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee, the Australian Dairy Research Committee, the Poultry Research Advisory Committee , the Honey Research Committee and the Australian Wool Research Committee. The funding of all those areas is referable to an ethical evaluation of the proposition. All experiments must satisfy the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I turn briefly to the subject of animals in research because this is an area of concern, and proper concern as instanced by Senator Chipp. I make the point that since 1979 the Australian Veterinary Association Ltd, New South Wales division, has been active in the field of animals in research. One Dr Margaret Rose, herself a Churchill fellow, is the convener of this group on animal experiments being carried out by the Australian Veterinary Association. I make the important point that after consultation-I mark the breadth of consultation-with universities, colleges of advanced education, departments of health, education, agriculture, national parks and wildlife, with industry groups and animal welfare groups, the sub-committee has compiled a list of recommendations. These proposals were submitted some time ago to the New South Wales Cabinet and we are waiting its views and its decisions. I close my remarks by saying that we do not oppose the establishment of this Committee but we do consider that a widespread and responsible area of research has already been instigated, that a significant part of the results of that research have been implemented and that there is a very real concern for animal welfare in the Australian community as a whole and particularly in that part of the community, that industry, whose whole well-being, whose whole operation, is relevant to the welfare of animals. So I believe that whilst this Committee may eventually be established and may investigate this matter, it should be looking at it with very well defined guidelines. It should not become a platform for emotion rather than logic. Indeed, in my view, it should be aware of the results of the intense and widespread investigation that is already underway. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.29) —The Government is accepting the motion as moved by Senator Chipp, but I think I should add this caveat or reservation: The Senate might need to look at the number of committees that are currently established and also others which have been or are being proposed. For example, Senator Kilgariff gave notice of a motion yesterday to have a Senate committee inquire into the problem of petrol sniffing. In view of the very heavy existing demands and increasing demands being placed on not only the members of the committees, the honourable senators, but also the other resources, the Senate might need to determine the timing of this proposed inquiry and the priority which ought to be allocated to it vis-a- vis competing studies and inquiries. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.30) —by leave-I move a motion relating to the membership and powers of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, in accordance with documents circulated to honourable senators. To save the time of the Senate I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. It is similar to all motions in relation to select committees, except that, to pick up the points mentioned by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), it calls for the appointment of four senators rather than the normal six senators. I ask that the motion dealing with the terms of membership, as circulated, be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The motion read as follows- (1) That the Select Committee on Animal Welfare consist of four Senators, as follows: (a) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (2) That the Committee proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (3) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (4) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (5) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (6) That the quorum of the Committee should be two members. (7) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (8) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (9) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (10) That the Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible. (11) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation and, in such event, the President or Deputy-President shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.31) —I have just conferred with the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, who is concerned. I had not seen notice of the composition of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare and I wanted to check with the shadow Minister whether a membership comprising one Opposition senator, in conjunction with one Australian Democrat senator and two Government senators, was desirable. In the light of the fact that we need time to consider it-I understand, obviously on the basis of very poor information, that it would be the usual membership of three senators from the Government and three from the Opposition-perhaps we could stand over consideration of this motion until a later hour this day. I therefore move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 November 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.32) —The Bills before the Senate deal with the income tax proposals which were announced in the May economic statement and in the Budget. A lot of debate has taken place on the provisions of these Bills both during the Budget debate and during the debate on the economic statement. I will confine my remarks to the legislation that is before us now. Of course, at the time of a Budget there are expectations that the provisions of legislation may be changed and that the circumstances of individuals may be affected by changes in the Budget. People expected to benefit from the Budget this year because of the priorities of the new Government. It was expected that changes would be made which would be of advantage to certain groups of people. I think the general mass of taxpayers had the expectation- these promises were contained in the policy speech-that there would be tax cuts for all. That matter was debated prior to the introduction of the Budget. However, it was seen in the Budget that no general tax cuts were to be made in relation to personal income tax. No account was to be taken of inflation by making adjustments for indexation so that those who reached average weekly earnings shortly after the Budget would not find themselves in a higher tax bracket. People's expectations were dashed at the time of the Budget, when they found that the Government certainly had not provided personal income tax cuts, nor was account taken of the movement into the higher tax bracket that has now occurred by those who are on average weekly earnings. The Budget provided for upward indexation of excises. The Government recognised the movement that occurs as a result of inflation. It is, of course, a matter of some disappointment to those who are now in the higher tax bracket that some account was not taken of their circumstances. There were those affected by decisions made by the Government who received lump sum superannuation. The tax changes have been of some disadvantage to them. Addressing my remarks to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1983, we can see that there are, in that, the changes that have been made to the prescribed payments tax system that had been introduced prior to the Budget by the Government. It will be recalled that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations had reviewed the prescribed payments tax system legislation and had recommended a number of changes to it. The changes that were recommended were adopted by the Government, and this Bill will make amendments to the income tax law to take those recommendations into account. Whilst it can be said that these amendments improve the prescribed payments tax system, they still leave difficulties for many of the industries affected by the tax and the difficulty in its administration by many companies is substantial. The readily available tax exemptions that were part of the former Government's proposal with regard to prescribed payments tax have still not become effective in the general way in which it had been expected that this tax would apply. So the prescribed payments tax amendments will alleviate the difficulties that were found by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and which had been highlighted by the many groups and individuals who are affected by the withholding of this tax at source. This Bill also deals with some changes affecting rural industries. The cost to farmers under these Bills will be about $23m. As we look to the changes that have been made to the income equalisation deposit scheme and the abolition of the 10-year write off of capital expenditure for land clearing and swamp drainage, these matters will affect the rural sector. It could be claimed that in some cases there had not been a great deal of consultation prior to making the changes. Changes that are to the detriment of any income earners are of concern to them. The change that has been made with regard to reserve forces pay is another matter of concern to those who give this service and who receive what is really a small payment for it. They have found that under the provisions of the Budget they will now pay tax on 50 per cent of the income that they receive. This is a change from the 100 per cent that was to be taxed, but it still means that members of reserve forces who receive this pay for their service are under the disadvantage of having it added to their income. In some cases it could put them into a higher tax bracket for that portion of their income. It is extraordinary that the description of the Bill says that it exempts from income tax only 50 per cent of the pay. What it really ought to say is that the Bill introduces tax on 50 per cent of the pay, because that is the effect on the part-time members of the reserve defence forces on income that they receive after 1 December this year. I welcome some provisions in the Budget, particularly those concerning additional payments made in some circumstances to social security recipients and repatriation beneficiaries. The payments to carers for spouses, and provisions of that sort that are to be dealt with under the legislation, are of benefit. I have no argument with those. I think that it was a considerable decision that was taken to abolish the rebate of the standard rate of tax on up to $1,000 of dividends. This measure was introduced by the former Government in the 1982-83 Budget to give an incentive to Australians to invest, particularly those on limited incomes or lower incomes. An investment in shares in their own country can become more attractive if there is a tax concession or a recognition of that investment within the tax system. Senator Walsh —It was a cheap political stunt designed to buy a few votes for a premature election, as you very well know. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Senator Walsh might suggest that it was that, but I think other people would suggest that it was an incentive to the small investor to invest in shares in companies in his own country and to participate in the investment program that we would all want to see. Although very often proposals are put forward claiming that it is just foreign investors who have incentives, I think this was a genuine introduction in the 1982-83 Budget to encourage the small Australian investor to invest and to have that incentive through the tax system. That incentive has been removed. Again, that probably reflects a priority of the government of the day, one that does not want to encourage individual investment or incentive. It was abolished with one sweep in this particular Budget. The change that was made also with regard to the minors' tax threshold from $1, 040 to $416 means that people who have a small income will now be put in the position of needing to lodge a tax return. In most cases they will need to make returns for children who have a small savings bank account and a very limited amount of income coming from that. It ought to be recognised that many children have gifts or savings placed in bank accounts for them for their education as they reach mature years. Recognition of this fact by having that low threshold of $1,040 was one encouragement for that sort of saving to be built up on behalf of children. I do not know that the Government has made any case that there was any abuse of this incentive or that it was something that it felt had to be reduced. It just seemed that it was a means of reducing again an incentive for savings and the benefit the tax system can give to encourage those savings, particularly as much of it was used for educational purposes by children. I stress the educational purposes use of this because, as we see, with the Government's education funding proposals there will be many who, in their educational expenditure, face the future with some doubt and some concern as to whether there will be the same sort of support for education that has been given in the past and whether it will be necessary for them to build up education funding for their children to take care of the future. That again is another change that was made. I think a small number of people who had planned for their futures will find that it makes a difference to them. Of course, when that occurs, we will find that there are people who will show their concern about tax changes and changes in their expectations. There is also the modification of the tax averaging provisions with regard to primary producers. Again, this will be of concern to that sector. Changes have been made with regard to a number of other things, including the threshold on expenditure before the concessional rebate is able to be claimed. It has been raised to $2,000, but again there are those with educational expenditure in mind of which this measure will become a part who will feel some threat with regard to that type of assistance under the Income Tax Assessment Act. All of these matters, as I said earlier, have been dealt with on a number of occasions in debates in this Budget session of parliament. The Opposition is not opposing any of the tax proposals in the sense of wishing to divide against the Bills or to make any amendments to them. We regard them as quite a fundamental part of the Government's Budget. When a Budget is introduced, the priorities of a government are shown. I think that the Government can be judged on the way in which it has established its priorities and the way in which it has cast the collection of revenue from the Australian people in this 1983-84 Budget. For these reasons, I simply draw attention to debates that have been held on the many changes that have been made in the tax area and to the philosophy of the Government that has flowed through to its own tax proposals. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that the Bills are not opposed. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.45) —The Australian Democrats compliment the Government on several aspects of these income tax Bills. At the same time we feel there is justifiable criticism of some shortcomings and changes of direction which do not fit either the Democrats' approach or, as I understand it, the Australian Labor Party's approach, not just to the tax system but also to the incentives, inducements and benefits that can flow from the tax system to indicate the Government's policies. In the first instance praise is due to the Government for adopting virtually in toto the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations report on the problems which had arisen from the withholding tax, the prescribed payments tax. As a result of that Committee's investigations the Government, through the Committee hearings stages and subsequently, has taken steps both legislatively through these Bills and administratively through the Australian Taxation Office to make life a little easier for those who have been caught up in the net of the prescribed payments tax system. I think the Government acknowledged that the system was not very well introduced or administered in the early stages and that it did not take into account the great hardships that would be imposed on a number of small businesses, in particular, which suddenly found that they had a massive amount of paper work to cope with and, in many instances, on top of that, found that their cash budgets were literally tossed out the window and they had to revise their methods so that they could survive with this new, virtually instantaneous, cash collection system when previously they had been paying tax on an annual basis. In some cases they had not been paying tax at all. Of course, that was the reason for the new system. Congratulations are due to the Government for accepting the recomendations of the Senate Committee and for introducing and implementing them in this legislation. Further commendation, although this is perhaps damning with feint praise, is due to the Government for reducing by 50 per cent the reserve defence forces income tax. It is only feint praise because many people believe that it is not very wise for the Government suddenly to impose a tax on a segment of the community which is acting in voluntary manner to protect this country and which is entitled to some additional benefits above and beyond the normal Service rates of pay. At least the Government has listened to representations made by the Australian Democrats and many other concerned and interested organisations, including the Opposition parties, for reducing that tax by 50 per cent, thereby at least ameliorating the situation and hopefully retrieving the situation to the point where a lot of people who may have considered withdrawing from the reserve defence forces will now change their minds and at least recognise that the Government does see value in their staying in the reserve defence forces. Hopefully a lot of other people will still be induced to take part and attracted to taking part in that very important facet of Australia's defence system. One of the regrets I express on behalf of the Australian Democrats-this has already been expressed by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle-is the abolition of the rebate of up to $1,000 on dividend income. This rebate was introduced by the previous Government-credit is due to it for that-as a means of getting small investors into the Australian corporate sector. Undoubtedly thousands of people who had saved up a little nest-egg and were about to retire had decided to take a bit of a risk and invest in Australian enterprise instead of putting their money into a savings account. I believe and the Australian Democrats believe that this was a worthwhile means of showing the people of Australia that we are a free enterprise nation and that we do want Australian ownership of Australian corporations. The Government, in setting this sort of lead, was indicating to the people of Australia that it encouraged Australians to be the owners of corporations. Perhaps there was even an opportunity of regaining some of the ownership of Australian corporations from overseas investors. As a result, they received not just the dividend which normally would be taxable, but had the first $1,000 of that dividend untaxed. That was not a very expensive thing, but it was a pointer to the way that this country sees the ownership of Australian enterprise. It is disappointing to me and to the Democrats that the Government-perhaps it is caught up with some budgetary problems, but I suspect it is caught up more with ideological problems-does not want to give any encouragement to people to invest in Australian enterprises in this way and it obviously regards even that first $1,000 of dividend income as an important part of its tax revenue. Therefore, the Government will not discourage people but will take away some of the encouragement to people to invest in Australian enterprises. We feel so strongly about this matter that I wish to move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I move: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the abolition of the rebate on up to $1 ,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers will remove an inducement to middle income Australians to invest in Australian corporations which assisted in restoring corporate ownership of Australian companies into the hands of the Australian people'. I wish also to place on record the very serious concern that the Australian Democrats have at the withdrawal of the deductibility of the cost of a taxpayer insulating his or her first home. Surely this Government came into government with a policy of encouraging the conservation of energy resources in this country. Before the election it was very closely associated with environmental movements which are dedicated to the replacement of fossil fuel energy resources by renewable energy resources. It just does not make sense for a government with that sort of an approach to energy conservation to now withdraw the one incentive that there is for people in Australia. It is not a massive incentive, but again it is a pointer to what the Government of Australia would like to see happen. It is the one incentive to conserve the fossil fuels, the energy sources , of this country. It was a simple matter of allowing tax deductibility for people who put appropriate insulation in their first home. In this continent, which has massive energy consumptions caused by the excesses of heat in most parts of the country at certain times of the year, I cannot understand why this Government would suddenly say that it is no longer interested in helping people to conserve energy through this method of insulation. The Government is no longer willing to provide some sort of inducement or encouragement for this. Instead it intends to withdraw tax deductibility in respect of the cost of insulating a taxpayer's first home. I hope to goodness that this is not an indication that the Government is gung ho on pulling up all the coal that it can, on dragging out all the oil and gas that it can and on using all the non-renewable energy resources that this country has in the short term. If that is the case, God help future generations in terms of their energy needs. It is time that we as a nation and this Government woke up to the fact that the greatest saving can be made through energy conservation methods. The Americans have proven that. At the time when there appeared to be a massive problem looming on the horizon for the people of America they pulled in their belts. They got into energy conservation. As a result they were able to minimise the effects of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil price rises and the threatened oil shortages. Of course, we have seen a reversal of the situation in the oil market throughout the world. This had occurred as a direct result of energy conservation in America and in other countries. I appeal to the Government: Please reconsider the decision. Have another look at it. Perhaps in next year's Budget the Government will come up with something even more exciting , even more attractive, for people to get into energy conservation. I indicate to the Government that the Australian Democrats feel so strongly about this that we will be voting against that part of these Bills. Turning now to another conservation area, the Democrats do applaud the termination of the deductibility of land clearing expenditure for tax purposes. This practice has occurred over the years. I pay a great tribute to Senator Colin Mason. I am sure the Government will equally recognise and acknowledge Senator Colin Mason's initiative in this part of this tax package. It was Senator Colin Mason who introduced a Bill to remove the incentives which were resulting, in certain areas, in the destruction of forest and some of the natural growth of Australia. It was not necessary for those areas to be cleared and the Government was paying for it. Of course, this was quite unacceptable in many areas. It made no sense at all in a country barren of trees for the Government to provide an inducement to people to cut them down. So I applaud the Government for terminating the deductibility of land clearing expenditure. Primary producers may not be very happy with the change to the tax averaging system which is part of this package of Bills. I think there are arguments for an against the system. The tax averaging system really does not accord with the original legislation. In terms of all taxpayers, the new legislation probably does provide for a more equitable system. I believe primary producers are entitled to a tax averaging system because of the potential for farmers to have very good or very bad seasons. In their very good seasons they have to pay optimum tax and the following year, if they have losses, there is no catch-up provision available for them under the normal tax system. The tax averaging system does, to a degree, overcome that problem for farmers. The Australian Democrats have applauded that system since its introduction. However, we are concerned that now we have a genuine, realistic and equitable tax averaging system, only one section of our community, one section of industry, will benefit from that system. I should like the Government to consider prior to the next Budget the potential for this modified tax averaging system to be applied to small businesses. In many areas the scope for tax averaging just to allow small businesses to survive is great. Let me use as an illustration small business in rural areas, which suffer exactly the same highs and lows, the same peaks and troughs, as do the farmers in their community. The farmers benefit to a degree from the tax averaging system, but the very people who service the farmers in that community are denied the same system. I believe that is inequitable. I believe it is something that the Government could take on board, even if the system were applied only to rural areas. However, I would far rather see it applied to small businesses right across Australia because there are other reasons and other times when tax averaging is absolutely essential if businesses are to grow and, in some cases, to survive. We could simply say: 'Right, as step one let us move the system into rural areas, where there is an obvious correlation with the peaks and troughs of primary producers. Let us accept that small businesses suffer from those peaks and troughs and should be allowed into the tax averaging system. Then, as the second step let us bring into the system those many other areas of small business which tax averaging would allow to survive the troughs. Senator Messner —Would you agree that it ought to apply to miners as well? Senator JACK EVANS —Miners are given other tax benefits, and I have not considered the matter from that point of view. It is certainly one that is well worth investigating. However, tax averaging needs to be looked at in the context of the total package of tax benefits that apply to the mining industry. As I said earlier, the Australian Democrats in the first instance applaud the introduction of the tax averaging system. We acknowledge the reasonable modification that is being made to the scheme. However, we believe that it is most appropriate for the modification to be applied to small businesses right across the nation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.03) —I should like to make a few global comments on the Bills that are before the Senate and the reasons for them. The Bills embody most of the changes to the taxation system which were decided by the Government and announced both in the May statement and in the Budget. The Bills are heavily aimed at cancelling tax expenditures. When Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle made the point that they are an indicator of the direction of this Government and of its objectives, she was to that extent correct. This Government recognises that the fiscal effects of a concession through the taxation system and through additional government expenditure are identical. The previous Government, and particularly the previous Prime Minister, seemed to have some cargo-cultish belief that appropriating public moneys to spend in a Budget was innately wrong but that providing concessions through the taxtion system, which had exactly the same effect, on balance, on government revenues was something that was highly desirable and ought to be encouraged. I think that reflected the philosophical or intellectual shortcomings and the prejudices of the previous Prime Minister. I am distressed at the implication of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's remarks that hangover of Fraserism, that legacy of Fraserism, is still with the Liberal Party of Australia. Regarding the question of fiscal drag, lack of indexation, or whatever one wants to call it, on the personal income tax schedule, it is correct that the schedule which was applied for eight months-I stress for eight months only-of the previous financial year has been retained for this year. This important point is relevant to the suggestion Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle made that because some people will be moving into higher tax brackets the proportion of income paid in tax will increase. That is not so when one compares the present financial year with the past financial year. I have a few specific examples which cover both the single taxpayer and the taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children, whether on average weekly earnings or at 85 per cent of average weekly earnings, which is around the median level of earnings. That is, about half the people are below 85 per cent of average weekly earnings and about half are above. In all cases the single taxpayer and the taxpayer with a dependent spouse will pay a lower proportion of total income in tax this financial year than they paid in the previous financial year. I will not bother to read out the figures, but that is a fact with those examples and without doubt applies to the overwhelming majority of taxpayers as a whole. The reason, of course, is that for four months of last year a significantly higher tax rate was applied. I will deal with just a few other specific matters which have been raised. Firstly, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said that the $1,000 exemption from taxation of dividend income provided in the 1982-83 Budget by the previous Government was provided to give an incentive to small investors. I want to make several comments on that. Firstly, on the basis of a dividend payment of 10 per cent a person would need to have $10,000 available for investment to take advantage of this provision. Whether that makes one a particularly small investor or not I suppose is a question of the point in the spectrum from which one views it. More importantly, somebody who is a relatively small investor, and even somebody who has a relatively low income, is not necessarily a person in poverty. Indeed, they may be, and very often are, relatives of quite rich people and the so-called incentive would be exploited. Whether it ought to be regarded as an incentive or as a cheap electoral stunt which was one of a rag-bag of promises designed to buy up a sufficient number of pressure groups to win a premature election and was included in the 1982-83 Budget is for that reason to some extent, I suppose, a matter for judgment. But when one looks at the Fraser Government's 1982-83 Budget in toto, what becomes perfectly clear is that there was no economic strategy in it, there was a political strategy aimed at winning a premature election. That strategy failed. The greater part of the rag-bag of promises contained in the 1982-83 Budget were tax expenditures. A significant fact about such tax expenditures was that the revenue cost was almost entirely deferred into the next financial year. As a result of that $1,000 tax rebate and a number of other measures introduced in the 1982-83 Budget, potential revenue or revenue which would have otherwise been available in this financial year was reduced by approximately $1.5 billion. In other words, this Government on taking office inherited from the previous Administration the bill for the rag-bag of promises designed to buy up a number of pressure groups with an assortment of tax expenditures which the previous Government had introduced in the 1982-83 Budget. If the Opposition or the Australian Democrats are seriously interested in the question of the taxation of both corporate income and of dividends paid to individuals from corporate income, I suggest to them that this superficial, slick, and seemingly attractive $1,000 tax rebate is certainly not the way to proceed. If they are seriously interested in that question and particularly if they are interested in equity between taxpayers-it would be amazing, if the Liberal Party, given its record, were seriously interested in that question-I suggest that they look at the interaction of corporate taxation, the degree to which corporate profits are retained within companies and not distributed to shareholders and the personal tax system. Such an analysis has been done. There may have been others, but one such analysis of which I am aware was carried out by Peter Swan a couple of years ago . It showed that with the combination of taxation laws and business practices then prevailing and I do not imagine that they would have changed substantially, a higher proportion of tax was levied on lower income shareholders than was levied on higher income shareholders. Peter Swan proposed that all corporate income in the hands of a company ought to be subject to a tax rate of 60 per cent and that a portion of the tax already paid to the company ought to be distributed to shareholders if their marginal tax rate were less than 60 per cent. If honourable senators opposite are seriously interested in equity, they should proceed along that line and not do what the Fraser Government did in 1982 . For that reason the Government will not accept the second reading amendment proposed by Senator Jack Evans. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Jack Evans also referred to tax averaging and to the provision introduced post-Budget in 1977 under which primary producers could opt in or out of averaging, depending on whether their actual income was above or below the five year average. I stress that that provision was introduced post-Budget in 1977 and it is to be removed by this Bill. The history of this provision is worth noting because it tells us something about the current thinking of the Liberal Party of Australia and the story is sordid and distressing. The tax schedules and the four step scales, if one wants to count the zero rate as well, were introduced by the Fraser Government in 1977. Following that introduction it became apparent that there would be little if any advantage to primary producers in the tax averaging system as it then existed. Of course, the 1977 Budget was another one of those cynical Budgets brought in with the intention not of pursuing any rational or long term economic strategy but of setting up the requirements for a premature Federal election. That is what ultimately happened. The Government of the day, because of those changes and their effects on the previously existing tax averaging system, received some complaints from farmer organisations. It then in its characteristic knee-jerk manner introduced what became known as the in/out provision wherein primary producers could take advantage of tax averaging in years when their income was above the five year average, but on years when their income was below the five year average, they paid tax and were assessed on the actual income. The effect of that was described by no less a person than the now President and then Treasurer/Secretary of the Agricultural Outlook Conference in 1979 as a system under which heads, farmers win, tails, all other taxpayers lose. What I find disturbing is that in implicitly endorsing that system of heads, farmers win, tails, all other taxpayers lose, and in recommitting the Liberal Party to that system, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has shown that the Party is still locked into Fraserism and above all is locked into craven subservience in policy matters to the National Party. In regard to Senator Jack Evans's comments on the same subject and his suggestion that the averaging system should be extended to all taxpayers, I have two comments to make. Firstly, the averaging system could have some perverse effects on taxpayers' current liability. For example, in the year when income is below the five year average the actual assessment received by a taxpayer will be higher than it would have been if he had been taxed on that current year average . This is because the rate is determined by the average and not the actual income. That can be further complicated by the delay between the actual tax liability incurred and the collection of tax liability from provisional taxpayers. That is the first comment. But the averaging system does not necessarily overcome the problems which some individuals may face and to which Senator Jack Evans addressed his comments. Secondly, even with the removal of the illogical and ill-considered in/out provisions introduced post-Budget and in pre-electoral haste by the Fraser Government in 1977, and while inflation continues at any rate but more importantly at a rate which is reasonably high, the tax averaging provisions do provide quite a significant concession because they effectively apply indexation retrospectively. This is because the nominal income or the income on which the rate is assessed is the five-year average, which is of course on average the income of about two and a half years ago rather than the present income. It carries with it an element of retrospective application of indexation on a personal scale. It is a complex matter and I do not propose to discuss it any further at this stage. There are alternative systems which may be both more rational and more equitable but the Labor Party has been in Government for only eight months and we have not had time to clean out the stable entirely. There are two proposed amendments-one contains a typographical error and the other to which Senator Jack Evans has referred is more substantive-which I propose to move during the Committee stage. As I said, the Government does not accept the second reading amendment moved by Senator Jack Evans. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.20) —I wish to ask a question in relation to clause 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1983. This clause deals with the tax concessions for the clearing of trees and other native vegetation from the land. It appears that this clause will remove section 75A from the Income Tax Assessment Act, which provided for an equalisation over 10 years of this deduction, but it will not touch section 75 of the parent Act which indeed allows a deduction in the current year. This is to be regretted, especially since the community at large was given the impression in the Budget that the Government was providing conservationists with something of a win, giving a major concession, by in effect making clearing of land and trees not a taxable deduction. That now appears not to be the case, although I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to give me information if I have misunderstood the matter. It seems to me that section 75A is to be removed whereas section 75, which covers the current year of income, has not been removed. As the Minister and honourable senators will know, I have a private member's Bill current to this effect; it would remove that deduction completely. I intend to persist with that Bill because I think it is more proper for me to do that than to move an amendment at this stage in Committee which would not have support. I would like to have the Minister's statement on whether my understanding is correct and whether in fact, when this Bill is passed, the situation will still remain that people can clear native vegetation, trees or undergrowth from the land and claim it as a tax deduction in the current year. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.22) —Mr Chairman, Senator Mason beat me; I was about to move the Government amendments but I will answer his question first. No, it is not a tax deduction in the current year. That provision was removed in 1973. Until 1973 such expenditure had been immediately and fully deductible from taxable income. In 1973 the previous Labor Government amendment extended the period over which that deduction may be claimed from the current year to a 10-year period. The present amendment removes it as a tax deduction altogether unless some contract was entered into prior to Budget day, 23 August. I now seek leave to move together two amendments to Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4). Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, lines 9 to 27 (inclusive), leave out the clause, substitute the following clause: Exemptions ''4. (1) Section 23 of the principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after paragraph (kb) the following paragraph: '(kba) payments by way of an open employment incentive bonus under Part VIIIA of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974;'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (s) 'one-half of' before 'the pay and allowances' ; (c) by inserting in paragraph (sa) 'one-half of' before 'the pay and allowances '; and (d) by inserting in paragraph (sa) 'one-half of' before 'any gratuity'. ''(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) (a) applies to payments made on or after 1 October 1983. ''(3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) (b), (c) and (d) apply to pay and allowances in respect of service, and a gratuity in respect of a calling out, on or after 1 December 1983.''. (2) Page 9, clause 19, line 36, leave out ''a first instalment'', substitute '' no prescribed''. One of the amendments is of substance and one is of a formal kind. It may be convenient if I speak now to both of them. The substantial amendment concerns clause 4 which proposes to phase withdrawal of the tax exemption for pay of part time members of the reserve defence forces. One-half of payments in respect of service on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 was to remain exempt while payments for service on or after 1 December 1984 was to be taxable in full. Following representations on the matter, the Government has reconsidered the proposal with a view to modifying the impact that the application of full marginal tax rates would have had on the pay of members with income from other sources, typically their regular employment. The main amendment to the Bill will have the effect that the second stage of the exemption withdrawal will not proceed. As a result, members of the Reserves will be taxed on one-half of all pay and allowances for service on or after 1 December 1983. This will mean that remuneration for service in the reserve forces is effectively to be taxed at half the marginal rates of tax applying to other income. There is also a formal amemdment to clause 19 which is necessary to correct a previously undetected printing error in proposed new sub-section 221YHAA (1) which occurred after the draft of the Bill had been settled and approved for introduction. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated correctly explains the conditions for the operation of this proposed new sub-section, taking this amendment into account. Amendments agreed to. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.25) —I wish to raise with the Committee and with the Government the question of the abolition of the rebate of up to $1,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers. I must say that this provision is the direct result of many years of negotiation and fight by people who have been concerned about the double dipping by governments into taxpayers' pockets. Certainly for the six years that I was in the Senate prior to 1982, in the run up to the Budget discussions I constantly put to the then Government that it ought to do something about this double dipping. There is no doubt that it is double dipping. I see Senator Button laugh at the suggestion that the Government is double dipping into the taxpayers' pockets, but that happens to be the situation. The truth is that what happens is that companies are taxed on company profits at a very substantial rate of 46c in the dollar. Then, when a company declares a dividend-in other words gives to the people who own the company a share of those profits which after all are their own profits-and the money comes back into the pockets of the shareholders the Government has another go and taxes the individuals. It is fascinating that this double dipping provision has in fact been restored by a Government which gets very cross about citizens in the nation who, according to them, double dip against the Government; by that I mean taxpayers and pensioners who this Government claims are always double dipping against this Government. But here is a situation where the Government has restored a provision whereby it double dips against the taxpayers of this nation. This matter is of grave concern in all areas of companies. Firstly, there is the public company. Let me say right from the word go that this $1,000 was in no way a concession. It was just trying to give back to people what they were entitled to. What is the situation with a public company? What has been the result of this? I think the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, will agree with me that the figures clearly disclose a massive withdrawal of shareholding in public companies by ordinary shareholders. What has happened is that investment organisations, insurance companies and such people have moved into the Australian share market to replace the ordinary shareholders who have withdrawn in very large numbers from the holding of shares in public companies. That is the first step. The second step as a result of this double taxation has been that companies have tried to reorganise their affairs so as to increase the value of their shares on the share market so that there is a capital gain instead of a dividend income to those people who have the courage to buy their shares, who, as I have said, are usually finance companies, investment companies or insurance companies which are going in to the share market seeking some sort of capital gain, not seeking a dividend gain. For many years those of us who have been desperately concerned about this matter have been putting to governments that they ought to encourage the ordinary shareholder to go back into the share market by giving them the opportunity to get back what they are entitled to. That is in regard to public companies. Let us now look at the situation in relation to private companies. Let us take, for example, an organisation from my area such as Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd. Fletcher Jones desires to have its employees as owners of the organisation. But, of course, on any application of the present system, once that private company declares a dividend to its employee shareholders, what happens is that the Government has two goes at the profits. Therefore, if a company which, for example, has a whole range of employee shareholders decides to declare a dividend of, say, $100,000 in favour of the employee shareholders, it firstly has to pay $46,000 to the Government out of the $100,000. The employee shareholders end up with $54,000 instead of the $100,000 to which they were entitled. Of course, there is a way around it by the use of clever advisers such as lawyers and accountants. What can happen is that that sort of company can reorganise its affairs so that the employees appear to lend the company the money that should be in it as share capital and then have their shares paid up to a cent or some such figure instead of being fully paid up. The company can then pay interest to its employee shareholders and it can pay the whole $100,000 to those employee shareholders. That is the sort of shenanigans companies have to get up to to try to avoid double taxation on those sorts of moneys in the hands of employee shareholders. The terrible thing about it, of course, with private companies is that not only is the company taxed first but also the company tax legislation requires the company to declare a dividend in favour of shareholders and then it has a second go at the shareholders. I say to Senator Walsh that I recognise the Government has decided to abandon this provision for this Budget, but there are many ways of restoring this equity to shareholders in the nation. There are all sorts of ideas that I, and others, put up to the former Government as to ways in which it could restore some equity to the shareholders of the nation. I am sure that Senator Walsh can think of a number of those, as well as I can. This provision of $1,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers being a rebate was a decision of the last Government. I think it was a fair and reasonable solution to the problem. If this Government does not accept that-by this legislation it clearly does not accept it-I ask it to think up some such device for its next Budget which will provide some equity to the shareholders of this country and provide some inducement to the people of the nation to reinvest in the shares of this country. After all, we keep talking about Australia buying back the farm and about our concerns about foreign investment in the nation. Yet this Government-I do not mean only this Labor Government, I mean the Federal government-over all these years has constantly used this taxation device in order to encourage shareholders in Australia to get out of public companies and to invest their money in some other form of investment which will provide them with a tax free capital gain instead of investing in the big shares of this country, which they ought to be doing. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.33) —My colleague's remarks prompt me to say something about this matter too, because I think the Government's action of introducing this income tax legislation demonstrates a great deal of muddled thinking by the Labor Government in this whole area. The fact is that, very clearly, this incentive-that is what it is-of $1,000 of the first part of dividend income being exempt from tax provides a clear opportunity for people who have their moneys locked up in high interest deposites in loans of some kind or in some other secure investment of that type, to get out and take the extra risk of putting their money into Australian enterprise. It is there that we can create more jobs and opportunities arise for people to take part in the growing wealth of this country, rather than their having their investments locked into very secure investments such as mortgage investments and things of that kind which have no capital appreciation in them. For that reason this matter raises a very big matter of principle and I believe the Opposition will support the Australian Democrats' amendment on this matter. There are one or two other matters to which I would like to refer and to which Senator Lewis brought our attention. There is, of course, a very clear question of equity in this matter. The result of the Government's measure to restrict this exemption will be to force the bigger investors, such as companies, investment trusts, superannuation funds and life assurance companies, to take an even greater part in investing in the share market than they do already. We know that that activity on the part of those companies has already excluded, to a very large extent, the smaller investor. Of course, this legislation will only increase that trend. It is pretty clear that public companies that invest in other public companies on the stock exchange have a very clear advantage over the individual in that they can take advantage of section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and not pay tax on the dividends of their company until they, in turn, distribute the dividends to their shareholders. Secondly, life assurance companies have a very clear advantage, tax wise, compared with the individual. Thirdly, investment trusts pay tax only at very significantly lower rates than the marginal rate of tax that would apply to individuals who have to pay tax on dividends at rates on top of that applicable for other incomes such as salary. The question of superannuation funds arises. Those are mainly tax exempt bodies, so they do not pay tax on their dividends either. So there are clear advantages for the bigger operators in the Australian capital markets to take up shareholdings and so concentrate them in their hands. The opportunities that are available to this Government to try to diversify that investment into the hands of the smaller, average investor will be lost by this amendment which the Government has seen fit to bring in. We disagree with it in principle. We believe that the greatest advantage to the Australian population arises from a diversity of shareholdings in our great investments, such as mining and other Australian enterprises, and we encourage people to so invest. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.37) —It may be, as Senator Lewis suggested, that the previous Government, in its last Budget introduced in 1982, finally took heed of the representations being made by him and a number of other people about what he called double dipping in taxation. I suspect, however, that it had a great deal more to do with the fact that, when framing the 1982 Budget, the former Government was planning to have a premature election and knew that, by adopting tax expenditure of this type, it could increase its appeal to a section of the electorate and, moreover, do so at no cost to current year revenue; in other words, it could send on the bill for that tax expenditure to this Government, which in fact it has done. I mentioned earlier that I think a very substantial case can be made for comprehensive reform of the interaction of personal and company income tax. But I do not believe and the Government does not believe, that the one-off, very limited change that was made by the previous Government last year is the way to approach that. It is probably correct, as Senator Lewis said, that the trend has been for individual shareholders to withdraw from public companies and for there to be a greater degree of participation in public companies through institutions . From memory, that is correct. But other factors have influenced that as well, one of which, of course, would be the growth of superannuation and the tax treatment of income earned within superannuation funds. Again, what he said in relation to private companies is correct. But the requirement to distribute dividends is now down to, I think, 20 per cent. So his point is correct, but I think it is less substantive than his comments would have suggested. Senator Lewis —Obviously you do not have any shares in a private company. Senator WALSH —They are not required to distribute a very high proportion of their profits without incurring Division 7 penalties. The honourable senator is quite right; I do not have any shares in private companies. He has probably had a look at my declaration of pecuniary interests to confirm that. Senator Messner —It was the Doodlakine Farmers Co-op. Senator WALSH —That is not a private company. I can assure the honourable senator that they are also worthless. I have just one final comment: I do not dispute for a moment that the exemption of the first $1,000 of income from dividends provides an incentive for some people at least to buy shares, but there is a difference between buying shares and actual investment in the economic sense. The act of purchasing shares in an established company simply transfers ownership from one person to another. A different, and qualitatively different, step is required before actual investment takes place. It does seem to have been assumed by speakers on the other side that buying shares is the same thing as actually investing in the economic sense, and that is a very important distinction. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MASON —This matter relates to an incident which I understand occurred early yesterday morning when a tent on the lawns of Parliament House is said to have collapsed after 'four people cut supporting ropes'. I am quoting from a report in the Australian this morning. That same report comments: A Federal Police spokesman said officers had tried to find a blue car reported in the area at the time of the incident, but had caught no one. I have just been given a copy of a Press release from the 'Peace Embassy, The Lawns' of today's date in which this incident is referred to, and this statement is made: However, the Number plate was recorded by one of the same fast-movers who was here in '81-- I gather this is some sort of group among the protesters. It continues: . . . this information was then offered to the Federal Police Officer on 'duty' . He laughed and refused to accept the information so this morning this information was given to Sergeant Cameron and we believe, it was suggested by M. P. Colin Mason (Democrats) that he act upon it. So far no policeman has come to inspect the damage or to make official enquiries. I merely wish to say to the Senate, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I do not know a Sergeant Cameron and I have made no suggestion of any kind to him at any time. I would not do so because it is plainly the duty of members of the Australian Federal Police to act on information supplied to them and it is a reasonable assumption that they would do so. Debate resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.45) —These three Bills seek to repeal legislation concerning Public Service employment which was passed during the life of the Fraser Government. Two of them in particular, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 and the Commonwealth Employees ( Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983, deal with a development which had occurred during the period when that Government was in office concerning new methods of industrial action being pursued by public servants and Commonwealth employees. The other Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983, seeks to amend the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act which was part of a scheme to enable redeployment of public servants in certain cases under certain procedures and for earlier retirement and declarations of redundancy. (Quorum formed) Mr Acting Deputy President, I was just opening my remarks in relation to these Bills, which seek to repeal some important legislation of the previous Government in regard to the Commonwealth Public Service and Commonwealth employment. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill deals with redeployment and early retirement and declarations of redundancy in certain cases. The mischief this legislation sought to deal with, and hopefully to correct, was a tendency which developed for certain groups of public servants-I hasten to state that it was very much a minority of public servants-to take a new form of industrial action which was short of absolutely striking or ceasing work. They refused to perform certain aspects of their work. It was believed that in that case there was a common law rule which prevented an employee from obtaining payment for work which was only partially performed. That was a principle known as 'no work as directed, no pay'. That has been a principle of the relationship between employer and employee at common law, although under some awards it may have been modified to some extent. Basically, that is a rule which applied to an employee's contract of employment, and it was assumed that it would apply also to the Public Service. In an event of that kind, where employees refused to perform work which was part of their duties and which they were directed to perform, then there could be refusal to pay their salaries. However, in a case before the Supreme Court in New South Wales in 1980 it was found, somewhat to everyone's surprise, that in fact the principle of no work as directed, no pay did not apply in the Public Service because of the elaborate provisions of Public Service legislation. So that fairly simple and, I think, basically sensible principle of common law could not be used to meet that situation, and that was the reason for the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill. It simply restored, by statutory force, that common law principle and applied it to public servants and to employees of a number of statutory authorities that were included in the legislation. This Government is seeking to repeal that legislation, presumably on the ground of the industrial policy that this Government will pursue, namely, that matters should be dealt with by the arbitration system. Although there may be some awards which qualify this right in some way, nevertheless it is a basic principle of a contract of employment. There does not seem to be any reason why public servants should not be governed by its provisions. Even more important than that is the fact that public servants enjoy considerable privileges in relation to their employment, I think much greater privileges than are enjoyed by ordinary employees in private employment, even taking into account our elaborate system of awards and industrial relations. Public servants and other Commonwealth employees have considerable advantages, as I have said, in relation to their method of selection, permanency of employment, methods of promotion, rights of appeal in regard to many of these matters, rights of appeal against various managerial decisions, and so on. Of course, these days in many cases public servants receive very much higher and more generous salaries than the private sector and very beneficial superannuation benefits. It is reasonable in the view of the Opposition-this was its view when in government-that people who enjoy all these advantages should have correlative duties imposed on them to perform the work they are directed to do and which form part of their duties anyway. They should not be able to take industrial action by performing part of their duties and yet receive full pay for doing so. Their employer-the authority, the Public Service Board and so on-is still obliged to pay them full salaries and is prevented from taking what seems to be a reasonable and effective step of simply refusing to pay them when they are at work but not performing the full duties for which they are employed. That very basic principle is at stake. A very sensible way of resolving that sort of issue is not to pay them. Indeed, as I have said, historically it has been part and parcel of the contract of employment. That principle apparently will now be swept away by the Government. It seeks to repeal provisions in the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Act which are designed to enable and facilitate the Public Service Board and other employing statutory authorities to take action against employees who are not doing their jobs properly and certainly not doing them fully. The Public Service Board in its annual report indicated that it has found this legislation useful. That seems to confirm the view the Opposition has taken, which, as I said, it took in government. The second Bill before us, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983, will repeal some provisions of the Act which were inserted by the previous Government to deal with a particular situation which arose after the Act had been passed. This Act sets down a scheme under which additional powers can be exercised in relation to certain Commonwealth employees in order to achieve redeployment, early retirement or, in some cases, redundancy. The Act lays down quite elaborate procedures to protect the rights of employees affected by it. After the Act came into operation proceedings were instituted before the Public Service Arbitrator and a determination was given by the Arbitrator which qualified in some way the procedures which were laid down by the Act and the regulations under it. This Act was intended to be a code applying to this problem and to these sorts of situations and the decision of the Arbitration authority cut across the provisions of this statutory code. It did so in a way which was unforeseen and which was not regarded by the previous Government as within the comtemplation of the Parliament-certainly of the Government-in passing legislation in the form it did. The amendment to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act was passed. It prevented the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from hearing applications of that kind and making decisions on them, in that way qualifying the statutory provisions. The second Bill now before us will enable the Government to repeal those amending provisions. It will enable the arbitration authorities to qualify the statutory scheme for redeployment and retirement of public servants and Commonwealth employees. Again, it is doing this presumably because of the principle of the overriding authority of the arbitration system in regard to public employment. As I have said, the Opposition does not believe that that is the case. We believe that public servants and public employees hold special privileges. As a result of that and as a result of the statutory benefits they enjoy they should also be governed by some statutory obligations and duties. We believe it was perfectly reasonable that these provisions were inserted in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. For that reason the Opposition also opposes the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 which seeks to repeal those provisions. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill is probably the most controversial of all these pieces of legislation. It seeks to repeal the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act holus-bolus, in line with the attitude that the Government, when it was in opposition, has always taken towards it. This legislation was introduced as a measure of last resort in certain very difficult situations in regard to industrial action by Commonwealth employees. It was passed in 1977 in the aftermath of the very severe air traffic controllers strike which occurred in, I think, May 1977. Many of us will remember that the most disruptive character of that strike was that it went on for some time. It revealed the inadequate powers of the Government and of the Public Service Board to deal with a situation of that kind . Obviously there are the ordinary arbitration provisions available. But it was the view of the then Government, and it is still the view of the Opposition, on the same principles as I have been enunciating in this debate, that public servants have a special responsibility not only to their employers, the Government and the Public Service Board, but also to the community. That responsibility is not to create industrial mayhem and the type of utter disruption which has sometimes occurred, as it occurred during the air traffic controllers strike and as it occurred subsequently, and to which the Act was applied, in the Department of Social Security when Senator Chaney was the Minister. I think we all vividly remember that period when a relatively small group in that Department was very severely restricting by virtue of its quite unjustified type of industrial action the public service which was provided to such a large section of the public, the pensioners of this country. As I have said, this legislation was introduced to be used only in last resort situations, when other forms of conciliation and arbitration had failed to achieve a result. It enables suspension of those engaged in industrial action and ultimately their dismissal-although I am not aware that it has ever been used to that extent, but only to suspend. Also, power is given under the legislation to stand down those employees who cannot be usefully or gainfully employed as a result of the industrial action of their fellow workers, which is a long-standing principle in industrial law. It is true that under private employment applications have to be made to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to apply stand down clauses, although there are some automatic stand down clauses included in a number of awards. It was the previous Government's policy that there should be an automatic power to stand down in these circumstances, although legislation to achieve that was held up and ultimately was not passed by the Senate. The attitude when we were in government was not to make distinctions between private and public employment in that regard but to give effect to a wide principle that where employees cannot be usefully employed as a result of industrial action, the employer should have the right to stand them down. Senator Button —Do you think that should be the case with private employment? Senator DURACK —That was the legislation that we introduced to enable that to be done in private employment. Some awards permit automatic stand down, as I understand it. But that was the policy that we sought to apply to private employment as well as to public employment and that was provided for in the legislation which the Government now seeks to repeal. The legislation was used most sparingly during the period it was in operation. It was passed in 1977. It was not even proclaimed until it was first used in 1979. Mr Fife, at that time a Minister in the previous Government, gave particulars of the use of this legislation in an answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1982. I seek leave to incorporate the answer that Mr Fife gave. I have not had an opportunity of referring it to the Minister at the table, but if he will give leave, I should like to have incorporated in Hansard the answer given to Mr Les McMahon. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Mr Fife-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Public Service Board, having consulted with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, has informed me that the suspension provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 have been used nine times in Commonwealth employment. The details of the use of the Act are as follows: (a) Some 120 members of the Australian Telecommunications Employees' Association employed in the Australian Telecommunications Commission, were suspended from duty for the period 13-17 July 1979 for implementing work bans in support of a wage claim. (b) 1132 Transport Workers' Union members were suspended in the period 21-31 July 1981 in the Departments of Administrative Services, Capital Territory, Defence, Housing and Construction, National Development and Energy, and Transport. The suspensions, which were issued over industrial action taken in support of a pay claim, were subsequently cancelled. (c) 638 members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association and 343 members of the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) employed in the Australian Telecommunications Commission were suspended from duty for the period 22-26 July 1981 in connection with the implementation of work bans in support of a pay claim. (d) 480 members of the Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association employed in Trans-Australia Airlines were suspended from duty for the period 14-17 August 1981 in connection with strike action taken in support of a pay claim. (e) Approximately 90 broadcasting engineering officers employed in the Australian Broadcasting Commission were suspended from 14 to 17 August 1981 for engaging in strike action over a pay claim. In addition, some 230 other employees in the Australian Broadcasting Commission were stood down during the course of the dispute because they could not be gainfully employed. (f) 26 members of the Australian Telecommunications Employees' Association employed in the Australian Telecommunications Commission at the Haymarket Exchange were suspended from 2-14 December 1981 for implementing work bans in connection with a staffing dispute. 13 other staff at the Exchange were stood down during the course of the dispute. (g) During the period 7-17 December 1981, a total of 451 members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association employed in the Department of Social Security were suspended for implementing work bans in support of staffing claims. Suspensions were progressively lifted from 11 December and the final 414 were lifted on 17 December 1981. (h) Some 640 Transport Workers' Union members were suspended from duty in the period 11-24 December 1981 for engaging in industrial action in support of a pay claim. The Departments of the Capital Territory, Administrative Services and Housing and Construction were affected, as were the Australan Capital Territory Electricity Authority and the Capital Territory Health Commission. (i) Approximately 2240 members of the Australian Capital Territory Teachers' Federation employed in the Commonwealth Teaching Service were suspended from duty during the period 12-17 March 1982 for engaging in industrial action in support of a pay claim. Senator DURACK —For all those reasons, the Opposition opposes the attempts to repeal these pieces of legislation. It reaffirms the policy behind these pieces of legislation, which were, as I have said, all introduced when we were in government. We believe this is perfectly consistent with the obligations of people in public employment, and it does not affect their rights to have access to the arbitral tribunals if there are disputes. It deals simply with industrial action of one sort or another which is really impermissible for people with those duties and with the privileges and benefits that they have as public employees. As I have said, in the case of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, that legislation was intended to be only a measure of last resort and it was only applied thus. It is an effective piece of legislation. It is important that it should be available to the public employers in certain situations which have not been able to be resolved by the ordinary industrial conciliation and arbitration methods. The Opposition believes that this legislation should be retained and used in that way, and only in that way. This Government will regret its decision to seek to repeal the legislation, if it is successful in doing so. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(12.08) —Today we are debating three Bills, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill, which are designed to bring an end to a number of punitive measures introduced by the former Government. These Bills constitute an important part of the Hawke Government's consensus approach to industrial relations in that they repeal three very draconian pieces of legislation. They represent a genuine attempt by this Government to restore equity and common sense to the handling of industrial relations matters, particularly in the public sector. Over the last seven years, under the former Government, Commonwealth employees experienced a gradual erosion of their rights in the work place, which led to some of the most bitter disputes ever witnessed in our public sector. The previous Government knew exactly what would be the consequences of enacting these pieces of legislation. That Government knew that it was completely against the International Labour Organisation principles. Such was the hypocrisy of the former Government that, on the one hand, it would stand up in support of the Polish trade union movement, Solidarity, and yet, on the other hand, it was in the business of denying its own employees rights to which workers in the private sector were entitled under the accepted democratic processes. I will look at each of these Bills in turn, because I think there have been some misconceptions within the Opposition about their purposes. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 has as its main aim the repeal of the no work as directed no pay provisions in the Public Service Act. These punitive provisions were introduced in 1980 and gave the Public Service Board and six Commonwealth authorities the power to declare that staff who failed to comply with an authorised direction relating to the performance of their duties were not to be paid their salaries. No appeal mechanism was provided within this legislation. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Act specifically prohibited the making of awards or determinations by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator which were inconsistent with the provisions of the legislation. In other words, employees had no access to the normal arbitration processes. Of course, it was claimed by the former Government that this was merely bringing public sector employees into line with those in the private sector. The fact of the matter is that it went much further than that because in the private sector the ability of employers to apply this no work as directed no pay principle is automatically constrained by the terms of the various awards. Therefore, the Government is seeking to force the Public Service Board and the various Commonwealth authorities to go to an industrial tribunal-either the Public Service Arbitrator or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-to obtain such an order. It needs to be emphasised for the benefit of honourable senators opposite that we are not removing the right of these public sector employers to make use of the no work as directed no pay provisions. We are merely saying that any such decision must have the consent of the appropriate industrial tribunal. It seems to me that this is a fairer and more democratic way of applying such a power. The previous Government obviously took a more authoritarian stand on such matters. It saw fit to bypass the accepted means of arbitration which have served this country so well for so many years. Another example of the previous Government's authoritarian approach to industrial relations was the introduction of the Commonwealth Employees ( Employment Provisions) Act in 1977. This Act provided for the direct suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action or the direct standing down of Commonwealth employees affected by such industrial action without referring it to any industrial tribunal. The introduction of this legislation created a lot of animosity within the Public Service and was very vigorously opposed by both the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association. It led to a situation of unparalleled confrontation within the Public Service. By its very nature, it created ill-feeling between management and other staff. Names were taken of people who went to strike meetings and, allegedly, those names were recorded for posible future action. I wonder whether that Government, supposedly so concerned with the efficiency of the Public Service, ever stopped to count the man hours wasted in all these name-taking exercises and so forth. As the Minister so rightly pointed out, all of this nonsense was so easily avoidable because the CE(EP) Act in itself was unnecessary. It has always been open to the Public Service Board or various Commonwealth authorities to apply to the Public Service Arbitrator under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 or to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for the right to stand down employees engaged in industrial action. The rights which the previous Government granted itself in respect of the CE(EP) Act were condemned by the International Labour Organisation, particularly in that they went completely against the democratic rights and principles advocated by that body. Again, it is worth pointing out to honourable senators opposite who have not done their homework that this option to approach the appropriate tribunal for stand-down orders will remain. In effect, we are therefore merely reverting to the pre-1977 arrangements. We believe that this is the best way to conduct industrial relations in this country. We totally reject the jackboot approach advocated by the Opposition. I turn now to the third Bill which forms part of this cognate debate. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill seeks to repeal sub-sections 3 to 7 inclusive of section 24 of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. These provisions were made to exclude redeployment and matters relating to termination of employment from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As with the other Bills, we are restoring the jurisdiction of these tribunals to make determinations on these matters. Again, we are merely saying that any decision to redeploy or terminate employment must be initially referred to an appropriate industrial tribunal. We are not taking away the right of the Commonwealth to make such decisions. I believe these Bills will go a long way towards restoring some sanity in the industrial relations framework within the public sector. We are saying that any decision, whether it be no work as directed no pay, redeployment, stand-downs and so on, must be justified before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator. In large part, this is what private sector employers are required to do. Therefore, we are restoring some balance to the situation. As the Minister has pointed out, many private employers simply do not have the common law right to order no work as directed no pay. This is particularly so when a set of award conditions apply. Under this legislation all parties will be given the fairest possible treatment. This approach is totally consistent with our prices and income accord and with the prevailing attitudes throughout the industry today. The Opposition is living in yesterday's land in its approach to industrial relations. That is clearly why its members are on the Opposition benches and will be there for some time. It is quite obvious that they do not have a coherent wages or industrial relations policy. All they seem to be able to come up with is a wages freeze, which has been the case to date. In this debate it has emerged that the Opposition has a complete disregard for the accepted processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which has served this country well over many years. Indeed, some members of the Opposition would get rid of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. People like Mr Howard would prefer to see a complete free-for-all in the industrial relations area. The national Parliament originally created the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the purpose of settling industrial disputes. We believe that it will continue to serve us well in the difficult times ahead. This Government is not in the business of union bashing, as were our predecessors. We are not in the business of introducing draconian legislation which goes against the ideals and principles laid down by the International Labour Organisation. Unlike the discredited former Government, we believe in equity and fairness in the handling of industrial disputes. No doubt that is why the latest figures on industrial disputes show a marked downturn in the level of disputation in Australia since we took office. In July this year the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes was 27 per cent less than it was a year earlier. In that month 58,200 workers were involved in disputes compared with 105,200 in July 1982. It is certainly no coincidence that the largest reductions in the level of industrial disputation occurred in the Labor States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, especially given the nature of the regimes governing Queensland and Tasmania. Certainly a government that takes power with less than 40 per cent of the vote will not be too worried about the use of jackboot tactics when handling industrial relations matters. In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister on introducing these Bills. They honour an important part of our prices and incomes accord. They recognise the very important role played by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in settling industrial disputes and no doubt will lead to a period of relative calm in the public sector. I commend the Bills to honourable senators. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.22) —We have just heard from Senator Foreman. It is very obvious from his speech that he was not here when the Public Service and Commonwealth employees Bills originally went through the Senate because he knows little, if anything, of the reasons of the Government of the day for passing that legislation. At that time we had tremendous problems with the Public Service in various areas, and I will come to that later in my speech. As Senator Foreman said, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities amendment Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill are part of a promise to the unions to repeal the previous Government's legislation which gave the government of the day control over its own employees. I believe that is tremendously important. If an employer has no control at all over what the employees are liable to do, or indeed in regard to what the employer has asked them to do, the situation can be chaotic. As Senator Durack has already said, public servants belong to a very protected section of the work force. They have security of tenure, they have very generous superannuation provisions and they have rights of appeal that workers in the private sector would not have in a month of Sundays. But in return we, as governments and taxpayers paying the bill, do expect some sort of responsibility . Public servants serve the public and as a result the public pays their wages. If they withhold their service the public can be disadvantaged in the most stringent fashion. An example is the financial plight of pensioners during the strike by Department of Social Security staff, I think in 1981. I believe that when those strikes occur the taxpayer has every reason to demand of the Government some form of redress. Nothing in any of the Acts being repealed prohibits public servants going to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, that is where all good industrial relations should take place. The Government has given us the wages accord and the National Economic Summit Conference. The Government made many promises to the unions at the wages accord discussions. We were supposed to have a summit at which some of the hard decisions on the economy of this country were meant to be taken. But what happened? All the soft options were considered and no attempt was made even to discuss any of the hard options. The unions said: 'One thing that is not debatable is a return to a centralised wage system. We will not even talk about it'. Some summit! Some consensus! They said that matter was undebatable. If we had had agreement from both the employers and the unions that, on returning to a centralised wage system, the arbitration system was where industrial relations should be conducted, where any dispute should be worked out, and that the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would be final, we would have had something constructive from the Summit. But that was put in the 'too hard' basket. Of course the employers always abide by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision. If they do not abide by the awards made there they are fined. It is as simple as that. The militant unions do not abide by the Commission's decisions. The Commission can come down with any decision it likes and if the militant union concerned decides that it does not like the decision there is no way it will abide by it. What happened at the Summit? The Australian Council of Trade Unions would give no guarantee that the unions would abide by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decisions. The Government now dares to criticise the legislation that we brought in to try to overcome that tremendous problem. I shall go through some of the Acts that are being repealed. I refer first to the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act empowered the Commonwealth government of the day, whichever party happened to be in power, to stand down, suspend or dismiss its own employees if a job was not able to be done because of strike action by some of their colleagues. I quote from the second reading speech of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis): The Government does not consider it appropriate that as an employer it should have statutory powers of the type found in the CEEP Act which are not available to employers in the private sector. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, interjected during Senator Durack's speech and said: Do you consider that that is the case with private employment? That comment is very out of place in the Senate because he knows only too well that stand-down clauses are provided in many awards for private employment. He was on the same committee that I was on in October 1982-the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation-which discussed this matter in full. I shall quote from page 71 of the report of that Committee to underline the stupidity of Senator Button's interjection. Under the heading 'The Present Position' it says of the stand-down clauses: In June 1982 a survey conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations disclosed that 352 federal awards contained stand-down clauses. This figure represented some 37% of all awards. I repeat, 37 per cent of all awards, but despite this Senator Button asks whether we believe that our stand-down legislation would be permitted in private enterprise. The report continues: The survey found that 67% of stand-down clauses were similar to clause 19 (b) of the Metal Trades Award which enables an employer . . . to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or through any breakdown in machinery or any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot be reasonably held responsible. That was the most common stand-down clause. There were others. The report went on: The next most common form of stand-down clause is typified by clause 10 of the Transport Workers (Airlines) Award. That clause stated: Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in the award, an employer may deduct payment for any day or part of a day that an employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike, ban or limitation upon the performance of work or for any other cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible. Senator Button was on that Committee with me. I am quite sure he is well aware that those awards are also made in the private sector. The private sector should not have those clauses if the Government is not willing to have them in its legislation. The former Government introduced this Act because of the prolonged dispute involving Telecom Australia. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be well aware that that dispute was conducted in a most intricate fashion. Small sections of Telecom Australia went on strike one after the other. That strike action meant that many Telecom employees were not able to carry out their duties . Because of that prolonged strike the former Government decided to bring in this legislation which enabled it to stand down people who were not able to work because their colleagues were on strike. The legislation provided that the employees could be dismissed if the strike continued for no good reason after the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had made its decision. Senator Foreman has said that there is no right of appeal in this area. That is not true. There is a right of appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal. This Act was used nine times. Its most famous use was in settling the strike in the social welfare area to which I have already referred. That strike went on for some considerable time. The strike made it very difficult for pensioners and for the Minister of day. It was very difficult for pensioners to receive their pension cheques in time to enable them to meet their financial liabilities and to look after themselves. The next Act that is being amended is the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Act. This is the Act containing the 'no work as directed-no pay' provision. What on earth does the Government expect of any employee? When the former Government brought in the original legislation Commonwealth employees were refusing to comply with the directions of the Minister of the day. Some public servants were refusing to answer the questions which the Minister had asked. Of course, they were still being paid. They were only refusing to do certain sections of their work. The situation was ridiculous. If they were prepared to work for only 50 per cent of their working day or to carry out only 50 per cent of their work, surely to heavens they deserved to receive only 50 per cent of their pay. They had a signed contract. The terms of that contract had to be carried out. Taxpayers do expect their employees to work for the pay which they receive. As Senator Durack has said, the pay is really quite generous . There is also a method of appeal in this area. The then Minister said in his second reading speech in 1980: The . . . Act gives any person affected by an administrative decision of the government of the Commonwealth the right to go to the Administrative Review Tribunal to challenge the lawfulness of the decision that has been made. Members of the Government have said that there is no right of appeal in the Acts . That is completely wrong. I do not think anyone in Australia who is not protected as public servants are could imagine why public servants who refuse to work or refuse to answer questions that the Minister puts to them should receive any pay at all. I now turn to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill. Again, this relates to a piece of legislation that our Government put through. I believe that today this Government is working a swiftie on public servants. The Government believes in this Act completely. There is no way in which it does not agree with what our Government did, but because of the wages accord it wishes to withdraw the legislation. The Opposition does not have the numbers in the Senate to defeat that action. Page 4 of the Minister's second reading speech states: It is the Government's view that the retention of an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost essential qualifications is critical to the effective operation of the Service. He went on: Consequently, a review will be held . . . All our Act did was give the Government an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who were surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who had lost the essential qualifications for the effective operation of the Public Service. That is exactly what our Act did. The Government is in the process of repealing that provision and is now saying: 'But let it be clear that we really agree with it'. The Minister went on: Consequently,- that is, because the Government agrees with it-- a review will be held into those areas of the Act which deal with management- initiated early retirement. This review will be conducted by a working group comprising representatives of the Public Service Board, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the ACTU and the Council of Professional Associations. At the conclusion of the review, which I envisage being early 1984, I will receive a report from the working party concerning possible amendments to the Act. Pending this review, the Public Service Board had, at the Government's request, advised that it will not take action to implement the provisions of the regulation. The Minister reinforced that by saying: I must stress, however, the Government's commitment to an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost an essential qualification. It is the Government's intention that the review should be conducted in this light and should be directed at the best means of establishing such a system. Our Act provided such a system. Perhaps the introduction of new technology reduced the required number of public servants and they became surplus. The physical or mental capacity of public servants to carry out their duties may necessitate them being shifted and retrained. Only if they are not able to be shifted and retrained should there be a compulsory retirement. Let us consider a person who, for whatever reason, perhaps through inefficiency or loss of ability , is unable to carry out his or her job. An example would be that of a truck or bus driver who has lost his driver's licence and, therefore, is unable to carry out his job. If at all possible, that person should be moved and retrained. Otherwise, he should be compulsorily retired. Compulsory retirement surely is the prerogative of any employer. I believe it is the prerogative of the government of the day. It is not right that taxpayers should be asked to pay for public servants who are sitting around doing nothing. Should people who have not been able to be retrained after having been shifted to other areas be kept on and not retrenched for no other reason than that they are public servants? Senator Georges —How long are you going to keep this up? Senator WALTERS —I ask the honourable senator to look at the second reading speech of his Minister, who agrees entirely with the legislation. He has made that very obvious. He has underlined and stressed his position. He has agreed to repeal our legislation to fit in with the wages accord, but in fact he agrees with it and he is having the matter reviewed. He wants to make sure that the committee of review comes up with similar decisions to those that the previous Government put forward. Senator Foreman talked about the punitive measures that were used by our Government. There is never any need for punitive measures. We have a system of arbitration and conciliation. Any disagreement can be taken before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If such matters are correctly dealt with we will have the sort of industrial relations that I am sure both sides of this chamber would want. I believe the most important thing that is lacking is the commitment of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on behalf of its members to abide by the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If we could have got only that one agreement on the wages accord at the National Economic Summit Conference the situation would be different. Of course, the Government will not press the unions. It will not ask them to abide by the decisions of the Commission. It has backed off in that regard. I believe there would be no need for the type of legislation that is before us today if we could get such agreement. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.43) —There is very little doubt that our industrial relations record in this country is quite deplorable. If one looks at this country from outside, say from the Philippines or Japan, we as a nation would seem to have everything going for us-a well educated and homogeneous population, great natural resources, and strategic invulnerability. We have a great future if only we can overcome our long tradition of poisonous and damaging industrial disputes. Senator Georges —Oh, come on. That is over-exaggeration. You just spoiled your argument. Senator HAMER —I think Senator Georges underestimates the damage we are doing to our international trading relations by the disputes that are running, for example in the iron ore mines of the north-west. Disputes in our coal mines and on the waterfront are doing great damage to our international trading position and to the future of the country. The Commonwealth is the biggest single employer of labour in the country. It is most important that we set an example of fairness, reason and efficiency in our relations with our own employees and those of our statutory authorities. That is a very important role for the Federal Government. I hope that we have got away from the days of Clyde Cameron, a Minister in the former Whitlam Labor Government, who tried to use the Public Service as a pace setter in conditions of employment and industrial affairs. He at least woke up to the damage he was doing to our whole community and later on in his career he started to describe public servants as fat cats. I would say that that was probably an exaggeration. We had an understanding under the previous Government that the pay and conditions of public servants, except at the very highest levels, should be comparable with those of equivalent positions in the private sector, and that, in my view, is fair and reasonable. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs whether in funding any State programs in which the Minister desires that equal opportunities be available to persons of either sex she will set out what will be required of the States in relation to, for example, engineering where males predominate or nursing where females predominate. Will it be required that States achieve equal opportunity for both sexes or equal participation by both sexes? Senator RYAN —Referring to the last part of Senator Sir John Carrick's question, it will be required that the States achieve equal opportunity not equal participation. Equal participation, of course, is a long term goal where equal participation is sought. What will be required is for the States to give assurances to the Commonwealth that in Commonwealth funded programs no properly qualified person will be refused access to a course on the basis of sex alone. So in the example of engineering, I would expect universities to be able to assure the Tertiary Education Commission that there are no entrance criteria which exclude women seeking to undertake engineering simply on the basis of the fact that they are women. No entrance criteria will be interfered with. It is up to each university faculty to decide how it selects its students, but we would want a general assurance that a properly qualified woman would not be refused entrance to an engineering course simply on the basis that she was a woman. If a woman did not have the appropriate tertiary entrance score or if males had a higher score and if that score were the way in which a faculty determined how to pick its students, that faculty would continue to do that. Our seeking assurances will prevent, we hope, a case where a woman with a higher score is refused entrance although males with lower scores are accepted because there is a preference for male students. That is the only case in which tertiary institutions would be required to give an undertaking. Basically, the assurances will be just that. They will be assurances. The Tertiary Education Commission will seek assurances and I am sure that individual institutions will be anxious to provide such assurances since most of them in recent years have shown a consciousness of the need to be equal and fair in regard to the entrance criteria that they use in the selection of their students. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Attorney-General heard media reports that Mr David Combe is out of pocket by $30,000 for legal costs incurred due to his involvement in the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies? Does the Government regard this as fair and will it reconsider the level of assistance being provided? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not my understanding that anything of the kind is the case. The Government approved assistance towards legal costs for Mr Combe for both senior and junior counsel and for his solicitor. The rate for counsel was the same rate as counsel for the Commonwealth were paid. It is my clear understanding that Mr Combe's counsel and his solicitor agreed not to charge Mr Combe above the rate approved by the Commonwealth for its own counsel, and indeed the rate which was operating in respect of most other witnesses before the Commission who were financially assisted. I might add that Mr Combe's lawyers have presented accounts which have been paid and the total amount paid to date is $173,827. I do not know what the additional expenses are which have been incurred by Mr Combe and which have given rise to media reports, but I understand they do include such additional expenses as the air fares of a witness from the United States, which he chose to pay. Apart from matters of that kind, there does not seem to be any foundation whatsoever for any suggestion that Mr Combe was involved in incurring legal expenses for his counsel or solicitor of a kind which have not been met by the Commonwealth and as a result there would not appear to be any basis for the Commonwealth to reconsider the level of assistance which so far has been provided. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs how she can claim to be promoting higher participation in tertiary education when the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University declared today that she was: . . . failing altogether to provide the increased funds really needed to sustain the present high level of enrolments. Does not her participation objective require the funding of qualified students into every presently available campus place? If that is the case, will the Minister provide funds sufficient to allow Macquarie University, for example, to reconsider its decision to cut first year enrolments for 1984 by more than 25 per cent? Finally, will the Minister ensure that adequate funds are available to maintain in 1984 new enrolments at New South Wales universities at least to 1983 levels? Senator RYAN —It is very interesting that Senator Peter Baume should quote the words of Professor Ward concerning Commonwealth funding for education, because the situation with regard to funds for participation at Sydney University about which Professor Ward is complaining is a culmination of eight years of neglect under the Fraser Administration. Let us have a look at the funding situation for institutions of higher education and at the situation which we have inherited before we can assess and put into context the comments of Professor Ward. In 1975 when the Australian Labor Party was in office the approved Commonwealth grants for higher education amounted to $1,740m. Two years later in 1977 higher education received $1,839m. Two years later again there was a reduction and the grants amounted to only $1,710m. In 1981 higher education received only $1,668m and in 1982 it received $1,662m. So in that period there had actually been a real reduction of funds going to institutions of higher education. Between 1975 and 1982, the period in which the Fraser Government was in office-for a short time Senator Peter Baume was Minister for Education, so he will be only all too well aware of these facts-Commonwealth grants for higher education fell by $72m or nearly 5 per cent. What have we done with respect to the funding of higher education? In contrast, our Government will be providing over $18m more in 1984, which is a one per cent real increase in funding for higher education. Included in this increase is the sum of $10m which will provide an additional 3,000 student places in universities and colleges of advanced education in 1984. In addition to this, as Professor Ward is well aware and for which he has expressed gratitude, the Government has restored retrospective cost supplementation to help restore stability and national planning to higher education after the years of uncertainty brought about by the policies of the previous Government. So there is an extra $10m alone for 3,000 extra places, as well as an overall increase. In the light of that Sydney University, an autonomous institution, has made particular decisions. It has decided that its targets for this year will be the same in real terms as they were for last year. Last year the university under- targeted. It set a target and got more enrolments than it had actually aimed for . This year it is reducing its expectations of growth because it has a more realistic appreciation of how many students it will get. I should make it clear, Mr President, that our commitment to increase participation in higher education of course does not mean that there should be an increase in every faculty in every institution of higher education throughout the country. Clearly in some faculties, for example the faculty of medicine, there is no particular need for increased numbers. We have no particular demand for vast increases in the number of qualified doctors coming out of universities , even if some of them do end up in politics. In some institutions there is both a capacity for increased participation and a need for increased participation. Those institutions may not be institutions in inner city areas such as Sydney University which, according to the advice of the Tertiary Education Commission, is operating at maximum capacity. It may be preferable in terms of our increased participation objective to see increases in institutions of higher education in the western suburbs. Milperra College of Advanced Education, for example, has been targeted by the Tertiary Education Commission as a growth institution. I have before me, and I will be tabling very soon, the report of the Tertiary Education Commission on the participation program. I can assure the Senate that the 3,000 places have been taken up. They have been bid for by institutions of higher education throughout Australia so that overall there will be an increase of at least 3,000 places in higher education. Of course, there will be a higher increase than that. With regard to Macquarie University, I will not take the time of the Senate to go over the same grounds, but Senator Peter Baume will be aware that universities work out the target of what they expect to achieve in terms of increased participation. Sometimes they are over target and sometimes they are under target. Macquarie University has a history of not hitting the target. Other universities are more precise in terms of bringing their planned increase into line with what their real increase turns out to be. Of course, that is a matter for the governing bodies of those institutions to address. I can assure the Senate that our specific aim of 3,000 extra places will be met. I have the report on my desk, preparing for tabling, which sets out which institutions have decided to co-operate and increase their participation rates. Of course, apart from those extra 3,000 places, there will be other increases stemming from the real increase in Commonwealth funding that we have provided. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What has been the response by beneficiaries of his Department to the Government' s initiatives announced in the May economic statement to encourage conversion of pensions from payment by cheque to direct credit with financial institutions such as banks and building societies, and to change the mode of payment from 12- weekly in arrears to fortnightly in advance? Is consideration being given to making the direct credit mode of payment universal? Senator GIETZELT —The response to the Government's decision in May to take the first steps towards the payment of pensions into credit accounts has been overwhelming. In fact my Department has been converting pension payments at the rate of 13,000 a week which means something like 200,000 persons have taken advantage of this system to have their pensions paid into credit unions or bank accounts. This represents some 40 per cent of all such payments. I should point out to the Senate that the Government, in taking this step, had in mind not only the question of saving money but also of providing a better service to those in receipt of pensions. Of course, that has been realised insofar as there has been a very favourable response to the proposal. Far from the Government's estimate of savings of something like $600,000, in the financial year 1983-84 it will represent a saving of something like $1.5m. The other point that the Department, and the Department of Social Security when finally its system is incorporated, will have to look at will be how to overcome the negative aspects of the system. For instance, there is not always a sufficiently prompt advice of when pensioners change their address or die. Whilst there is no doubt that the service has been a very popular one, we do have to examine arrangements to ensure that money is not wasted through being misdirected to pensioners who have moved or died. I assure the Senate that the system is popular and one which we will keep under review. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he was quoting. Senator GIETZELT —I will. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because it concerns a matter of government policy. I begin by drawing to the attention of the Leader of the Government a survey publicised at the weekend conducted by the Medical Association for Prevention of War which asked children between 10 and 12 at two Sydney primary schools to explain their views of the future of the world. Of the replies, 78 per cent expect the world to be destroyed by a world war within 15 years and 48 per cent believe they will not live to have a family. The children have a deeply pessimistic view of the future and some say they would rather die than live to see a nuclear holocaust. In the light of those comments, which I do not really feel members of the Opposition should see as an occasion for mirth-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Senator MASON —Indeed, Mr President. Has the Government considered the effect of these appalling expectations on the national morale and will into the future? Does the Government appreciate the intimate association of proliferation of nuclear weapons with its decision to sanction the world's largest uranium mine at Roxby Downs? Will the Government consider seriously the large and positive effect it could have in averting future proliferation of nuclear weapons and in remedying and improving the morale of the nation, and indeed of the world, in future by deciding to take the courageous step of ending the mining and export of Australian uranium? Senator BUTTON —I did not see the survey to which Senator Mason referred, although those survey findings are consistent, I think, with a number of other surveys that have been conducted amongst young people in higher age groups, in their teens. The results would probably be fairly consistent with surveys, if they were to be conducted, amongst older age groups. Of course, there is tremendous concern about these matters and indeed a number of associated matters . The questions need not have been confined to the possibility of nuclear war to draw some of the same pessimistic conclusions which these surveys show. In the context of that survey I am asked to comment on what is an implicit argument in Senator Mason's question, namely, that national morale would be restored if the Government were to see the nexus between the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the rest of the world and the development of the Roxby Downs uranium mine, and we are invited to have the courage to see that nexus and to close the Roxby Downs uranium mine. First, let me say that I have more confidence and faith in the children of Australia in respect of their general concerns than the question implies that Senator Mason has. Throughout the world there are children who are entitled perhaps to be much more concerned and I do not think that we can attribute any special concern to Australian children or any special role for Australia in alleviating what is a world concern about this problem. I should say that in the general policy considerations which the Government made in relation to uranium mining, the nexus between the peaceful use of uranium for domestic electricity generation and the proliferation of nuclear weapons seemed to me, and I believe to other Ministers, to be an extremely tenuous one. Nuclear weapons were developed well before the peaceful use of nuclear power. The product, as I understand it, of domestic nuclear power stations is not necessarily or generally regarded as suitable in a technical sense for nuclear weapons purposes. There are a number of other factors which make, I believe, that nexus extremely tenuous. To express a personal view, I think that perhaps the debate on the importance of Australia playing a role in the prevention of nuclear war has been, in some ways, diverted from its purpose by the deliberate and considerable efforts of some very well intentioned people to wrap that debate up entirely with the question of whether Australia should mine uranium. In spite of comments to the contrary, the Government's views on these problems were arrived at after careful consideration of many of the issues raised in Senator Mason's question. Without in any way wishing to be offensive, I think the question draws something of a long bow on these issues. I do not think the implications of the honourable senator's question add to the provision of a serious answer based on a very serious survey to a very important problem. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of claims being made by some groups in the community that the Government in its funding allocation discriminates against the profoundly disabled in favour of those who are capable of more independent living? Is there any truth in these claims? Senator GRIMES —No, I have not heard reports that this Government in its funding discriminates against the profoundly disabled. I do not know how such reports could arise. This Government has been in power for only eight months and there has been very little funding in this area from this Government because of the nature of funding, which is usually done a year ahead. Senator Chaney —There are some programs not accessible by definition. Senator GRIMES —Sure. In response to Senator Chaney's interjection, I think the situation has arisen whereby this Government has announced officially that it will be considering, in our funding provisions, particularly those organisations which provide for what is known as the least restricted alternative in their programs for disabled people. We have asked organisations which are already receiving funding or which already have applications in that they also take into account this provision. Some organisations have traditionally provided just institutional care, particularly institutional care associated with training facilities on one site, and are resistant to any change in this direction. I understand that, having practised in this way for many years, they may be somewhat unsettled by such a suggestion. I point out, however, that the previous Government-certainly I was in agreement with it-was moving in this direction also. For many years there has been a bipartisan policy in this place that what we need to provide for the disabled is, as much as possible, the opportunity to live as normal lives as possible in the community. If some organisations are disturbed by this I believe that they are unnecessarily so. All it means is that we will concentrate in the future, as much as possible, on those organisations providing non-institutional care or restricted institutional care and less on those which provide full institutional care. That does not mean that this Government or any member of this Government believes that there is no place in the future for institutions of various types which deal with the profoundly disabled. All we are saying is that we believe that in the past too many institutions have unnecessarily put people into institutional care. In the future we want to get away from that. So this Government has not discriminated and will not discriminate between different sorts of disabilities or different degrees of disability. What we will attempt to do is provide funding in a balanced way so that in the future all disabled get a fair go from this community. Senator TEAGUE —Does the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs acknowledge the fact that, in addition to the 41 schools on the hit list, all group 1 and group 2 non-government schools will receive less funds in 1984 than they would have received under the previous percentage link formula? Will the Minister agree that the parents of children at schools she calls wealthy schools are not all well off and are not all wealthy? Will she acknowledge that if any parents are forced by the Labor-induced fee increases to remove children from a school they will be the least well off of the parents with children at that school? Senator RYAN —The schools in group 1 received for their recurrent funding the same in real terms as they received last year, that is, the same money indexed for inflation. The schools in group 2 received a one per cent real increase over what they received last year. I will have to seek further information about how that ties up with what they received under the percentage link. I think it is roughly the same. Certainly I have not claimed that they received any increase as a result of that formula, unlike the category 3 schools, of course, which have received $7m more than they would have received under the previous Government's formula. The amount of funding may be less in real terms under the percentage link in relation to group 1. My understanding is that it is about the same. But I will certainly provide additional information. The question of whether all parents who choose group 1 schools are well off is not really one about which I have information. I do not have information about the income of parents. I do not know whether Senator Teague is suggesting that we should try to emulate the Australian Taxation Office and investigate the private incomes of parents who make individual choices. It is certainly not the intention of this Government to go snooping around trying to find out what the private incomes of individual parents are. However, I do not have information available to me about the incomes of parents who pay fees of $3,000 a year or more. That is information which I presume the school has but it is not information I have. However, I assume that, even with category 1 schools, there would be some range in income; there would be parents from the wealthiest groups in society as there would be parents from the not so wealthy groups who have made that choice about what to do with their incomes. Senator Teague finally asked what our attitude would be to children whose parents withdrew them from these schools because of fee increases. I would like to say this and to say it very clearly: The reduction in the Commonwealth grant to 41 schools in category 1 would mean that if those schools chose to increase their fees to regain from fees what they lost as a result of the slight reduction in the Commonwealth grant, they would have to increase their fees by $ 2 per week in primary schools and $3.40 per week in secondary schools. If the 41 schools increase their fees beyond that they must offer the parents some explanation other than the reduction in their Commonwealth grant otherwise they will be guilty of grossly misleading the parents. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that if government schools have a 2 to 2.5 per cent real increase, group 1 has a zero increase in real terms, group 2 a one per cent increase and group 3 a 3 per cent increase, the only non-government schools better off than the percentage link formula would have made them are those in group 3. So all group 1 and group 2 schools are worse off now than under the percentage link formula. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that. Senator RYAN —I will seek information to see whether I can confirm that. But let me say this to the Senate: It was the intention of the Hawke Labor Government, at a time of economic hardship, to redistribute funds available to schools in the private sector so that the vast majority of those schools which serve children from a wide range of backgrounds would be better off. We have achieved that and we are proud of it. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to reports that a rally held in Perth on the weekend, allegedly of tax victims, drew 300 participants? Can the Minister say whether protest rallies such as this will have any effect on the Government's determination to act on tax avoidance and tax evasion? Senator WALSH —I can assure Senator Sibraa that it will have no effect on the Government's determination to crack down on tax evaders insofar as the numbers lined up against the Government in the Senate allow it to. I will return in a moment to whether it will influence the attitude of those people. I have seen those reports. The meeting was organised by Mr W. W. Mitchell who is an extremely good friend of the Australian Labor Party. In fact I cannot think of anyone to whom the Labor Party in Western Australia owes more than it owes to Mr W. W. Mitchell. He was an adviser to Sir Charles Court and a Liberal Party candidate in the last State election, but he is best known for being the champion of the Western Australian tax dodgers. Largely because of Mr Mitchell's efforts-I think nobody should underestimate Mr Mitchell's efforts in this area- the Labor Party in the last Federal election recorded in Western Australia-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister has been asked a simple question as to whether the holding of a meeting will affect the Government's attitude to certain tax matters. He is now proceeding to give information about an individual. It is typical of the way in which Question Time and other forms of the Parliament are used to try to blacken people's names. I draw your attention to the fact that the answer being given is irrelevant. I also suggest that he is debating the matter. Certainly, this has nothing to do with the question. The PRESIDENT —At this stage I regard the Minister's remarks as relevant to the question and I will allow him to proceed. Senator WALSH —I was just about to say that largely because of Mr Mitchell's efforts the Labor vote in Western Australia at the last Federal election was the highest of all States. That has never happened before. The fact that he is publicly perceived-indeed, I do not think he runs away from the charge-as being the defender of what he calls the victims of the legislation of the last Government and the intended legislation of this Government is related to the damage that he did to the Liberal Party and the assistance he has given to the Labor Party. He is seen as being a representative of the dominant faction of the Western Australian Liberal Party, which of course is very closely aligned to tax evaders. Indeed, at one stage, about half the members of its finance committee-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to the Minister that he is getting away from the question. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. There are a couple of other matters arising from the report of that meeting which are relevant. It appears the meeting was told that shareholders in public companies which sank subsidiaries which were either proprietary or public companies to the bottom of the harbour have received assessments. With the exception of those shareholders who have been selected by the Commissioner of Taxation as members of a representative class, that is not true. No shareholders in public companies have received assessments pursuant to the last Government's legislation. It appears from the Press report that that fact was misrepresented at that meeting, as it has been misrepresented in the past. With regard to the future effect of that meeting and similar meetings, I have one comment to make: The legislation passed last year empowered the Commissioner to make a judgment as to whether a shareholder in either a private or a public company had benefited as a result of the sale of that company at a price which reflected the intention not to pay the tax which was due. As the legislation now stands the Commissioner has the discretion of issuing an assessment proportional to the shareholding held by the shareholder, or issuing no assessment at all. In other words, there is no provision within the existing legislation for the Commissioner to issue an assessment commensurate to the benefit actually gained by the shareholder through the tax evaded. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise another point of order. This is very interesting information and I am sure it is utterly factual information, but again it seems to bear no relation to the question of whether a meeting would affect the attitude of the Government. The PRESIDENT —As I understand it, Senator Walsh is relating his remarks to a report arising from the meeting about which Senator Sibraa asked. In that respect I will allow the Minister to continue his answer, but I suggest he relate his remarks merely to the question asked by Senator Sibraa. Senator WALSH —It is, as I will show very shortly, Mr President, directly related to the question that Senator Sibraa has asked because the Government is introducing-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle — Mr President, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the matter now being referred to by Senator Walsh is a matter which is in the legislation before the Parliament. The PRESIDENT —I will allow Senator Walsh to continue but I ask him to restrict his remarks to the question. Senator WALSH —The Government has introduced legislation which will allow an assessment to be made commensurate to the benefit actually gained. That is part of a package which includes the repeal of a section which was inserted in last year's legislation by the previous Government after it was first introduced. That is a package deal. So insofar as Mr Mitchell or any of the people who attended that meeting, or anyone in the Senate, are genuinely concerned-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 99 which states: Questions shall not anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter which appears on the Notice Paper. The Minister is now addressing himself to a Bill which is on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order and ask the Minister to restrict his answer. Senator WALSH —All of those people will have the opportunity to display their attitude to those who may be genuine victims of the legislation passed last year . Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister for Education a question following the decision by the New South Wales Government to switch nurse education from hospital based to college based training. Firstly, can the Minister say whether the change will require the Commonwealth to fund the new places in colleges of advanced education? Secondly, what provision has been made to cover the costs of large numbers of new college places for nurse training in 1984? Senator RYAN —Once people become students at a tertiary institution they are funded in that way, but special arrangements have been made by the Government of New South Wales because it was keen to move ahead with this transfer while awaiting the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report to our Government on the implementation of the transfer of nurses from hospital based to college based education throughout Australia. That report is well in hand but it is not available. The New South Wales Government has decided to go ahead and make that transfer itself. It has worked out on a contract basis the payment of the CAEs for taking the nurses over in the first instance. The New South Wales Government is aware that I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to prepare options on the future development of basic nurse training for consideration by the Commonwealth Government as part of the planning for the 1985-1987 triennium and that will cover nurse training throughout Australia. Courses at universities, colleges of advanced education and colleges of technical and further education receive automatic tertiary education assistance scheme approval only if they receive funding from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The question of TEAS eligibility will be a matter to be taken up in the context of the Government's consideration of the development of basic nurse training following receipt of the Commission's advice. The short answer is that, in the short term, the costs are being borne by the New South Wales Government. In the longer term, they will be borne by the Federal Government. Senator JESSOP —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister mentioned contractual arrangements with colleges of advanced education. Can she spell out the details of those contractual arrangements? Senator RYAN —I do not have the details of those contractual relationships because they are within the State Government. They are between the New South Wales Minister for Health and the institutions involved. I will see what information the State Minister for Health is prepared to provide. This is a unilateral initiative of the State Minister for Health. He has made these arrangements. As I said, in future years it will become a matter for Commonwealth funding, but the initial arrangement is one between the New South Wales Minister for Health and the institutions. I will see what details he is prepared to make available to the Senate. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of statements made the weekend before last by the Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend Ltd, Mr Charles Copeman, regarding the centralised wage fixing system? Can the Minister indicate whether these views are consistent with the views held by other business leaders? Can he also outline the main advantages of the approach taken by the Government in relation to the wages policy? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the statements made by Mr Copeman of Peko-Wallsend Ltd. They have been drawn to my attention. I should like to say that the views expressed by Mr Copeman are his own views and that they are inconsistent with the views expressed by most business leaders in Australia. I need scarcely remind the Senate that at the National Economic Summit Conference a number of business leaders spoke on the question of centralised wage fixation. I refer to people such as Mr Graham Spurling, the President of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, who indicated very strong support for a centralised system and made the point that, if such a system fails, 'we Australians cannot afford that failure'. I think that comment of Mr Spurling is important for all parties involved in industrial relations to remember. We cannot afford that failure. Mr Brian Kelman of CSR Ltd made very strong comments in support of the centralised wage fixation system as the most preferable system because of its equitable and simultaneous application to wage and salary earners. A number of other members of the Economic Summit spoke from a business point of view on the same lines. In a more contemporaneous sense, however, I remind the Senate that during the national wage case hearings which took place between June and August of this year all parties had the opportunity to put submissions to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on this question. All parties supported the centralised wage fixing system and no employer organisation opposed it. The Commission concluded, on the basis of the arguments put before it and the views expressed by the parties, that a centralised wage fixation system was in the public interest. That view was expressed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission without dissent. I should like to take the opportunity which Senator Foreman afforded me in asking about the advantages of the system as the Government sees them. I do not wish to-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. I refer to standing order 99, which relates to the asking of questions in this place and which suggests that one should not ask for opinions in questions. The advantages of any particular course can be only a matter of opinion. I submit that this part of the question was not within the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. However, I draw the attention of Ministers to a ruling given by a former President, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack , in 1973 when he said: . . . a Minister cannot be required to answer a question. But if he does, the Minister should confine himself to points contained in the question with such explanation only as will render the answer intelligible. In all cases an answer must be relevant to the question. I draw that to the attention of all Ministers. At the same time, I draw the following sentence to the attention of all questioners: Within reasonable limits I shall allow supplementary questions in order to elucidate an answer. There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —I intend my answer to be intelligible. If it hurts at the same time, I apologise for that. The fact of the matter is that if Question Time were to be conducted on that basis it would be as sterile as an operating theatre, which would not be in the best interests of this chamber. There are a number of advantages-I should have thought these were matters of importance to the Opposition as well as to the Government-in a centralised wage fixation system. The first is, as Mr Kelman pointed out at the Summit, that employees are treated equally. The second is that anticipatory wage claims based on alleged levels of inflation can be avoided. The third is that it better enables the Government to relate its economic objectives to the wage fixation procedures. I remind the Senate of a period in which there was no centralised wage fixation system in Australia and wages were set on a case by case basis-a decentralised basis-as is currently advocated by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the discredited former Treasurer, Mr John Howard. In the period between 1981 and 30 September 1982 average weekly earnings in Australia rose by 17 per cent. The consumer price index in the September quarter of 1982 was 10.5 per cent higher than it was in the previous year. Unemployment over the period rose by 195,000. I should not have thought they were unimportant statistics. They are certainly not unimportant statistics to this Government when it considers the economic mess it inherited from the previous Government. Those statistics will not be readily forgotten. In the previous period, prior to the abandonment of wage fixation, the general situation of the Australian economy was much steadier. I do not wish to burden the Senate with the figures for that period, but there was a much steadier period in respect of the growth in average weekly earnings, unemployment and so on when the previous wage fixation system was in existence. It is not only the Government that takes this view; it is, of course, the view of the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, Mr Ian Macphee. Mr Macphee in my view, if I might express an opinion at this stage, is probably the only Opposition spokesman who knows anything at all about industrial relations and the relationship between industrial relations and economic management in this country. Mr Macphee, on 7 October, spoke of the importance of the traditional development of the wage system in Australia and the importance of centralised wage fixation. Of course, that is not necessarily the view of the Opposition. The view of the Opposition is spoken with a forked tongue. Mr Macphee's view represents one part of the argument and the other part is expressed by that desiccated calculating machine, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr Howard, who really has no appreciation of the very serious and important issues involved in industrial relations and the relationship of those issues with the management of the Australian economy. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Has the Caucus dispute over the assets test to be introduced for pensioners yet been resolved? Is the dispute indicative of the wider concern in the community about the anomalies and inequities in the new measure? When is the legislation to be introduced? Is the Minister aware of calls by the Combined Pensioners Association and the Australian Pensioners Federation for the legislation to be laid on the table after its introduction so that detailed examination and discussion can take place? If so, what is his attitude to those calls? Senator GRIMES —I am unaware of the dispute within the Caucus to which Senator Messner refers. The matter has not been discussed at a Caucus meeting yet, so perhaps Senator Messner is anticipating something. I certainly do not discuss in this place what may or may not happen in the Caucus. Secondly, I have spoken to the Combined Pensioners Association, the Australian Pensioners Federation and many other pensioners organisations in the last three months. I spoke with some representatives of the Combined Pensioners Association for two hours this morning. Certainly they have been concerned about what they have perceived might be anomalies and inequities in an assets test. Most of what they perceived to be anomalies and inequities were not there. Secondly, the whole legislation for the assets test is not in front of this Parliament as yet, and some aspects of it are not finalised. Part of the consultation process has been to make sure that such anomalies and inequities did not arise. Thirdly, yes, I have noted a call by the Combined Pensioners Association that it would like this legislation introduced and left on the table for 12 months for discussion. What is happening is that the intention to introduce the legislation was announced in August, and we intend to introduce it and have it passed before the end of this session. After that, it takes another 12 months before the assets test applies. In that 12 months, added to the three months that we have already had, I should have thought there was ample time to discuss what people thought were inequities and anomalies. If the legislation were to be brought into this place and laid on the table for 12 months, it would mean that such a test could not be put into operation for another two years. That is not in line with the Government's budgetary planning. It is not in line with the Government's intention to introduce as soon as possible an equitable and rational retirement incomes program in this community. The Government's actions in allowing discussion and consultation and then allowing that period before the legislation comes in would have enabled people, including members of the Opposition, to look at the program and the legislation and to make constructive suggestions. Senator Primmer —They are nit-picking. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Primmer says, one of the problems is that some members of the Opposition are nit-picking. I should have thought that any incomes test, assets test or means test which provided for a married couple still to get a part pension if they were under the age of 65 while still receiving an income of up to $300 and up to $400 if they were over the age of 70 was a pretty generous test. The problem is that people such as the honourable senator who was nit-picking, as Senator Primmer says, proceed around the community telling people that they will lose their pension if their income is $ 40 or $50 a week. That is not only untrue and deliberately mischievous, but also it is very distressing to people who are misled in that way. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his answer. I noted that he intends to introduce the legislation in this session. Will he assure the Senate, then, that it will not be introduced after the Northern Territory election and, therefore, rushed through in the last dying hours of the session? Senator GRIMES —The legislation will be introduced and the Opposition will be given ample time to discuss it. Senator Messner —How long? Senator GRIMES —The Opposition will certainly be given very much longer then we were given when in opposition when about 19 Bills were gagged through this place . We have had three months to discuss the principle of assets testing. After the legislation is introduced, we shall have about 12 months or more before the test comes into effect. I do not know what more a government can do to ensure that there is reasonable scrutiny and reasonable application of the test. Senator Chaney —Resign. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Chaney had had the courage to do what he wanted to do two and a half years ago in relation to introducing an assets test he might still be on this side of the Senate. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the moratorium which was allowed for those who had been unemployed for periods which would have made them eligible for jobs under the community employment program but had not previously registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, usually because they did not qualify for unemployment benefits. That period of grace was to have expired on 31 October. In view of the fact that this type of information is disseminated slowly, despite the best efforts of the Department and of parliamentarians, could consideration be given to exending the time for enrolment for another three months? Senator BUTTON —Senator Giles is correct in saying that for the first three months of the community employment program, to October 1983, there was a moratorium during which it was expected that people not registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service would immediately register and sign a statutory declaration to the effect that they had been actively seeking work for three months. Three months registration with the CES is the basis of the eligibility criteria for assistance under the community employment program. The moratorium for the first three months, as was suggested in Senator Giles's question, was particularly aimed to assist people who had not actually registered with the CES although they were in fact actively seeking work. The possible extension of the moratorium, as was suggested by Senator Giles, has been raised with the Government by others in addition to the honourable senator. It has been given favourable consideration, and a decision will be announced very shortly. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows a question that I asked him yesterday about the Commonwealth Government's lack of consultation with the Northern Territory Government over the decision to hand the Uluru National Park to an Aboriginal land trust. The Minister will recall that he gave an answer at the end of Question Time and referred to a letter of 3 June from the Chief Minister of the Territory to support the Leader of the Government's claim that the Commonwealth's position and intentions were well known to the Territory Government. I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the part of the letter concerning Uluru expressed a willingness to agree to perpetual Aboriginal title to the National Park under Territory law, provided that: . . . provision is made for the National Park to continue under Northern Territory management. I further ask the Minister whether he agrees that this proposition is well removed from the unilateral statement by the Prime Minister last Friday, when the best that he offered was: . . . an opportunity for Northern Territory participation in the management of the Park. Will the Minister now concede that the Commonwealth has acted in a high-handed and arbitrary way in its decision on the future of the National Park in that it has very substantially changed what was proposed without any consultation and without giving proper notice to the Northern Territory? Senator BUTTON —Whether the Commonwealth has acted in a high-handed way on this matter is a question of subjective judgment, about which Senator Chaney clearly has a view and the Government clearly has a view. I do not know whether Senator Chaney will be taking a point of order against me, as he did earlier at Question Time, but I am about to express a view-unless he would prefer that I did not do so. It is the Government's view that we did not take a high-handed attitude on this matter. I certainly agree with Senator Chaney that the letter of 3 June from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to the Prime Minister advanced a totally different proposition in terms of ownership and control of the relevant area from the proposition which the Commonwealth Government has now adopted. There is no doubt about that. The Northern Territory wanted it for itself. It was Commonwealth land and the Commonwealth Government made a decision about Commonwealth land. The fact that the Commonwealth was likely to make such a decision was well in the knowledge and contemplation of the Northern Territory . Senator Walters —Consensus! Really! Senator BUTTON —The difference between the Northern Territory Government and the Government of the Commonwealth was well in the knowledge and contemplation of the Northern Territory. If Senator Walters bothered to listen, instead of interjecting, it might even sink into her consciousness as well. I agree with the first part of Senator Chaney's question, namely, that there is not much relationship between the two propositions, the one advanced in the letter and the Commonwealth's position. I do not agree that the Commonwealth has acted high -handedly in this matter. Yesterday, Senator Chaney asked me whether a telex was sent at such and such a time on 11 November. I agree that a telex was sent at that time and the announcement was made in the afternoon. Insofar as the financial notification is concerned, if I am asked for a comment on it, I would certainly agree that it was brief notice, but I take it no further than that. 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 ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. ACT Building Review Committee-Annual Report 1982-83. 2. ACT Building Standards Committee-Annual Report 1982-83. 3. ACT Surveyors Board-Annual Report 1982-83. 4. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board-Annual Report 1981-82. 5. Department of Treasury-Annual Report 1982-83. 6. Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Annual Report 1982-83. 7. Primary Industry Bank Act 1977-Sixth Report on the operation of Part II- pursuant to section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. 8. Joint Fishing Venture off Northern Australia-Agreement between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd. 9. Government Response to the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee Report on East Timor-(Minister will seek leave to incorporate text of Statement in Hansard). 10. Development of satellite-Related services, ownership of the satellite system-Statement made in the House of Representatives on 15 November by the Minister for Communications. 11. Administrative Review Council-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. 12. Human Rights Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 29 (1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 13. Administrative Review Council-Review of pensions decisions under Repatriation Legislation (Report No. 20)-Together with the text of a statement relating to the report. 14. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 44 (4) of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961. 15. Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council Meeting-Townsville 3 June 1983- Communique. 16. Medical Fraud and Overservicing-Statement made in the House of Representatives on 15 November by the Minister for Health. 17. Treaties as follows: TREATIES TO BE TABLED IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A. Texts of Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature 1. Interim Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources concerning privileges and immunities of the Commission, signed at Canberra on 15 August 1983. The Agreement entered into force on that date. 2. Exchange of Notes signed at Wellington on 18 and 23 August 1983 constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of New Zealand relating to Air Services, signed at Wellington on 25 July 1961 and amended by an exchange of notes of 18 February and 18 June 1982. The Agreement entered into force on 23 August 1983. 3. Agreement Terminating the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement 1973, drawn up at Nicosia on 19 November 1982. The Agreement was signed in London on 1 September 1983 and entered into force, in accordance with Article 4, on 1 April 1983. 4. Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement, 1983, drawn up at Nicosia on 19 November 1982. The Agreement was signed in London on 1 September 1983 and entered into force, in accordance with Article 17, on 1 April 1983. 5. Exchange of Notes signed at Washington on 8 and 19 September 1983 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America regarding the importation of meat into the United States of America during 1983. The Agreement entered into force on 19 September 1983. 6. Charter of the Asian and Pacific Development Centre, done at Bangkok on 1 September 1982. The Agreement was signed in New York on 11 October 1983 and entered into force for Australia on 10 November 1983. 7. Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan Concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing, signed at Canberra on 31 October 1983. The Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1983. B. Texts of Treaties which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded 1. Protocol to Amend the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, which Protocol was drawn up at Paris on 3 December 1982, acceded to by Australia on 12 August 1983. The Protocol has not yet entered into force. 2. Amendment to Article 11, paragraph 2 (a) of the Constitution of the Asia- Pacific Telecommunity, adopted on 27 March 1976, which amendment was adopted at Bangkok on 13 November 1981. The Amendment was accepted by Australia on 16 August 1983 and has not yet entered into force. 3. International Coffee Agreement 1983, adopted at London on 16 September 1982, acceded to by Australia on 30 September 1983. The Agreement entered into force, in accordance with Article 61, on 10 October 1983. Senator WALSH —I seek leave to have Paper No. 9, the Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report on East Timor, incorporated in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —Is the paper still to be considered in its order on the list as we come to it, or will I now move that the Senate take note of the paper? The PRESIDENT —The Government response to the report is listed as paper No. 9. The papers will be taken seriatim as is the normal custom and practice. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON EAST TIMOR On 8 September, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence tabled its report on the Human Rights and Conditions of the People of East Timor . This included a dissenting report signed by three of the six members, or by half of the Committee. The inquiry began in November 1981, and under its terms of reference, the Committee was charged with reporting not only on the human rights and conditions of the people of East Timor, but also on the actions taken by the United Nations and on appropriate policies that might be adopted by an Australian Government. Few international issues have aroused the same intensity of feeling or had a greater impact on Australian foreign policy in recent years, than events in East Timor. This is understandable. East Timor is only 1,000 kms from Australia and Australians can hardly be expected to be indifferent to the fate of a territory so close to their own shores. It is not my intention to go over the past in detail but there are several points that need to be made in order to put the issue into perspective. For several centuries, East Timor was one of the most neglected parts of the Portuguese colonial empire. The decolonisation process was resisted by Portugal and firm Portuguese control prevented the emergence of any significant independence movement or even embryonic political parties. It was not until the overthrow of the Caetano regime in Portugal in April 1974 that formal political parties were allowed to be established in East Timor. After that, the collapse of Portuguese rule and turmoil and chaos of civil war, led ultimately to Indonesian intervention. There was no gradual process of political development in East Timor, and no preparation for possible independence under Portuguese tutelage, within a framework of general international agreement. These basic facts are covered in the Committee's Report. They are also fully recorded in the report of the visit to Indonesia of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation which was tabled in Parliament on 6 September, two days before the Senate Committee report. It must be accepted that the proximity of these reports and the fact that they deal with much the same subject matter, means that consideration of one cannot preclude consideration of the other. They must be considered together. The Senate Committee's report was largely prepared from evidence given by refugees, much of it relating to the immediate aftermath of the Indonesian invasion. The Report of the Parliamentary Delegation on the other hand, was compiled from first hand experience and observation as a result of the Delegation's actual visit to East Timor from 28 July to 1 August 1983. Apart from the background to the situation in East Timor that I have already mentioned, the Senate report covers four broad areas of interest. I should like to comment on each of these. The first is human rights. The suggestion that there was some semblance of normal political freedom in East Timor at the end of Portuguese rule overlooks the extreme social and political backwardness of the East Timor at that time. There is little doubt, however, that during the period of civil war, the takeover by Indonesian military forces and during the military operations that followed, atrocities and abuses of human rights took place on both sides. The then Australian Government, and this House, is on record in condemning the abuses which occurred. In November 1980, the Indonesian Government informed the UN Commission on Human Rights that it was doing its best to prevent excesses in the province and that it would continue to do so. While this assurance is welcome, the Australian Government has a strong and continuing interest in seeing internationally accepted human rights observed and respected, in East Timor, as elsewhere. It has made its views known to the Government of Indonesia on a number of occasions , most recently on 1 September 1983, in connection with the renewed fighting in the province. Another major concern in the Senate report is current conditions in East Timor. There is general agreement, as stated in the report, that the invasion of East Timor and subsequent military action had a serious impact on the predominantly agricultural economy of the territory. I think it should be noted that during its visit in July and August the Parliamentary Delegation considered the food situation in the province to be generally satisfactory. This conclusion is in keeping with the findings of the international relief agencies working in East Timor. The Delegation also found that the relief programs run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and UNICEF, to which Australia has contributed a total of $6.9m, have played an important part in alleviating the effects of shortages and malnutrition. It should be noted in this respect that food shortages have long been a feature of life in East Timor, and cannot be attributed solely to the dislocations caused by the events of 1975-76. While considerable difficulties continue to be posed by East Timor's poor soils, limited arable land and limited infrastructure , the prospect now exists for the province to become self-sufficient in rice and possibly other staples within a few years. This is commendable progress, and as noted by the Parliamentary Delegation has been matched by progress in the areas of health, education and the provision of economic infrastructure. United Nations resolutions and actions are another major subject of the Senate report. As this section is largely a matter of historical record, I do not think it warrants detailed comment now. Let me limit my remarks to the observation that on 21 September, the General Commitee of the United Nations which determines the agenda for the General Assembly, unanimously agreed to a proposal from Norway to defer consideration of the East Timor question until the next session of the General Assembly in 1984. The decision to defer accords with the Note issued by the UN Secretary-General on 19 August in which he stated that in view of recent developments regarding East Timor, he did not consider it opportune at this time to submit a substantive report to the General Assembly on his efforts to contribute to a comprehensive settlement of the problem. He proposed instead to submit a report next year. I now come to the last and most important part of the Senate report, Australian Policy towards East Timor, which leads us to the conclusions and recommendations . I shall take these together: The first recommendation is: That in developing its policy towards East Timor the Australian Government should make formal recognition of the incorporation of East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia conditional on the holding of an internationally recognised act of self-determination which indicates that integration does in fact represent the will of the majority of the people of East Timor. Honourable Senators will know that when the Government came into office, the first overseas vist undertaken by Mr Hayden as Foreign Minister was to Indonesia . In a statement issued at the conclusion of his visit, Mr Hayden reaffirmed the need to maintain friendly and co-opeative relations with Indonesia. He acknowledged that the Australian Government had never sought to evade the obvious fact that there have been differences between Australia and Indonesia over East Timor. He also noted that Indonesia has incorporated East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia but expressed the Government's deep concern that an internationally supervised act of self-determination has not taken place in East Timor. At the same time, Mr Hayden made it clear that the Government's primary concern was to ensure that Australia did all it properly and reasonably could to help the East Timorese. The second recommendation is: That until such an act of self-determination is held in East Timor, Australia should oppose the Indonesian position on the subject in the United Nations. As I have mentioned, on 21 September the General Committee took a decision to defer consideration of East Timor until the 1984 General Assembly. I would point out that as Australia was not a member of the General Committee, it took no part in the deferral decision. The Government hopes, however, that deferral will produce a less divisive and more co-operative atmosphere in which the interest of the East Timorese people will be promoted. The third recommendation is: That in the absence of a genuine act of self-determination, the Australian Government oppose any action or statement which implies endorsement of the legality of the incorporation of the territory of East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia. I have already made clear the Government's position on East Timor. Let me simply add that Australian policy towards East Timor is indivisible from the policy that Australia must adopt towards Indonesia as a whole. The fourth recommendation is: That the Australian Government use its influence in the United Nations and other international fora to maintain pressure on the Indonesian Government to redress the legitimate grievances of the people of East Timor. As I have already said, the Indonesian Government is well aware of the Australian Government's position on human rights issues and its commitment to doing whatever it reasonably can to assist the people of East Timor. Lastly, the report recommends: That Australia encourages Indonesia to permit the free movement of East- Timorese out of Indonesia and East Timor and that Australia continue its family reunion program for East Timorese. I think Honourable Senators will agree with me that this issue, on which the Committee was unanimous, raises another point that needs to be made. That the only way in which the Australian Government can directly assist the East Timorese is by working through the Indonesian authorities. The Family Reunion Program is a good example. When Mr Hayden was in Jakarta in April, he received assurances that the Family Reunion Program would proceed at a rate of 20 to 30 a month until the list was cleared. In fact, this was the first time that an assurance from such a level had been given to any Australian Government. Since April the Program has almost been completed and only 13 persons are still formally listed as wanting to come to Australia from East Timor. The Government's ultimate objective is to reach a situation where people wishing to migrate from East Timor to Australia can be considered for migration purposes in accordance with the same criteria applied to applicants elsewhere in Indonesia. Lastly, let me say that the Australian Government has attached importance to establishing a sound and productive relationship with Indonesia. This was reflected in the early visits to Indonesia by the Prime Minister and Mr Hayden. At the same time, the Government has never sought to evade the fact that there have been differences between the two countries over East Timor. The Government believes, however, that the best way to proceed over East Timor is through patient diplomacy, and that it can best assist the East Timorese by working through the Indonesian authorities. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I so move because I think it would be useful if in the not too distant future we had an opportunity for a debate on matters relating to Aboriginal affairs in this chamber. For some time the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs have been from this chamber, but now the Minister is in the other place. For that reason, there is less opportunity to debate this very important element of our national affairs. It remains true, as I look quickly around both sides of the Senate chamber, that there are many honourable senators with a particular interest in this area of government administration. It is quite clear that there is a series of matters which warrant the attention of the national Parliament and which could, I think, be debated before the Government goes too far down the track of final decision-making. I refer, for example, to the view which has been put forward by the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, that there should be national legislation in a number of areas. In this respect, he has mentioned land rights, the protection of sites and a couple of other areas such as health which he believes might usefully be addressed in that way. As a one-time Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I say that those sorts of ambitions need to be looked at very carefully because of the substantial legal and administrative difficulties which add to the difficulties on the ground with which the policy is trying to deal. We live in a country which is governed under a Federal system of six States and a Territory which is self-governing and in which there are very important areas of State responsibility in matters which are vital to the Aboriginal population of Australia; for example, in the fields of housing, health, law enforcement and so on. I believe that the experience of the past, including that of the three years of Labor Government under Mr Whitlam and of the three Labor Ministers of that time, suggests that it is of very great importance to maintain, as far as possible, co-operative attitudes and co- operative programs which ensure that there is not administrative conflict, making more difficult the very real problems that many of the Aboriginal people of Australia face. In the few minutes in which one is permitted to look at these reports, I merely wish to give some notice to the Senate that the fact that this report has been put before us provides us with what has become a fairly rare opportunity to deal with a matter of very great public interest. I hope that at an early time we might be able to find the opportunity for more extensive debate on this subject. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.06) —I agree, in part, with Senator Chaney . One of the biggest problems has always been that prior to 1967 we had specific problems as far as Aboriginal people were concerned and since 1967 we have had specific problems. It is just that the emphasis has changed. One of the things that I wanted to pick up in the annual report of the Aboriginal Affairs Department was the indictment under the section entitled 'Employment and Training'. In that section the following statement is made: On an Australia-wide basis, the Aboriginal unemployment rate was more than four times the rate for non-Aboriginals. In addition, the labour force participation rate (the proportion of persons, aged 15 years and over, who were employed, or unemployed) for Aboriginals (47.3 per cent) was well below that for non- Aboriginals (61.8 per cent). I understand the difficulties of Aboriginal people in gaining employment. A number of schemes have been operating for some years which provide them with an opportunity, for instance in the offices of members and senators under the national employment strategy for Aboriginals and through various community schemes. But it is disturbing to see in black and white that since the last census was conducted, unemployment rates have risen considerably. In April 1983 the rate for all Australians had doubled to 10.2 per cent. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Aboriginal unemployment rate could now be 50 per cent or more in some States. One has to recognise that in Western Australia, which has a high population of Aboriginal people, the rate may be even more because of the amount of territory in that State. One of the other areas covered in the report-I recognise the constraints of time-is most important. It arises in the section headed 'Government and Legal' and is the problem of human rights. One has to be concerned about the number of Aboriginal people in gaols throughout Australia. There have been a number of newspaper articles and a number of theses done on this. I suppose one could say that there has been a consciousness of the problem for many years. Comparisons are always made, but very little appears to be done about the problem. In fact, as a person who has been involved with Aboriginal communities for many years, I wonder what can be done about it. Leaving that aside for the moment, I wish to comment on actions that are being taken in Australia at the moment which will mean that Aboriginal people will have less opportunity than at any other time to have human rights or civil liberties available to them. I refer briefly to the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I have had a number of discussions with lawyers who are extremely concerned about what that Criminal Code will do as far as Aboriginal people are concerned. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is aware of it because I have expressed my concern about it to him as have others. I think Senator Tate one night in the adjournment debate expressed his grave concern about the contents of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I know that he will be considering appropriate action in this regard in the future. One would hope that it will not be too long before he does so because if one allows legislation to come into effect it is always much more difficult to have it changed. The only other thing that I want to touch upon is the need for training of Aboriginals, a need which I believe is much greater for Aboriginals, and perhaps covers a much broader area, than for many other groups in our community. There is a real need in this area. For example, it is not possible simply to pluck out a person who has only local Aboriginal community experience and ask him to participate as a counsellor, for instance, at community, regional, State or even national level conferences. That is creating a problem. I know that the Aboriginal Cultural and Training Institute in Sydney has a training program. I hope that the review being undertaken at this stage is a fairly quick one and that adequate funding will be given for people to be able to avail themselves of the benefits of such an institute. Briefly, I concur with Senator Chaney in that there is a great need for a more comprehensive debate in relation to all things concerning Aboriginal affairs. I look forward to participating in such a debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sixth Report Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In so doing I refer to the fact that last week during consideration of the Appropriation Bills I referred to a number of aspects in relation to the operation of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and in particular to the fact that it is suggested by many people in the community, with some apparent degree of validity, that money available through the Primary Industry Bank to the rural sector for various purposes, including mortgage finance purposes, is available at a high rate of interest in comparison with money available through other financial sources in Australia. I did inquire as to whether some steps could be taken to check the validity or otherwise of that and whether the Senate could be informed of such details. I have moved that the Senate take note of this paper so that the debate can perhaps be a vehicle for the matter to be discussed further. I noticed in today's paper, for instance, that the Primary Industry Bank was recording by advertisement the placement of $40m of overseas borrowings at I think 13.8 per cent, which is still a relatively high rate for overseas borrowings, although it is not revealed whether it is variable rate interest, whether it has a currency hedge in it and all the rest of it. As recently as today one gets that indication. It was one of those advertisements containing a record of the arrangement made through a number of international financial institutions for what amounts to a fairly major borrowing by the bank. I simply refer again to the need I think we have to hear something as soon as possible in relation to this matter. I am not suggesting there has been undue delay but I take the opportunity to mention it again today and urge that in the near future we do hear something on it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Agreement Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I certainly welcome the tabling of the KKFC Pty Ltd gillnet agreement. Whilst an inordinate time was taken in producing the agreement, it is hard to put forward any real criticism of its content. I had many discussions with KKFC and the Kaohsiung Commercial Fishing Boat Guild members during the somewhat lengthy formulation of the agreement. It is a very mature agreement, I believe the best agreement that we have yet had concerning foreign fishing in Australian waters. I am also happy to say that it is very closely in line with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce following its inquiry into the development of the Australian fishing industry. I appreciate that some notice has been taken of that report or that coincidentally we moved along parallel paths. This agreement is a real move towards the Australianisation of the industry and it puts the onus on both KKFC, on the one hand, and the Australian industry on the other. I hope that such an agreement can be extended into other fisheries around Australia in order to get them established, built up and Australianised. The agreement provides initially for eight vessels and a three-year term of operation to fish in the area between 128 degrees and 141 degrees east. It also provides for the operation of carrier boats and trans-shipments, for sales to the Australian domestic market, and for KKFC to purchase up to 300 tonnes of fish from Australian fishermen. I believe this to be a very good idea. The agreement provides for progressive participation by Australians, but the Australians themselves have to realise that they must participate and that they can learn and take over if they wish to. I believe that the onus is very largely on them to establish not only that they can but also that they wish to participate. The agreement also provides that there should be a greater use of Australian supplies and materials in the fishing operations and it is hoped to progress to Australian processing as well. The agreement is a most important document in fisheries management and development. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.17) —Senator Archer and I served on the same committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce, which looked into the fishing industry and brought down its report earlier this year. I am in total agreement with all he had to say, but I believe we have to go a little further in the area of Australian participation. Whilst under this agreement eight foreign vessels are to be licensed, that number is to decrease over the period of the agreement, which is only three years. Those licences will then be issued to Australian vessels. The Committee kept on coming up against a few problems during the fishing inquiry. One was that Australian fisherman have a general lack of knowledge or care about the way they handle fish once they have caught them, which means that a large number of fish will not be selected by the Australian consumer. Other people tend to handle their fish much more gently and as a result do not have the same amount of bruising, loss and rottage that perhaps we get in fish from the majority of Australian fishermen. One of the other problems was the lack of knowledge of just what fish are available in the Australian fishing zone. That is of great concern to me. I believe that off the coast of Western Australia, for instance, we have tremendous potential, but no one has done a great deal to find out just what is there. I understand the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation vessel has gone to that area. I will be interested in the final report on what they actually found is available, in what quantities they assess it is available and what can be done with the fish that can be caught. But one of the problems at the moment is that we do not know, and no one really seems to care. There does not seem to be sufficient interest or sufficient funds available for Australian fishermen to make a contribution in this area, given that it means that they have to have much larger vessels capable of staying out more than one, two or three nights, mother ships have to be available to them so that their catches can be taken back to the shore and all those things. Mr President, you would be aware that the report brought down earlier this year was an extremely comprehensive one. I believe that the fact that this agrement has now been drawn up, containing some of the matters that were raised with us during the inquiry, is an indication of the work of the members of the Committee . I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I wish to speak very briefly, not to the content of this statement but to the procedure which has been followed in this case. I must say that I was wrong- footed slightly by the matter coming up at the beginning of the presentation of papers as well as in respect of item No. 9. In retrospect I am sorry that I granted leave for the incorporation of the statement but not because I am generally against incorporating things which are formal. I wish to put the view on behalf of the Opposition that when the Government is responding to a Senate committee report I think it would be much more appropriate if the response could be made by way of a ministerial statement delivered by a Minister. Senator Peter Baume —With two hours' notice. Senator CHANEY —In response to Senator Baume's interjection, two hours' notice is normally afforded for statements. I do not in any sense carp at the fact that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, obtained the incorporation because he only did so by leave which I gave on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition thinks that if we get a parliamentary committee report and the Government gives it consideration, it becomes a rather peculiar use of the forms of this place if the response is not put down in a way which enables the Senate to respond and to deal with the matter which has been put before it. In the case of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on East Timor, it is well known that the issue is one of very considerable sensitivity and importance. It is important to Australia because it affects our relations with our nearest neighbour. It is important in a domestic political sense because there are some sharp differences of view within the Parliament and, of course, in the community about what is the most appropriate course to take. I do feel that on such a sensitive matter when some concentrated work has been done by the Parliament-in this case by the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Senate-it would be very desirable if the more formal approach were followed and there was a better opportunity for an intelligent response from the Senate immediately. The Government's response to this report has not been heard by honourable senators. It has not been read by us because it has not been distributed. Only a minority of honourable senators are familiar with the Government's response. They are, of course, the members of the Committee. I give the Government notice that in the future we will not be prepared to give leave for the incorporation of statements of this particular type. Indeed, we request the Government to follow the formal procedure of making a ministerial statement of which two hours ' notice is given so that all of us will have an opportunity to respond in an intelligent and intelligible way on an issue of very great sensitivity. Senator Walsh —I raise a point of order. If Senator Chaney wants to respond to the statement in more detail at some later time, I am quite willing to give him leave to continue his remarks. I am willing to give leave to make a statement to anyone else who wants to say a few words now. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, it is my understanding that because of the nature of the order under which we are operating I would not be precluded from debating the matter when it comes back before us, assuming that it is moved-as I understand it will be-that it be made an order of the day under General Business . I appreciate the offer made by the Minister. As I say, I am not complaining about the fact that on this occasion the statement was incorporated because he did so with my express leave on behalf of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition will take the opportunity at a later time to debate the matter fully. Senator Georges —I wish to speak to the point of order-- Senator Walsh —It was an offer rather than a point of order. Senator Georges —Nonetheless, it was accepted as a point of order and I am speaking to the matter. It seems to me that what has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition concerns the way other members of the Senate feel about the method of dealing with these reports. I suggest that it is about time the Standing Orders Committee had another look at this method of speaking to these reports because the system is not at all satisfactory. The business sheet indicates that other substantial reports are to be dealt with, including a statement on medifraud and overservicing. This means that no substantial debate can take place. I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee, at the earliest opportunity, take another look at the procedures that the Senate seems to have adopted. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(3.25) —Along with honourable senators who have spoken previously, I too take up this issue. At the moment Senator McIntosh is in America as a representative of this Government before the United Nations-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Primmer, are you speaking to the point of order? Senator PRIMMER —No. I am speaking to the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I happen to be the Acting Chairman of that Committee. I became somewhat perturbed when the business sheet appeared on our desks this morning because I, as the Acting Chairman of the Committee, had not been privileged to receive a copy of that response. So, in essence, to debate the response would be to debate it in a vaccum. I do not know where the responsibility lies. The Committee went through blood, sweat and tears from witnesses who appeared before us in relation to the East Timor issue for 12 months. Someone has fallen down somewhere within the administration of this Government when that response to the Committee's recommendation is not before members of that Committee at least. The list which has been circulated states that it is a Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report on East Timor. The Government's response has never been discussed in Caucus. It has never been discussed by the Caucus Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. I do not know from where the Government's response has come. I have not seen it. Perhaps when I see it I will understand, but there is something wrong. I repeat-- Senator Walters —Fishy. Senator PRIMMER —We dealt with fish earlier, Senator. There is something wrong when at least I, as the Acting Chairman of the Committee, have not been privileged to receive a copy of this response. I repeat: Unless something is done about this Senate committees may as well go into limbo and drop dead. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.27) —It is not often that Senator Primmer and I have identical views. On this occasion we do. We were divided on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We are united on the Government's response to it or, rather, the Government's lack of response to it. I think I can soothe Senator Primmer by telling him that, when we were in government, government responses were always considered by our party meetings before they were tabled in the Parliament. It might be good for the new Government to look at our procedures and smarten itself up a bit. Senator Peter Baume —Not approved. Senator HAMER —No, they were not approved. I too wish to protest at the way in which the matter has been handled and make some suggestions for changes. To incorporate a document such as this and expect to have debate on it when none of us have seen it and none of us know what is in it is quite absurd. We cannot usefully debate it. We can, of course-as will be done-defer it until tomorrow when it can be considered under General Business, but that makes this debate a farce. I should make a further point. If we debate the matter today-even if the Government's response had been given to us in advance-we would have only five minutes in which to discuss an issue of great political importance. This was one of the very few times in the history of the Senate when members of the Senate Committee were totally divided-they were split three-three-on an issue of fundamental importance. It is obviously a highly contentious issue. I suspect that the Government has been attempting to stifle debate by introducing debate on this matter in a rather hole-in-the-corner fashion. I suspect, because of the nature of the report and the consequential Government reaction to it, that the people whom the Government is frightened of are not members of the Opposition but members on its own side. The Government would rather not have this issue debated seriously in the Parliament. What will happen now is that we will have 10 minutes each to discuss it tomorrow. That is quite inadequate for a paper of this nature. We will not have a chance to read the Government's statement. The Government should make a ministerial statement on an issue such as this and it should be read to the Parliament. That is how issues like this should be handled . The statement should not be tabled or incorporated. Then we can have a debate on it. I thought the way in which one issue was dealt with this morning reduced the proceedings of the Senate almost to a farce. The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, moved a motion relating to animal welfare. He incorporated a statement in Hansard so no one knew what was in it. Then we had debate on the matter. If people intend to move motions of that nature we must have a system whereby a Minister makes a statement to the Senate, with prior notice of the content, so that there can be sensible debate. Then we can have a proper debate. If necessary, the debate can be adjourned and brought on later. We should be able to speak for a sensible length of time. Thirty minutes seems to me to be adequate on this issue. However, I think the debate at the moment is a waste of time. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.31) —I want to enter this debate briefly. I have been listening to what has been said. This extraordinary situation is bringing to a head the very unsatisfactory way in which we are treating reports from committees and responses from the Government. I was very interested to hear what Senator Primmer had to say about the way in which this response apparently comes without any proper parentage. Apparently it has not been considered even by the Caucus, which I understood was one of the most powerful bodies in this Parliament. It seems that members of the Caucus are not made privy to Government responses. I will say for the previous Government that responses when considered were brought into our party room. I disclose the inner secrets of our party room by saying that these matters were brought to the notice of the committees that were responsible and were brought into the party room so that members could have some idea of what was happening. I am surprised to see that this Government is adopting an attitude apparently whereby it does not allow even its own members to know what its proposed responses are. I join with Senator Hamer and others in saying that it is totally unsatisfactory to expect honourable senators to make five minute mini-speeches on reports, whether important or unimportant, and responses by government, whether important or unimportant. All speeches are limited to five minutes. It is a whole hour-- Senator Walters —All reports are important. Senator MISSEN —All reports are important but some have greater significance and much more debate is expected on some than on others. Some of the reports listed on the business sheet are probably not reports that will evoke a great deal of discussion in Parliament but others will. We know that debate on them has gone on week after week, that only a small amount of time has been devoted to them and that adequate debate on them does not take place in Parliament. I likewise agree with what my colleague Senator Hamer has said. I agree that a document or statement that is put down ought to be available to us all before we are expected actually to respond to it. We should not have to read it in Hansard the next day. We are reaching a state of absurdity. I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee or the Government itself ought to look at this practice. This House is turned into a farce when we cannot properly debate these matters because we do not know what we are dealing with. Some people have prior knowledge of what is to be debated. They get a report or something a couple of hours before a matter is debated. Others, of course, are not privileged in that way. We have no idea what is involved. We see a matter listed and we have to anticipate what might be involved. We may be very lucky and get a copy of a report beforehand, but that is a very rare occurence. I put it to honourable senators that the whole system of dealing with reports is really insulting to the standing of this House and does not do justice to debate in this chamber. I believe that this system ought to be looked at very carefully and I therefore support what has been said by those who are critical of the practice. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.34) —Mr President, I rise very briefly. There are two aspects-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for debate on reports of this nature having expired-- Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement on this matter. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator Crowley —Mr President, I ask for clarification. I wanted to move that the remaining reports listed be held over until tomorrow. Can that be done after Senator Grimes's statement? The PRESIDENT —Perhaps we can defer Senator Grimes's application until Senator Crowley has moved her motion. Senator Grimes can then make a statement. Motion (by Senator Crowley) agreed to: That the remaining reports listed for today and not heard be transferred to tomorrow's Notice Paper under General Business. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Very briefly, I just wish to make two points. It seems to me from what I have heard of this debate, and I was not here when it started, that there are two sets of complaints. The first complaint is the way reports are dealt with in the Senate, the lack of notice that members-on both sides of the Senate on this occasion, I gather-have received of the reports which have been presented, and the fact that they have not had time to consider the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. All I can say to that, quite frankly, is that I have heard it all before. I said it myself a thousand times when I was on the other side of this place. With the exception of Senator Missen, with due respect no one on the other side had anything to say when we were in opposition. We repeatedly did not get reports. We repeatedly did not get statements before they were tabled in this place. If the Senate wishes to change the procedure, fair enough. The second matter I-- Senator Chaney —I rise to order. Senator GRIMES —Let me finish my statement. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Senator GRIMES —The trouble with the honourable senator is that he just does not want anyone to say anything. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order simply to point out that what is being said by the Minister is, to the knowledge of the Senate, inaccurate. That is not the way responses to Senate committee reports were dealt with by the previous Government. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, the point I was making was that there was a general complaint from Senator Missen and Senator Hamer about the way in which reports and statements are generally dealt with in this place. That is what was said. I have said it before. If we want to change this practice, we should. As to whether this matter should have been debated today, I merely say to the Senate that there was agreement at the Whips' meeting this morning that this matter be debated tomorrow, which would have given everyone in this place plenty of time to read the report and join in the debate in a considered way. The third matter concerns this Government's reponse to the Committee report. I was under the impression that in fact the response had been considered by our party room. If that is not right I am certainly not happy with the situation and I will take up the matter. However, before those on the other side take this holier than thou attitude, I point out that the difference between the way things are supposed to be done-I make this point very clearly-on both sides is that when the Liberal Party is in government the Prime Minister comes in and says: 'This is what we are going to say: cop it or not'; when we are in government we decide whether we agree with a response or not and we all have a vote. If this response was presented without the correct procedures being followed I would be as unhappy about the situation as anybody else and I will make sure that we find out what happened. If we want to sort out the way we deal with things in this place so that everybody gets a proper chance to read things in depth before they debate them in depth, that is fair enough. I used to whinge enough about that when I was in opposition. I will look at what changes can be made. Maybe the Standing Orders Committee should look at it. I will take up the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to see how this matter arose. However, I again make the point that arrangements were made for this matter to be debated tomorrow. That would have given honourable senators 24 hours to consider it. Senator Walters —You did not want it broadcast. Senator GRIMES —We do not mind whether it is on air or not. The only people who worry about the alleged millions out there listening to parliamentary broadcasts are people like Senator Walters. It is nonsense to suggest that there is some conspiracy, that we believed, or anyone else in this place believed, we could get away with something. There is an old saying in this place that if one has the choice between a conspiracy and a muck-up, pick a muck-up every time, and that is dead right. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) -by leave-Mr President, I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). At the present time, whilst this matter is listed for presentation with a notation saying that copies of the report will not be available prior to tabling, I understand that once discussion on the papers is commenced the papers are considered to have been tabled. I still do not have a copy of the report. I am just curious. Can the Minister tell me when I am likely to get a copy of it? I would like to have 24 hours to peruse the report if I am going to debate it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-The report should obviously be on the honourable senator's table now. It should have been distributed when it was tabled. I am afraid I am not responsible for the individual handing out of reports, but I will make sure that the honourable senator will get it in the next five or 10 minutes. We will extend the time tomorrow for another five or 10 minutes so that the honourable senator will get the full 24 hours. The PRESIDENT —Order! I point out that under the practice which has developed in the handling of these reports, the debate on the East Timor statement having been interrupted the matter will be listed automatically for debate tomorrow. Ministerial Statement Annual Report 1982-83 Annual Report 1982-83 Report Annual Report 1982-83 Communique Ministerial Statement Papers Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of the Senate to the presence in the presidential gallery of the Hon. John Johnson MLC, the President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales. To Mr Johnson I extend a warm and cordial welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983, Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983, Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill 1983 and Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 14, dated 16 November 1983. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Australian Wheat Board accommodation at Ceres House, 528 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, for head office and Victorian branch. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed from 15 November 1983, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.44) —We are debating three allied Bills. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill repeals the no work as directed -no pay provisions for public servants and employees of statutory authorities. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill removes the provision that the rules laid down by this Parliament for the redeployment and retirement of Government's employees may not be altered by the arbitration system. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill removes the power, subject to ministerial direction, of dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action and of standing down employees who cannot be usefully employed because of strike action. All these three Bills weaken the position of the Government as an employer in relation to its employees and strengthen the ability of public servants to harm the interests of the public they are supposed to be serving. As I pointed out before the suspension of sitting for lunch, we have by world standards a deplorable record of industrial relations and the most regrettable international reputation for lack of industrial discipline. The Government, which is by far the biggest employer in this country, has a duty to set an example to the rest of the community, apart from the fact that a public servant is an especially advantaged type of employee. I will return to that point in a moment. Let us look at these three Bills in turn. The Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill gives an arbitrator power to alter the rules for the redeployment and retirement of public servants. It gives power to an arbitrator to alter rules set by Parliament, rules that were established by this Parliament after considerable debate. If the Government does not like these rules, which in my opinion lean over backwards to be fair to public servants, it should propose changes to this Parliament or amend the regulations which are subject to disallowance by the Senate. It should not abdicate its responsibility in this craven way. The whole Bill is a cop out by the Government in an area of great importance. If we want to have an efficient and responsive Public Service capable of meeting the rapidly changing needs of this nation, we must have effective arrangements for using public servants in the most efficient way and, on fair grounds, for getting rid of those who cannot perform effectively. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill takes away an important disciplinary power which the Commonwealth has, and needs as an employer. There has been a pernicious development in industrial relations in recent years. Instead of going on strike, employees disrupt proceedings by refusing to do certain types of vital work, but continue to draw full pay. To give an example, a strike is going on at the moment in the Australia Council. There the employees refuse to give any information about any new program, to the considerable disadvantage of the groups they are supposed to be servicing. I think this power is one the Commonwealth should and must have, and to give it up in this spineless way is a ridiculous capitulation to union pressure. The trouble is, as the Victoria Government has discovered, that capitulating in this way does not even achieve the objectives which the Government sought. I instance the Victorian Government. It gave a 25 per cent pay rise to school teachers because of their support in the last election campaign in Victoria, hoping that that would keep them on side. Now the Victorian Government is engaged in a bitter dispute with those same school teachers. The third Bill is the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill, which does two things. Its removal of the power to stand down employees who cannot be usefully employed because of strike action puts the Commonwealth Government at a disadvantage when compared with many other employers who have stand-down provisions in their awards. I understand that 37 per cent of awards contain stand-down provisions. Because of the way in which strikes are being oganised these days when a small key group goes out-for example, the signal men in the rail system-it totally stops the operation of the whole system. The vast bulk of the employees are not on strike although in many cases they are co- conspirators with those on strike. Stand-down provisions for people who cannot be employed usefully are an important weapon in settling this sort of dispute and one the Government is being extremely foolish in giving up. The other part of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill relates to the dismissal of public servants who are on strike. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has suggested that this is unnecessary and I am inclined to agree with him. Section 66 of the Public Service Act, forbids, on pain of summary dismissal, any strike which interferes with or prevents the carrying on of any part of the public services of the Commonwealth. Although section 66 has been in the Act since 1922, the power has never been invoked. In 1976 the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration recommended that it should be deleted on the grounds that in the current industrial climate, section 66 is not viable and that time lost due to industrial action was considerably less in the Public Service than in the remainder of the civilian work force. These are specious grounds. The question is surely: Why are there any industrial actions in the Public Service? Public servants are a special type of employee who should expect on joining the Public Service that they will not be permitted to take industrial action against the public they are supposed to be serving. They are not alone in this. It is the position in the United States public service as honourable senators will remember from the highly successful and effective action taken by President Reagan against air traffic controllers. There is a move in sections of the British Civil Service to agree not to strike in any circumstances. Of course , people joining our Defence Force understand that they may not strike or mutiny . They accept this limitation when they join and surely that is or should be the situation with our public servants. An essential ingredient of becoming a servant of the public, a public servant, is the implicit undertaking that one will not take strike action which will harm that public in pursuit of one's personal gain. In compensation for the loss of a right which most other sections of the work force enjoy, our public servants have considerable benefits. They have, despite the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act, much greater security of tenure than almost anyone else in the work force. They have a superannuation scheme which is far more generous than any in private industry. I will take an interesting example: One has only to look at Trans Australia Airlines which was forced by the Whitlam Government to give its then employees the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It has never been able to afford that scheme. If it had attempted to pay it, or had accepted the liability for paying it, it would be technically bankrupt. Ansett Airlines of Australia has a superannuation scheme but it could not remotely afford for its employees the Commonwealth superannuation scheme which our public servants have. In my view it is a compensation for the limitation of their rights in some other direction. Senator Peter Rae —That is not acknowledged by a lot of the beneficiaries in the statutory authorities, is it? Senator HAMER —I am suggesting that these rules apply to employees of the Commonwealth, both public servants and the employees of statutory bodies. They have these privileges and in return they owe something to the community which pays heavily for giving them these special privileges. Even in the area of pay and conditions they have an understanding with the Government that their pay and conditions are to be equivalent to those of comparable positions in the private sector, except perhaps in the most senior positions. These are considerable compensations indeed. Undoubtedly it would be difficult suddenly to start enforcing section 66 even though it could be argued that all existing public servants have, by voluntarily joining the Public Service, accepted the terms of the Act in the same way as someone voluntarily joining the Defence Force accepts the provisions of the Defence Act. But I agree that it would be difficult suddenly to start enforcing this. What I suggest we should do is to obtain from all new Public Service recruits a signed undertaking of acceptance of section 66. Any breach by them of its terms would of course result, under section 66, in summary dismissal. I think we should also give existing public servants the opportunity to sign acceptance of section 66. If they agreed to do so-all of them joined while that section was in the Act, and I think most of them would agree because the overwhelming majority of them really believe that public servants and statutory authority employees do not strike-they would then be legally and morally entitled to receive the compensations for this loss of a so-called right. They would receive the compensations of security of tenure, superannuation and generous pay in return for a right which they had given up. But, in my view, those who are not prepared to accept that public servants do not strike, those who wish to be able to use their industrial muscle against the public they are supposed to be serving, should not have these compensations. They should not be permitted to have it both ways. They should therefore lose the special tenure and superannuation provisions now given to public servants and instead have security of tenure and a superannuation system similar to those in private industry. I do not think it is reasonable for them to attempt to have it both ways. For those in the latter category, those who are not prepared to accept the existing provisions of section 66, in my view it would be necessary to retain the stand-down provisions in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. Two further points need to be made. The first is that, if we enforce the existing rules and deprive public servants of the right to strike, we must be sure that the arrangements for maintaining their pay and conditions work properly and that reasonable public servants are satisfied that they are being fairly treated. I suggest that we should consider points such as these: The Public Service Board should initiate regular action to ensure that Public Service pay and conditions maintain reasonable relativity with those in private industry, without waiting for a union log of claims and the Public Service Board should make it clear that this is the way it will operate. Secondly, the Public Service Board should ensure that all groups in the Public Service are fairly treated. At the moment there are some groups which seem to be too small for either the union or the Public Service Board to be concerned about. An efficient Public Service Board would surely see that anomalies such as this are promptly spotted and rectified. I believe that the importance of the Government as an employer and the not very impressive record of the Public Service Board may justify the appointment of a full time Minister to oversee Public Service activities. I have some alarming stories of the absurd way in which staff ceilings have been implemented, for instance. The Government was anxious to restrain the growth of the Public Service and applied staff ceilings. But the consequence was that, although the numbers were held, the gradings of almost all positions rose to absurd levels. I realise that at the very highest levels of the Public Service officers are probably paid less than those in comparable positions in private industry. But at the lower levels, we find that a department section consists of a Class 11, a Class 9, a Class 7-all bosses with no subordinates-and a typist. What they have done is to upgrade the level of positions. This has reached an absurd level and can be effectively controlled only by a Public Service Board which is able, willing and powerful enough to go into these sorts of things and, of course, which has both the direction and the will to achieve the results we are looking for. After all, our reputation with the Public Service as a fair and sensible employer is very much in the hands of the Public Service Board, and its reputation is not very high at the moment. But, important though these matters are, they are separate from the issue I was raising about Public Service strikes. A point raised about Public Service strikes is that the 'no strike' provision may be contrary to a convention of the International Labour Organisation. I do not think this is a valid objection. Article 4 of ILO Convention 151 states: Employees shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and particularly if it causes the dismissal of, or otherwise prejudices, a public employee because of his participation in the normal activities of such an organisation. This Convention has not been ratified by Australia. When the proposed Article 4 was discussed at the ILO Conference, a number of member countries pointed out that government employment involved a different relationship from that of employment elsewhere, and that it could not be expected that all rights enjoyed in the private sector could be extended to public employees-the very point I was making earlier. It was also pointed out that the right to strike could not be considered a normal activity of public employee organisations because any recognition of the right to strike by public servants could cast doubt upon their political neutrality and undermine public faith in the civil service. Our Public Service is one of our great national assets. We do not always recognise that we are one of the very few countries that have an efficient, non- political, non-corrupt Public Service. I am sure the overwhelming proportion of the Public Service has no desire to strike and injure the public it is supposed to be serving. We have the duty to see that public servants are fairly treated, but the implicit encouragement these Bills give them to take industrial action is contrary to the interests of both the Public Service and the nation as a whole. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.01) —The Senate is debating three Bills which deal with employment provisions of Commonwealth public servants. The purpose of the first Bill, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill, is to repeal the no work as directed-no pay provisions introduced in 1980 for legislation applying to the Public Service and to the six Commonwealth authorities, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The second of these Bills, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill, is to repeal the legislation which was seen by the former Liberal-National Party Government as legislation which was to be used only in extreme circumstances when the public interest demanded it as an essential area of government activity , as a means of urgently resolving a dispute. The third Bill, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill, again is to permit determinations and awards to be made by the Public Service Arbitrator and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of staff matters arising under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979, a jurisdiction removed by amendments in 1981. I think it is a great pity that the Australian Labor Party, in government, has decided to make those alterations to the employment arrangements for Commonwealth employees clearly on the basis of emotional nonsense spoken about those Bills when they were originally passed by the Liberal-National Party Government. It seems to be a great pity that when we get a change of government people in the new government tend to do things because of emotions aroused during the time of the previous government instead of for sensible reasons. There is no doubt that governments pass legislation which is of benefit. What should happen is that new governments should assess all the former Government's legislation on the basis of its merits rather than on the basis of emotions and recognise that Liberal-National Party governments can pass certain legislation which Labor governments could never get through without losing the basis of their support, just as my parties must remember that Labor governments can pass legislation which we would never be able to get through when we get back to government. I recognise that. It is one of those things. In fact, the ALP, in government, frequently seems able to exercise a greater degree of control over the trade union movement than can the Liberal and National parties in government. We saw evidence of that during the time of the Labor Government of 1972-75. It did not happen in the initial stages, but by 1975 people such as Mr Clyde Cameron had had it up to the neck with the Public Service and were introducing legislation and adopting procedures to make sure public servants behaved in the manner in which he believed they should behave. Senator Peter Rae —Cameron, in 1973, encouraged their irresponsibility. Senator LEWIS —I agree with my colleague Senator Peter Rae from Tasmania. There is not the slightest doubt that in 1973 Mr Cameron encouraged public servants to act in a manner which was most irresponsible. Frankly, that is what this Government is doing with the legislation that is before the Senate at the moment . This legislation will ultimately encourage Commonwealth servants to proceed with abandon in regard to strike action. When the union leaders decide that the time has come to take those steps they will be able to do so with impunity. There is no doubt that these three Bills very substantially weaken the position of government and strengthen the position of government employee unions to hold the Government of this nation to ransom. There have been significant changes in the techniques used by unions in industrial disputations in this country. What is happening frequently is that the labour of key employees only is being withdrawn. It is no longer one out all out in the old tradition of what unionism was all about. That, of course, leaves the remainder in the position where they expect to be paid even though useful work may not be available. One of the changes included in these Bills is that that will be open to the unions and the counter to it will not be available to the Government. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, will get up in a few minutes and tell us that the Liberal-National parties do not know anything at all about industrial affairs and unions and all the rest of it. But Senator Button, who has just walked into the chamber and is thinking about his speech to follow me, will live to regret the day that this legislation was passed by this Parliament. It is interesting to note that both in public and private enterprise there is an increasing unwillingness to abide by decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission unless they are to the unions' advantage. For evidence of that one has only to look at what happened recently with the decision of the Commission to grant a wage rise of 4.3 per cent across the board. In the light of the present economic situation and the present unemployment situation, and with business enterprise and the depression certainly at the lowest ebb that they have been since the 1930s, there is no way that the workers of this country should have bargained for a wage rise. In fact, everyone knows that there ought to be a reduction in real wages across the board. The Senate will recall that both my colleague Senator Hamer and I publicly recommended in this place that what the Liberal-National parties in government should have done at the time of the wage pause was to have top public servants take a salary cut of 10 per cent and middle level public servants take a cut of 5 per cent. We recommended that the Government should then have gone to the nation and asked others to take similar cuts across the board. That did not happen. One of the results of that has been the very substantial increase in unemployment in the last 15 months or so. Anyone who applies his mind to the economic situation of this country at the moment knows that a wage rise at this time is an absolute nonsense. A wage rise of 4.3 per cent at the moment will inevitably lead to much more shedding of labour as private enterprise cannot afford to pay that sort of increase. The unions must have known this. Instead of the unions trying to bargain with employers to get an increase in wages they went to the Government and said: ' Well, this is part of the accord; we have to get indexation.' The Government fell for that line and went before the Commission with the unions. And what have we got? We have a 4.3 per cent wage rise. Let there be no doubt that when this economy starts to recover the unions will step outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, just as the building unions have already stepped outside the Commission's decisions, and will endeavour to use their muscle in order to push this nation into a worse situation than it is in at present by insisting on massive wage rises. Those wage rises will be on top of the high level of wages that they will receive as a result of the 4.3 per cent wage rise. So when the economy recovers, instead of wage rises being put on top of perhaps a lowered wage in real terms, they will be able to jump off from the higher level. The unions are unwilling to abide by the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission unless it is to their advantage. We see the increasing willingness of unions, even unions not normally involving themselves in industrial action, to bring industrial action, all encouraged by the results of this system of ours which seems to have gone right off the rails. I am talking about ship masters and pilots. Of course the teachers have become more and more militant over the years. I also include nurses, air traffic controllers and other such people. Less and less is strike action being seen as a weapon of last resort and more and more as a weapon of first resort. We have to look at what has gone wrong with our system. When this system was set up it was thought that if disputes were taken before a court, the court might be able to bring about a more equitable decision than if the parties endeavoured to settle the dispute at the work place. At that time the union movement was not strong, employees were not strong and there was a lot of merit in that situation. But unions have now created monopoly situations. Unions are in the situation in which free enterprise and private enterprise were in 100 years ago. Although I know Senator Button will try to tell me that unions do not create a monopoly situation, when those unions want to act together they do have a monopoly effect. In Western Australia, for example, where there are I think nine unions involved in the mining industry, one could say they do not have a monopoly situation, but as soon as those nine unions put their heads together-if this Government can ever persuade them to do that-they would certainly create a position of monopoly. Unions are using this weapon in a way which is unfair to the people of Australia. Do not worry about whether it is unfair to the employers or unfair even to the Government; it is unfair to fellow citizens of this nation. I turn to the situation of the Public Service in this country. I agree with my colleague Senator Hamer that public servants should not be allowed to withdraw their labour. That ought to be a fundamental principle of becoming a servant of the public. In return for that provision, for abandoning the right to strike, I agree that public servants should receive security of tenure, superannuation and all those other benefits which they now receive. I think there is much more merit in Senator Hamer's proposal. I would be interested to see this Government pick it up. No doubt it will not at this stage. But as difficulties arise it may ultimately decide to pick up Senator Hamer's proposal that new public servants, as they come on to the payroll, should be asked to sign an undertaking not to strike and that existing public servants ought to be offered the opportunity to sign an undertaking not to strike. I am sure many public servants would agree to sign such an undertaking. The others who refused to sign such an undertaking should have it made perfectly clear to them that their positions would be as for non-public servants; that they would lose their security of tenure. No doubt one could not take away their enormous superannuation benefits, but at least one could take away their security of tenure. Public servants are employed to serve the government of the day and the people of the nation. In return they get these very special rewards which many of us-I am talking about many parliamentarians at this stage-frequently have to go out and defend in our electorates. Time after time we attend meetings at which we are attacked because of the very generous superannuation provisions which are granted to public servants and we have to explain why they are entitled to them. In return one is unable to say that they have abandoned the right to strike, which would be the perfect answer to these criticisms. Many of the services of these people reach right into the fabric of our society-postal services, communications of all kinds, the payment of pensions and other benefits around the country, rail and air transport, and fuel supplies. All of those things are part of the very fabric of our society. Mr Acting Deputy President, one of the things that interests me is the development of proper industrial relations. I am disappointed that Senator Peter Cook from Western Australia apparently is not here today and is not speaking on these Bills because I know that he has views about the development of industrial relations which interest me considerably. Many of them are along the lines of my own thinking on the subject. Senator Button —Do not smear him behind his back, Senator. That is very unkind. Senator LEWIS —Senator Button is suggesting that I am smearing Senator Cook behind his back by saying that he and I have a number of views in common in regard to industrial relations. Senator Button —You said: 'We think along the same lines'. My point is that you do not think at all; he does. Senator LEWIS —I have no intention of smearing Senator Cook by reference to our having similar ideas. There are a number of people in this Parliament who believe that one of the major problems of this nation is that relations between our employers and employees are at a very low level, and for that I blame many of the employers. I know that many of my supporters believe that the only people who are responsible for this are union officials who use their industrial muscle regularly, repeatedly and unnecessarily. I know that that is a fact on many occasions. But on the other hand I openly acknowledge that many employers, especially those in the giant organisations-again it is giantism; I talked about the monopoly of the unions and I talk now about giant industries-have much to learn. For example, they could take their lessons from the Japanese and look at Mitsubishi Australia Ltd and the industrial relations it has developed. That is an example of the sort of thing that can be done if only employers and employees will get together and resolve their disputes at the work place. Together they can decide how the company can become profitable so that benefits can be paid to both the owners of the business and the employees, commensurate with the sort of work they are doing. There are methods whereby this can happen. I hope that this Government will endeavour to implement some of those methods in the Public Service. I hope that the Government will adopt procedures which will enable the Public Service to become much more efficient and will enable public servants to make a genuine and valid contribution to the improvement and efficiency of the services they provide. That is something which an Australian Labor Party government might be able to do better than a Liberal-National party government. I do not know, but I shall certainly be watching what this Government does along those lines in the hope that we see real improvements in the efficiency of the Public Service. Until now we have not been given any indication that this Government will lead the way towards any improvement in industrial relations. In fact, quite the contrary applies. What it seems to be doing is encouraging the public servants of the Commonwealth to take industrial action at will, knowing that the Government will not take any steps to counteract their action. I draw attention to the recent Canberra mail strike. I do not know whether the people of Australia are aware that for a period of four weeks there was a strike over a nonsense matter with regard to Canberra mail. Government Ministers demonstrated that they were not prepared to do anything about that strike by adopting the very simple method of using other means of getting their mail to and from Canberra. Government Ministers arranged for their outwards mail to be posted in New South Wales and for their incoming mail to be brought by their staff to Canberra from the capital cities. Senator Button —That is just silly and you know it. Senator LEWIS —Senator Button says that that is silly. Senator Button knows that it is true. A post office just out of Canberra had never had so much mail in all the years it had been in existence. It was absolutely inundated with mail. Government Ministers were quite desperate to ensure that they did nothing to upset the union which was holding the capital of this country to ransom. It held it to ransom for four weeks over an absolute nothing. What happened then? The people who had been on strike wanted to be paid for the time they had been on strike. The Government said: 'We cannot just pay them. We will have to find some method of paying them'. The Government sent the matter to an arbitrator who came out, believe it or not, and said that it was a proper strike and that those people were entitled to receive their pay. The Government then gave those people their pay. This Government is clearly giving the unionists anything and everything they want. That will not help industrial relations in this country. I suggest to the Senate that these Bills and the revocation of these powers is a clear indication that the Government is seeking an excuse to avoid taking any action in the future. The Government will be able to say: 'We have no power to do anything'. If the Government had kept these Bills alive then it would have had the power to act. I suggest to the Government that this is just a cop out and that the very special relationship which this Government claims with the employees of the nation simply means that the Government gives in on every issue . Let us look at some examples of what has occurred in recent times. I refer to a case which involved an Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority employee who was recently sacked for misappropriation of materials, equipment and manpower. Criminal charges could have been brought against this gentleman, but instead the Electricity Authority in Canberra settled for reimbursement. What happened in September after the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) intervened? The employee was reinstated at a demoted level. He was given back his job. What an absolute nonsense. Instead of criminal charges being brought against him, because the union used some muscle on Mr Uren the fellow got his job back. On 3 November the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, in the other place told the Parliament that in regard to legal costs incurred by the Transport Workers Union in defending itself against charges brought against it in the Federal Court by the Trade Practices Commission-the legal costs wre estimated to be about $10,000-the Government had agreed to step in and pay the $ 10,000. On the same day, 3 November-that day will probably go down in history in regard to this Government's industrial relations policies-Mr Willis confirmed that the Government had decided not to proceed with its claims for costs incurred in the prosecution of trade union officials in the Federal Court for refusing to answer questions before the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Senate will remember that those fellows absolutely defied the Costigan Commission. They refused to answer any questions. Ultimately they came before the Court and were fined a miserable $500. I wonder what would happen if an ordinary citizen had come before the Court. He would probably be serving an 18-months gaol sentence or perhaps serving an indefinite period in gaol until he was prepared to go before the Costigan Commission and give evidence. That is the sort of thing that would happen to the ordinary citizen, but these fellows were members of the Builders Labourers Federation so they were fined $500. They also had costs awarded against them. Of course, everyone said: 'At least the costs will be substantial even if the fine is insignificant'. What happened was that the Government stepped in and said: ' We will no bother to recover the costs against the people who refused to go before Mr Costigan and give their evidence'. One wonders how the Government can possibly face Mr Costigan and ask him to continue with his commission in the light of that cop out. One wonders why the Government has copped out in relation to these people. I hope that when Senator Button responds to this speech he will give us some explanation for that cop out. Again on the same day, 3 November-an infamous day-Mr Willis announced a deal with the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council in which the Government would drop 29 charges against Australian Capital Territory union officials involving trespass if the Trades and Labour Council would agree to abandon a program of bans and pickets it had initiated because it resented the police doing their duty and felt that there was not enough subsidised accommodation in Canberra. So 29 charges were dropped. It is all summed up very well in an editorial in the Canberra Times dated Monday, 14 November, headed ' Anything for a Quiet Life', which states: As far as the Government, the ALP and the union officials are concerned, all this conciliation, capitulation and compromise is good industrial relations. Principle and morality are at a discount. What is disturbing to the rest of the community-or should be-is that the Government and the employers are doing the capitulating, and it is the rest of the community's interests that are being compromised. For the sake of the unions' social concience, of course. Recall the settlement of the recent mail strike. Obviously, trade unionists are 'in' under the Hawke Government. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.29) —We are discussing the Public Service and Statutory Authority Amendment Bill 1983, the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983. The Bills deal with Commonwealth employees and employees of statutory authorities. I have listened with interest to the comments made by my colleagues Senator Hamer and Senator Lewis. I agree that industrial relations is a most important responsibility for government. Australia has suffered severely over the years because of strikes of one type or another. It seems that these days the types of strikes that are prevalent are those described by Senator Lewis and Senator Hamer. They are where key personnel withhold their services in an industry, causing great disruption and hardship for many other workers in the community who are innocent of any involvement in the dispute concerned. I for one have been appalled at how demarcation disputes can disrupt Australia's capacity to trade. Senator Hamer referred to that. At present our reputation overseas is miserable with respect to reliability. Can people expect to receive their goods from Australia on time? The international view is that we have become unreliable. It is very important that we repair that damage. Senator Button —I think you are overstating that. Senator JESSOP —No, not at all. I was in Korea earlier this year. The industrial leaders to whom I spoke were very anxious to purchase more of our beef and our coal. I referred to uranium as well, because they have under way a massive expansion of their nuclear power station program in that country. Their main problem is whether they can rely on Australia to deliver the goods on time. For example, they have to have a stockpile of steaming coal of about two months supply. If we hold up these goods on our wharves for three months, it is clear that the purchasing countries will say: 'We can get our coal from Brazil, South Africa, Canada or some other country, where we can rely on the goods arriving on time'. That is a very serious problem for us to discuss and to solve. I do not think that the way in which we are going about it at present will help. The question of repealing legislation which was in train with the former Government, such as no work as directed no pay, is reasonable. It makes people think before they take the sort of disastrous actions that have occurred in the past. I recall the occasion a few years ago when key workers withheld their services in the Latrobe Valley area. About five or six personnel were involved, but they were able to disrupt an incredibly large industrial sector and to cause about 400,000 workers, who were innocent of the dispute, to be stood down. I recall that at that time the Federal union concerned instructed those employees to return to work in the interests of the other workers of Australia, having discussed the matter and having been satisfied with the result. But these workers persisted. It was at that time that the Fraser Government introduced special legislation which enabled the Government to deal with a section of a particular Federal union. That action resulted in those workers returning to work, although at the time the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, claimed the responsibility for solving the problem. I remember that when Mr Hawke took over the presidency of the ACTU, I was at Port Augusta. I was in the House of Representatives as the Federal member for Grey. Mr Hawke boasted that he could not abide the conciliatory approach that had been employed by his predecessor, Albert Monk, quite successfully. He said that he would get what he wanted by direct action. He certainly went about disrupting the industrial scene in Australia, because he presided over the greatest number of strikes which resulted in a greater loss of wages and working days than occurred during the time of any other president or union leader in our history. It is very serious when people are forced to go on strike. I agree that the figures are better now than they were in the three months of the quarter ended June 1982. There were then 306,800 working days lost, as compared with 759 ,900 in the June quarter 1981 and 760,900 in the June quarter 1980. So apparently some of the measures taken by the Fraser Government were reflected in fewer strikes over those three years. Nevertheless, although the working days lost were fewer, the total loss of working days was about 3,068,000 to the June quarter 1982, and the wages lost were about $18.25m, or about $75m in 12 months. That is an incredible amount. I believe that the type of action that we are taking here will not discourage public servants from withholding their services to the public. Years ago the traditional ethnic was that public servants were quite proud of the fact that they would not strike. The suggestion made by Senator Lewis ought to be given very serious consideration. He suggested that public servants should be required to sign an agreement not to withhold their services from the people and that some traditional pride in the work that they are doing should be reintroduced. Mention has been made of the postal strike. That was an incredible strike. It disrupted local businesses not only in Canberra but interstate as well. It prevented superannuitants from receiving payments from funds with which they had superannuation arrangements in Sydney and other places. That was a regrettable state of affairs. I think that the workers were paid for three days of the week during which they went on the strike that resulted in that withholding or refusing to deliver mail in Canberra or to send mail out of this capital city. Mention has been made of the scene in Japan. The Japanese have a different system altogether. Each industry has one union with which to deal. I visited a couple of large factories in Japan four or five years ago and talked to the managements and the workers. They have a system there in which they have a spring offensive, in which the union goes to management and demands increased wages and improvements in working conditions. They do that very effectively. The management lays the balance sheet on the table indicating the capacity of the industry to pay. That seems to be working exceptionally well in Japan. I did not think a few years ago that I would be saying that we should be aiming towards that system in Australia, where we have too many unions. Senator Button —You had your opportunity for seven years. You did nothing about it. Senator JESSOP —I know. But Senator Button probably heard me say that the number of strikes had become less under the Fraser Administration. I should like to think that that had something to do with the changes to the arbitration system introduced during that period. When we came into government in 1975, we introduced compulsory voting for union official elections. We felt that that was a very important step because it gave responsible union people the opportunity to elect responsible union leaders. It has not worked in some unions. Some key unions still seem to have the extreme left wing entrenched. I would like to think that ultimately that left wing component will be changed and that more responsible leadership will prevail in some of the unions to which I refer. The Industrial Relations Bureau was introduced in the first year or so after 1975. I was disappointed at the time because we drew the teeth of that legislation. I thought the initial Bill that was proposed was a good one, but because of the objections of the Australian Council of Trade Unions we backed down. I think that the result was a far less effective Bill. The time has come when Australia has to face the urgent need to deal with some of the matters to which I have referred, particularly demarcation disputes. Why should governments have to worry about them? The responsibility to determine what sort of work a particular person should carry out is quite properly the responsibility of the disputes council of the ACTU. It is the expert in these matters. It would be very helpful if we could get it to make these determinations so that demarcation disputes could then be avoided. Under section 51 of the Constitution the Commonwealth Government has the responsibility to pass laws to ensure that interstate and overseas trading is carried out with a minimum amount of disruption. I for one have said for a long time, for about 12 years-one sometimes gets frustrated languishing on the back bench, but persistence will out-that we should consider the introduction of an essential services Act that would protect the workers of Australia in essential industrial areas, such as petroleum, communications, power generation and the waterfront. Any government which comes on to the treasury bench in Canberra has the responsibility to introduce laws for the benefit of the average Australian worker. We, as a Liberal Government, did that in a way different from that of the present Government. We believe that private enterprise ought to be encouraged. We believe that penalty rates ought to be re-examined, as should things like the 17 1/2 per cent holiday pay loading, which I was pleased to see Senator Button make some comment about not long ago. I support his concern in that respect and hope that he has the courage to re-examine the policies of the Government and that he will look at the wage structures of Australia so that we can profit by that. I recall that on one occasion when Mr Hawke was the ACTU President and threatened to get his way by direct action, a key union official in Port Augusta at the time said to me that he disagreed with direct action. He believed that conciliation and negotiation were the ways to go about things and he cited the example of a recent achievement. He told me that, I think 18 months previously, his union went to the Electricity Trust of South Australia and the railways with a log of claims. I think there were six points in that log of claims. Four of them were agreed to after two or three hours discussion. One of the others took six months to resolve because it involved a policy change in the administration of the two organisations. The final claim took about 17 months to achieve because it involved the 17 1/2 per cent holiday pay loading. It took the union almost two years to achieve the result by persistent negotiation. I think that is the way we ought to go. Certainly, that particular union leader did not agree with Mr Hawke's initial statement that direct action was the answer to the union movement's problems. I think that Mr Hawke, in his latter days, has somewhat mellowed. I think he realises that the initial euphoria associated with the prominent position he held in those days has dissipated somewhat. Now he adopts a more sensible approach to these matters. Senator Button —I will pass that on to him, Senator. I am sure he will be pleased. Senator JESSOP —I have always believed in paying some tribute. I think the consensus point he made was good. Drawing people together at the National Economic Summit Conference was also a good idea, but I have yet to see any real policies come out of that discussion. Perhaps the only thing I can say about Mr Hawke is that he has recognised that the election promises that he made were impossible to fulfil and he is now pursuing a course in many areas of administration that was set by the previous Fraser Government. I think that is probably why he is getting on reasonably well. But he is not getting on too well in the Caucus, I notice. There has been a lot of argument there in recent times. A very substantial number of Caucus members have a very poor view of the Government's attitude to uranium development. But I applaud the result of that Caucus meeting and I am sure that the Opposition will do all it can to ensure that the industry becomes established in Australia as soon as possible and that the action taken by the Government will be reflected in further uranium development being carried out in this country. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.47) —in reply-I am sure that we have all been fascinated by Senator Jessop's rather anecdotal speech, the industrial relations equivalent of a James Fitzpatrick travel talk. I am delighted to learn that he spoke to a union official in Port Augusta on some date or other, who told him this and to somebody else who told him something different. It is all very interesting, but it has no relevance to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill which are now before the Senate. In a minute , I will come back to those Bills. First of all, I must say, however, on the general issue which has been dealt with by the last two speakers from the Opposition, speeches I had the benefit of hearing, that in pursuing this sort of anecdotal approach and talking about what might happen and what ought to happen and so forth, they have neglected the more important aspect of coming to grips with realities. There is not much point, for example, in trying to impose, or to suggest that there should be imposed, on Australia a Japanese industrial relations system. It might have very impressive results and I am sure it does, but we are talking about Australia where there is a different culture. Without hesitation, I say that the Japanese work harder than Australians whether they be people on the shop floor, managers or senators, or whoever. I suspect they work much harder than Australians. There is a cultural thing in Japan which is very much related to the Japanese view of nationhood and so on. We cannot just transpose to the Australian scene by the benefit of a speech in the Senate some of these things. Similarly, Senator Lewis made points about what he felt might be desirable, interspersed with his horror stories about the present Government and certain things that have happened in relation to the settlement of particular industrial disputes. I do not want to go into the details of all those comments that Senator Lewis made in his Edgar Allan Poe role; I simply say that half the information which he gave the Senate was incorrect or at least half-baked. On the basis of that, it is not very easy to build a persuasive thesis. I make the point for the benefit of Senator Jessop who, having made his contribution, has left the chamber that he wants to argue that a particular system of industrial relations in Australia prescribed by legislation necessarily produces better results than another. He argued that by referring to the record of the Fraser Government which, I think, scarcely stands examination in terms of either industrial disputes or, certainly, wage fixation policies. If he examines the figures and looks at the level of industrial disputation, particularly in the last three years of the Fraser Government, and compares it with the level of industrial disputation in 1983, since this Government came to power, he will see that there is very strong evidence to suggest that the approach adopted by the present Government has been more successful than the approach adopted by the previous Government. I say that simply because in the period in which this Government has been in office the rate of unemployment and, the growth in the rate of unemployment have declined significantly. That is very relevant to the question of industrial disputation because there is a perfectly legitimate point that levels of employment have an influence on the levels of industrial disputation. So I do not think we can draw much comfort from all these things. Senator Lewis said that the real solution to this country's problems is for there to be a reduction in wages generally. I do not shrink from the proposition that if that were to happen it might help the competitiveness of Australian industry, but of course we cannot take just one factor into account like that. All sorts of factors, including consumer demand, are very much related to the level of wages in a country. We in Australia have a relatively high wage structure. It is this Government's concern that as far as possible that level of wages, in terms of its effect on living standards, should be maintained. It is no help for Senator Jessop to suggest that a simple solution is the abolition of penalty rates because that is not only a simple solution, it is a simplistic solution-I might even go so far as to say it is a simple minded solution. We will not resolve problems by simple recourse to measures such as that. The point I make about all these things is that the level of economic performance of a country is undoubtedly related to the level of industrial disputation. A country cannot perform successfully in an economic sense, as we ought to know from our own experience in this country-it was illustrated by numerous speakers on the other side-if the industrial relations system is not working or is not recognised as being of crucial importance to the economic system. It is in that context that there are differences of opinion between the Government and the Opposition about the particular proposals that these three Bills deal with. I do not want to say much about the particular contributions that have been offered on these Bills; we have been through this debate in the Senate before. I simply refer the Senate to the first Bill, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill, in which the essential ingredient is the question of the no work no pay provision. It appears that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition as to the desirability of uniformity across the spectrum of employment in Australia, between the public sector and the private sector, on these sorts of conditions of employment. I simply assert that it has never been at traditional common law, except as effected by awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the right of employers effectively to suspend employees. They have always had the right to sack them but they have never at common law had the right to suspend them. Of course that situation has been altered by various provisions, both statutory and award. The fact of the matter is that the effects of this Bill in relation to the no work no pay provision will be to put the Public Service on a much more equitable basis with the private sector than it has been since the legislation now being amended was introduced. The second Bill at issue, the Commonwealth Employees (Redployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill, deals with the question of whether the right to stand down, dismiss or, in the words of the legislation, redeploy a member of the Public Service or terminate his employment should be a right vested in the employer and carried out at the instigation of a Minister or should be exercised in a unilateral way without reference to an independent assessment of a factual situation. In essence, all the Government is saying in this legislation is that the question of whether an employee should be dismissed or redeployed is a question in respect of which there are always two sides to the argument. In that context, that question should be addressed by either the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator. The opportunity to be heard on such a matter should be there. That is a right which is accorded to employees in the private sector; it ought to be accorded to employees in the public sector. Senator Lewis would blow all this away with a bit of huff and puff by saying that public servants have special entitlements of another kind, which is true, and that because they have those special entitlements of another kind they should be treated differently in respect of the basic and fundamental aspect of their employment-the right to terminate or redeploy. The Government's position in those circumstances is simply that the right to have the matter dealt with by the Public Service Arbitrator or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be there. I am not dealing with all of the issues involved but am trying to isolate what seem to me to be the important ones which have been dealt with in the course of the debate. The third piece of legislation concerns, of course, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, which currently provides for the suspension of Commonwealth employees engaging in industrial action, the standing down of employees affected by industrial action and the dismissal of Commonwealth employees who have been suspended. The legislation was introduced in 1977 and came into operation in 1979. A lot of case histories have been put forward in the Senate about the application of these legislative provisions and their alleged success or otherwise. It is the Government's view that they have caused more industrial disruption than they have solved. Of course it is always attractive to see that an employer, or in this case the Government, has a weapon in its hands to deal with allegedly recalcitrant employees in the circumstances which have been discussed. But the Government's view is that the situation has not been well served by the presence of those provisions in the hands of government and we think, for a variety of reasons which have been debated ad infinitum in the Senate, that there should be a change. The CERR Act amendment is simply restoring the Arbitrator's jurisdiction. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has also announced a review of the legislation, which will be the subject of a report to the Government and the Parliament, presumably early next year. In the course of the debate a number of comments were made about the Australian Public Service which I do not intend to deal with in any great detail. Senator Hamer, who is now in the chair, was one of the speakers. He drew attention to the possible use of section 66 of the Public Service Act in the sort of situation which we have been describing. Mr Deputy President, as I recall it that section of the Public Service Act has been there for a very long time. The view of that section, which I think has been around on both sides of politics, is that it is unworkable not only because of the requirement for formal hearings before a summary dismissal takes place, and all that goes with a formal hearing of that kind, but also because the industrial implications are potentially disastrous in terms of the additional attention which the use of those procedures attracts. I do not think I need to comment on any of the remarks made by Senator Walters who made, if I may say so, with respect, a traditional contribution to the debate. I appreciate the spirit in which comments have been made generally by honourable senators. All they reveal, of course, is the fundamentally different approach to these matters of the Government as against the Opposition. Should we approach them on a consensual basis or should we try to use the various punitive weapons which have not been really effective, in our view, and are not likely to be effective, and which have been the subject of a considerable degree of criticism by bodies such as the International Labour Organisation? I think we should be aware of those criticisms. If Senator Lewis's direst predictions come true, the Government has to bear the consequences. Senator Crichton-Browne —We all do. Senator BUTTON —Yes, but no worse consequences than the former Government had to bear in the past. The point I am making is that there is a diference of opinion. By the works of each political party in government we shall all be judged. We are prepared to face up to that judgment on the basis of our own decision about the importance of this legislation which I commend to the Senate. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N. Townley, M. Cook, P. F. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Richardson, G. F. Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. Carrick, Sir JohnMaguire, G. R. Watson, J. O. W Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILL: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 10 November 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Senate if the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill 1983 and the Director of Public Prosecutions ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 are debated cognately. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.12) —The Opposition supports the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill 1983 and the Director of Public Prosecutions ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. In fact, we believe they are very useful proposals and hope that they have a speedy passage and become law as soon as possible. The proposal to establish a Director of Public Prosecutions is one which has been under consideration for some considerable time. Of course, the original Office of Director of Public Prosecutions was established in England, I think in the last century. Certainly it has been a feature of the administration of criminal justice in the United Kingdom for many years. The nature of the Office there, of course, is somewhat different from the way it will work in the Commonwealth sphere because the prosecution system in England involves a multiplicity of prosecuting authorities around the country. The object of the role of Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom is simply to deal with major crime. The Director can take over the conduct of any prosecutions or commence his own prosecutions in regard to other matters, but in fact his practice is to confine himself to major crime. In the event, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England prosecutes only a very small proportion of indictable offences in that country. The proposal before us in this legislation seems to be a more ambitious one, that is, that the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions should largely become the chief prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Commonwealth offences in Australia. However, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) points out in his second reading speech, it may be desirable, for the time being in all events , to leave the role to be performed in some parts of Australia, as it has been traditionally, by the Deputy Crown Solicitor acting under the Judiciary Act on behalf of and with the authority of the Attorney-General. The justification for the establishment of this office is due largely to the great increase in recent years in offences against Federal laws, not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of seriousness. I suppose the most dramatic has been the great problem of the enforcement of our laws against the importation of drugs of all kinds. There has been an increase in the number and seriousness of major crimes which in some cases have led to major conspiracy trials. There have also been quite a number of other major trials as a result of offences against Commonwealth laws. As I said earlier, the Deputy Crown Solicitors in the various parts of Australia, under the authority of the Attorney-General, have traditionally prosecuted these offences. The Crown Solicitor's Division is a very old and important one and has been part of the Attorney-General's Department and under the Attorney-General's jurisdiction for many years. The work of the Crown Solicitor is spread across the whole range of legal work and litigation which comes within the responsibility of the Attorney-General. The Crown Solicitor's offices are almost overwhelmed by the volume of litigation of both a civil and criminal kind. As we know, a lot of that work is very important testing work of a civil and constitutional nature, and great expertise has been developed in these areas. On the other hand, a great deal of minor routine criminal work has to be attended to in regard to Federal crime. Nevertheless, because of the increase in the complexity and seriousness of crime in recent years it seems that the time really has arrived for a greater specialisation, at least within the Attorney- General's Department, in the conduct of criminal proceedings. Even apart altogether from the proposal for a directorate of public prosecutions, there would be a very strong case for the establishment of a special prosecuting arm of the Attorney-General's Department. The States have always had an office of crown prosecutor which is headed usually by an officer known as the Chief Crown Prosecutor. This is one of the most senior positions on the staff of the State departments of justice or Attorney-General, whatever they happen to be called. It is clear that the time has come at the Federal level for specialisation of that kind. As I have said, this proposal goes further. It involves the establishment of an independent Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, which will have an expert staff. No doubt people who have specialised in this area in the Crown Solicitor' s Division of the Attorney-General's Department will be seeking to move to the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director therefore will have readily at his disposal a number of experts in the field. Also, he will be recruiting his own staff, and I think it will be a good thing that there will be an opportunity to bring in new blood, so to speak. No doubt positions will be created and people of high calibre will be attracted to work for the directorate . I believe that a move in this direction was made at about this time last year with the creation of the Special Prosecutor. It was seen as desirable that an office of independent prosecutor should be created to deal with cases where criticism or concern was expressed about the role of the Attorney-General's Department or the Crown Solicitor's Division in cases of great complexity such as bottom of the harbour schemes. The Special Prosecutors Act and the appointments of two special prosecutors which were made under it last year in the wake of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union clearly established the need for an independent prosecuting arm for the Attorney-General. I am pleased to note that this legislation recognises that fact. It does not seek to remove or repeal the previous legislation. Indeed I think there will be very full justification for its use in the future as well as in regard to the two cases which led to special prosecutors being appointed under the legislation of a year ago. The same thinking behind the establishment of the special prosecutors has led to the further step of having the general prosecutions of Commonwealth related crime in the hands of a specialist, a person who is independent and seen to be independent of the Attorney-General and of any political influence. As I have said, there are the considerations of that kind as well as the considerations of achieving more efficient and expert prosecutions at the Commonwealth level to which the creation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will give rise, and which the Opposition fully supports. The question does arise as to the accountability of such an office. Under Victorian legislation, as I understand it, the Director of Public Prosecutions there has been granted complete independence and is not subject to direction from the Attorney-General. I understand that the situation is the same in regard to the Crown Advocate in Tasmania. However, that has never been the case with the Director of Public Prosecutions in England. He has always been subject to directions of the Attorney-General. I think it is appropriate that the Australian Attorney-General as a member of the Government and of the Parliament should retain ultimate responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the criminal law of the Commonwealth. This Bill preserves that very high function of the Attorney-General. It enables him to conduct prosecutions in his own right, although, obviously, that would be done only in very rare cases, because he would have this major, prestigious and expert Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry on the work of prosecutions for the Commonwealth in the great majority of cases. However, that political responsibility remains with the Attorney-General and directions can also be given by the Attorney-General to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As is appropriate any directions will have to be made known by being tabled in Parliament. However there is some qualification in that if such directions might prejudice a trial, they would not be tabled until the trial had concluded. Another important aspect, although it may not be so obviously understood, is that the legislation does enable the Director of Public Prosecutions, and ultimtely the Attorney-General by direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to take over any prosecutions which have been commenced and to conduct committal proceedings or to take over the conduct of committal proceedings which have already been commenced. There has been some doubt as to the powers of the Attorney-General under the present law in that regard. I believe it is most desirable that that matter should be clarified. It is certainly desirable that in any prosecution for an offence against the Commonwealth laws, whether it be at the committal stage, in summary proceedings or on indictment, there should be this overall control by the most senior prosecuting official of the Commonwealth to take over and conduct such proceedings or to cease the prosecutions. In this country under the Crimes Act prosecutions can in fact be commenced by private persons. It is also desirable that those prosecutions should be ultimately under the control of the senior prosecuting authority. In this case they will be under the Director of Public Prosecutions who is given the power, as I said, to take over, to carry on to withdraw from, or to cease, prosecutions in accordance with evidence he has been given and with his own judgment. All in all, I believe that this measure is a very important one. It is making a very sound contribution to the better administration of criminal justice at the Commonwealth level in the prosecution of Federal offences against Federal laws in this country and it has the full support of the Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.28) —in reply-I am indebted to Senator Durack for the warm support that he has given the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill on behalf of the Opposition. This legislation is very important, and as I said in my second reading speech, it is a response to some very great difficulties which the Commonwealth process has got itself into in recent years with the mounting complexity of tax matters and other major criminal offences involving co-ordination of a number of different Commonwealth agencies. It is a long overdue reform. I appreciate the way in which Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition has recognised the balances which are built into the particular model in the form in which it has been proposed. I am delighted that he should show so much confidence today in the position of the Attorney-General in relation to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, given the rather conspicuous lack of confidence in my occupancy of that office that he and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) were demonstrating as recently as last week. Senator Durack —The office. Senator GARETH EVANS —The office, yes, but these days the man and the office are indistinguishable and will remain so for a long while yet, I assure the honourable senator. So I do not think it is necessary to do anything more than to wish the Bills a speedy passage. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the remaining stages of the passage through the Senate of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill 1983 and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 being put in one motion at each stage and of the consideration of the Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Second Readings Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.31) —The Opposition supports the Transfer of Prisoners Bill 1983 and the Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 which are the result of many years of discussion in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Certainly it was a proposal that was already on the agenda-I do not know how long it had been there-when I became Attorney- General over six years ago. It is perhaps rather surprising that these discussions take so long in that Committee. The Standing Committee of Attorneys- General is a body which comprises the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General of all the States and the Northern Territory. It has, by a slow but apparently reasonably effective process in regard to a number of matters, achieved worthwhile results. I remember a year or so ago recommending to the Parliament a uniform domicile Bill for Australia which had been the work of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for a considerable period. The problem addressed by this legislation-as I have said, it is legislation that will be passing not only through this Parliament but also through the State parliaments-is that prisoners in State gaols cannot be transferred to another State. As the Commonwealth Government does not have any prisons of its own, and under the Constitution the States are obliged to receive Federal offenders who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the State gaol system accommodates Federal prisoners. It accommodates them on the same basis as State prisoners. Therefore, any Commonwealth offender who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in one State but who may come from another State cannot be transferred to his home State even though it may be much more suitable for the prisoner to serve the sentence in his own State. That may well apply to State offenders as well because they may be sentenced and imprisoned under the laws of a State other than their home State. So we have the problem arising that both Federal and State prisoners can be imprisoned away from their homes which presents very great and in many cases very harrowing circumstances not only for the prisoners but also for the families of the prisoners who were unable to visit them. I am very conscious that over the years that I was Attorney-General I received many very distressing letters from wives, parents or children of prisoners who were imprisoned on the other side of Australia from their homes and from their relatives. This is the problem that these Bills seek to alleviate. The Bills also provide for a transfer of prisoners from one State where they are serving a sentence to another State where they may be charged with some other offence but which cannot be disposed of until they have served the term of imprisonment. Senator Chipp —Can we turn this building into a Commonwealth gaol in 1988? Senator DURACK —From what I hear about its security, we might need to spend a lot of money to make it a more secure place. The problem, of course, is that a prisoner can have a charge hanging over his head for a long period whereas in fact he might be acquitted or given a concurrent sentence which he cannot take advantage of because he cannot be transferred for that purpose. That is another justification for this measure. As I have said, this legislation meets a real need which has existed for many years. This legislation has been very well discussed and developed in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his reply might tell us whether the States are proceeding expeditiously with their own legislation so that the scheme can come into operation as soon as possible. Although it is not dealt with in this legislation, debate on the legislation also raises the question of the situation of foreigners who are imprisoned in Australia and Australians who are imprisoned overseas. There have been no agreements between Australia and other countries to provide for the transfer of prisoners between Australia and other countries. One of the problems in negotiating with other countries has been the difficulty I have mentioned of the transfer of prisoners within Australia. As I understand it, it is intended that, once this matter has been cleaned up, it will lead to expediting discussions between Australia and other countries to enable agreements to be entered into, or with the object of agreements being entered into, to facilitate transfer of prisoners between Australia and countries with which agreements can be reached. Perhaps also in responding, the Attorney-General will give some up to date indication of the policy of his Government or himself in relation to this matter , whether any progress has been made and what progress he expects to be able to make in these discussions. Discussions have been held with some countries but, as I have said, it would be interesting to know what stage has been reached and what forecast the Attorney- General has for the progress and development of this facility for Australians imprisoned overseas and for foreigners imprisoned in Australia. In fact, an even worse situation occurs in the international arena than occurs in Australia despite the great distances involved in Australia. Even greater difficulties are being experienced by foreigners in Australia or by Australians who are imprisoned overseas. The Opposition welcomes these Bills and hopes that they will become part and parcel of an Australia-wide scheme as soon as possible. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.41) —I am again indebted to the Opposition for its support of these measures, which I trust will now have an appropriately speedy passage. Would that the spirit of amity and co-operation that has just been demonstrated by Senator Durack on the last couple of Bills prevailed more often in matters of, perhaps, more controversial moment. It may be that we would get a bit more constructive business done if it did. Nonetheless, I am indebted to him for such limited support as he feels able to offer out of the goodness of his heart from time to time and this is manifestly a matter-- Senator Durack —It is justification for cause; it has nothing to do with the state of my heart. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will not pursue that matter any further. The state of Senator Durack's heart is something about which I could wax quite lyrical at the moment, given some of the performances that have gone on in the last week. Be that as it may, the transfer of prisoners issue is one that manifestly deserves bipartisan support. It is a sensible and long overdue measure. It was buried for too many dark years in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It has emerged, along with a number of other matters, into the light of the renaissance that has overcome that body in the last eight months. I hope this will be one of a stream of reformist measures involving co-operation of the States that will come forward in this new, sensitive to the Federal system, Administration that now prevails at the Commonwealth level. It is the case that a national system of transfer of prisoners will now be very shortly in place. Senator Durack asked me to indicate the state of play. The situation is that all States, including the Northern Territory, have passed the legislation. They have not yet proclaimed it pending the passing of necessary regulations which are being finally settled now on a uniform basis. The Commonwealth now comes into line with the passage of this legislation. It is anticipated that around March next year, not June as has been mentioned in one or two Press reports, is now the target date for the commencement of this long overdue and highly desirable scheme. It is desirable from the point of view of both humanitarian considerations, advancing rehabilitation of prisoners and the welfare of their families by having better access to them, and advancing the efficient administration of justice to the extent that it will be possible to transfer prisoners from place to place on a more convenient basis to enable matters to be heard together that should be heard together. The overseas transfer of prisoners will not be affected by the present measure. Obviously it is of a similar character. The overseas transfer issue is, in many ways, a much more complex one because not only does it involve a domestic Australian dimension involving negotiations and agreements between the Commonwealth and the States as to the housing arrangements for the prisoners thus transferred back to Australia from overseas, but also, of course, it involves international negotiations on a bilateral basis, primarily, I guess, if the model of existing prisoner transfer agreements is to be followed, but possibly also with some scope for multilateral negotiations. The present state of play is that the Commonwealth is finalising a negotiating position in relation to the international side of it and continuing, actively, at an officer level, discussions with the States that have now been going on for some time on a fairly desultory basis as to a possible basis for an agreement. I am not confident enough about the timetable here to be able to give a prediction as to when we might be able to move towards the first implementation of overseas prisoner transfers-again for both humanitarian, more particularly, and administration of justice reasons-but certainly I am aiming to have some major strides taken in this respect next year, with hopefully something in place in respect of at least one or two countries by the end of next year. But, again, that is not a projection I make with any great spirit of optimism, given the complexity involved. Senator Durack —Which countries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would prefer not to be specific at this stage. It can be as relatively simple as New Zealand and as relatively complex as some of the South East Asian countries. I would not care, at this stage, to foreshadow with any more precision where we might be going. It is something that is very much on the agenda. Senator Durack will be pleased to know that I have not as yet assigned it a priority rating, so he will not be in a position in 12 months' time to chastise me for having failed to meet my target. Normally I live in hope that some rationality will prevail on these matters and make possible the implementation of things that have been properly discussed. We will see tomorrow , in the context of the National Crime Authority Bill, whether that hope has any foundation. I rather suspect on present indications that irrationality and abtuseness are likely to prevail. But hope springs eternal in the legislator's breast, as it has to if we are not to all have nervous breakdowns in this place. I look forward, accordingly, to some movement quite soon on the international prisoner transfer front. I repeat that I am indebted to Senator Durack for his amiable co-operation in this matter, if not in others, and wish the Bills an appropriately speedy passage into legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Notice of Motion Senator DURACK(Victoria)(5.48) —As I do not want to disappoint the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report, on or before 30 April 1984, as to whether the Bills fulfil effectively the objective of investigating organised crime and official corruption. (2) That the Committee confine its inquiry and report to the terms of the Bills and associated policy matters, and not receive any evidence, or conduct any investigation, relating to any individual person or body. (3) That, for the purpose of the inquiry, the membership of the Committee be increased to 8 Senators. (4) That one of the 2 additional members be nominated by the Leader of the Government and the other be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Debate resumed from 8 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.50) —Mr Acting Deputy President, in response to the debate on the previous Bill the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) referred to the spirit of amiable co-operation that he had received from the Opposition. I rise to indicate that the Opposition will be giving co-operation, but of a little less amiable kind, on this particular Bill, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1983, which seeks to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. (Quorum formed) Passage of this Bill will 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. The declaration of such large parts of the Marine Park is a matter of gratification, I believe, to all Australians. Speaking as a Queensland senator, I think it is of particular gratification to Queenslanders. Therefore I am very sorry that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) gave the mean-minded speech that he did in the House of Representatives when he introduced this Bill. The Opposition in that alone took exception to the content of the Bill and it was debated at quite some length. When the Bill came to the Senate and was introduced by Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, he gave a speech identical to that given by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in the House of Representatives. No attempt was made to alter that speech. I intend here, in the Senate, to put a few things on record. The Senate has been very actively involved in the Great Barrier Reef and the Marine Park. Reference is made in the Minister's second reading speech-and it has been made at various times-to the risk of oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. A number of honourable senators over the years-it has been eight years since the passage of the first Bill-have been extremely active on the subject of the Great Barrier Reef. They have been working, both here and in other places, to ensure that there would be no drilling for oil on it. A number of those senators were members of the previous Government. I admit that there were occasions on which I addressed questions on the subject to Ministers of my own Government. I hasten to add that not one of those questions was a dorothy dixer; they were all asked without notice. Queensland senators from the then Fraser Government were active in that area, as were other senators. I call to mind former Senator Chris Puplick and Senator Allan Missen as two who were particularly active in pressing the Fraser Government to ensure that there would be no oil drilling on the Barrier Reef. Of course, those assurances were given over and over again. There has been no drilling, and I believe there never will be. So this is a matter that is dear to the hearts of both Government and Opposition alike. The Minister, Mr Cohen, said this in his second reading speech : 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. I interpose that this speech was made on 2 November. He continued: 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. When the Minister made his statement to the Press on this subject he said it was with some 'pride' that he made the announcement. Well, I can understand that a Minister for the Environment would have some pride in making that announcement but, frankly, the Minister spoke not so much with pride as with conceit. I reiterate his words. He said that a Labor government brought the original Act into place. That is so, but it was passed with bipartisan support through both Houses of this Parliament. It was passed without opposition. We, then in opposition, in 1975, welcomed it and supported it. Then he said: Since coming to power in March this year the Government has given life to the provisions of that Act. Those words seek to give the impression that the Fraser Government did nothing; that the Act languished for eight years and that in fact only the Whitlam Government and the Hawke Government can claim any credit at all for the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I direct the attention of the Senate to a document which all honourable senators have and which is headed: ' Communique-Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council Meeting-Townsville 3 June 1983 '. This was issued jointly by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), the Premier of Queensland and the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts. It states in part: The seventh meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council held in Townsville today was attended by: the Hon. Barry Cohen, Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, as Convenor; the Hon. John Brown, Commonwealth Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland; and the Hon. Tony Elliott, Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts. Council reviewed previous agreements between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments for co-ordination of policies and co-operative arrangements in respect of the Great Barrier Reef, and determined that these agreements provided a sound basis for the protection and management of the Reef, land and waters in the Region. I explain to honourable senators who have not followed the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council meetings that this means that the Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Commonwealth Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, at their first meeting as part of the Council in June this year, affirmed that all the work that had been done over years by the Fraser Government and the Queensland Government was, as the communique states, 'a sound basis for the protection and management of the Reef, land and waters in the Region.' The document goes on to state: It was agreed that the principles of these agreements should be embodied into a document to be signed by Governments, and that they would apply to all sections of the Marine Park, subject to annual review of expenditure.. . . . . . . Council noted that zoning plans for the Cairns and Cormorant Pass Sections were recently tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament and that these plans were expected to be in place later this year. Council observed that recent State legislation- that is Queensland legislation-- contained similar provisions to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and that an effective mechanism for comprehensive protection of tidal waters between high and low water mark was now available. It was effective because of actions of the Queensland Government as well as the Commonwealth Government. The communique continued: Council noted that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had submitted reports on declaring further sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in the Far North, offshore Central and offshore Southern areas of the Great Barrier Reef Region and that declaration of such Sections, which the Council endorsed, would bring to 80 per cent the proportion of the Region within the Marine Park. They are the sections to which the Minister refers in his speech and for which he takes full credit. Senator Messner —It is disgraceful. Senator MARTIN —It is disgraceful, as Senator Messner says. It is very clear, when one follows the progress of negotiations on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, that the process is slow. It is slow for a very good reason. This has been outlined many times in the Senate. It has been outlined in Estimates committees, under examination. The Minister himself in his speech on 2 November outlined the procedures a government must go through to achieve declaration of a section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, including public consultations and an opportunity for public input and certain expert input. It is not a quick procedure. Very clearly, the present Minister for Home Affairs and Environment did not by 3 June 1983, three months after the election of the Hawke Government, manage to get 80 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef approved as a marine park. This procedure has taken years. It is a matter of pride, as the Minister said, that he as Minister has had the opportunity to announce these things. I deplore the fact that he has been allowed to appear conceited. I know the Minister and I do not think he is a conceited person. I urge Mr Cohen, the next time his officers put a speech in his hands on any subject-particularly the officers who prepared this speech-to take an objective look at the words. If he examines the second reading speech and realises what words flowed out of his mouth he will see what sort of position he has put himself into. I also urge the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who represents him in the Senate, to look at the response in the second reading debate in the House of Representatives. It might have been appropriate to have made some sort of alterations to the Minister's second reading speech in the House of Representatives before the identical speech, which is equally offensive , was made in the Senate. It is particularly offensive, as I indicated earlier, given the number of honourable senators on both sides of the chamber who have worked very hard to see this day come. I conclude the quotations from the communique by reading the last sentence. Referring to Commonwealth and State Ministers, it states: Ministers expressed great satisfaction with the progress that has been made co- operatively in the establishment and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Queensland marine and national parks in the region. In that communique the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism on 3 June 1983 congratulated the Premier of Queensland and the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, and those two Queensland Ministers mutually congratulated the two Commonwealth Ministers. That is the spirit in which these meetings have been undertaken. It does not help to get a spirit of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the State, particularly when the governments are of different political colours, if all they get for their trouble is the sort of thing we got from Mr Cohen on 2 November. Senator Messner —It is pretty low politics. Senator MARTIN —It is very low politics and very crass politics. As I said, I would have to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt thus far. I do not think he is that sort of low politician. I think he should be a little more careful in future when a speech is put into his hands. I want to give some indication of the words the Minister allowed to come out in his name and out of his mouth in the second reading speech, just to illustrate what I have been saying. The Minister said: In August three further sections of the Marine Park were proclaimed, Those three sections were referred to in the communique of June- with proclamations for two further sections coming into effect on 30 October 1983. Those proclamations were made just before this Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. The addition of these sections means that this Government- I emphasise the words '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. I put it in simple terms: If, when this Government came into office on 5 March 1983, only 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef had been included in the Marine Park it would not have been humanly possible-it certainly would not have been legally possible under its own Bill, introduced in 1975-to have proceeded from 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent in six or seven months. If the Government wants that spirit of 'amiable co-operation' that the Attorney-General referred to in an earlier speech, this is not the way to get it. The Minister said: In 1981- This was just dropped into the middle of a speech on the reef- the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage List-- I am expecting Senator Messner to ask me who was in power in 1981. Of course, it was the Fraser Government. In 1981 the Fraser Government had the Great Barrier Reef inscribed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage List and in the Minister's words: thereby bringing international recognition to the importance and uniqueness of this vast complex of coral reefs and their associated life forms. There was not one gracious word in this entire speech about the long-reaching actions of the previous Federal Government. It takes some time to get areas listed on the World Heritage List. Years of work went into that, yet not one word was spoken about it in the Minister's second reading speech. It seems as though there was a vacuum between the passage of this Bill in 1975, as though there was no government from 1975 until 5 March 1983. I think credit should be given to the Fraser Government for its actions in relation to this particular initiative. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: Mr Deputy Speaker, it gave me great pleasure earlier this week to bring to fruition the initiatives taken by a previous Labor Government some eight years ago when the then Minister for the Environment, Dr Cass, introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill. The Minister should be asked to explain why he misled the Parliament. If he had brought this matter to fruition singlehandedly, then he would have been a magician. We hear a little more of the anonymous government which existed between 1975 and 1983 further on in the Minister's speech: The first section of the Marine Park, the Capricornia section, was proclaimed in 1979, followed by the Cairns and Cormorant pass sections in 1981. No government proclaimed them, apparently, those sections were just proclaimed. In fact, those sections were proclaimed by the Fraser Government, after consultation and in agreement with the Queensland Government. The Minister's speech goes on: 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 . . . The Townsville and in-shore 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. That is wonderful, we all welcome it, but I hope that when the history books are written they are not written by whoever wrote Mr Cohen's speech. I hope that credit is given where it is due. At the conclusion of his speech Mr Cohen said: 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 Government did indeed make it a reality because it was government action which formally led to the declaration of these sections. There is no suggestion, of course, that anything different would have happened if the Fraser Government had still been in power this year. I hope that the Minister can take on the considerable task in the future of injecting a little more good will in relation to this matter of the Marine Park. It is very important that there be a spirit of co-operation between the Commonwealth Government, whatever its political colour, and the Queensland Government, whatever its political colour, on the subject of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This Bill, for example, implements procedures which were agreed to by the Ministerial Council. It gives to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service the responsibility of carrying out the day to day management of the Marine Park, subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It gives to the Commonwealth a responsibility to fund 100 per cent of an initial capital works program required to establish management of the Marine Park on a sound basis, with all other capital and recurrent costs of the management of the park being shared equally between the two governments. It gives to the Commonwealth and Queensland the responsibility to meet in equal shares the recurrent costs for management of Queensland national and marine parks within the outer boundaries of the Marine Park. It requires Queensland to fund 100 per cent of the cost of capital works required in the management of the Queensland national and marine parks within the Marine Park. It gives to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority the responsibility of administration of the funds provided by the Commonwealth and Queensland for the purposes I have mentioned. It also charges that expenditure programs be developed by Queensland in consultation with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and approved by that Authority for submission to the Commonwealth and Queensland governments for consideration in their Budget context. In conclusion, on behalf of the Opposition, I say that we warmly welcome the declaration of these sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has been done by a very large number of people over the years. The procedure, as I mentioned earlier, for declaring sections of the Marine Park has involved public participation. It has involved a lot of work by many faceless people, people in the Queensland National Parks Division and people in the Environment Division of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. They have worked together well and with good will. I am sure that I would be reiterating the sentiments of every Queenslander and undoubtedly every Australian when I say that it is my earnest hope that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will become one of the great national parks of the world. The natural resources are certainly there, and the will is there. It will remain the responsibility of people in this place and outside for generations to come to make sure that we treasure that great heritage. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(6.12) —The Government acknowledges and appreciates the support given to this legislation by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats. It is an unusual and very heartening experience to present to the Commonwealth Parliament a piece of legislation which has such universal support. I am pleased to note that, concerning the contents of the Bill and the machinery that has been set up to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, there has been from the Opposition no criticism and no proposed amendments. It is a unanimous piece of legislation. It is all the more important for that reason. I endorse Senator Martin's remarks about the importance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, not only to all Queenslanders, as she has pointed out, but also to all Australians and, I might add, because of its significance in the World Heritage List, to all people throughout the world who are committed to protecting the great wonders of the natural environment. I must comment on Senator Martin's criticisms of my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). Senator Martin severely criticised him for failing to acknowledge in his second reading the contribution to the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by successive Commonwealth governments and by the Government of Queensland. I draw her attention to the fact that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, being a modest man, as Senator Martin implied in her comments-- Senator Martin —No, I did not say that. Senator RYAN —Senator Martin suggested that he was not a vain man. Senator Martin —Not conceited. Senator RYAN —I am happy to endorse that assessment of my colleague. Mr Cohen acknowledged that he was wrong in overlooking the contribution of other governments to this important step. If Senator Martin would address her attention to Hansard for 3 November, she would see that my colleague Barry Cohen acknowledged in his second reading speech that this was a defect, and he apologised for that and went on to acknowledge that the Queensland Government, as well as successive Commonwealth Liberal governments and Liberal-National Party coalition governments have made their contributions over a period to the step which we are now all welcoming. So I hope that Senator Martin will accept from me, placing on record on behalf of the Government, our acknowledgement that many governments, including the Government of Queensland and the Fraser Government, made a contribution to protecting the wonders of the Great Barrier Reef and ensuring by the declaration of this park that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will be safe from oil drilling or any other kinds of destructive commercial incursions for all time. I thank the Opposition for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 6.16 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we were advised orally by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) of the program for the rest of the day. We were also issued with a red sheet and the two do not correspond. The Attorney made reference, I think, to the Representation Bill or some referendum Bill. I would appreciate some clarification from the Government as to precisely what the order of business will be for the rest of the evening. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —As I understand it, there is ample business to keep us going for well into the night. There was some confusion at the tail end of the piece of paper that was thrust into my hand before the suspension for dinner to settle the order of business. The Representation Bill was an optional extra. It is not, in fact, proposed for this evening. The order of business is in accordance with the red sheet, the supplementary order of business, that has now been circulated, namely the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, followed by the States Grants (Petroleum Products) package, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) the radiocommunications Bills and finally, the Sex Discrimination Bill. Debate resumed from 5 October 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.03) —The Senate is about to debate the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This involves amendments to the whole co-operative companies and securities scheme, namely, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act, or takeover code, the Companies Act, the National Companies and Securities Commission Act, the Securities Industry Act and the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The legislation before us is of some magnitude and many of the amendments proposed in this legislation are of great significance for the administration of companies and securities law. This may be somewhat surprising in view of the relative recency of the co-operative scheme and the codes under it, particularly as the Companies Act itself came into existence only a short time ago. In fact, the whole scheme came into existence only in 1978 as a result of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. Successively, parts of the legislative package such as the National Companies and Securities Commission Act itself, followed by the Companies ( Acquisition of Shares) Act and the Securities Industries Act came into existence . Finally, the Companies Act itself, the major piece of companies legislation, was brought into operation only about a year ago. The Bill before us, as I have said, makes amendments to a number of pieces of legislation. It may seem surprising that one would have about 100 amendments proposed to a package of such recent origin. The Senate should be aware that we are faced with the prospect of legislation of this magnitude and complexity virtually on an annual basis. I think that should be one of the first matters to which we give consideration. I hasten to say that the Opposition will not oppose this Bill, but I think that we in this Parliament have a duty to consider it. We are the only Parliament in Australia that now gives consideration to these laws under the co-operative scheme. As one would appreciate, the volume and complexity of the scheme itself is somewhat forbidding. The prospect of this Parliament having to consider on an annual basis very sizable amendments to it is a pretty daunting prospect. It raises very serious questions about ministerial responsibility and parliamentary control of the whole scheme. We in this Parliament should be giving some thought now and in the near future to the way in which we are to exert any control over this great bureaucratic problem with which we are faced. I think the problem would apply whether it was a co-operative scheme, that is, a scheme arising under an agreement between the Federal and State governments, or a national scheme of the Parliament alone, administered purely by a Minister responsible solely to this Parliament. The fact of the matter is that we have this huge volume of legislation of a very technical kind. It is administered largely by technocrats, whether they be government officials, lawyers or accountants. Of course, many other people are particularly interested in it in the business community, for example, directors, bankers and so on. We should really look at ways and means of more satisfactorily dealing with this legislation and the way it seems to be going. Under the scheme we are faced with decisions that are made by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, which is comprised of the Federal and State Ministers responsible for various parts of the national companies and securities code. The council has the responsibility of determining what amendmens are to be made to the code and what amendments are to be proposed under the scheme by the Commonwealth Minister, who happens at the moment to be the Attorney-General, but it is not necessary that he be the responsible Minister. Indeed, until the abolition of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, the Minister holding that portfolio was the responsible Minister. So we are, as I said, faced with the situation in which legislation of this volume and complexity is approved by that group of Ministers and, under the agreement, is presented to this Parliament, it being the only Parliament which maintains the function of passing, rejecting or amending the legislation. So the whole central basis of our parliamentary democracy and our responsibilities under that principle of government rests on us in this Parliament and, I venture to say, primarily upon this Senate. Quite frankly, I do not think we are equipped during this second reading debate, nor will we be later in the Committee of the Whole, to give proper attention to the complexity of this legislation and, as I said, apparently the volume of it. Consideration of this legislation will be an annual exercise. Based upon the experience that I have had in trying to cope with it, I believe it will be necessary for this Senate either to set up a special committee to cope with it or to set up a standing committee of the Senate to do so, which I think would be a preferable course of action because it is very important that we do have a group of senators who will take an on-going interest in the matter and develop some expertise in dealing with the matters contained in this type of legislation . As I said, I just do not think we are in any way equipped to handle it under the ordinary procedures we have embarked upon at the present moment. However, I am not suggesting that this legislation should be referred to a committee; I am simply speaking as a result of the experience I have had in recent weeks in trying to cope with it. I believe that we should be giving some thought to the way in which we will handle this matter in the future and the best proposal I can make in order that we may sensibly handle this type of legislation-I am not moving any motions in this respect at the moment, but we should consider it-is to have a Senate committee, either one of the standing committees or a special standing committee such as the one we set up in relation to the scrutiny of Bills, deal with the legislation. Senators themselves do not have the opportunity to go through legislation with the fine tooth comb necessary to determine matters, so the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills looks at legislation and accepts responsibility for it. I think that in the future a committee of that kind should be set up for this purpose. The other problem that I see involves the various interest groups concerned. As I said earlier, those groups are varied and include lawyers, accountants, bankers and many other people who are vitally concerned in their day to day business activities with the provisions of the company code, the takeovers code and the Securities Industry Act, as well as the policies and activities of the National companies and Securities Commission. These things have such a vast impact on the economic life of people in the community that the people concerned would normally expect to have at least some of their members of parliament taking an on-going interest in these matters and developing expertise in dealing with the problems presented by this package of legislation. I turn to the provisions of this Bill. As I said, it does not simply deal with a number of technical amendments of a routine kind; it proposes a number of quite important changes to the codes. For instance, as far as the takeovers code is concerned, it gives the National Companies and Securities Commission a much wider power in relation to what may be unacceptable conduct in relation to an acquisition, and it gives the power to declare unacceptable conduct before the threshold of 20 per cent is reached. That is certainly an important qualification and amendment to the takeovers code. It also makes major changes to the traditional company law in relation to the doctrine of ultra vires. It gives companies the powers of a natural person unless those are restricted in the memorandum and articles of association. So that is a major change as well. As far as shareholders' remedies are concerned, if a shareholder alleges that a company's affairs are being conducted in an oppressive manner there are only limited remedies under existing law, but under the provisions of this Bill a shareholder or the NCSC may apply to the Supreme Court for an order that a company be wound up or any other order it considers appropriate in the circumstances. The ground is that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to or discriminatory against a member or members, or in a manner contrary to the interests of the members as a whole. I believe that is a very valuable and important amendment to the existing legislation. The Bill also contains amendments in relation to the obligation of directors in relation to their statements and reports. For instance, directors will be obliged to attach to the accounts prior to the auditor's statement a statement as to whether the accounts reflect a true and accurate picture of the company's position at the time of the annual meeting. They have to be updated to reflect the changed circumstances since the lodgment of such accounts. Directors will be obliged to obtain a review of the operations of the company, expected results of those operations and so on. There were in the exposure draft of this legislation some additional obligations of directors which met with a great deal of criticism, and I am pleased to say that the system as we have it is that seemingly the body with ultimate control, the Ministerial Council, has taken note of that and has modified the obligations in a way which now seems to be, as far as I can ascertain, agreeable to the critics of those original proposals. The legislation contains a number of other major changes which I do not propose to cover, except that which relates to accounting standards. The Bill does give legislative effect to proposals which have been in the system for some time. Those who have been taking a close interest in the matter will be aware of the proposal to establish an Accounting Standards Review Board which will have, as this legislation provides, the obligation of laying down accounting standards for the preparation of profit and loss accounts, balance sheets, group accounts and so on. In future these must be prepared in accordance with the standards laid down by that board, with the qualification that directors may prepare accounts in a form different from those standards if they certify that compliance with those standards would not give a fair and true view of the company's position. Although that is a desirable course of action, I think the accounting profession may have some reservations about the notion of an Accounting Standards Review Board and a great deal depends upon the composition of that Board. I notice that in a submission made to the National Companies and Securities Commission in August last year the accountants indicated a belief that there should be legislative backing for accounting standards. They submitted that such backing would be most simply and economically achieved by regulations which endorsed standards produced by the accounting profession through its existing standards board. They said that a bureaucratic step of introducing a separate accounting standards review board would be justified only if it were considered to be essential towards achieving such legislative backing . Obviously, the judgment has been made by the National Companies and Securities Commission and by the Ministerial Council that it is desirable or necessary to set up this Board. What is a matter of great concern-it ought to be a matter of great concern to the Senate-is the way in which the Board is being set up. This legislation certainly gives the legislative backing to the accounting standards, but it does not set up the Board. There is nothing in this legislation which actually sets up the Board. I thought we would have had some legislation to set up the Board. I thought it would be set up in this Bill or in separate legislation but that has not been done. This Board will not be a statutory board. It is to be set up by the Ministerial Council. The accounting standards that are to be determined by that Board are to be disallowable only by the Ministerial Council. If this Parliament is prepared to give an outside body-namely, this Ministerial Council- those sorts of powers, we might as well abdicate our role in this area completely. We should be realistic about the situation and simply say: 'Well, we will abdicate all legislative responsibility for this exercise. We will hand the matter over to the Ministerial Council and we will make no pretence that there is anything like parliamentary control over this whole scheme'. Senator Gareth Evans —You have it already with stock exchanges. What is the matter with you? Senator Peter Rae —It is a fair point, though. Senator DURACK —Historically, stock exchanges have been self-regulating bodies. It may well be necessary and desirable to have more parliamentary control over other aspects of this whole scheme. But I am dealing with a new proposal which has been brought forward to this Parliament in regard to the development of the scheme. I am saying that we should not allow parliamentary control and responsibility regarding this scheme to be further whittled away. What bothers me is that it has gone so far already that nobody sees the Parliament as exercising any control. It has already gone so far that those who are concerned with the legislation simply deal with officials, the NCSC or ultimately the Ministerial Council. We are being asked as a Parliament simply to rubber stamp this whole exercise. If that is what the Parliament wants, so be it, but let us be perfectly clear about it. Let us not go through the pretence which exists. This is the only Parliament which now has any control over this matter. I think that is the sensible part of the scheme. But as we are the only Parliament that is left with any control over the matter I believe it is our responsibility to take a close interest in what is done by all those who are part and parcel of the scheme, particularly the Ministerial Council. I have circulated some amendments regarding the proposed Accounting Standards Review Board. I believe the standards at least should be tabled and should be subject to disallowance in the Parliament rather than by the Ministerial Council . As I said, this Board is not to be a statutory body. We propose that there should be a reporting by that body, as there would be in accordance with the reporting rules that are followed by statutory authorities. I do not propose to go further into the details of this scheme. A number of criticisms have been made about the details of it. I believe, in view of the present state of organisation and the inadequacy of parliamentary control regarding this matter, that it would be futile to seek to move detailed amendments to the scheme at this stage. I hope that in the future the Senate will establish better institutions whereby meaningful discussion of amendments, even though they may be of a more technical character, will be possible in this chamber. At this stage I am concerned simply that we, as senators, should assert the ultimate responsibility that we have regarding this important new development of the Accounting Standards Review Board. We should at least assert our right to review those standards. We ought to be advised by that Accounting Standards Review Board of its activities on an annual basis. Apart from that, the Opposition does not propose to go into any detailed examination of the provisions. As I said, I hope this will be the last time the Parliament will review this matter in this very broad and general way. I hope that in the future we will develop some better way of handling the issue. At present the Opposition is prepared to give approval to the Ministerial Council's decisions in this regard, subject to the amendments that I have indicated. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.27) —The Senate is debating the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983. We on this side of the House are indebted to the speech on this topic by my distinguished senior colleague Senator Durack, who has just resumed his seat. Senator Durack drew our attention to some very serious difficulties with this law, particulatly in relation to the way in which this Parliament operates in regard to it. I think we all know enough of the history of this legislation-it goes back to the time of the Whitlam Government-to understand its genesis and evolution to its present form. Basically, the parent legislation established a Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities which embraces the States. This Council considers amendments and various issues relating to company law. The Council, in effect, recommends changes to the law which more or less-as Senator Durack has pointed out-come to this Parliament to receive a rubber stamp. It is that issue about which I think we on this side of the House are concerned. The amendments are, of course, increasing in number and in complexity. While this occurs legislation will become increasingly difficult to administer and will be incapable of being changed by the Parliament of which we are members. I believe we all have to have due regard to that issue. It is a matter which the Government ought to be considering in the course of its review of companies and securities law. I wish to mention several matters which illustrate the difficulties which exist in relation to this law. I note from the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that a Companies and Securities Law Review Committee and an accounting Standards Review Board will be established. Senator Durack has already drawn our attention to the need for that Committee. He also drew our attention to the very important point of the composition of that Committe. We should give very careful consideration to the people who will comprise that Committee and will actually undertake the review of the law. I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that we need practical people, people who have had a very long-standing involvement in the company law area. I am speaking not only of laywers, of course, but also of accountants and other practical people who deal in this area on a day to day business basis and who must be consulted widely in the course of the review. I hope that the Government will move very quickly and strongly to establish that Review Committee and get it under way as soon as possible so that we can get a better and, if one likes, comprehensive review of the law. I should like to mention a few matters which this legislation seeks to amend. I refer to things which appear not to be part of any comprehensive review but rather have to be dealt with on a one-off basis and really are very difficult to piece together in terms of a comprehensive pattern in the law. The first matter to which I wish to refer is the amendment with regard to ultra vires. The Bill seeks to remove the need for a company to establish special objectives, a requirement which has existed for many many years, in fact probably well over 200 years. Probably that principle is anachronistic and it is time it was removed. However, having removed it and virtually attributed the rights of a natural person to an artificial corporation, we have to consider what are those rights and what are the limitations that should be imposed upon them in the special circumstances of corporations as they affect the directors, shareholders , creditors and other persons who are directly connected with corporations. For that reason I am a little concerned about this move, although on the whole I believe it is a good step and represents an updating of principles. However, the point has to be made that this kind of one off aproach to a reform, so-called, of company law perhaps introduces into the law other anomalies, other difficulties, other problems which have not been properly thought through and which I think require a most comprehensive approach. The Minister in his second reading speech drew attention to the question of the lodgment of accounts by exempt proprietary companies. Perhaps this illustrates the kind of point I am trying to make. Indeed, I think the Attorney-General, when in opposition, acknowledged that there is a very distinct difference in the nature of the operations of exempt proprietary companies and those of public companies, which are controlled and regulated by very complex laws of the type we are now debating and, of course, by other legislation with regard to the National Companies and Securities Commission. The point here, of course, is that exempt proprietary companies in the main are organised to control the affairs of relatively small business undertakings, and mainly family operations. Yet, under the present law the requirements for lodging documents, compliance with accounting standards, the preparation of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts and other documentation are on the same basis as those in respect of major corporations with very significant assets. I think the time has come for us to consider that there is a very significant difference in the operations of those two different types of companies. Smaller operations simply do not have the kind of impact in the economy that a major corporation does, yet the smaller operations are loaded with considerable costs, difficulties and practical problems that arise directly out of the need to comply with the general law, which for them has very little application. I think we need to think through the mode of such an exempt proprietary company , the style in which it is created, the kind of legal entity it represents, to see whether we can design a better system of operation in the community so that companies of this type are more effective, more efficient and contribute more to the community well-being. I think the Committee which is to be established by the Government to undertake the review ought to consider very carefully the basic question of the operation of relatively small companies. I think we can make the point that probably as many as 90 per cent of all corporations that are registered with the various corporate affairs commissions throughout the States are in the exempt proprietary company category. Yet they are probably representative of a very small part of the overall economy of Australia. I should like to mention one or two other matters in relation to exempt proprietary companies. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the requirement to lodge accounts with the National Companies and Securities Commission, which may or may not be audited. Under the present law, there is no need to lodge financial statements with that body. The question arises as to whether or not accounts should be lodged and audited. I think this matter is referred to in the Minister's second reading speech. He made the point in the course of his remarks that the proposal to have accounts lodged with the NCSC and audited was brought forward by the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. I find that a very surprising statement. I do not seek to question the Minister's veracity, but I would like him to amplify whether or not that is so and whether or not he believes that it is a reasonable proposition. Perhaps he could give us his view as to whether or not he will be taking this matter to the Review Committee in order to obtain further opinions and submissions from the various interested bodies. I am fairly certain that bodies such as chambers of commerce and those which represent business interests as distinct from accounting interests would be particularly interested in this matter. I think this relates back to the earlier point I made that the very nature of the corporate entity as it applies to the relatively smaller proprietary companies is a question which should be examined very closely. Senator Durack drew our attention, very properly, to the question of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and the capacity of this Parliament to amend laws that are proposed by that Council from time to time. He pointed out that we are virtually a rubber stamp in this area. I think the time has come for the Parliament to assert itself in this regard, to prove the capacity of the Council to be flexible in cases where need is demonstrated by the Parliament for the law to be amended. I am not proposing any major point here, I am merely pointing up the issue as being one of very great and increasing concern in the community. It is a matter which we as a Parliament ought to consider very deeply. I think it is something which does require very careful thought on the part of the Government when it considers further amendments. Perhaps it is not a matter which ought to be taken to the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. This is now proposed in the legislation. I turn very briefly to one area which is encompassed by these amendments. It does highlight the need for a very specific review of the individual clauses and perhaps points up the lack of capacity of this Parliament to do much about it, given the nature of the arrangements with the States through the Ministerial Council. I will refer to the clauses of the Bill, starting at proposed new section 324A which relates to the affairs of receivers. To point up some of the more clear and obvious absurdities of these amendments, I direct attention to proposed new section 324A which sets out certain fairly standard powers which are said to be subject to any provisions of the court order under which a receiver is appointed or any instrument or debenture under which he was appointed in respect of a particular receivership. Surprisingly, proposed new section 324A (q) allows a receiver to appoint an agent to do any business that the receiver is unable to do or that can more conveniently be done by an agent. In fact previous common law cases and case law which have emanated from the courts have proven that a receiver can delegate only matters of a routine or ministerial nature. In one stroke the law is providing a far wider power of delegation to a receiver in a very difficult and fiduciary situation, which I do not think has had proper exposure in the literature, or among the accounting bodies or the various legal authorities. I move now to the next proposed new section, 324B which deals with the duties of the receiver in respect of bank accounts and provides that failure to comply with that section will constitute an offence. Thus if a receiver fails to bank money within three business days of receiving it he will be guilty of an offence , but the section says nothing about the requirements of a receiver to enter and take possession of other assets of a corporation. We have the rather ludicrous situation wherein a receiver is required under penalty to lodge cash in a bank account and will suffer a penalty if he fails to do so. But if he fails to obtain the key to the yard in which the company's stock or its plant is located and if he fails to establish his possession of those goods, he is scot free; he is not under any charge, according to this law. I think this kind of inconsistency reveals a situation which is starting to develop in the law following the arrangements which we have. It is the kind of issue which needs a means by which we can quickly attend to amendments to the law where necessary. As I pointed put earlier, it does cut across the point about liberalisation of a receiver's position in operating through an agent. Consequently, there appears to me to be an inconsistent approach in this area. I think that Senator Durack's point in regard to a Senate committee having power to examine these questions and to recommend changes which can be tested is a very worthwhile one and I support it very heavily. On the question of receivers, proposed new section 324C mirrors the very heavy responsibility which is imposed on liquidators under section 418 of the Companies Act. It requires amongst other things that a receiver report to the Commission any apparent negligence, default, breach of duty, or breach of trust on the part of a person who has taken part in the formation, promotion, administration, management or winding up of the company. I make the point that that refers to a receiver. It probably is not a totally unfair requirement, but the fact that requires a receiver, whose duty it is to secure the repayment of his client's debt, to spend time and his client's money in carrying out a reporting function which has nothing to do with his client, and which should be undertaken by a liquidator at a later phase of the company's life, appears to be a rather inconsistent approach. If the receiver fails to do his duty he will no doubt suffer the consequences imposed by the penalty sections in this regard, one which relates to the prosecution of delinquent officers, and proposed section 324E which refers to the supervision of receivers. So I think these areas do cause considerable concern to some people who are responsible for the practical administration of the law in the economy and who in fact do experience these difficulties which I have highlighted. I think it demonstrates the point that we need a means by which we can readily obtain change in this law without the massive requirements which are currently before us. The final thing I wish to say relates to the Accounting Standards Review Board. Again I endorse the remarks of Senator Durack in this regard that there would appear to be some need for the establishment of such a board. By the same token a means is also required by which there can be rapid amendment of the standards which of necessity have to be amended from time to time as circumstances change. One only has to consider the economic circumstances as they have affected corporations over the last 10 years to understand the considerable changes which have arisen in the accounts of companies as a result of rapid inflation, rapid deflation, heavy recession, the demands upon the resources of companies arising from redundancy payments and matters of that kind. These are not properly accounted for under the current arrangements. For that reason I believe that these amendments need to be effected in a ready, efficient and effective manner in order to maintain a very appropriate set of accounting standards for corporations generally. The establishment of the Review Board is, as Senator Durack has pointed out, to be undertaken by the Ministerial Council. Again it draws our attention to a fundamental issue which we discussed earlier. The honourable senator's solution through an amendment which has been proposed is indeed a worthwhile one. It demands the support of all honourable senators because it requires that any changes to accounting standards which have been determined by the Board be laid on the table in this Parliament and be debated here and that appropriate action be taken to amend them where required. I believe that is a very worthwhile suggestion and I commend the proposed amendment to the Senate. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.49) —The Australian Democrats support the general thrust of the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I am very happy to see that there is general support for the Bill not just from all parties in this Parliament but also from other very vital bodies such as the stock exchanges, the accounting bodies and others which will be affected by the changes that this Bill will bring about. I want to speak only briefly about two or three aspects of the Bill because the debate has covered the main points. There is general unanimity on both the need for the Bill and the direction that the Bill is taking. One factor that is vital is that the Bill adds to the responsibilities of directors. This has been an obvious need and one which has probably taken a lot of negotiating to achieve because there is a recognition of the need but there has not been general agreement as to the means of overcoming the problem of directors being able to avoid their responsibilities. It will also make it easier to trace beneficial ownership of shares, something which has become quite vital particularly, as we have seen, over the last 12 to 18 months. Very importantly, the Bill advances the protection for minority shareholders. The gains that minority shareholders make in this legislation are considerable. One in particular which I think is a key is that a minority shareholder will no longer need to show detriment to his financial interests as a shareholder to obtain remedies for actions taken by the directors. I think that will change considerably the effects of decisions taken by directors which act to the detriment of minority shareholders. The foundation is here for the reform of accounting standards. That is quite significant. A body is established and the Accounting Standards Review Board will have a massive responsibility, but I believe that it will adopt that responsibility with a great deal of good will because of the recognition throughout the community of the need to review and reform the Australian accounting standards. That brings us to the controversial point; that is, the proposed amendment as to how these accounting standards will be handled. It seems to me that the Government has come to this Parliament with an agreement reached between all of the Ministers from all of the States and the Commonwealth Government and, in bringing this agreement forward in legislative form, is putting down a formula which has been considered, has been tossed around, amended and adapted to suit the needs of all of the States and this Government and, finally, has come up with an acceptable formula. The amendment which the Liberal Party of Australia is planning to put forward in fact would have the benefit of giving the ultimate responsibility for any changes to this Parliament or, to be fair, to a parliament. I do not think that if it were practicable the Liberal Party would say that it needs to be just to this Parliament. If it were practicable it could even be possible for it to go to all of the parliaments but that is obviously not feasible and not acceptable and therefore it is not being proposed. The factor that we need to take into account is the unwillingness of the Senate , as proposed by the Liberal Party, to delegate powers which are in effect legislative or regulation changes with serious penalties and consequences. I can accept that there is a very real hazard in the delegation of such powers to a ministerial committee which has no responsiblity to any parliament in this country. Therefore, there is a very persuasive argument to support the amendment being put forward by the Opposition. The other side of that coin, though, is that we have the problem that the Ministers have reached agreement. This legislation is the result of that agreement and this amendment, desirable from some points of view though it may be, literally throws that agreement out of the window. The effect of it is that it goes back to the drawing board and the whole exercise starts again. If that were to happen, the States would, in my opinion, be quite entitled to demand similar powers to the powers that we wish to take unto ourselves. The result of that, as I indicated earlier, would be utter chaos because there is no way that we could ever get seven States to agree to the more controversial accounting standards that may come forward. I could see difficulties even if we did ultimately get agreement in that, if we wanted to make changes in a reasonable time, it would be impracticable to do so because of the nature and the way in which the various parliaments around this country work. In my opinion we have in this legislation what amounts to an agreed federal system-a system, which is the result of discussion and ultimately consensus, ultimately unanimous approval, a system of accountability to a ministerial council as distinct from accountability to a parliament. I still wait to hear further debate here and the Australian Democrats at this stage are still willing to listen to the arguments pro and anti the legislation. But at the moment, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water, my inclination is to suggest that we should endeavour to make the system as proposed in the Bill work and to keep a very close eye on the way it is working. Admittedly, it will not be easy to have a review implemented once the legislation goes through; I acknowledge that. But we should give it the opportunity to work, rather than ensure that there is no possibility of it working because of the sheer impracticality of a system which would not be acceptable to the other States. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.57) —The Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 is a most important Bill and I wish to join in this second reading debate. It includes many major revisions which in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) are called reforms to the Australian national companies and securities legislative scheme. I will commence with a few general comments. I am pleased that the Bill has had public exposure through the release of an exposure draft. I note that the Attorney has received in excess of 100 submissions, but I regret that the Parliament is in the dark about those submissions. We do not know how many have been taken up. We do not know what submissions have not been taken up. I understand that the Attorney-General is not prepared to give us access to those submissions and I find that surprising because it is not as if this is a government Bill in the normal sense; it is a Bill that has actually come to this Parliament from the-- Senator Gareth Evans —Have you sought access? Senator HILL —We have sought access and been told that it is not available. Senator Gareth Evans —Not by me, you haven't been told. Senator HILL —By your Department. Senator Gareth Evans —Come to me, for God's sake. Senator HILL —We thought that your Department would provide it. Senator Gareth Evans —Did you ask for the departmental briefing? Senator HILL —What I am submitting to the Senate is that it is important that the Parliament has access to submissions in legislation of this kind. What I was going to say is that it is not a government Bill in the normal sense; it is a Bill that has come from a ministerial council and presumably this Federal Government would like to have the greatest input of the Senate as possible. The form of public exposure that the Bill therefore had is not a satifactory form. I commend the suggestion made by Senator Durack that in future a Bill of this type -we expect more Bills in the future-go to a Senate standing committee for examination and report. I regret that this Bill has not gone through that process. For all we know submissions may have related to one aspect which the Government has rejected on ideological grounds. Of course, the Minister will say : 'But it has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities'. But the Minister knows that, being an amendment, it need be approved by simply a majority of that Council. I do not know whether it was approved by simply a majority or whether it was approved unanimously. Unfortunately, in this country at the moment there is a majority of Labor governments, therefore we could find submissions rejected on purely ideological grounds. Senator Gareth Evans —Will you allow me to interject and say that they were all unanimous in this instance. Senator HILL —I am pleased to hear that on this occasion, they were all unanimous. I regret that that was not stated in the Minister's second reading speech. I note from the Minister's speech that the Ministerial Council is moving to the establishment of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. It will receive its references from the Ministerial Council and report to the Council. According to the Attorney-General, it will enable examination of fundamental issues of company law in a systematic fashion. But again, we do not know how it will operate. Will it call for submissions? Will it hold public hearings? Will it act purely as a secretariat for the Ministerial Council? Regrettably, we do not know the answers to these questions. I raise these questions because the Attorney-General is, I understand, considering giving the Australian Law Reform Commission a reference on corporate insolvency. I believe that law relating to corporate insolvency is in need of reform. But why not give it to the new Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, in which case at least the States would be contributing to the cost of the review? I have read that the new Committee might be asked to look at such difficult questions as the minimum paid up capital for companies. In many ways that is a subject akin to insolvency and, again, clearly a subject requiring attention. I read also that it will look to the use or abuse of $2 companies. We have all read in recent reports, such as the Costigan report-the report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-the McCabe-Lafranchi 'Report of Inspectors Appointed to Investigate the Particular Affairs of Navillus Pty Ltd and 922 Other Companies' and other reports on the use of such companies in a taxation evasion and white collar crime. So clearly this review committee will be involved in deep conceptual questions really going to the history of corporate law and the functions of companies. In fact, its charter is stated to be: 'To carry out research into and advise on law reform in relation to the tax legislation and regulations'. So why cannot the questions of corporate insolvency go to that Committee. I read also that the Attorney-General has set up a working party to review the workings of the insider trading provisions of the Securities Industry Act. Why was it necessary for another body to be created for that purpose? What of the National Companies and Securities Commission? Its functions include power to make recommendations to the Ministerial Council for new laws or changes to existing laws. It may hold hearings for the performance of such functions. Again , its responsibility is for the entire area of policy as well as administration in respect of company law-of course, subject to directions of the Ministerial Council. I hope that when the Minister replies in due course he can inform the Senate on these matters. I want to look specifically at some of the so-called reforms that have been dealt with in the Bill, some of which I applaud and some of which give me reason for considerable concern. The first matter I wanted to look at has been mentioned. It relates to amendments concerning the objects and powers of companies. These amendments will provide that it will be optional for companies to have stated objects. Unless otherwise provided in the memorandum or articles, a company is to have the powers of a natural person. The theory of this is to avoid the danger of the doctrine of ultra vires. The practice has grown up to avoid the danger of the doctrine of ultra vires to draw the memorandum with a long list of objects, more often becoming what Sir Owen Dixon once called: A jumble of objects assembled from former precedents with a seeming disregard for symmetry, coherence and at times even orthography and correct transcription. Of course, it includes wide powers for implementation of such objects. Activity in excess of such powers is void. But by section 68 of the existing code, the doctrine has already, in part, been abolished. That section provides: No act of a company . . . is invalid by reason only of the fact that the company was without capacity or power to do such act. So the purpose of that section is to provide protection to a third party dealing with a company outside its powers. The doctrine has been retained for internal purposes. It provides that shareholders and directors may restrain an ultra vires act or recover loss from offices resulting from action taken that has been ultra vires or petition for winding up if the company is acting ultra vires. But such internal remedies are, by this Bill, abolished with the repeal of section 68. If the memorandum and articles do not restrict objects or powers, shareholders and debenture holders know that is the basis of their investment or lending. But if the memorandum and articles do restrict, it appears that such remedies have been lost. In lieu, I know it is stated that the officer of a company commits an offence if he knowingly allows the company so to act. But that may not help shareholders or debenture holders. As I say, it appears that they have lost a remedy. I do not know whether this has been done on purpose, but irrespective of whether it has, I hope that we will hear from the Minister in due course as to whether that is so. Certainly it causes me concern. The second area I wanted to look at is that part which deals with remedies for shareholders in cases of oppression. The current section 320 offers remedy to shareholders claiming that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to certain shareholders, or that directors have acted in a manner unfair or unjust to one of the shareholders, or that the directors have acted in their own interests or not in the interests of the members as a whole. The section provides certain remedies. It provides remedies including that the company might be wound up, an order might be made for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs in future, an order might be made for the purchase of any share of any member and an order might be made for the purchase of shares by the company together with the necessary reduction in capital. The predecessor to that section was section 186 of the uniform Companies Act. The purpose has been to offer an alternative to the winding up provisions that are provided by section 211, that allow a company to be wound up on the just and equitable grounds. That is very difficult to substantiate in a court and is a very limited remedy. We can all understand the purposes of oppression provisions. The courts have accepted the interpretation of oppressive as 'burdensome, harsh and wrongful'. The amendments purport to pick up some of the recommendations of the company law committee chaired by Lord Jenkins, which reported on section 210 , the English equivalent of our former section 186. It is true that, for obvious reasons, the courts have been fairly restrictive in their interpretation of section 186. These amendments first expand the categories of conduct which would give rise to a remedy. For example, it is no longer necessary to show detriment to financial interests. It would be sufficient to show harm to interests as a director or employee. That is quite a dramatic expansion. It is an expansion that really should be considered by the Parliament, because traditionally what the courts have looked to has been limited financial interests. It is said by some that what is happening in fact is that directors and employees are being given an unnecessary second bite of the cherry. If an employee has his own rights under his contract of employment, why is it necessary to expand the provisions in this way? Secondly, the remedies will be allowed in respect of isolated acts. Formerly it was necessary that there be a course of conduct. Has it in fact been shown that such an expansion is necessary ? Thirdly-and I cannot find this in the report of Lord Jenkins-it applies also to anticipated conduct. That is quite a dramatic extension and I believe it should be justified. Fourthly, it is extended to cover cases where it is unfairly prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory as against simply oppressive. It is said that this is to extend the provision beyond illegality. But the interpretation of 'oppressive' has not been so limited. If one looks at the judgment in the Tivoli Freeholds case in Victoria in 1971 that is made quite apparent. It also appears to be the view of Lord Jenkins, who talked about conduct being simply of a reprehensible nature, which has familiar connotations in another area. So I wonder about the justification for these extensions. I want to look briefly at the part dealing with accounting standards. It states that directors shall ensure that accounts are made out in accordance with applicable approved accounting standards. Approved accounting standards will be gazetted. They will basically be standards approved by the new Accounting Standards Review Board which is commencing operations at the beginning of next year. In general I believe that is a good reform, but I totally endorse the comments that were made by Senator Durack as to the wisdom of the standards receiving the normal parliamentary scrutiny. I must admit that I am quite astonished by the attitude of the Australian Democrats to this matter because their representative appeared to say that there is a responsibility and a need properly to scrutinise the provisions of this Act. Here is the classic case where provisions can come before the Parliament in the normal way that other prescribed provisions come before this Parliament for scrutiny yet the Australian Democrats are not prepared to support an amendment to have that effect. Senator Gareth Evans —You cannot amend this legislation. Whom are you trying to kid? You cannot amend this legislation without being in breach of the agreement. That is the whole problem with this legislation. Senator HILL —It is interesting that the Attorney-General says that we cannot amend this legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —I have said it in opposition; I say it in government. Senator HILL —I want to make some comment on that subject a little later. I am sure that Senator Peter Rae is also going to pick up that subject enthusiastically in his contribution. The next part I want to look at briefly also is that dealing with directors' statements. Currently directors must attach a statement to the effect that the accounts reflect a true and fair view at the end of the financial year and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the company is able to pay its debts as and when they fall due. That is of some value as far as it goes. But now directors will have to have regard to circumstances which have arisen and information which has become available since the end of the financial year. I believe that is an excellent reform. It is a difficulty that I have come across personally in professional practice and it appears to me to be open to abuse, and has been open to abuse. I am pleased to see that reform. Similarly I am pleased to see the part that deals with directors' reports. Section 280 of the Companies Act provides that directors must present to the annual general meeting a report which must cover matters contained in the Act. That report supplements the accounts. It becomes the public information upon which shareholders, creditors et cetera can assess the performance of the company. There has been very fair criticism that this list of prescribed statements and information is often not particularly helpful. The effect of this amendment largely is that it will become necessary for the report to contain a review of the operations of the company and the results of those operations. Directors will have to refer to likely developments in the operations and expected results of those operations in subsequent financial years. Again I think this is an excellent reform as far as it goes. But proposed new section 270 (3) provides that companies will not be required to disclose information which would, in the opinion of the directors, be prejudicial to the interests of the company. All they need to say is that they have not provided all the information. Now, I am not sure what that means, but what is obvious is that it makes a mockery of the whole of those provisions which, as I indicated, I thought were worthwhile reforms. I look forward to the explanation of the Attorney-General of that subsequent sub-section. I will touch upon that part dealing with tracing beneficial interests in shares . Provisions contained in clause 76 of the Bill will put directors and shareholders in a better position to ascertain the identity of the persons whose voting power may affect the company's operation. Basically we are looking at listed public companies and the purpose is to complement the substantial shareholders disclosure provisions. So we are really looking at shareholders with less than 10 per cent. But again, although I can understand the merit of the provision, I am stunned in this instance by the powers that are given to the court. For example, if an answer comes in that information does not lie within the knowledge of the party receiving the notice, the court may vest the shares of the company in the corporation. I cannot understand why such draconian powers for the court are necessary in this regard. Also I am concerned that the whole series of provisions under that head does not get at second and third hand owners of shares and therefore may be deficient in that regard. I want also to touch upon the duties and powers of receivers. This aspect was mentioned by Senator Messner in his contribution. I do not want to repeat the comments he made, but there are some additional points that I shall make. This is an absolutely critical part of the Bill. Unfortunately it gets but three lines in the Minister's second reading speech. Why could it not be referred also to this investigation into corporate insolvency to which, of course, it is related? It would have been a sound idea, I believe, to have the inquiry encompass this also. The Companies Act does not purport to provide a code for determining the power and duties of receivers or the manner in which their responsibility is to be supervised. However, we are told that the Government received representations that some matters should be set out in statutory form. Now, what representations did it receive? What did it accept and what did it reject? We do not know. The only representations I have seen from receivers suggest that the whole idea is unwise, and these are from highly reputable receivers and accounting organisations. What we have before us is a partial code . It is supposed to codify the existing law but, as Senator Messner indicated very accurately, it in fact in some areas goes considerably beyond existing law. I would like briefly to look at a few of the specific provisions under this subject. Proposed section 324B, concerning duties with respect to bank accounts and accounting records, provides that any director, creditor or member of a corporation may inspect records. Is that feasible in large receiverships? Can it not therefore be used by a competitor when a company under receivership seeks again to establish its market? Proposed section 324A relates to the powers of a receiver. Should the receiver have the power to carry on the business of the corporation-this is mentioned in placitum (h) of that proposed section-if the security crystallises and the net should fall over the assets and not over the substratum of the company, thus making it a slave of the appointer? Placitum (n) refers to the power to use a seal of the corporation. Should not that be restricted to realisation of assets? Proposed section 324E concerns the supervision of receivers. Complaint may be made to the court by any person with respect to the conduct of a receiver. Mr Deputy President, I am interested to hear from the Minister who 'any person' is. Is not this again a conflict with the role of receiver, as Senator Messner mentioned under another one of the sub-clauses of this part? Proposed new section 324E says that the court or commission may inquire and the court may take such action as it sees fit. What does that mean? Take action for the benefit of whom? Again it appears to be boundless. The Commission may report misfeasance, neglect or omission. I know that some receivers are concerned that this may be interpreted to include errors of judgment. Can we receive assurances in that regard? The Commission may order an inquiry if it decides that the receiver has not faithfully performed his duties or observed requirements of instruments under which he was appointed. Who is the Commission to decide if the receiver has been faithful? It is just another example of the encroaching bureaucracy and I look forward to the Attorney-General's attitude to that provision. Proposed new section 324D deals with the prosecution of delinquent officers. It forces officers in a company to give assistance in connection with a prosecution -whatever assistance means in that regard, we do not know-at a penalty of $10, 000 or imprisonment for two years. I wonder what is wrong with the existing subpoena provisions. I query whether the reservation against self-incrimination is sufficient. There is an obligation to give evidence. The Bill says that it may not be used directly in a prosecution, but no doubt it would be valuable in providing leads to other evidence upon which to base a prosecution. It certainly is a watering down of the common law protection. We argued over it last year with regard to the crimes commission legislation and we find it again in this Bill. Proposed new section 324C deals with reports by receivers. This clause turns receivers into law enforcement officers. They must report if they believe an officer or a former officer is guilty of an offence or guilty of any negligence. It is inconsistent with the role of the receiver, as Senator Messner indicated, whose primary responsibility is to secured creditors. They then shall furnish information to the Commission to support their case. Presumably, if they fail to do so they are committing an offence. Certainly, if they have not made such a report, the court may, on application of a person interested in the appointment of the receiver, direct the receiver to make the report. Who fits within that nebulous concept of a person interested in the appointment of a receiver? I wish to look briefly at the provisions in relation to disqualification of directors, proposed new section 227A. If a company fails to comply with two provisions of the Companies Act, which could be quite possible with regard to minor provisions, and a director has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent that breach, whatever that may be, the court may for any period it specifies prohibit him from being in any way directly or indirectly concerned in the management of any corporation. In other words, it could strip him of his livelihood. That obviously is a dramatic extension on the current provision that a person needs leave from the court to act as a director if he has been convicted of certain offences. That matter was not even raised in the Minister's speech, and I look forward to his justification for that extension. I want to touch on the penalty notice system dealt with in proposed new section 570A. This deals with the on-the-spot fines provision of the Bill. Proposed new section 570A sets up a system of prescribed offences and prescribed penalties. If one gets a notice and pays, no further action is taken. Why is this provision necessary? If we are talking about failure to lodge documents-we do not, unfortunately, know what offences are envisaged-there is already a system of severe monetary penalty. Again, regrettably, the subject of the extension of the corporate law into on-the-spot fines is not even mentioned in the Minister's speech. I remind the Senate that the Senate's own Scrutiny of Bills Committee also has had reason for concern with regard to the Bill before us. I touch briefly upon the matters that caused it concern. Proposed new section 30H (3) concerns auditors disciplinary boards. It states: A person shall not, at a hearing, give evidence that is false or misleading. There is no question of guilty intent. Should it not rather provide that a person shall not knowingly at a hearing give evidence that is false or misleading? I look forward to the Minister's attitude on that. Clearly the government has had considerable time to consider it. Proposed new section 30H (4 ) undermines legal professional privilege by requiring a legal practitioner to provide the name and address of a person with whom the practitioner has had privileged communication. As an upholder of normal civil rights I look forward to the Minister's response in that regard. Proposed new section 30H (5) removes the normal protection against self- incrimination. I do not have time to detail that, but it is set out in the 10th report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee dated 19 October 1983. Also, proposed new section 215C gives the Commission a wide power of exemption that I think calls for explanation. Powers have been inserted to protect the public interest. Why should the Commission then be given, by this Bill, wide powers of exemption? Where is the end to that principle? Proposed new section 261 (4) deals with injunctions which, according to the Scrutiny of Bills committee, abrogates a common law rule which has a sound legal footing. I look forward to the Minister' s response in that regard. This Bill raises the whole subject of the co-operative companies and securities scheme and the method by which it can be amended in general. It is obviously not an appropriate time to go over the merits and demerits of a co-operative federal scheme vis-a-vis a national Act. We opted for the former but it must be said that it is an incredibly complex mish-mash of Commonwealth and State legislation and regulations. What do we do with regard to amendments? The Minister tells us that we cannot amend the Bill. The Senate is dealing with this Bill tonight but cannot amend it. Whilst I do not accept that that is so, there is certainly uncertainty as to what is to be the process if the Senate does amend. I trust that the Australian Democrats will see the error of their ways and support the amendment introduced by Senator Durack. It would appear that probably the Federal Government must return to the Ministerial Council and get the Ministerial Council's permission to alter the scheme and then bring it back to this Parliament. If that is necessary, that in fact should be what happens. If that is the role- Senator Peter Rae —It can be done without a physical meeting; it can be done by telex. Senator HILL —Senator Rae says that it can be done without a physical meeting and, no doubt he will detail that to the Senate shortly. This is a most important Bill, Mr Deputy President, because it will bind the States and it is not even to be examined by State parliaments. What we are doing in relation to this Bill tonight is highly significant. It has not been well handled. It should have been through the committee process so that a committee could deal with it properly. I invite that course of action in the future. I think the Bill should be given public exposure through a Senate committee. I invite the Minister to hold over this Bill in order to consider the matters I have raised. I urge that the provision regarding receivers, which is particularly unsatisfactory, be withdrawn, that it be examined in a proper form, and that it be returned to the Ministerial Council. If it is considered that it should be proceeded with, it should then be returned to the Federal Parliament for examination. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.28) — The matters that have been dealt with in relation to the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 are probably best described as a further example of how to make complex that which was originally conceived to simplify. The original proposals which were put forward by a committee of this Senate in relation to the companies and securities law of Australia were partly occasioned by the complexity of what were 14 separate Acts governing the companies and securities law of Australia, as it was administered at that time, State by State and Territory by Territory. What we now have is an even more complex situation where there are more pieces of legislation, more pages of legislation and probably more complexities within the legislation than ever gave rise to the suggestion that it was costly, full of red tape and full of inconsistency to the degree where it was less effective than it ought to have been. I do not say that in criticism of any particular Minister. I certainly acknowledge that the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has inherited a difficult situation. If I wished to lay blame, I would go back to his predecessor in a similar government and say that the person who created the fiasco was a former Attorney- General in a former Labor government. He introduced a draconian piece of legislation which created a reaction at a time when the States of Australia would have accepted something which was a reasonable approach to a piece of national legislation enacted by the Commonwealth using the Commonwealth's undoubted power to legislate in this field. Perhaps I have a different idea of co-operative federalism from that of some people. I have noted that there has been criticism of the approach which has been fairly generally forthcoming tonight in this debate in relation to the way in which the Ministerial Council has been operating and needs to operate under the Maroochydore agreement of 1978. In my view, co-operate federalism involves first the definition of responsibility as between the Commonwealth and the States, and secondly, the acceptance of the responsibility which has been defined as existing between the Commonwealth and the States. It does not mean the lowest common denominator of saying 'We cannot make up our minds as to who has the responsibility, so we shall require everyone to have a finger in the pie ' to the extent that we get everyone saying 'I want my little bit in' and 'I want my little bit in' so that we get everybody's little bit in and we get the most complex approach possible. As I have said on every occasion on which legislation on this subject has been before this chamber, that, I regret, is the product which we have. However, I think that there is a possibility of starting to change that approach a little, and I am glad to support what has been put forward tonight by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, in relation to two fundamental proposals which might restore a little parliamentary consideration and parliamentary involvement, instead of just a bureaucratic executive combination approach as to how to legislate in relation to this important matter. That is that if the Government would accept the amendments which have been put forward with regard to a new introduction into the scheme, approved accounting standards , this would enable the Parliament to consider those and, if necessary, to disallow them. I might add that if one goes back to the report of the Senate Committee, one finds that one of the proposals put forward by that Committee was : that there should be a rule making power with the power of revocation by the Parliament. There should also be something else, which another Senate Committee with which I have some familiarity has been most concerned, and that is the degree of accountability by bodies which are established by legislation. From this Accounting Review Standards Board a report should be presented to the Parliament which will at least give the Parliament some liaison and some prospect of ensuring what in its broadest sense-not just in its financial sense- is understood as accountability. If the Government, the Australian Democrats and the Ministerial Council will not accept these two very basic, fundamental concepts, all that I can beleive is that there is an absolute abdication of the idea of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that they were as simple and as fundamental as one could possible have. Whilst they involve a number of words as drafted and put forward by Senator Durack, they boil down to two very simple propositions. The first is that there should be an annual report. The second is that the accounting standards which are required are subject to review and revocation by the Parliament. If we cannot introduce that degree, I believe that the time has come to start to consider what I started saying when we first had the Maroochydore agreement and, in fact, earlier than that. That is that we would have to review very seriously whether this was a responsible approach at all, using the Ministerial Council approach, and eliminating parliamentary consideration and eliminating expedition. If the answer given is that we cannot have any sort of amendment to this because it would delay the Bill, all I can do is to point to three things. First , there has been a past practice of enabling the considerations of the Ministerial Council to take place by telex communication rather than physical meeting. Secondly, it is a matter of principle which I should have thought could have been dealt with by telex without the necessity for a physical meeting, and is therefore capable of obtaining a response from the Ministerial Council very expeditiously. Thirdly, I point to the fact that it is no longer necessary that it be unanimous. A majority view could accept this amendment. Whilst I am prepared to accept for the time being only, for the purposes of this debate, that clause 46 and some other associated clauses of the Maroochydore agreement involve the Federal Government in reporting back to and obtaining the approval of the majority of the Ministerial Council for any amendment, I think that that can be easily achieved. But whether that is a proper interpretation of the Maroochydore agreement is a matter for debate on another occasion. Having said that, I hope that we shall find a sympathetic and responsive attitude being adopted by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and by the Australian Democrats, who, I would expect, would be only too willing to support a means of obtaining, in a system which is virutally out of parliamentary control, a degree of parliamentary involvement and consideration. Secondly, I wholeheartedly support Senator Durack's suggestion that there ought to be some committee association. That is something which I said when the legislation was first before the chamber some years ago and have continued to say. I see no reason for departing from that view. I should have thought that it is a view which is obvious. Unless we can have some committee involvement of the Parliament which can ensure that this very complex and technical area is continually considered by and within the parliamentary process, all that we shall have is legislation by Executive and bureaucracy. The Bill has had considerable exposure. In view of the points made very properly and effectively by Senator Hill, it is surprising that there has not been more representation about the exposure. I just wonder whether the whole of the Australian business and associated professional community has not been drowned in paper and words on this subject. I am beginning to wonder whether almost a sort of drowning man philosophy is being applied, by which people have said 'It is just too complex and too much beyond us, and the process is beyond our capacity to be able to involve ourselves with any likelihood of being heard and, therefore, there is no point other than simply relaxing to the extent of knowing that you will have to pay an increasing number of professionals an increasing fee to interpret the increasingly complex provisions' which, as I have said, were originally designed to simplify and expedite the process whilst making it more effective and efficient. What we have had are some sorts of representations which have suggested that, for instance, the provisions in relation to nominee companies and disclosure-to mention some that have not been mentioned by Senator Messner or Senator Hill- will limit the depth of the Australian market, will be a disincentive to overseas investment, which has been an influence, although perhaps not as strongly as some of the people who have made the representations have suggested, on strengthening and deepening the Australian capital market, and that it may dissuade overseas investors from their continued participation and may adversely affect the operation of the Australian market. If that is so, I hope that there will be a very quick and responsive reaction from this Government and the Ministerial Council, because I am sure that that is not the intention of those who have proposed the legislation. It is one of the aspects on which I should like to think an eye will be kept. A further point to which I refer, which was made recently by Senator Jack Evans , who was kind enough to send me a copy of the speech in which he referred to it , and which was also mentioned by Senator Messner tonight, is a matter to which I have endeavoured to draw attention for many years and that is what happened with the British review of the operation of their company law at the beginning of the 1970s. I think there has been a growing recognition of the difference in the requirements between major company law dealing with major companies and those things which have come into existence as a result merely or very substantially from the nature of our taxation laws rather than anything else, and that is the small proprietory company. If we can find some different form of incorporation, perhaps through an arrangement negotiated with the States, whereby the States retained some form of legislative power with regard to limited partnerships or some form of proprietary company, and if the truly national companies-the listed companies and the other national companies-were subject to a law which was wholly the law of the Commonwealth and subject to a single regulatory definitional approach, I believe that we may have a more efficient and effective way of incorporation without unduly adversely affecting the revenue-gathering of the States and without increasing the complexity but rather decreasing it. Undoubtedly, as has been said by Senator Jack Evans, Senator Messner and, I think, by Senator Hill, the idea of applying to a small family company the largest part of the requirements of the incredibly complex and now incredibly detailed companies and securities industry law is reaching close to the height of absurdity. In case anybody is offended by my use of the term 'regulation', I point out that one of the things I want to come to in a moment is that the most urgent need in this whole area is some consideration of deregulation. Let me start by saying that regulation is necessary because companies exist only as a result of law, which is regulation. We have to have regulation to be able to have companies at all. The debate centres around how extensive is the regulation and what form it takes. So in debating the matter one must talk about regulation and its nature. I am suggesting that we need to review some of the concepts of our regulatory approach, we need to review some of the concepts of our federalist approach; and we need to review some of the concepts of the efficiency approach in the whole of this area. I believe that all would be found to be wanting if examined at this stage. Therefore, the suggestion by my colleague Senator Durack that we should, first, start a little bit of parliamentary consideration by having the Accounting Standards Review Board operation subject to some Commonwealth parliamentary consideration is an excellent start. Secondly, I think it is highly desirable that there be a committee association of the Parliament to deal with this body of legislation. That committee may then be able to make some recommendations as to where we go from the mess that we are in . I imagine that there would be almost a universal support for the idea that what was, however genuinely, intended to be an approach to solve a whole lot of problems has become a complicated monster which is starting to add tremendously to cost, to economic inefficiency, and to the creation of opportunities for the very things that it was designed to prevent. I hope that we can continue to have debate such as we have had tonight on the matter. I am sure the Attorney-General will accept that the debate has been a constructive approach to the further development of this area of law, to this area of the operation of our economy, to this very fundamental area. I do not think anyone would suggest that an economy such as ours can operate without company law, without corporate law, without law relating to both government and private or generally-owned corporations. In my belief, we need to redevelop our ideas as to how those corporations, both government-owned and privately-owned, will operate to the advantage of the community, to the advantage of individuals and to the advantage of their corporate enterprise, that which they have been established to pursue and achieve. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.44) —in reply-The Senate has before it tonight in the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill a very substantial piece of major reforming legislation running to some 150 clauses which cannot with any fairness be described as the lowest common denominator subject of agreement between the participating governments. Most of the matters dealt with represent substantial changes to the existing law . I believe they are changes that have been the subject of a great deal of thought and energy in their preparation and, of course, the subject of an enormous amount of public exposure and comment. It is not surprising, given the magnitude and complexity of the legislation before us and its importance, that the debate should have generated a show of learning in significant respects and also, on some occasions, a show of passion. It is to be regretted that the learning did not always coincide with the passion in every participant in the debate, but that is what we can expect, I suppose, in a debate of this kind. But I thank the speakers for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate which I believe, has generated a number of ideas and responses to this legislation that will require further comment and further thought certainly, by those of us responsible for the detailed working up of this legislation. The character of the legislation has also generated some complaints, not least from Senator Durack in opening the debate for the Opposition. He expressed himself somewhat overborne by the complexity of it all and wished that there were better mechanisms available to deal with this legislation and more assistance rendered to him in doing so. I fear he is experiencing in many respects simply the pains and penalties of being in opposition. In fact, he is being somewhat unfair to himself, given the amount of assistance that really has been available in the form of offers of departmental briefing which are quite standard in this area-whether they are availed of I am not sure-and given the fact that draft Bills were given significantly in advance and that the whole process has been one of exposure, as has been said by every speaker, of the basic propositions here for the best part of 12 months, going back to last December. The debate has not been brought on in any great hurry. The Bills were introduced on 5 October; it is now the middle of November. That debate was delayed at the Opposition's request to enable it to get over the top of what is readily conceded to be a complex affair. Even if not all Senator Durack's criticisms in this respect are justified, all is not lost. Senator Durack —My criticisms were not directed at you at all. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did discern the beginnings of some wisdom in Senator Durack, shared by a number of his colleagues, so far as the character of this legislation is concerned and what, in fact, are its defects so far as any rational approach to it by a national parliament is concerned. I seem to recall even some of the same phrases echoing around the chamber that I used in opposition to demonstrate or describe my frustration on behalf of the Opposition at the inability to deal seriously with legislation of this character. The legislation comes forward as the product of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and of inter-governmental agreement and in the context of another more formal inter-government agreement which prohibits the participating governments and the Commonwealth, in particular, as the legislative leader, from doing anything in the legislative process which is contrary to the express riding instructions of the Ministerial Council. It is a frustrating business to be purporting to legislate against that background. That is why it is, of course, that in opposition I continued-and in government still continue-to express a very strong preference for unilateral Commonwealth legislation in the companies and securities area, rather than going through this Heath Robinsonian farce, as some have described it, fiasco or charade or other terms, to get an airing tonight of the co-operative arrangements. But honourable senators on the other side of this chamber simply cannot have it both ways. I think Senator Peter Rae is rather more honest than most of his colleagues in this respect because he has long indicated a quite overt and explicit preference for straightforward Commonwealth legislation. But that is not a position which has been shared by his colleagues. None of them, with the possible exception of Senator Hill who demonstrated some lurking tendencies towards backsliding in this respect, shared his position. Most of his colleagues who spoke tonight on this subject still wanted to perpetuate the framework of the co-operative agreement, still wanted to pretend that what we had was a co- operative arrangement involving the States in the full finery of federalism, but at the same time wanted to embark upon processes and amendments which are manifestly inconsistent with that particular approach. This was no more obvious than in the repeated references by various speakers to the proposed amendment for the disallowance by this particular Parliament solely, unilaterally, on the determinations that may be made by the Accounting Standards Review Board. What is proposed in this particular amendment, let it be appreciated, is not simply an addition to the existing system in the legislation as proposed of disallowance by the Ministerial Council consistent with Stock Exchange regulation arrangements and so on; what is proposed is not merely some additional layer of disallowance capacity in the national parliament. What is proposed by this amendment is the replacement of the Ministerial Council disallowance power with a power vested in this Commonwealth Parliament alone. That simply ignores the procedural constraints which may to some extent, in relation to straightforward matters as Senator Rae has indicated, be overcome by telex votes taken in the course of an extended parliamentary debate. Not only do we have the procedural constraint of making an amendment of any kind to this legislation in running but also we have the obvious constraint posed by this really root and branch attack on the Federal character of this legislation. How on earth does Senator Durack, Senator Rae or any other one of the senators on the other side of this chamber who spoke on this matter think the Ministerial Council participating State governments will react to a suggestion that in the future they have no role at all in relation to the disallowance of ASRB determinations which they may find offensive but have to in fact vest this function entirely in the Commonwealth Parliament. Senator Peter Rae —Well they vested the legislative power there. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not the way it operates. The Commonwealth Parliament may exercise the actual leading role in the putting of the legislation on to the statute book and the States may accede to that process being followed, but what we are talking about here is policy second guessing of the effective legislative determinations of the ASRB. Senator Peter Rae —That is disallowance. Senator GARETH EVANS —Disallowance, the second guessing by way of a disallowance procedure. Senator Peter Rae —But it is not the creation and that is the difference, surely . Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not the point. It is still the exercise of a legislative veto, a veto on what would otherwise have the force of law, to rule out that which would otherwise have the force of law and make it not a legal rule at all. It is in the nature of a legislative power that is being exercised and one cannot possibly expect any of the States, as long as they remain participants in this process, to willingly concede that power to the Commonwealth. I might have all sorts of sneaking desires for the Commonwealth to take over the whole companies and securities area and have it to itself because I appreciate the force of the argument for consistency, for rationality and for better accountability through a single parliament rather than the shared accountability process we have at the moment. I understand all those arguments. I have expressed them myself on numerous occasions. But what hypocrisy it is to hear those arguments coming from the mouths of the self-confessed federalists, the self-confessed States righters on the other side of this Parliament-those who are quick to challenge the credentials of others, those who are quick to challenge the sincerity of others, those who are quick to assert the virtues of State powers and the Federal compact, the Federal role of this nation. What rubbish it is for them to advance the kind of propositions they are tonight because those propositions, attractive as I may find them, are utterly inconsistent with the whole philosophy that this new-born Liberal Party is supposed to be about. I find it not merely hypocritical but contemptible to see Senator Chaney chortling away with all the pompous hypocrisy of which he is capable on occasions such as this. It must be appreciated by those on the other side of this chamber that they cannot with any honesty, with any integrity and with any consistency have it both ways. I think Senator Rae is being honest; he knows he cannot have it both ways. He tried to tippy-toe a metre or two down that particular path tonight but he knows perfectly well there is only one solution to this problem. If we want national regulation in this area, we have to do it solely through the Commonwealth Parliament. We cannot compromise in the unprincipled way which has been suggested by miscellaneous members of the Opposition here tonight. Most of the contributions to the debate were variations on one or other of these themes. Specific contributions were made, to a small extent by Senator Messner and to a much greater extent by Senator Hill. Let me mention at least one or two of the points that have come out of those contributions. Senator Messner was particularly concerned about the question of the applicability of accounting standards in relation to exempt proprietary companies. He expressed puzzlement about what the position of the joint accounting bodies had been, and expressed a certain disbelief at the propositions contained in the second reading speech, in this respect. I simply remind him, for the record, that the joint accounting bodies initially put forward the proposal for all companies to lodge accounts and have them audited, but did not then proceed with that proposal simply because of the very strong public comments to the contrary effect which were received from individual accountants during the public exposure period. Senator Messner, like so many of his colleagues, seems simply not to have taken into account what occurred during that public exposure period and the quite extensive way in which the debate went backwards and forwards. Some other aspects of Senator Messner's contribution simply represent a failure , I think, to appreciate the nature of the particular proposals that he was quick to criticise. For example, to take one other point in the area of receivership which occupied a good deal of his attention, he said that receivers should not have the duty of reporting possible offences. The point here, of course, is that the duty is not to look for possible offences, for receivers to be turned into some new kind of corporate policemen, but rather, simply, to create an obligation for a receiver if he comes across information that an officer of a company has committed an offence, to report that offence. Indeed, why should a receiver in such a situation not be obliged, like a liquidator, to report it to the National Companies and Securities Commission? That is simply what is being proposed there. Senator Hill's contribution at least demonstrated the virtue of a very considerable amount of preparation and a very considerable amount of understanding of the subject area in question, as is only appropriate for a highly qualified and experienced professional in this area. But his preparation, he indicated, would have been much more substantial had he only had access to the submissions made during the evolutionary process involved in the preparation of this legislation. He suggested, I think, in response to an interjection, that submissions had been refused to the Opposition by my Department. I simply make the point, after consultation with my departmental officers who are now present, that we are not aware of any refusal by the Department to make the submissions available. We are not aware of any request having been made for such submissions , and I certainly would not have refused them. I am able to refuse them, under the freedom of information rules as they stand at the moment because of the interstate components involved, but I see absolutely no reason in what is intended to be an overt public debate on a matter of this kind for the retention of such submissions and I will certainly raise this question with the Ministerial Council and make it absolutely clear that I propose, unilaterally if necessary, to release these submissions in the future in order to encourage a proper and open debate. Of course the exception will be those submissions that are expressly sought to be kept confidential by those putting them in. Senator Peter Rae —It was past practice that they be made available. Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand it was past practice, but I assure Senator Rae that, as with so many other things, I am damn sure it will not be future practice as far as I am concerned. Senator Peter Rae —No, sorry; wrong way around. I was just saying that it was past practice that they be made available and I have no doubt that the Ministerial Council will continue to do so. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not aware of anything to the contrary and I was surprised to hear that. I am grateful for that clarification. It is a pity, under those circumstances, that these rather wild and unfounded assertions were made about the unavailability of submissions. It was also suggested at one point by Senator Hill that there was reason for all sorts of suspicion about this legislation coming forward, it representing, as it probably did, some kind of ramp from the four Labor States which now exist, those States exercising their majority powers; that the Labor States were embarking on, what is more, to mix metaphors a bit, an ideological bandwagon of some kind. I remind him, as I did in response to his speech by way of interjection, that in fact every proposal that is in the legislation before us tonight is the product of unanimous agreement by the participating governments, including Tasmania and Queensland. If that occurs, anything is possible. It does demonstrate, I believe, the extent to which consultative processes have been worked through. There was some disposition on the part of Senator Hill to challenge the creation of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. Indeed, he almost seemed to be questioning also the appropriateness of the Accounting Standards Review Board. Both bodies-again I remind him-were the products of specific heads of agreement at the Maroochydore conference in 1978 which produced this particular animal with which we are now confronted. He raised questions in this respect about the appropriateness of the CSLRC being denied the proposed insolvency reference. In this respect I point out to him that it is proposed that not that Committee but rather the Australian Law Reform Commission have the insolvency reference for the simple reason that the Commission has already accumulated a large store of experience and has already generated a substantial performance in this area in earlier related references. It is desired to treat for the future, so far as possible, corporate and non-corporate insolvencies under the same basic legislation. At least the possibility and desirability of that is being actively explored. Furthermore, the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee has a vast work load already set for it when it does get into gear early next year under the chairmanship of Professor Harold Ford. In all the circumstances, given the fact that it is anticipated that there will be a close co-operative relationship between the Law Reform Commission and the CSLRC, it seemed highly appropriate and sensible to vest this reference in the Law Reform Commission. Nothing is to be assumed about the irrelevance or otherwise of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee as a result of that policy decision. Senator Hill drew our attention to many individual matters. The one he began with was an expression of concern about the deletion of the requirement of statement of objects in articles and memoranda of association, not so much in order to make the point that objects were desirable necessarily to be retained, as I understand him, but rather to make the point that the exercise had been incompletely carried out and that there were many clauses left in the legislation which seemed to presuppose the continued existence of company objects. He seemed to be making this point as one of a number of general attacks on the credibility of the legislative-- Senator Hill —Certain protections have been lost. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that certain protections have been lost in the process. It is the case that the exercise of stripping away all references to objects is not complete. At the moment we are not sure that it can be completed. For example, in the context of joint ventures, one may very specifically wish to confine the objects of the corporations created for joint venture purposes to the particular subject matter of that joint venture. That is one context in which objects remain alive and well, although for all other practical purposes, or all that I can think of, objects are essentially something of a charade, as is, similarly, the ultra vires doctrine that goes with it. It may be that this part of the reforming process needs to go a stage or two further than it has so far. But I do not believe any attack on the general credibility of the legislation can derive much nourishment from this section of the reforming legislation before us. There was then from Senator Hill a really quite rapid fire succession of propositions advanced about alleged deficiencies in a variety of areas, particularly in the receivership area. I think it is very difficult and inappropriate to endeavour to reply to those propositions in the context of a second reading reply, even if it had been possible for me to write down the points as fast as he was making them. Senator Hill —Are you volunteering to do it in Committee? Senator GARETH EVANS —What I am suggesting is that in the normal course of events it might be appropriate to spend some more time dealing with the issue at the Committee stage. Under the circumstances, and given that Senator Hill does not have sufficient confidence in the merits of his proposals to have framed them as amendments for the purpose of Ministerial Council consideration-- Senator Hill —You told me it is impossible to amend them. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. I added the rider for the purpose of Ministerial Council consideration at some future time. Since Senator Hill has not taken his enthusiasm quite that far, I think it would probably be appropriate and would be accepted by him if I undertook, firstly, to refer to Ministerial Council members the text of his speech tonight, which was a substantial and well-informed one, and, secondly, to produce an appropriate reply to him as soon as may be to the points he has made and to endeavour to see what we can do by way of producing amendments to those parts of the legislation which have attracted his indignation and where that indignation seems, on reflection, to be well founded. Given the task before us tonight with this legislation, I think that is probably as much as Senator Hill might reasonably want us to do. From Senator Jack Evans we largely had a contribution about the Accounting Standards Review Board disallowance exercise. I guess the points he made will be picked up to the extent that they are still relevant in the context of the consideration of those amendments at the Committee stage. Finally, from Senator Peter Rae we had the familar analysis which we are used to now, having heard it on many previous occasions, of the deficiencies of the present scheme. I think those deficiencies must be fairly acknowledged. Whether it is fair for him to blame what he describes as the fiasco of companies and securities legislation on so innocent a contributing party as a former Labor Attorney-General who was not even around at the time of Maroochydore is, I believe, another question. I think the basic point that has to be appreciated, arising from what Senator Rae has said, is that the only logical corollary of his contribution is not for him to be fiddling around with amendment processes. He acknowledged the difficulty. A telex vote procedure can only take one so far when many complex amendments are concerned. The only logical conclusion to derive from his approach to this legislation is to really tear it up and start again with the concept of unilateral Commonwealth legislation. I do not shrink from espousing that aspiration, not so much to tear it up but to move towards that concept if it proves to be the case-I repeat my Party's policy on this-that this legislative package simply does become unmanageable, that the procedures under it do prove to be insufficiently sensitive to the understandable demands for input, both from politicians and those affected by it. If there is a feeling that the whole process is insensitive to legitimate demands for amendment of the existing rules, I believe the way to go forward in this respect is to move towards the single concept of the Commonwealth legislation. Whether we can get there is one question. Whether we can get there while still-- Senator Peter Rae —But is not the suggested use of a Senate committee as a means of getting there something which was quite legitimate for me to have put foward and for you to support? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not shrink from the idea of a Senate committee dealing specifically with companies and securities matters on a regular and ongoing basis. If the membership of that committee can be found in this place- given competing demands on people's time in a small chamber such as this-and if interest and enthusiasm for it can be found, this may well constitute the vehicle through which, over time, we can evolve a bipartisan approach towards having national companies and securities law which would be more satisfactory than the arrangements that exist at the moment. Senator Peter Rae —So my remark was a positive one. My suggestion was positive. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Rae made numerous positive suggestions. I think I have been gracious enough to acknowledge them on this occasion, as on other occasions. Senator Peter Rae —I just wanted to make it complete. Thank you. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Rae and I can make marvellous music together on this subject, but tonight may not be the time. I simply end on the point that I really did begin with. Members of the Opposition simply cannot have it both ways . Either they espouse Senator Rae's manifest convictions on this point, take their courage in both hands and support an exercise in Commonwealth legislation, with all that goes with it in terms of proper legislative procedures and proper clear lines of accountability, or they accept the present system with all its difficulties, weaknesses and complexites. They cannot cut a swathe through the present system in the way that was proposed, for example, on the Accounting Standards Review Board disallowance issue. That is a classic example of this kind. Members of the Opposition cannot cut a swathe through the present system, ignoring the legitimate interests of the States, so long as that system is preserved, while at the same time pretending that what they are doing is espousing co-operative federalism. To say as much and to do as much, is, I am afraid, pure humbug, and humbug of the kind that has become all too familiar with the present Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 77-by leave-taken together. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.11) —I listened to most of the debate on the blower in my room. I thought the contributions were sensible and considered and, to some extent, academic. I note that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his customary way ended the debate by insulting everybody and describing it as humbug. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 78 and 79-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.12) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 57, clause 78, paragraph (a), lines 34 to 36, leave out all words after '266B (1)'. (2) Page 59, clause 79, proposed new sub-section 266B (3), lines 27 to 35, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: '(3) Sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-sections (2), ( 6) and (7)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to accounting standards approved under sub-section (1) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to accounting standards and references to a regulation were references to an accounting standard.'. (3) Pages 59 and 60, clause 79, proposed new sub-section 266B (5), line 38 ( page 59) to line 3 (page 60), leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: '(5) Sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-sections (2), ( 6) and (7)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to revocations under sub-section (4) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to revocations and references to a regulation were references to a revocation.'. (4) Page 60, clause 79, proposed new sub-section 266C (3), lines 31 and 32, leave out 'by reason that a copy of a notice stating that the accounting standard has been disallowed is published under paragraph 266B (3) (b)', insert 'under sub-section 266B (3)'. (5) Page 61, clause 79, proposed new sub-section 266C (5), lines 12 to 14, leave out 'Where a copy of a notice stating that the revocation of an approved accounting standard has been disallowed is published under paragraph 266B (5) (b )', insert 'Where a revocation is disallowed, or is deemed to have been disallowed, under sub-section 266B (5)'. All of these amendments give effect to the one point in relation to the disallowance of accounting standards. The purpose of the amendments has already been the subject of fairly extensive debate at the second reading stage and I do not propose to go over the ground again. The amendments seek to ensure that the accounting standards that are promulgated by the Accounting Standards Review Board, which is to be created not legislatively but by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, should be subject to the ordinary disallowance provisions of any other subordinate legislation. I think that principle would be accepted without question by almost every honourable senator in the chamber if it were not for the peculiar features of the co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States, the apex of which is the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. That body will determine the ultimate legislative proposals for amendments to the co-operative companies and securities scheme. We should bear in mind, of course, that the Ministerial Council is not itself a legislative body and that the scheme recognises that it is this Parliament that has the legislative power under the scheme. In the light of that, I cannot understand this either/or, logic-chopping, lecturing approach of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his response to the second reading stage of the Bill. It is not simply a question of either having a co-operative scheme or abandoning that and having a national scheme. The co-operative scheme depends upon the exercise of legislative power by this Parliament. It cannot do otherwise. That is fundamental to the scheme. It is an absolute nonsense for the Attorney-General to say that this Parliament cannot amend or reject the legislation which gives effect to the scheme. Admittedly, it presents a slight problem for the Attorney-General if the Parliament-- Senator Gareth Evans —More humbug. You rejected out of hand our amendments when we were in Opposition. Senator DURACK —That is because we did not think they were any good. If the Parliament rejects an amendment to the scheme, that would be a factor that the Ministerial Council would certainly have to consider. Whether it considers it by telex vote, as Senator Peter Rae has suggested, or whether it meets to considers it is a matter for the Ministerial Council to determine. No doubt that would be determined by the circumstances of the amendments. It is simply absurd to say that the Parliament cannot pass an amendment without threatening the scheme. As I have said, the scheme itself cannot work without being subject to amendments. In relation to the proposal that accounting standards should be dealt with in the same way as regulations and subject to disallowance in the same way as regulations, the Companies Act provides for the making of regulations by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Ministerial Council. The Ministerial Council could suggest that it have some say in the determination of accounting standards, if that is what it wants. I am not taking any hard and fast attitude as to what the Ministerial Council may want to do. All we are saying is that where there is clearly going to be subordinate legislation, as there will be emanating from the Accounting Standards Review Board, there should be ordinary parliamentary control in relation to that subordinate legislation. I can understand that the Attorney-General is somewhat irritated by this. We know he is easily irritated. Senator Gareth Evans —Aggressively and increasingly so. Senator DURACK —The Attorney-General keeps talking about nonsense, humbug and all the rest of it. However, that sort of comment does not bear examination. I am exhibiting how little it bears examination. The fact of the matter is that there is no difference at all between this Parliament providing for an amendment and the Parliament rejecting some of these proposals. The Parliament could have rejected the whole proposal to establish the Accounting Standards Review Board. We could have rejected some of the other provisions that have been severely criticised by Senator Hill in particular. The honourable senator made very trenchant criticisms of some of the proposals. We might decide that there is nothing in this Bill of any value. I do not think that the whole scheme would fall down, that the company law would fall down. Certainly the world would not fall down, the commerce of this country would not fall down, if we simply refused to pass this legislation. If we are to be confronted with 150 amendments every year the Parliament might well decide that the total burden of increasing regulation is so absurd in this area that the best thing we can do is to reject it. The more I hear the Attorney- General's reaction to this perfectly modest and reasonable proposal I am putting the more I am encouraged to think that that might be the best way of handling his legislation in this area in the future. The fact is that the co-operative scheme recognises the responsibility of this Parliament. It is a nonsense and an absurdity to say that this Parliament cannot exercise this responsibility without destroying the scheme. Of course the scheme will not be destroyed. The States recognise the great value of the scheme and their participation in it. The scheme could be threatened only if there were some absolutely fundamental confrontation between the Ministerial Council and this Parliament on policy grounds. Apart from this, the scheme could not be possibly threatened even if this whole Bill were thrown out. It is quite unrealistic and totally academic for the Attorney-General to take the particular line he has taken. I can understand his attitude. As I said, it is a good first line of defence to take. I do not blame him for taking it. However, his passionate defence of every word and every minor provision of this legislation and his answering of the amendments in the way he has done, is totally unjustifiable and unrealistic. I do not think this approach does justice to the common sense that the Ministerial Council would show if the amendments were passed by the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.20) —There appears to have been some misunderstanding on the part of Senator Durack as to what the nature of the objection is to the Commonwealth Parliament acquiring by virtue of his amendment a power of disallowance over the determinations of the Accounting Standards Review Board. If I could put it simply and not be accused of lecturing because there seem to be very slow learners on the opposite side, the objection is this: Under the present co-operative scheme the Commonwealth is no more and no less than the legislative agent of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. Parliament has legislative powers under the scheme to the extent that, and only to the extent that, it is reflecting the wishes of the Ministerial Council. It is true that the Commonwealth acts as a kind of legislative contractor for the Ministerial Council. The Ministerial Council decides what it wants legislated; the Commonwealth enacts it and the scheme of legislation is such that under those circumstances it then springs to life and becomes part of the law of the State. But in all cases the Commonwealth is not acting unilaterally only on the riding instructions of the Ministerial Council as a whole. That is fundamental to the whole concept of the scheme. What is proposed before us now is that the Commonwealth should be able to act in this one small area quite unilaterally, quite independently, quite remotely from any wish that may be expressed or not expressed by the Ministerial Council. That is what is being proposed-that the Commonwealth Parliament should exercise not in a positive way but in a negative way to actually veto determinations made, and veto subordinate regulation. True it is that it cannot exercise a constructive legislative role in this respect, but it can exercise, if this amendment gets up a destructive legislative role, and in doing so we would not be acting as the agent of the Ministerial Council. That is why this is manifestly incompatible with what the whole agreement is about, and that is why, however many telex votes honourable senators opposite might drum up over the next few days, it is manifestly and totally unlikely to be accepted by the State participants in the scheme. I notice Senator Bjelke-Petersen listening very intently to this, because I think she appreciates the force of what I am saying. Senator Durack should ask Senator Bjelke-Petersen's husband what his reaction to this amendment would be. Mr Bjelke-Petersen's reaction would be very vociferous indeed, because it would represent a unilateral attempt by the Commonwealth to grab for itself some very significant policy making power, policy making in the sense that it would be denying the viability of the regulatory changes proposed by the ASRB. That is why, however much I might like the idea and think that the ultimate power should reside in this Parliament, it simply would be totally irresponsible of me to accept the amendment in the terms in which it is proposed. I cannot put it any more fairly or more simply than that. That is why, if I demonstrate some irritation, I have done so because the force of the point that I am making does not seem to be appreciated. Let me go on from there. That is not the only line of defence. A number of other points can be made. The next point, I suppose, which could be made is this : It is a real question as to whether disallowance is even appropriate as a basic mechanism in this area. It is not a case of the Executive Government affecting individual rights, the usual case of tabling and disallowance- subordinate legislation. Rather it is a matter of an expert body determining the standards which apply across the board to all companies. These standards will often be about things like the valuation of assets, what would constitute satisfactory compliance with particular legislative obligation, rather than being about things like who has to disclose what, and other matters which do impinge upon individual or corporate rights. So there is a threshold question as to whether disallowance is even an appropriate mechanism at all in that context. But I acknowledge that there may well be overriding policy considerations, as there are with the existing disallowance mechanism in relation to subordinate legislation, which would make a parliament or a governing body want to have that power. Let us move on to the next and, I think, the really most conclusive reason why this amendment just simply cannot hold up. It is a different reason again. That is the reason of commercial uncertainty. If we provide, as the present law does, for Ministerial Council disallowances, the uncertainty is over when 60 days elapse from the time of the promulgation of the original determination. If we are talking about disallowance by the Commonwealth Parliament, we are talking about something built around the concept of sitting days and about things which are manifestly uncertain in the context of recess periods and all the other vagaries that afflict parliamentary life. That might be tolerable when we are talking about a mechanism to cope with potential excesses of executive power within a particular parliamentary system; it is not tolerable in the kind of commercial context we are talking about here. If we go further and say that if it is appropriate -as I am sure the State participants in this scheme would-not only for the Commonwealth to have this disallowance power, but also for any State so far as operations of the standards within that State are concerned, we are just multiplying the uncertainty of absurdity. It has to be part of the proposal, as Senator Jack Evans acknowledged , that this is something that is confined unilaterally to the Commonwealth if it is to work in practice at all. That turns us back full circle to the terms of the original objection. So it is not based simply on any procedural concern, although procedural reasons and the problems of telex votes and getting meetings and so on might well be a good ground for resisting large scale attempts at amendments in this place. It really goes, quite fundamentally, to the substance and to the rationale of this particular proposal that is put forward tonight. It is just unacceptable and it must be unacceptable so long as we have the kind of scheme we have at the moment. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.27) —I do not want to lengthen the debate on this matter by the possibility of descending from what I thought had been a relatively high plane to a somewhat lesser plane. I urge the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) to consider this point carefully: I am surprised that he put the argument that he did in relation to the question of the power of the Parliament to reject, refuse, disallow-whichever word one likes-delegated legislation which it has delegated. At the moment we have a situation where this Parliament, and in particular this House, has the power to refuse to pass any piece of legislation which comes in a proposed form from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. In effect it has the power to refuse the request of the Ministerial Council to legislate on companies and securities. What the Attorney-General is arguing is that it should not have the power to refuse delegated legislation which comes as a request from a subordinate body of the Ministerial Council when it can refuse what the Ministerial Council requested it to do. That is a preposterous situation. Senator Gareth Evans —In either event the scheme is destroyed because both are equally incompatible with the continued operation of the scheme. You cannot have it both ways. Senator PETER RAE —This Parliament has the power to refuse to pass any proposal which comes from the Ministerial Council. Senator Gareth Evans —And if it does so the scheme is effectively torn up so far as this Parliament's participation is concerned. Senator PETER RAE —It is not. I will answer the interjection by simply saying that that does not effectively tear up the scheme. What it does do is to seek to have the Ministerial Council reconsider the matter as would the disallowance either by the Ministerial Council or by the Parliament of some delegated legislation which comes from the Accounting Standards Review Board. For the Attorney-General to suggest when the Parliament has the power to refuse to amend legislation that it does not have the power to refuse delegated legislation is really something which I did not expect to hear him arguing. I would have thought that was a reasonably fundamental sort of principle. I will answer the second point that he made in relation to commercial uncertainty: If the Ministerial Council has 60 days in which to create a commercial uncertainty by not making up its mind as to whether it will allow or disallow the particular regulations of the Accounting Standards Review Board, why should not the Parliament have just the same time? The period of commercial uncertainty will not be extended and the degree of commercial uncertainty would presumably not be extended. I cannot think of that as a good reason. I accept that commercial uncertainty is a cosideration when this sort of system is introduced. When we originally proposed in the debate on this matter some 10 years ago that there should be a rule-making power with a power to disallow and there was a debate as to whether it ought to be 44 days or some other period, there was quite a lot of consideration as to commercial uncertainty and the considerations arising out of that. They are inherent in this scheme. There are a number of aspects in which there are stop provisions available through the actions of the National Companies and Securities Commission. I would have thought that, if the time in which the Ministerial Council can act and in which the Parliament can act in relation to disallowance were exactly the same, the situation in relation to commercial uncertainty would be exactly the same, or to all intents and purposes exactly the same. So, in summary, neither of the points that have been raised by the Attorney-General amounts to a valid reason for not accepting the reconsideration of this aspect so that there can be the commencement of a parliamentary review role in relation to the operation of this whole scheme. I do not wish to swap insults in any way but I just invite the Attorney-General to consider those two points as being rather ones which in other circumstances he might advocate himself as good reason why a government should take back to the Ministerial Council this rather minor but very fundamental alteration to what is proposed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.31) —I believe the trenches have well and truly been dug on this particular matter and there is little more I can offer by way of further reply other than what I did in interjection to the first leg of Senator Peter Rae's double. As to the second leg, it is a matter of judgment as to how much commercial uncertainty is tolerable when both sides concede that there will be an element of it. I simply note the failure of Senator Rae to address in any way, shape or form the argument I made which seems to me to be central to the whole issue about the nature of this Parliament's role as an agent merely of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. It does seem to me to be quite incompatible with that agency role for us to strike out on legislative adventures of our own of the kind that are implied here. However much he and I might think it appropriate that a national parliament have that role, it is inconsistent with the continued operation of the co-operative scheme on its present basis, as Senator Rae or whoever was representing the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs told me endlessly in the dark days of Labor Opposition. It is odd but understandable to hear the roles being reversed, as they so often are in this place. I can understand the frustration that honourable senators opposite feel with the present scheme. I share it in many ways but, so long as we have it, we are stuck with it and I urge that, if this matter has to be tested, we proceed to that test now. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.33) —I have been invited to respond to what I thought I had responded to, that is, the suggestion that this Parliament is in a position of being merely a cypher for giving an imprimatur in legislative form to the decisions of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. That I refute. I challenge the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to find any basis of any statement by any person, in relation to the debate on this issue, who has been in a position of stating authoritatively-that is, the Maroochydore agreement, the statements that were made at the time of the Maroochydore agreement, the second reading speech or the debate formally on behalf of the government of the day in relation to the introduction of this scheme, or at any other time-that this Parliament's role was limited to that of a mere cypher to give an imprimatur to the decisions of a body created in the form of the Ministerial Council in this instance. I did not think it needed any more comment than I gave it when I first spoke. I have now responded to it. It has no basic validity in history. It has no basic validity in constitutional practice and, to use a Senator Chipp term, it would be an obscenity if it were to become part of the practice. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Harradine, B. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Townley, M. Bolkus, N. Lajovic, M. E. Reynolds, MReid, M. E. Richardson, G. F. Archer, B. R. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Victoria)(10.40) —I move: (6) Page 62, clause 79, after proposed new section 266F, add the following section: Annual Report '' '266G (1) The Board shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year , prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on its proceedings and activities pursuant to this Act. '' '(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report furnished to him under sub- section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he receives the report.'.''. This amendment provides that the Accounting Standards Review Board shall prepare and provide to the Parliament an annual report on its activities. I know it is an amendment to the scheme that Senator Evans says is unamendable by this Parliament. I would be interested to know whether he will-- Senator Lewis —How is it that you can carry legislation but you cannot amend it? Senator DURACK —That is right, we have had that out before. Here we have a situation in which there is the most obvious, basic provision in legislation relating to statutory authorities that this Senate, in particular, and the Parliament in recent years has insisted upon time and again. This Board, as I said, will not even be created by a statute; it is to be created by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and, presumably, will be reporting to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. All this amendment provides is that it should report to this Parliament as well. If Senator Evans says that this amendment sets at risk, makes some sort of threat to, the co-operative scheme, that would be one of the most remarkable views that I have heard in this Senate because here is the most normal and basic requirement for accountability to this Parliament by anybody. This Parliament has established the scheme and it amends it. If it is not entitled to have a report of this kind from one of the key elements of this scheme, as it will be in the future, it might as well simply stop wasting its time in the future and confer on the Ministerial Council total legislative authority under the scheme. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.43) —While this amendment, unlike its predecessor, would not do any damage to the co-operative scheme by its acceptance, it demonstrates, nonetheless, quite a profound insensitivity to the co-operative scheme to the extent that it is drafted in such a way that the report is to be given only to the Commonwealth Parliament. Again, I think those honourable senators sitting opposite who profess to be so sensitive to States' rights will appreciate the weakness, conceptually, of this proposal to the exent that it does not make provision for simultaneous tabling in all parliaments because there is no way that this amendment, as it is couched at the moment, will have any effect other than to confine that obligation to the Commonwealth Parliament. Of course, it is quite unexceptionable to have simply a reporting requirement. It is something that I will undertake to strongly recommend to the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities at its next meeting. There is absolutely no reason in the world why the Accounting Standards Review Board report should not be tabled through the proper processes in all the parliaments of the competing governments. There is no reason why there should not be a statutory obligation for them to do so, but not a statutory obligation cast in this particular way and not one that obliges me to accept it on the run, although it is something, I am sure, there will be no difficulty at all about the Ministerial Council accepting. There will be no difficulty at all about an appropriate amendment coming forward before the first annual report is due at the end of 1984. There will be another Bill on this next year. I undertake, quite explicitly, to ensure that there are appropriate provisions in the legislation. This amendment does not raise anything like the same policy objections as the previous one did, where the Commonwealth Parliament was unilaterally second- guessing the determinations of the Accounting Standards Review Board. Here we have a perfectly appropriate reporting requirement. I acknowledge the force of the points that have been made. I still suggest that it is inappropriate to proceed by way of amendment at this stage, because of the procedures employed but more particularly because of the inadequacies of the drafting. I hope that the shadow Minister will be happy to accept my undertaking to bring the appropriate matter forward in the next round of amending legislation. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.46) —The reason this amendment is drafted in this way is that this is the Parliament that happens to pass the legislation relating to this scheme. If the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) wants to propose some other form of reporting, he may do so when he is faced with this amendment to the scheme or at some later time when he proposes amendments to the scheme. We believe that this provision should be provided for in the legislation at its very inception. As I said, when the Ministerial Council decides to produce a more appropriate form of amendment, naturally we will look at it. We believe it is absolutely essential that a reporting requirement be included in the legislation when the Accounting Standards Review Board is set up. We insist on this amendment being determined by the Committee. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Harradine, B. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Bolkus, N. Collard, S. J. Hearn, J. M. Lajovic, M. E. Maguire, G. R. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. Townley, M. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.54) —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- This Bill proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 to enact the legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme subsidises the cost of transporting certain petroleum products so that consumers in non-metropolitan areas pay no more than currently 1.1 cents per litre of the freight costs. In this Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Government has decided to amend the scheme. Over the years the scheme has become complex, difficult to administer and more open to abuse. The proposals announced by the Treasurer emanate from a review of the scheme instituted by the previous Government. Proposals for which legislation is not required involve removing from eligibility for subsidy those locations where there is no retail site. Subsidy rates for these locations will then be based on the rate applicable at the nearest location with a retail site or, for locations at sea, at the port of loading. Effective from 1 January 1984, this Bill proposes the removal of power kerosene from subsidy eligibility. The usage of this fuel has dropped considerably in recent years, and its removal will result in a small saving in subsidy payments. The other fuels, motor spirit, automotive distillate and aviation fuels, will remain eligible for subsidy. Provision is also made in the Bill to recognise the need to include the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth Act, which was originally drafted to provide assistance to the States. In the early stages of the scheme, special financial arrangements were made to provide equivalent assistance to the Northern Territory, which enacted its own legislation along similar lines to the Commonwealth Act. With self-government now in place in the Northern Territory, it is appropriate to accord the Northern Territory Government the same level of recognition under this Act that applies to all the other States. Proclamation action of the Commonwealth amendments is proposed as soon as complementary State -type subsidy legislation is enacted by the Northern Territory Government. As an interim measure, the changes in this Bill relating to power kerosene will, by the operation of clause 10, extend the measures covered by this Bill to the Northern Territory pending the introduction of its new legislation. Clause 5 of the Bill, also effective from 1 January 1984, will strengthen existing legislation to specify delivery to be a requirement which must be met before subsidy payments are made. This clause also includes a provision to assist in determining rates of subsidy for certain locations which would not automatically qualify for subsidy under the normal location listing criteria. In this regard, the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority sets the freight differentials for each place. These are subsequently used to calculate the subsidy rates for those places. The Authority does not, however, set differentials for all Australian places where a sale occurs. It is therefore necessary to have a mechanism to enable subsidy to be paid at those places. Under the provisions of the Bill, subsidy will, for example, be able to be based on the rate upon which sales occur at the nearest place. It will also enable a rate of subsidy to be set for remote farms and isolated communities where the rate of subsidy for the nearest place would not be appropriate. The changes as announced by the Treasurer to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme are estimated to save $2m in 1983-84 and $4m in a full year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Rae) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.56) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incoroprated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to introduce new provisions into that Act which will have the effect of automatically indexing certain traditional excise duty rates at six monthly intervals. The introduction of this procedure was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on 23 August 1983. The first of the increases took effect from 8.00 pm Eastern Standard Time on that night and reflected the 4.3 per cent increase in the CPI during the March and June quarters of this year. This increase was effected by the introduction of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 tabled on Budget night. The opportunity has been taken to incorporate Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 in this Bill and thus avoid the need for additional amending legislation. I will briefly outline the details of these and other proposals in a few moments. The indexation provisions in this Bill will provide that from now on, the six monthly indexation increases will occur automatically in February and August of each financial year. The Treasurer mentioned in his Budget Speech that past increases in nominal rates of excises have not been sufficiently frequent or, in aggregate, large enough to counteract the eroding effects of inflation on real rates of excise. Between 1973-74 and 1982-83, annual revenue from the traditional excises, measured in constant 1982-83 dollar terms, fell from $4.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Over the same period, the share of traditional excise collections in total budget receipts fell from 13 per cent to a little over 7 per cent. Despite this trend, some of the past discretionary increases have occasionally proved disruptive, destabilising the sales patterns of the industries concerned and imposing sudden and large price increases on consumers. The indexation arrangements contained in this Bill are designed to effectively eliminate these problems and will maintain the real value of excise collections. The Government considers that this new system will afford a greater degree of stability for consumers and industry alike. The excises will rise gradually in line with inflation as wages and other incomes increase. The Treasurer also mentioned that the new arrangements will effectively place excisable products on much the same basis as products subject to sales tax. In Budget Statement No. 4 of Budget Paper No. 1, it was estimated that the indexation of excise rates (including the new rates achieved by discretionary rate increases with effect from Budget night) will raise about $236m in 1983-84. Indexation of the excise equivalent component of like customs duties is estimated to raise a further $13m in 1983-84. Full year revenue gains will be similar in magnitude to the 1983-84 gain. Gains in future years will be heavily influenced by future inflation rates. The indexation arrangements are considered to be straightforward and will not involve any additional staffing or administrative costs. Nor are they expected to generate any significant compliance or administative costs for the excise-paying business community. I now turn to the other provisions in this Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes to introduce a revised excise system for crude oil produced from fields discovered before 18 September 1975. Prior to July 1983, the crude oil excise system contained a number of serious anomalies. In particular, returns to producers in some circumstances decreased as production increased, while in other circumstances these returns could increase while the import parity price fell. When the Government came to office it saw a need to remove these anomalies. With the aim of achieving a more rational excise scale; one that did not contain disincentives to producers, and that protected the return to the community through a more predictable and stable pattern of crude oil excise revenues. It is the Government's intention that these anomalies and other problems be eventually tackled through a resource rent tax but that approach will take some time to implement. In the meantime the Government considers that there is an urgent need to revise the crude oil excise system. The proposed revised system will be effective from 1 July 1983 and provides for increases in excise rates as the annual production from a field increases. It has been operating on a provisional basis since 1 July 1983 under the established scheme of rebates provided for by section 77 of the Excise Act 1901. The continued use of rebates is, however, unsatisfactory in a number of respects. The more important is that their use will become impractical should there be a change in the import parity price before the end of 1983-84. The revised excise scheme, which has been the subject of extensive consultation with producers, will ensure the systematic collection of excise duty during a financial year (analogous to the PAYE provisions in the income tax legislation) and will minimise fluctuations in receipts of excise. It caters for import parity price change in a financial year and for fields which commence production in a financial year. An additional feature, consistent with the proposed 'automatic excise indexation scheme', is that provision has been made for the excise duty rates in respect of crude oil to adjust automatically in accordance with movements in the import parity price of Bass Strait crude. It will also have a minimal impact on Government revenues. Revenues in 1983-84 under the new scheme will approximate those under the previous scheme (about $3,400m in 1983-84). Additional revenues may accrue, however, to the producers and to the community from any increased crude oil production that may result from the removal of the anomalies. I mentioned earlier that the opportunity has been taken to incorporate outstanding excise tariff proposals in this Bill. The proposals so incorporated are numbered 1 to 9 and are proposed to be enacted by clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill, effective 1 July 1983, increases the rate of excise duty on AVGAS and AVTUR by two cents per litre and in expected to yield about $18m in 1983-84. This increase was announced by the Treasurer in his economic statement to the House on 19 May, 1983 and was made instead of an increase in air navigation charges. Alterations from that date also increase the excise duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel by one per cent per litre for the purpose of financing the Australian bicentennial road development program. The excise component of this program is now 2 cents and the estimated net gain to revenue for the program for 1983-84 is $410m. Paragraph (a) of the clause alters the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for international organisations. This is a technical amendment involving no loss of concessions to the organisations. Clause 6 of the Bill contains the alterations to the excise tariff to give effect to the excise measures outlined by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech on 23 August 1983. Briefly the alterations, which operate from 8.00 p.m. on Budget night increase the duty on beer, spirits, manufactured tobacco products and certain refined petroleum products. They also extend the excise base to include fortifying spirit, fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosenes and remove the duty on amylic alcohol and fuel oil, playing cards, cigarette tubes, paper and papers and matches. The tariff on tobacco products is also restructured. I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that the rates, shown in clause 6 of the Bill, reflect the alterations made to the Budget excise rates in respect of fortifying spirit (a decrease from $2.61 per litre of alcohol to $1. 50 per litre of alcohol) and fuel oil, heating oil, an power and lighting kerosene (a decrease from $0.09027 per litre to $0.01872 per litre). These reductions were made following representations received by the Government that the Budget increases would impose severe hardship upon industry and households. The revised excise revenue gain on the petroleum products is now estimated at $ 47m in 1983-84, some $69m less than that contained in the Budget estimate. It is estimated that the taxation revenue from the lower excise on fortifying spirit may not be significantly different from the original $13m estimate contained in the Budget. This is for the reason that the effect upon the industry is now expected to be considerably less than under the excise imposed at Budget time. Finally, clause 7 of the Bill abolishes with effect from 9 September 1983 the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for non-diplomatic trade commissioners following a review of these arrangements. The concessions are not required by any international agreement. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 which is now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains 11 schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1983 autumn and Budget sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 2-14 (1983). The Bill also contains two changes which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. Amendments proposed in the Bill arise in the main from government decisions on the Temporary Assistance Authority report on fluorescent and filament lamps and the following Industries Assistance Commission reports: gelatin (developing country preferences) the Australian tobacco industry the commercial by-law system non-electrical absorption type refrigerators and freezers and parts sodium alkylxanthates and potassium alkylxanthates (developing country preferences) transformers (developing country preferences) canning fruit certain iron and steel products and certain alloy steel products certain pigment dyestuffs and colour lakes (developing country preferences) tableware and certain other goods, of pottery (developing country preferences) stranded wire, cables, cordage, ropes, etc., of iron or steel wire (developing country preferences) Other amendments contained in the Bill which have previously been introduced into the Parliament by customs tariff proposals provide for government decisions relating to: an increase of 2 cents per litre in the rate of customs duty payable on imported aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel. This alteration is complementary to a change in the Excise Tariff Act; an additional one cent per litre surcharge on imported motor spirit and diesel fuel in accordance with the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. Again, this alteration is complementary to a change in the Excise Tariff Act; duty free entry of certain imports required for approved Australian industry participation programs, including defence offsets programs; Concessions available for goods imported by non-diplomatic trade commissioners, by international organisations and by visiting servicemen of the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand; Quota provisions for certain footwear; and A number of administrative changes to correctly reflect the intention, scope, or wording of various provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. The Bill also includes two changes which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. The first change relates to a revision of section 24 of the Customs Tariff Act which provides for separate rates of duty for different components. Parts, ingredients or accessories contained in goods. The change enables the determination, under all circumstances, of the amount of customs duty payable on goods imported under certain tariff classifications in schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. The second change inserts section 26A into the Customs Tariff Act to implement the Government's Budget decision to automatically index, on a six-monthly basis, customs tariff rates which incorporate and excise component. Section 26A, as proposed, provides for the relevant customs tariff rates to be increased by the same amount as the increase in the equivalent item in the excise tariff. This change is complementary to changes proposed in the Excise Tariff Act. The financial impact of those measures in this Bill which complement amendments to the Excise Tariff Act is outlined in my speech on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The measures in this category are: The indexation on a six-monthly basis of Customs Tariff rates containing an excise component; The two cents per litre increase on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel ; and The additional one cent per litre surcharge on imported motor spirit and diesel fuel. Apart from measures implemented for budgetary and revenue-raising reasons. The Bill contains in the main changes whose principal function is to alter levels of assistance accorded to certain industries. Some of these changes have the secondary effect of increasing or decreasing revenues. The precise revenue effects are difficult to predict as levels of imports and, therefore, the level of customs duty collected, are expected to be affected by such industries assistance decisions. The exact trade impact of these decisions may also not become clear for several months after a tariff change is made. For these reasons , financial impact has been broadly estimated on the assumption of no trade diversion arising from the Government's decisions, as being $3.15m additional revenue in a full financial year. Administrative amendments contained in the Bill are expected to have little financial impact. There are no additional significant costs to the government associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule of the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Records and Table Office. I commend the Bill. Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983 The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 to introduce new provisions which emanate from the 1983 Budget. In his Budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced an increase in the excise on diesel fuel. He said, however, that the rebate of excise on diesel fuel would not be increased when used off-road by the mining, forestry, farming and fishing industries, and by households, hospitals, nursing and aged persons' homes. The excise increase on diesel fuel took effect from 8 p.m. on Budget night and from that time the rebate for eligible purposes will be pegged to 7.155 cents per litre. By clause 6, this Bill proposes an amendment to section 164 of the Customs Act to give effect to the Budget decision, by providing for the rebate on diesel fuel used for eligible purposes to be prescribed by regulations. It is proposed that the appropriate regulations be made as soon as possible after this Bill receives the royal assent. Similar consequential amendments are proposed to the excise act by clause 8 and 9 of the Bill. The opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill a number of machinery amendments to the Customs Act and Excise Act. In particular, clause 4 inserts a new provision into the Customs Act to enable additional criteria to be prescribed by regulation under which depot licences will not be granted under the act. Clause 10 of the Bill repeals a now redundant part of the Excise Act as a consequence of the introduction of the new crude oil excise system proposed by the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. Finally clauses 11 and 12 contain amendments to the tariff proposal and by-law procedures in the Excise Act, to bring them into line with similar provisions in the Customs Act. The measures in this Bill will have no direct financial implications. However, the consequential financial implications of pegging the rate of rebate on diesel fuel to 7.155 cents per litre will result in an expected net increase to revenue of $30m in 1983-84. This is because eligible consumers of the fuel have been required to pay a net excise of 1.872 cents per litre since Budget night. The figure also includes the expected net revenue gain from indexation proposed to occur on 1 February next year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.57) —The Opposition does not oppose these Bills and proposes, subject to the objection of any other party in the chamber, that the Bills be dealt with immediately. I speak for the coalition Opposition parties but they are not the only non-government parties in the Senate. Nobody is here to object on behalf of other non-government Opposition members. These three Bills arise basically from the Budget. The Opposition's attitude is that the Government, having introduced the Budget, is entitled to introduce its revenue measures and can carry the can, the responsibility, for having done so. There are measures of which we do not approve but which we support because they are Government measures to raise revenue for its purposes, but we give no undertaking that in future we will act as this Government has acted. We believe that the impact of the proposed increases in excise on a cross- section of items, including beer, spirits, manufactured tobacco products, motor spirit, diesel fuel, avgas, aviation kerosene, petroleum products and fortifying spirits will be particularly severe on the rural sector and on various industries which will have to pay more. The increases will have an inflationary effect and will do nothing to create more employment, which was one of the fundamental responsibilities undertaken by this Government during the last election campaign. These Bills introduce a concept which is relatively novel; that is, the automatic indexation of every excise for inflation or cost of living increases. The extra imposts of each increase will flow through to the next cost of living adjustment. The Opposition is concerned about the effect that will have. Because we are not opposing the Bills, it should not be assumed that we are supporting such measures. However, to accommodate the Government's program for legislation to be passed to enable it to achieve those things which, as a Government elected by the Australian people it has a responsibility to achieve, we do not propose to hold up these Bills by debating them at length. We will, however, have comments to make at greater length in relation to an associated Bill, the States Grant (Petroleum Products) Bill. We may then make some of the comments we might otherwise have made in relation to the Bills now before us. The Opposition, therefore, whilst not having any enthusiasm for the items covered by the Bills, recognises that the Govenrment of the day is entitled to legislate to increase imposts on various sectors of the community. We particularly regret the fact that a number of industries, particularly rural, off-road and outback industries, are to be hit by them, but that is the Government's responsibility. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I put the question : That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.00) —in reply-I thank Senator Peter Rae for his contribution to the debate. Brevity is the soul of wit, it was said, and Senator Peter Rae was generous in his contribution. I thank him for that. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order. Am I to understand that this Bill is being taken through all its stages-the first reading, the second reading and the third reading stages-on this day? The PRESIDENT —The question before the Senate at the moment is: That the Bills be read a second time. I was about to put that question, the Leader of the Government replied to the debate. What happens from here on is matter for the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.02) -I move: That the Committee report progress. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —As I understand it this Bill is being taken through- Senator Peter Rae —There are three Bills. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry. These Bills are being taken through all of their stages on this day. I believe that that is not an appropriate precedent for this Senate to accept. I believe that debate on the Bills ought to be adjourned. If debate is not adjourned at the Committee stage than I think it should be adjourned when we report progress. The Bills should be passed, if necessary, tomorrow morning. I believe that we are setting a dangerous precedent by allowing the Bills to be passed through all their stages on this day. The CHAIRMAN —There can be no discussion on the motion to report progress. It is adopted without discussion, but it can be voted against. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I think it may help Senator Haradine if I explain what has happened. Three Bills, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) , the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill are before the Committee. There is also the States Grants ( Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill. All four Bills were introduced just a short time ago. It was proposed that three Bills would be dealt with tonight and that the fourth Bill, the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill, which may contain more controversial matters, be not dealt with tonight but rather be dealt with tomorrow or at some later date, when there is ample opportunity to debate it. When I said that the Liberal and National parties agreed to this course of action, I specifically said that it was subject to whether other non- government members of the chamber had any objection to it. If there is objection to that course being followed, I see no course but for the matter to be adjourned. I accept Senator Harradine's point that it is not the normal course of action. However, if it does not cause any major inconvenience to any honourable senators and if it facilitates the achievement of the legislative program of the Government through this chamber and enables longer debate on other matters of importance and controversy, the Opposition would like to facilitate that situation. If there is an objection, as far as the Opposition is concerned that is the end of the matter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-In respect of the three Bills in relation to which Senator Harradine has suggested that we report progress, the Standing Orders were suspended in order that a motion be moved to permit the matters being dealt with tonight. The spirit and understanding I certainly had with Senator Rae was that major issues which might be encompassed by this bracket of Bills could be dealt with in the context of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill. In our view, no opportunity in any sense is being denied any honourable senator to speak in respect of that Bill on the issues central to these Bills. That is why that Bill is to be dealt with tomorrow when honourable senators will have had ample opportunity to consider it before they contribute to the debate. I believed that was a course which was convenient to everbody. I hope that it is convenient to Senator Harradine. Question resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Australian Citizens' Allegations: Drug Activities Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.08) —Yesterday I raised in the Senate a matter relating to some issues which had been raised with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and otherwise with the Government and its agencies . They related to a possible charge of drug running. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) at that time was able to give me a partial reply. He has advised me that he has further information which he can put on the record. His having given me some preview of what he is able to say this evening I formally request him to see whether he can arrange for me to have a briefing from the Federal Police on the matters I have raised on behalf of Mr Milgate and one other person so that I may satisfy myself in more detail about the action taken by the Government. I do not wish to detain the Senate for very long, but Mr Milgate and Ms McGuinness raised serious questions about their treatment and the lack of support they received from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate was able to give me some detailed advice on that aspect of the matter. However, the questions of whether or not there had been any adequate follow-up of the concerns which this young couple had expressed about the possibility of large international drug connections and the use of a particular vessel for illegal purposes, and so on, is a matter on which the Leader of the Government was not able to be of very much assistance to me. He seemed to think that he would be able to be of a lot more help tonight, but perhaps I shall have to raise the matter at Question Time tomorrow. Perhaps we could deal with it by the Minister, who appears not to have his papers with him-I have often found myself in a similar position-undertaking to make a brief statement after Question Time tomorrow, and perhaps in the meantime he could ask his office to check with the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police as to whether I would be able to get a briefing so that I might have the more detailed advice which I think is necessary. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.1) —I am not prepared to give any undertakings about anything at the moment. Senator Chaney raised with me the question of Mr Milgate and his friend Ms McGuinness. I undertook to give him an answer about that matter tonight. I sent out for the papers, but they do not seem to be here. However, the matter has been investigated by the Australian Federal Police and regular reports have been made to Mr Milgate and Ms McGuinness by the Federal Police, the last as recently as last week. I am quite happy to make a statement about this matter after Question Time tomorrow. I have had discussions with the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) about the matter. Senator Chaney sought a briefing from a senior officer of the Federal Police. I have had discussions with the Special Minister of State about that request. But now, by some magic sleight of hand-I think it was Senator Eslstob's hand, and I am extremely grateful to him-I am able to provide a response to the matter about which Senator Chaney has been asking me for a couple of days. The response is as follows: Following the referral of representations made by Mr Milgate and Ms McGuinness through Senator Chaney and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking to the Australian Federal Police, both persons were interviewed by members of the Australian Federal Police located in Perth. The information given to the Australian Federal Police members by Mr Milgate concerned allegations of drug smuggling by Australian nationals resident in India. This information was provided through Interpol channels to the Indian authorities for action by the police in that country. Australian Federal Police inquiries so far have not established links with the persons named by Mr Milgage and Ms McGuinness with drug shipments into Australia. Checks with Customs and other agencies have not revealed any information which puts the vessel named during the interviews in Australian waters. Following the report in the weekend's Western Mail, the Australian Federal Police has sought further information from United States authorities on the reported seizure of drugs. Members of the Australian Federal Police in Perth have kept Mr Milgate and Ms McGuinness informed of the progress of their inquiries. As late as last Thursday Australian Federal Police officers were informed by Mr Milgate that he was satisfied with the action being taken by the Australian Federal Police. That is the most up to date information that the Government has had. But insofar as the request for further details has been made to me by Senator Chaney , as I said earlier, the Special Minister of State, at my request, has arranged for Senator Chaney to be given a briefing by a senior officer of the Federal Police to elucidate any outstanding matters. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determinations 1983 No. 9. Public Service Act-Determinations 1983 Nos 20, 21. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 365 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Did the Government fully think through the impact of its excises on fuel oil and kerosene on the tourist industry, in view of the anxiety they caused many Territorians, before backing away from the 9c per litre excise. (2) Are the costs of diesel fuel for tourist operators in the outback as expensive as in the Queensland island tourist resorts, which have been provided with a $1m subsidy for diesel fuel. (3) Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism review the impact of diesel fuel costs on Northern Territory tourist operators, with a view to opening a similar subsidy to that given to the Queensland island tourist resorts . Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government did take into account the effect of its excise arrangements on industry, including the tourism industry. (2) It is my understanding that, largely because of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, the wholesale price of diesel fuel in the Northern Territory would be similar to that of the Barrier Reef island resorts. Of course depending on discounting and retail margins the price would be more variable at the retail level. (3) The Government was very critical of the decision by the Fraser Government to impose the diesel fuel excise on the tourism industry and in particular on the Barrier Reef island resorts. Recognising the importance of the reef area to tourism both in Queensland and in Australia generally, it undertook when elected to exempt these resorts from the excise. This commitment has effectively been met by the decision to provide a special grant to the off-coast Queensland islands to subsidise the cost of electricity generated from diesel fuel. In the light of the very difficult 1983-84 budgetary situation, the Government felt it could not extend the subsidy at that time, however the effect of diesel fuel costs on the tourism industry including the industry in the Northern Territory will be kept under review. Question No. 381 Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) Will there be a real reduction in the allocation of funds for training purposes in the current year given the new additions of sports administered by the Australian Institute of Sport. (2) To what extent will overseas competition be cut back. (3) Will prospective new top class entrants to the Institute be discouraged. (4) What action will be taken to ensure our athletes are not disadvantaged, particularly as the Olympic Games are scheduled for next year. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The operational budget of the Institute has increased from $4.5047m in 1982-83 to $5.350m in 1983-84. Of this increase, only $200,000 will be required to fund a branch of the Institute in Perth for hockey. (2) The Institute's 1982-83 expenditure on overseas competition was $517,122, and it has budgeted for an expenditure of $570,000 in 1983-84. (3) No. In 1983 there were 188 scholarship positions at the Institute in Canberra. In 1984 it is expected that this number will be maintained in Canberra and in addition, 32 hockey students will be enrolled in Perth. (4) As well as catering for resident sports, the Institute has budgeted $400, 000 in 1983-84 for the national training centre program. This program enables those not resident at the Institute to have access to the Institute's excellent services and facilities to assist in preparation for the Olympics and other major events. Senator Gareth Evans —On 24 August 1983 (Hansard, page 132), Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, a question in relation to Government policy on East Timor. To that part of the honourable senator's question asking the Government to seek a guarantee from the Indonesian Government that no items of Australian military aid to Indonesia will be used in East Timor, the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer: Australia's participation in the defence co-operation program represents a practical expression of our interest in regional security and promotes contacts with the governments and defence forces of countries with which we have shared strategic interests. By contributing to the security of neighbouring regions, these programs strengthen Australia's own security and thus constitute part of our national defence effort. It has been the policy of successive governments not to seek to attach conditions on participation by the various countries in the program. The present Government accepts that participation in the DCP does not imply on the part of the countries involved endorsement of any or all of the policies of the other. When particular items of equipment are supplied the only condition imposed by Australia is that they not be sold or disposed of to a third country without prior Australian consent. I should perhaps add that in the case of Indonesia the program does not normally involve the provision of ammunition or what might be described as ' lethal' equipment. The emphasis is on joint projects involving a package of some equipment supported by training and advisory assistance designed to transfer to Indonesia technical and specialist skills. Preference is given to projects which have application in the wider community. These have included: Survey and mapping project-the production of cartographic maps of Indonesia which aid in civil and economic development. Maritime patrol project-the provision of patrol boats and Nomad aircraft to assist the Indonesian Government in combating smuggling, illegal entry protection of fishing rights and search and rescue operations. Nomad maintenance support project-to introduce a programmed maintenance system for Nomad aircraft, and the English language project-to aid in the development of English language teaching in the Indonesian services. Senator Gareth Evans — On 18 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1634) Senator Sir John Carrick asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: I ask firstly, how seriously does the Government view the threat by Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz? Secondly, have there been any discussions by the United States or United Kingdom governments with Australia towards any Australian commitment to a task force to act in the event of such a blockade? If so, what is their nature? Thirdly, what actions would be envisaged for such a task force? Fourthly, has the Australian Government taken any steps at all at the international or bilateral level to attempt to mitigate the possibility of the closure of the strait; and finally, and specifically, has the Government had any talks with the Iraqi Government particularly to urge that Government not to provoke this very serioues danger by the use of Exocet-type missiles? In my response to the senator on 18 October, I provided answers to a number of these points, but advised that I would seek further advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following additional information in response to the honourable senator's question: Australia has not made a direct approach to Iraq in relation to its conduct of the war with Iran. The Government understands that Iraq has already used Exocet missiles in the war. Our present concern is mainly that the supply to Iraq of Super-Etendard aircraft (which can carry Exocet missiles) could create a climate in which they could be a dangerous escalation of the conflict. Australia has maintained a scrupulously neutral position in relation to the war and has publicly expressed its concern about the possible escalation of the conflict. The Government continues to hope that both sides might be able to agree to a ceasefire and the negotiation of their differences. Senator Button —On 20 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1846) Senator Walters asked Senator Grimes, in his capacity as Minister representing Senator Gietzelt who represents the Minister for Transport, a supplementary question without notice concerning the Bass Strait ferry service. Senator Grimes undertook to provide her with details regarding a reply by the Prime Minister to a letter from the Premier of Tasmania of 5 August on this matter. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. I have responded to the correspondence from the Tasmanian Premier, including his letter of 5 August, on this matter. The Tasmanian Minister for Transport has since indicated that because of the limited time available to settle the necessary arrangements, including negotiations with relevant maritime unions and for the selection of a suitable vessel, the Tasmanian Government will not be pursuing the proposal at this time. Question No. 442 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: (1) What is the Budget allocation for salaries for members of the Defence Force reserves, and is it expected to be more or less than that amount for the full year. (2) What recovery is it expected to obtain by way of taxation on that amount. Senator Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The 1983-84 Defence budget allocation for pay and allowances in respect of the Defence Force reserves is $52.618m covering the Australian Naval Reserve, the Australian Army Reserve, the Regular Army Emergency Reserve and the Australian Air Force Reserve. This allocation is based on rates of pay and allowances prevailing at the time the Budget was prepared together with the average strengths endorsed for 1983-84. Actual achievement of that allocation will depend on a number of factors including changes to pay and allowance entitlements not foreseen at Budget time and any variations that may occur between expected and actual strengths. (2) The savings to revenue in 1983-84 are expected to be $5m. As indicated in my joint statement with the Treasurer on 9 November 1983, the Government has decided not to proceed with the second stage of the removal of the tax exemption on pay and allowances of part time members of the reserve forces. Question No. 467 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: In which year of the 1983-88 five year defence program is there provision for procurement of modern man-portable surface-to-air missiles. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As noted in my recent statement, the Government approved the introduction of a new man-portable lightweight anti-aircraft missile system in the 1983-84 Budget. Senator Gareth Evans —On 2 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2069), Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that ballot papers printed for a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Office for the New South Wales branch of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union have been printed by a leading computer manufacturer, Rank Xerox (Aust.) Pty. Ltd, a non-PKIU establishment? Did the Minister on 15 August assure the National Secretary of the PKIU that the facilities of the Government printing offices would be used unless there were real problems in those printeries meeting the deadlines required by the Electoral Office? Is it a fact that the Australian Government printing offices are currently not working to full capacity, particularly in New South Wales? If so, why were the ballot papers not printed at the New South Wales branch of the Government Printing Office where there are full security arrangements to protect the integrity of ballot papers? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 2 November the New South Wales Secretary of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union wrote to the Australian Electoral Office on the same subject as that raised by Senator Childs. A reply by the Electoral Office was sent on 7 November and as it is relevant to the honourable senator's question I will quote that reply in full: 'I refer to your telex of 2 November concerning the printing of ballot papers for the PKIU election. It is true that the ballot papers in question were produced by Rank Xerox. This was under an Australian Government Printing Service contract No. SC82/DR-NSW1. As far as security is concerned, satisfactory arrangements were made, with the ballot papers being printed on fugitive print paper and with the paper being delivered by one of our officers who observed the entire printing operation. Upon completion of the printing the ballot papers, spoils and unused paper were returned to the Australian Electoral Office again under the supervision of our officer. A large measure of your concern however I gather relates to the Australian Electoral Office's not using the New South Wales Government Printer for this exercise. In July, as you know, Mr C. Harvey, the Federal Secretary of your union, wrote to the Special Minister of State because he believed that industrial ballot material would no longer be printed at the Government Printing Office. In reply, Mr Beazley told Mr Harvey that the Australian Electoral Office policy was that the facilities of government printers were used unless those printers had real problems in meeting the deadlines required. I can assure you that this is still the position. Indeed, following your complaint I have again drawn that policy to the attention of each of our State offices. However, we have had problems for some years over the difficulties which the New South Wales Government Printer has had in meeting our deadlines. In the case of union ballots these deadlines of course are usually fixed by the relevant union's rules. We have had a number of talks with officers of the New South Wales Government Printing Office and I am sure that the printer is as keen as we are to overcome these difficulties and to be able to assure us of the service which he would want to provide and which we must have if, in turn, we are to meet the requirements placed on us. I would add that two orders-one for ballot papers and one for nomination notices-were placed with the Government Printer last week. I can only repeat the earlier assurance, namely, 'that given that our requirements can be met the Government Printer will be our first choice'.