Tuesday, 3 April 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Plant Variety Rights To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the draft Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hearn (from 91 citizens), Sibraa (from 82 citizens) and Zakharov ( from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, undersigned , shows that we strongly oppose the amending of Customs Regulations to allow the importation of video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from a visual image which can be produced, which portrays scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality, or the use and effect of illicit drug taking, and our opposition is emphatically given because such material will be viewed by 20 per cent of all Australian children during their parents' absence, or at other homes. will introduce children during their formative years to sexuality in the context of violence and deviance. will become a powerful teaching medium which will establish violence as a behavioural norm for coming generations. will degrade women to an exploitable sexual commodity will change the attitudes of men to their partners and all women will give rise to a substantial increase in serious crime, crimes against the person, sexual offences, rape and incest. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 23 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware, and for purposes connected therewith. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume)-by leave-agreed to: Pursuant to Standing Order 108, I give notice for six sitting days hence of the motion listed in my name on the Notice Paper for the next day of sitting as Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 6. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian War Memorial-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. 2. Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee-Report for the period October 1982 to June 1983. 3. Australian Honey Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 30 (3) of the Honey Industry Act 1962-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry relating to the report. 4. Australian Wheat Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 54 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry relating to the report. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I also table the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984, the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1984 and particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984 in relation to the parliamentary departments. Later in the program, I will be moving a motion to refer these documents to Estimates committees. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What is the current Government's policy referred to by Senator Gietzelt yesterday regarding the entitlement of members of parliament to public housing in the Australian Capital Territory? How does the Government justify someone earning the salary of a Federal Minister of about $60,000 occupying a flat at $ 57 a week, which could otherwise be made available as public housing to someone on the Territory's long housing waiting list? Senator BUTTON —Since we have been in power the Government has of course been very busy rectifying a disastrous situation in relation to the economy which we inherited. As far as I am aware the Government has not directed its attention to this specific issue which Senator Reid raises. However, I will see that the question is addressed and I will provide her with an answer in due course. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask whether he has seen the article in the Melbourne Herald of 2 April which reported on a submission made by Dr Mendelsohn to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare inquiry into retirement incomes. Can the Minister comment on the statement reportedly made by Dr Mendelsohn that the pension age for women should be raised from 60 to 65 years on the basis that this would make a significant contribution to financing a national superannuation scheme in the form of a universal age pension for people aged 65 or more? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article referred to but I have not seen the actual submission of Dr Ronald Mendelsohn to the inquiry. I would like first of all to point out that it is quite incorrect to say that raising the age pension for women from 60 to 65 years would result in substantial savings in social security expenditure which could be redistributed elsewhere. The vast majority of women aged between 60 and 64 years who receive a pension would, particularly in the present economic circumstances, merely be transferred to other social security benefits such as the unemployment benefit, the widow's pension, the deserted wife's pension or similar payments. The overall savings to the Department of Social Security would be in the range, as a rough estimate, of only some $20m a year. I remind honourable senators that to raise the pension by $1 a week would cost $146m a year, so we would not do a lot with that $20m. In relation to the other parts of the report-I hasten to add again that my comments are based on that report and not on the full submission-I was most surprised by the reported comment that if a universal pension is introduced the Government should not try to implement its election commitment to raise the basic rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Dr Mendelsohn seems to be suggesting that these people could be catered for by special needs payments. I assume he means by this that we would have a flat rate pension of a very low level-and it would be a low level-and, added to that, supplementary payments of the type that exist in the United Kingdom for those in particular need. I point out that those special supplementary payments in the United Kingdom are subjected to means tests which are far more rigid than any means test which would ever be applied in this country under the present circumstances . Those payments are considered to be very stigmatising and are considered to be detrimental to the welfare of the recipients. Introducing these payments would thereby recreate the problem that Dr Mendelsohn is presumably trying to eliminate by trying to do away with a means test in this regard. If this approach is rejected we are left with a situation in which Dr Meldelsohn's scheme in fact totally ignores the needs of the vast majority of pensioners currently in receipt of maximum rate pensions who have little or no additional income on top of their pensions and who have no capacity to earn such private income. It also ignores the need of the future aged who cannot afford to save for retirement during their working lives to supplement an inadequate pension of that level. I would have thought that on any measure of fairness these people deserve a higher priority than does a universal pension. Senator Peter Baume —Do you have responsibilities under the Sex Discrimination Act to treat the sexes equally? It is a serious question. Senator GRIMES —All right, it is a serious question so I will give a serious answer. The Department of Social Security is specifically excluded from that legislation. Overall, I am not sure that Dr Mendelsohn's suggested superannuation scheme is the best one to follow. The Government is currently examining a national superannuation scheme but it has great ramifications for investment in this country. It has ramifications in that we all-members of this Parliament plus the rest of the community-have to decide how such a scheme would be financed, and how it would be related to the present age pension and also of course to the existing plethora of occupational superannuation schemes in this country. These problems require serious consideration and debate. I always welcome the contributions of people like Dr Ronald Mendelsohn, whom I know, but I hope that the result of his contribution is to raise the level of that debate and not raise the sorts of expectations or problems which the article reporting his submission to that inquiry has in fact raised. Senator PETER RAE —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce been drawn to the recent survey by the Business Council of Australia which found that while direct wage costs increased by 3.3 per cent last year, labour on- costs rose by a staggering 14.4 per cent? What action, if any, has the Government taken to tackle the problem of labour on-wage costs acknowledged by the Minister at the Metal Trades Industry Association, Inc. function in October last year as being of great seriousness to Australia? If no action has been taken, why has no action been taken? Senator BUTTON —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the recent survey by the Business Council of Australia and to the figure which it produced in respect of on-wage costs. As Senator Rae will recall, in April or May last year I drew attention to this problem as one which had continually to be addressed. I believe that is so. Since in the Senate I have made the point that it has to be addressed by a number of instrumentalities and organisations in this community, not just the Commonwealth Government, but also State governments and employer and employee organisations, probably the largest single element in on-wage costs now is workers' compensation premiums which have continued to escalate and have been a great burden on Australian industry. I was asked a question about this only the other day and made some comment about it. This Government would regard it as an appropriate matter for discussion by the Australian Manufacturing Council and various industry councils because one cannot generalise about it. It has a different burden in different areas. That seems to be the appropriate sort of forum in which those questions should be addressed. I just add in relation to the question of on-wage costs that in Australia they are not significantly higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. In fact, I think they are about the same. I was somewhat surprised last month, for example, when visiting Daimler-Benz in Germany to find that its on-wage costs are running at a level of about 95 per cent. Senator Chaney —That probably includes social security contributions. Senator BUTTON —Yes, because it makes social security contributions and a variety of other work place contributions as well. Nonetheless, it means that for every dollar which it pays in wages it pays $1.95. I think that question has to be seen in terms of those perspectives. I am not able to comment on whether the figures in the Business Council's survey are correct or otherwise or how they are compiled. I do know that the results were drawn to my attention by members of the Business Council and I certainly regard them as a matter of continuing concern. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of any recent strains that have been placed on the prices and incomes accord? In particular, does the Minister know of any proposals being put forward which threaten those sections of the accord which provide for a centralised system of wage fixation, the maintenance of real wages and the sharing of national productivity increases with wage and salary earners? Senator BUTTON —I take it that Senator Childs's question is really addressed to the question of government wages policy and, indeed, other announced alternative wages policies which have been the subject of discussion in the Press quite recently. I am certainly not aware of any proposals to opt out of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government has in place a firm policy, of course, in relation to the prices and incomes accord, which is based on a centralised wage fixation system. I must say that according to the Press, after probably what has been the most tortuous and publicised period of gestation in Australian political life, certainly the most tortuous and publicised since perhaps the last royal birth or something of that kind, the Opposition has now given birth to a wages policy, or a so-called wages policy. On my reading of the essential elements of that policy , it emerges as the sickly child of doubtful parentage and, I believe, very limited life expectancy. The reason for that is that it seems to contain a number of inherent contradictions. Senator Chaney —It sounds like your uranium policy. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says that it sounds like the Government's uranium policy as it emerges in the platform, which admittedly is open to a variety of interpretations, as Senator Walsh has pointed out in this place on numerous occasions. The Government's policy, however, is not open to misinterpretation. The Opposition policy on wages is open to a variety of misinterpretations. Senator Missen —You have not seen it yet. Senator BUTTON —I take it that some people have seen it. It has been very widely reported in the Press. If the honourable senator is taking the point that one should not rely on the Press at Question Time, he would not be able to ask a question at all because it seems that he has nothing else to rely on. In this struggle, this great wrangle that has gone on, as the Australian Financial Review describes it, I am not sure which side has actually won. The result seems to be an absolute mish-mash. I believe that the Opposition has settled on a wages policy. This answer might be very useful to members of the Opposition because, as Senator Teague interjected earlier, if the policy has not yet been finalised, they might have an opportunity to brush it up in accordance with my answer. The essential points are that it allows employers and employees to negotiate agreements outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it provides for national wage increases to be awarded in line with national productivity rather than prices. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This is the third question to which the Leader of the Government in the Senate has addressed himself. He was not able to tell the House of the Government's policy on housing or about the occupation of cheap housing by members of the Government. He was not able to tell the Senate whether he had done anything about on-costs, which is an important element of a wages policy. The first matter upon which he has been able to touch discursively upon is wages policy. I suggest that that has nothing to do with his own portfolio responsibilities. He should be called to order and made to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is answering the question. There is no point of order involved. Senator BUTTON —Insofar as this is not a point of order but a political point-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I am interested only in points of order. Senator BUTTON —I simply make the point that this policy contains a number of deficiencies, and these are matters of great concern to the Government because it does not want people in the wider community to be confused by silly notions that might result in some detraction from the benefits of a policy that is set in place and working. I refer to a couple of deficiencies in the policy. Opting out, of course, is unlikely to be agreed to by the employees where that course would mean cuts in wages and conditions, as inevitably it would. If the Commission is asked to deal with that sort of question, how is it to be satisfied that no coercion was exercised in relation to those matters? One would be very concerned to know whether in particular circumstances the Commission would be asked to vary awards in relation to particular companies, which it cannot do, or whether it would be asked to vary awards in relation to an industry. Of course, various elements go to make an industry, and they might include a variety of establishments, some of which, under the criteria suggested by the Opposition, might be eligible for an award variation from which the mass of the industry may or may not benefit. A number of points of that kind are contained in the policy which was reported in the Press. If Opposition senators want to brush up on and improve the policy and extend for another month or two the nine months of wrangling which has taken place to date, it would be of great benefit to them to consider some of these issues. After all, the matter was publicly reported in the Press and it has not been resolved. Senator Peter Rae —Why don't you tell us about something in your portfolio, like country preferences? Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae asks, by way of interjection, why do I not tell the Senate something about my portfolio. The honourable senator has asked perhaps seven questions since we came to government. That shows what the Opposition shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce is doing. If he wants to know about my portfolio perhaps he ought to come to Question Time a little more and ask some questions about it. I am dealing with a question relating to an employment and industrial relations matter on behalf of the Minister whom I represent in this chamber. It is of considerable concern that the Opposition's policy on this matter is, as I say, a mish-mash. From the interjections which have taken place, apparently it has not yet been resolved. Until it is resolved there will be no serious debate about industrial relations and wages issues in this country. For that reason it is a very important matter. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask the Minister, in the light of his purported knowledge of debate within the Opposition parties about these matters, whether he is familiar with the discussions that are taking place within his own Government organisation about the desire on the part of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to change the industrial relations and wage fixing system to increase its flexibility. I ask the Minister whether he has taken part in any discussions on whether there should be a move towards limited collective bargaining outside the centralised wage fixing system . Are these matters of debate within the Government, within the Government Party and within the bureaucracy that the Government now controls? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of any discussion-- Senator Messner —That is right. Senator BUTTON —Just a minute. I am not aware of any discussion having taken place, as Senator Chaney put it, within my Party or organisation. No discussion has taken place within my Party or organisation in relation to this matter. It does not matter which faction Senator Rae talks about; no discussion has taken place. I am fully aware that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has circulated a discussion paper on these issues and, in so doing, has embraced some of the points embraced by Mr Macphee in his side of the continuous wrangle going on within the Opposition to which I was referring earlier in Question Time when I was interrupted by interjections. I am quite aware of the circulation of that paper. It is an important contribution to the debate on wages policy. I look forward to the day when the Opposition can make an important contribution to the debate on wages policy. It seems a long way off . The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of Dame Nancy Buttfield, a former distinguished senator from South Australia, and, in the public gallery on my right, the presence of Mr Neville Bonner, a former distinguished senator from Queensland. On behalf of all senators I extend to both of them a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator RICHARDSON —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate how many applications for new taxation file numbers the Department of the Treasury has received since the introduction of the prescribed payments taxation system on 1 October last year? Of this number, how many applications were from people or companies who had previously not registered with the Australian Taxation Office or paid any taxation? From the information available to the Minister, is he in a position to state whether any of the people in this category were operating in their various industries prior to the commencement of the prescribed payments taxation? Finally, do the early figures suggest that the prescribed payments legislation has been a successful measure in combating a major portion of the only growth industry in Australia during the Fraser years, the tax avoidance industry? Senator WALSH —I have a note from the Treasurer on this matter. All the figures state the position as at 9 March; they are the most recently available figures. They show that almost 43,000 applications for new taxation file numbers have been received. It is not possible at this stage to say how many of those were from applicants who had been obliged to lodge returns before but had not done so . But the early indications are that something like 25 per cent of those 43,000 applicants had not previously lodged income tax returns even though they had a liability to do so. Of the balance of the other 30,000-odd, some are individuals who claimed to have newly arrived in Australia, but most are new entities like partnerships, trusts and companies in relation to which it seems reasonable to expect or to assume that the proprietors had commonly previously had a liability to lodge returns but had not done so. The vast majority of defaulters detected so far had been operating in the respective industries prior to the introduction of the prescribed payments system. It is too early to gauge the overall effectiveness of the prescribed payments system, but it is evident that the system has been extremely successful in bringing to light large numbers of taxpayers who have evaded tax in the past by failing to lodge returns, which I think explains the vociferous campaign waged last spring to torpedo the necessary legislation, a campaign which I note with regret was supported by a number of Liberal and National Party politicians, concentrated, as is usual for campaigns on behalf of tax evaders, in Western Australia. The actions of such people were at best opportunistic and at worst something much worse. On Senator Richardson's final comment about the growth rate of various industries in Australia it is perfectly clear-as he said, the only growth industry under the Fraser Government, at least in its final years, was of course the tax avoidance industry-that almost every industry other than the tax avoidance industry has grown at quite a spectacular rate since the Fraser Government was dispatched to the dustbin of history. The one industry which has not fared at all well under this Government, and indeed would become extinct were it not for the obstructionist actions of half the members of the Senate, is the tax avoidance industry. That industry has fared very badly under this Government. Regrettably, the actions of half the members of this Senate have precluded the Government from ensuring that that industry becomes extinct. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and concerns an answer he gave yesterday to a very gentle, helpful and soothing question which he received from his new admirer, Senator Sir John Carrick. In his answer Senator Walsh said: . . . although it is technically feasible to produce weapons grade plutonium from a power reactor, there is no known instance of that having been done, at least in the non-communist world. Has the Minister forgotten-Senator Mason drew his attention to it last year-that the United States Energy Research and Development Administration officially confirmed on 4 August 1977 that the United States of America had constructed and exploded a nuclear bomb made from reactor grade plutonium. Will the Minister correct his statement which, although no doubt made in good faith, was a stark case of misleading the Senate? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of the particular case that Senator Chipp has cited . I will have it checked out. In the answer that I gave yesterday I explained how one could expedite production of an explosive device via a power reactor if the rods were subject to intensive and short term irradiation. But that, of course, is not the way in which power reactors are operated. For one reason, they would not produce much electricity if they were operated in that way. But as to the specific case that Senator Chipp raised and the nature of the device which, according to his information, was produced, I will have that checked out and supply him with an answer either in the Senate or in writing, whichever he prefers. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Did the Minister see the remarks made by Professor John Ward, Vice- Chancellor of Sydney University, as reported in yesterday's Australian? Did Professor Ward complain about the high cost to the University of Sydney of complying with the equal opportunity provisions of the New South Wales anti- discrimination legislation and strongly criticise the State Government for requiring the University to implement the State law. While admitting that equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws are widely supported in the University, did Professor Ward say that money which would have to be spent on implementing the legislation was needed for teaching and research? Can the Minister comment on the suggestion that the implementation of affirmative action proposals in tertiary institutions will take money away from education and research? Senator RYAN —Yes, I saw Professor Ward's comments as reported in the Australian and other newspapers yesterday. They were along the lines set out in Senator Sibraa's question. I must say that although I welcome the entry into debate by administrators of tertiary institutions, on matters of social importance such as equal opportunity, it is a little disappointing when they find it necessary, as Professor Ward apparently did, to be so negative about such an important social reform. One would hope that universities particularly, which are supposed to be places of enlightenment and perhaps more carefully developed social values, would be places where such social reforms would be more welcome than in the community at large. Professor Ward was reported as mentioning a figure of half a million dollars as the cost of implementing an equal opportunities management plan as required by the New South Wales Government's anti-discrimination legislation. The major requirement of that legislation is the production and implementation of an equal employment plan. I find it very difficult to conceive how, in any institution which already carries out efficient management planning, such a cost could be incurred. Some extra cost for items such as record keeping, staff training and staff development for the plan would be incurred. However, I would be very surprised if these costs came to anything like the amount mentioned by Professor Ward. There may be some once only costs involved in setting up the first equal employment opportunity management plan. I have asked the Commonwealth Teritary Education Commission to seek a breakdown from Professor Ward of the costs involved. With regard to our own Government's intentions in this direction, our affirmative action Green Paper, which will be released soon, will discuss the possibility of similar management plans for tertiary institutions around Australia. However, I should point out that there are significant differences between what the Federal Government is considering and the requirements of the New South Wales legislation. The New South Wales legislation, to which Professor Ward was referring, covers not only women but also other groups such as Aboriginals and migrants and, thus, the costs involved would be greater than under proposals under consideration by us. The New South Wales legislation also has specific requirements with regard to information acquisition which will not necessarily be taken up in our proposals. I would like to mention the cost to education, to our economy and to our society generally of not utilising the full potential of women and other groups such as migrants and Aboriginals. It is my belief that the quality of teaching, research and education in general will be greatly improved by utilising these currently untapped resources. So, far from being a net cost to the public, I think such social reforms in fact have many net benefits not only to universities but also to the labour market and to our society generally. Senator SCOTT —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the alterations to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation announced by the Treasurer yesterday severely restrict the operations of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia? Will this in fact reduce finance to small business instead of increasing it as was promised by the Government before last year's election? Senator BUTTON —The Commonwealth Development Bank, as Senator Scott implied in his question, had $75m transferred from its reserves to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, but it is the view of the Government and I believe of officials of the Commonwealth Bank, certainly those with whom I have discussed the matter, that that will not adversely affect the ability of the Commonwealth Development Bank to supply finance for small business needs in the foreseeable future. Senator Scott will recall that the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank was the subject of discussion by the Review of the Australian Financial System, the Martin committee report, to which the Government has yet to respond. Because the Commonwealth Development Bank paid neither tax nor dividend on its profits to the Commonwealth, it had accumulated large reserves of some $79m at 30 June 1983 and total capital and reserves at that date were at a figure in excess of $200m. It is considered that because the Government increased the gearing ratio of the bank at the time of the May economic statement last year, as I recall, or maybe at the time of the Budget-I am not clear in my recollection-the reduction of $75m in Commonwealth Development Bank reserves will still leave it with plenty of reserves to carry on its function as a lender to small business, and particularly to primary producers. Last week I was present at a Commonwealth Development Bank function at which a number of these issues were discussed with representatives of farming organisations. No particular concern was expressed when the explanations I have just given to the Senate were made to representatives at that function. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. What further Commonwealth assistance can be given to South Australia to help end the portuguese millipede infestation in and around Adelaide and in the Adelaide Hills? It is claimed that money is still needed to test the effectiveness of a natural enemy, identified in Portugal, its effect on the environment and whether there will be other side effects. As the millipede has recently been found in Victoria and Tasmania, what can the Minister now say about further Commonwealth Government assistance to eradicate this problem? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to inform the Senate that certain information on the subject of the portuguese millipede in South Australia has been provided to me by my colleague. The funding of a joint Commonwealth-South Australian three- year study into the biological control of the millipede ended in December 1983; the funding was on a 50-50 basis. The project involved the recruitment of a research scientist of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation who had already studied the millipede for his PhD thesis. There is a serious problem. The information provided to me by my colleague is very full and, even though it is of great interest to the Senate generally, it is probably of particular interest to Senator Maguire. Therefore, I shall provide him with the long and detailed information provided to me rather than provide it to all honourable senators. Senator TEAGUE —Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce confirm that on 6 October last year he announced two major inquiries into the Australian motor vehicle industry-one an Industries Assistance Commission reference foreshadowing lower protection for light commercial vehicles, and the other establishing a car industry council to examine key aspects of the post-1984 passenger vehicle policy? Is it not also true that Senator Button at the same Press conference said that both inquiries would report by mid-December and lead to government decisions by February? As that time has now well and truly passed, I ask: When will the Government's decisions on the motor vehicle industry be made and when will they be announced? Senator BUTTON —It is true that two inquiries were announced on 6 October-the reference to the IAC relating to light commercial vehicles and the appointment of the Car Industry Council, which was not a government body but an industry body which, hopefully, was designed to provide some self-help remedies to the industry's problems. The IAC has reported and the Car Industry Council reported in December. Arising particularly from the second report are a number of further considerations which the Government has to take into account. I am not at this stage in a position to announce a precise date on which there will be a government response to both matters. The resolution of the problems has been considerably complicated by the fact that the five plant manufacturers in Australia are all foreign-owned corporations and there is a necessity for discussions to take place in some instances not only with the local companies but also with the parent companies. However, as soon as I am able to advise a definite date on which an announcement can be made I will be happy to advise Senator Teague. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Has the Independent Air Fares Committee presented a detailed report on its reasons for recommending a 2 per cent increase in air fares on 2 April? If so, is that report publicly available? If not, will a report be made available so that the travelling public and elected representatives are able to scrutinise the Committee's assessment? Senator GIETZELT —Honourable senators will be aware that in the last couple of days a report has been published in the Press that a general increase of 2 per cent has been approved by the Independent Air Fares Committee for fares associated with Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines on their jet services. I understand that the Independent Air Fares Committee has had a major air fare review. Under the provisions of the Act, of course, it has the independence and the capacity to do that following representations made to it by the appropriate airline operators. It is committed not only to publish its findings but also to make available the evidence and its reasons for coming to certain conclusions. It is required to have published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette a notice setting out the terms of the determination, the reasons for making it and any findings or facts placed before it. However, I have to inform Senator Colston that the Committee has not as yet published its findings although they will be available in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. That will be done in a very short space of time. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of reports that medical fraud and overservicing, while apparently marginally decreasing, are still costing the Government at least $130m per year in lost revenue? Further, is the Minister aware of recent allegations that this loss of revenue is at least partly due to the fact that the fraud and overservicing detection section of the Department of Health is understaffed? Given that there is now a significant number of staff in the Department of Social Security who have become surplus to requirements because of the Prime Minister's decision to refer the proposed assets and income test legislation to an independent inquiry, will the Minister consider lending, or whatever one does with underdeployed staff, to FODS those DSS staff who have not yet been deployed in other areas so that a more vigorous and extensive pursuit of medical fraud and overservicing can be undertaken? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that fraud and overservicing cost the Government money and that progress is slower than the Minister would like in overcoming that problem. The problem is not only lack of staff, but also, as I am sure the honourable senator knows, the time taken to detect, charge and do all the other things that we have to do to people who are overcharging. Since the deferment of the assets test and its referral to a panel the Department has been redeploying staff. The staff have gone first of all to those departments which requested that they be transferred; namely, the Department of Housing and Construction, which as the honourable senator knows has a backlog with the first home ownership scheme; the Australian Taxation Office, which recruits people at this time of the year; and the Department of Primary Industry. Those are the only departments involved, so far as I can remember. I cannot remember a request from the Department of Health. That redeployment, combined with the fact that there is a wastage of something like 300 people every month from the Department of Social Security, has meant that we are well on the way to redeploying all those people who were excess to our needs. However, I will again draw to Dr Blewett's attention the fact that those staff are available, and the good advice of Senator Haines, who believes that those people can assist him with his problem, to see whether we can make some arrangement. But of course it does depend on the skills of those people who are available from my Department. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to newspaper and radio reports of a scientific study into the link between birth defects and Vietnam service. Does the Minister accept the findings of that study which conclude that there is no statistical evidence of such a link? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I have in the last couple of days read of and heard of the scientific study referred to by Senator Reynolds. It appears that the reports arose as a result of articles which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia dated 31 March 1984. These articles summarised the results of a survey and detailed the results of a birth defects study carried out by Australian Veterans Health Studies, which was released by Senator Messner on 20 February last year and reported to the Senate on 11 May 1983. The main conclusion of that report was that there was no evidence that Vietnam Army service by the father increased the risk of a birth abnormality in the child. I think the incredible fact about the publication of the articles referred to is that they are the result of a report which is almost a year old. The articles in the Medical Journal of Australia and in the newspapers make no reference to the fact that the Government report was rejected by the Vietnam Veterans Association. The Association has been very critical of the study and the way in which the report was conducted. I remind the Senate that it was an interim report, in that both the report and these criticisms are being investigated by the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. In those circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the findings of the birth defects study. However, the re-publication, the regurgitation, of these reports created some concern among and criticism by the Vietnam veterans. It is a matter of some regret that a report which is so old has been rehashed in such a way as to create the impression that it is the latest report and one that is associated with the current Royal Commission. I assure Senator Reynolds that that is not the case, that the report has no particular relevance to the current inquiry being conducted by the Royal Commission. If any distress has been caused to the veterans-I believe some has- it is to be deprecated that the journalists who wrote the story did not bother to check the basic facts; namely, the report is a year old and other studies may be conducted by the Royal Commission into the problems associated with chemical agents in Vietnam. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Is it a fact that Senator Tate, on behalf of the Government, gave a commitment on 8 September 1983 to indicate by a ministerial statement the substance of the review of petroleum retailing legislation? Has the Minister had the review since November last year? When will the report of the review be released and when will the Government announce its decision on the review? Senator BUTTON —I have no idea what Senator Tate did on 8 September 1983. As a matter of fact, I feel it would be presumptuous of me to inquire. On the assumption that Senator Tate did make such a statement, I am able to indicate that the review and the Government decision on it will be published within two weeks. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What sums of money have been allocated to community employment program projects undertaken in Queensland? How does the rate of absorption of those funds for the program in Queensland compare with that of other States and how many unemployed people have been employed so far on CEP projects in Queensland? Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations satisfied with the general response and level of assistance being given by the Queensland Government in the administration of the program in that State? Senator BUTTON —I am able generally to answer yes to those questions; that is to say, although there was perhaps a somewhat shaky start in Queensland in relation to the various parts of the question asked by Senator Jones, the answer is generally that yes, the progress of the CEP in Queensland is satisfactory. I do have, though not with me, some statistics which illustrate the answer I have just given, and I will make those available as soon as I can, perhaps at the end of Question Time. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney to the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Representatives yesterday in answer to a question concerning the strategic defence basis document. The Prime Minister quoted a sentence from that document concerning the need for adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, saying: I note that that crucially important sentence does not appear in the extracts in the National Times. I ask the Attorney: Now that the Prime Minister has effectively acknowledged the authenticity of the material published in the National Times, will the Government formally admit that the newspaper has published extracts from a genuine document known as 'The Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy'? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In light of that answer, will the Attorney-General explain the Prime Minister's statement that this quotation relates to an extract from the document? Senator GARETH EVANS —When referring to the same matter yesterday I used the expression 'purported excerpts'. I am sure that that was implicit in everything that the Prime Minister said yesterday. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen the figures for bulk billing under Medicare for the first seven weeks of Medicare's operation, showing that 48.5 per cent, or 4.4 million, of 9.1 million services performed have been bulk billed? The percentages are 51.8 per cent for New South Wales and 48.5 per cent for South Australia. Does the Minister agree that these figures indicate a high acceptance by doctors of the principle of Medicare and does he agree that these figures contradict the public image of Australian Medical Association opposition to Medicare and AMA insistence that Medicare is back-door nationalisation? Senator GRIMES —I have seen the figures put out by the Minister for Health. As Senator Crowley says, there is considerable acceptance of bulk billing although in some areas, particularly in Tasmania, my own State, and the Australian Capital Territory, the percentage of doctors bulk billing is very low. This indicates that many members of the medical profession, particularly general practitioners, accept that bulk billing is desirable for large groups of people, not only pensioners and beneficiaries but also disadvantaged people, and that others accept that bulk billing is a good thing for everybody, including the doctors themselves. While we have the spokesman for the Australian Medical Association and the General Practitioners Society and others saying that the basis of their opposition to Medicare is that it is back-door nationalisation, socialisation or whatever other colourful term they want to use and that the real basis of their objection is to bulk billing, we find that while they are saying one thing their colleagues are doing another. That was the history with Medibank; that was the history with the Canadian national health scheme; and it will be the history of Medicare in this country. The percentage of services bulk billed will continue to increase. In those smaller States or Territories, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania, where there are smaller numbers of doctors in smaller areas who can get together and provide each other with all sorts of moral support and, to use a phrase of Senator Teague's last night, some might even use coercion, we will always get this initial low compliance rate with bulk billing. But as I say, as Medicare is in place and gets more acceptance from the community and the doctors , bulk billing will increase and that will be the proof of the pudding. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It concerns the possibility that an Army firing range might be constructed on top of the Sydney-Moomba gas pipeline. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that there is a proposed acquisition of about 2 million hectares of land in or near the Shire of Cobar in my State for the development of an Army manoeuvre and field firing area? Is it not a fact that the Sydney-Moomba natural gas pipeline passes through the proposed manoeuvre and field firing area? Is not a field firing area a place where live ammunition is likely to be found? Is not an Army manoeuvre area an area where tanks and other vehicles are likely to pass ? Are there not very serious restrictions, safety rules, which apply to people living close to the pipeline? I ask the Minister whether it is possible, having regard to the proper safety of the pipeline, to envisage allowing a field firing range or an Army manoeuvre area, for example for the movement of trucks or tanks , to be established at or near any area close to the pipeline. Senator WALSH —Yes, some two or three weeks ago I was given a minute on this, which said that there was a proposal in that area to establish a training area of the type Senator Baume suggested. The facts at that stage were not entirely clear as to whether it was adjacent to or close to the pipeline or whether it actually straddled the pipeline area. I still do not know precisely what the proposition is or indeed whether there was a firm proposition as far as the Army is concerned. If it should be dangerously close to or straddling the area, however, the Pipeline Authority has taken the question up. I will make further inquiries to see what the latest information is and make it available. But the Pipeline Authority is aware at least of the potential danger-I would go beyond saying 'potential danger' and call it a prima facie danger-of having military or explosive activity in an area anywhere close to the pipeline. Senator BOLKUS —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to the details of unemployment beneficiaries that he provided to the Senate last Friday. Has the Minister seen today's report that the decrease in unemployment in South Australia over the last three months has exceeded that of all other Australian States? In view of this information, does the Minister have any further information, any more recent statistics, on the number of unemployment beneficiaries in Australia? Senator GRIMES —My attention has been drawn to an Australian Associated Press report this day pointing out that the number of South Australians on unemployment benefit between January and March fell at a rate faster than the rest of Australia. In other words, it fell by 9.3 per cent compared with 0.1 per cent. These figures were put out by the State Government's economic unit. My only comment on those figures is that they are correct and that it is very cheeky of the State Government's economic unit because it pinched them from the answer that I gave in this place last Friday. But I have further knowledge and further information about the unemployment beneficiaries which is important. In the week ending Friday, 30 March, the number of unemployment beneficiaries in this country actually declined by 7,000 to 626,200. In the corresponding week last year the number increased by 6,700. The most significant point about the figures is that the total number of unemployment beneficiaries is now some 3,000 fewer than the figure for the corresponding time last year, and this is the first time that that has happened. These figures show that in just over 12 months in office the Government has been able to reverse the seemingly inexorable increase in the number of unemployment beneficiaries that took place under the previous Government and immediately after the previous Government was removed from office. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows a question asked earlier today by Senator Richardson about the prescribed payments tax system. I understand that the Australian Taxation Office experienced some difficulties in regard to the collection and administration of the tax. I wonder whether the advice from the Treasurer to the Minister indicated whether the system was operating smoothly. If not, will the Minister obtain that advice for me and provide it later? Senator WALSH —The note I had from the Treasurer today does not go into that issue. If I remember correctly, in a discussion that took place a few weeks ago I was told that the number of applications for exemption or variation was substantially greater than had been estimated. Obviously that placed more pressure on the resources of the Taxation Office than had been expected. Because of that the actual payments may have been delayed somewhat. That is as I recall the discussion, but I will check with the Treasurer to ascertain whether he can confirm that that is the case and/or add anything to it. Senator HEARN —I address a question to the Minister for Social Security. A letter in the Melbourne Herald recently stated that the Australian Labor Party Government is currently reducing funding in real terms to women's refuges and child care. Would the Minister clarify the Government's policy in these areas? Senator GRIMES —I saw a letter to that effect in the Melbourne Herald last week. It was written by Eve Mahlab, a well-known and well-respected member of the Liberal Party. Senator Ryan —She is very critical of the current leader, too. Senator GRIMES —Indeed she is. She is also critical of the present Government in respect of these two areas of women's refuges and child care. Her criticism is not justified, unlike her criticism of the present Leader of the Opposition. In fact, as I think most honourable senators know, in the area of children's services last year the Government increased expenditure on new projects by $11m. In the area of women's refuges the Government introduced a women's emergency services program, with the provision of another $4m in the current year to assist those much exploited women who run women's refuges. I have just approved the expenditure of the first of that money. The Government made a commitment in the last Budget to increase expenditure on children's services this year. It has also given a commitment to continue the women's emergency services program. On both those scores Miss Mahlab is wrong. She has probably been misled by the propaganda from her own Party. I note that she also advocates the introduction of tax deductions for expenditure on child care, children's services. Senator Haines —Hear, hear! Senator GRIMES —That may be the policy of good working women on high wages, such as Senator Haines. In fact, it is a poor way to distribute money in this area. The funds allocated to this area need to be distributed to those in need, which includes those who are working and those who are not working. The distribution of funds should be equitable. Therefore I personally do not favour the introduction of tax deductions for expenditure on child care because such a system would benefit only those who are working and, in particular, those who receive the sorts of wages that Senator Haines receives. Senator BUTTON —Earlier today in Question Time Senator Reid asked me a question about Tom Uren's house. I was asked particularly what the Government's policy was on this issue and whether I recalled any deliberations by the Government about it. I said no, that the Government had been too busy involving itself with other matters relating to the economy. I am able to say that the policy of the present Government is one which has been, in a sense, inherited from previous governments. It was a policy established in 1956 by a Liberal-National Country Party coalition and has been followed by successive governments since that time. Under that policy Mr Uren, as a Minister, is entitled to government housing. Since 1956, 25 Ministers have had tenancies in their names. Mr Uren has been a tenant of the present house which he occupies since 1973. Senator Withers —He is the last. Senator BUTTON —Yes, he is the last of the 25 Ministers who have had houses under those circumstances. He obtained and retains his accommodation strictly in accordance with long established rules in relation to housing in the Australian Capital Territory for Ministers and continues to do so for that period. I say that by way of background as it were to the question which was asked of me by Senator Reid, merely to indicate that there is no change of Government policy in relation to ministerial use of government houses, that Mr Uren remains the last survivor of a policy established by conservative governments and carried on ever since. Senator BUTTON —In Question Time today Senator Jones asked me a question about the operation of the community employment program in Queensland. I said that the program was operating satisfactorily in Queensland. I just add to that by saying that the Queensland Government has told the Federal Government that it expects to meet its target expenditure of $41.268m by 30 June this year. The applications received in that State to 9 March under the CEP have totalled 1,379 . The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it is pleased with the overall progress in Queensland and the general response and assistance which has been given by the Queensland Government in the administration of the program. As at 9 March this year, 4,603 jobs were approved in Queensland involving 606 projects. It is estimated that to 23 March 1984, 1,700 unemployed people have been employed under the community employment program in Queensland. I am delighted to inform the Senate that that program is working well in Queensland. Initially it was opposed by the Queensland Government and was not given great support. It is a great Commonwealth Government initiative. The Queensland Government is to be congratulated on co-operating in that Commonwealth initiative for the benefit of the people of Queensland. Senator RYAN —Earlier today in Question Time Senator Maguire asked me a question concerning proposed Commonwealth assistance to South Australia to deal with the millipede infestation problem. Because the information I had from my colleague Mr Barry Jones was long and detailed I undertook to give that information to Senator Maguire. However, subsequently it was drawn to my attention that many honourable senators in this place would appreciate access to this long and detailed information on the problem of the Portuguese millipede. I now seek leave to have the information incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The information read as follows- Funding for a joint Commonwealth/South Australian three-year study into the biological control of the millipede ended in December 1983. The funding was on a 50/50 basis. The project involved the recruitment of a research scientist to CSIRO who had already studied the millipede for his PhD thesis. He spent the greater part of the three years in Portugal (the millipede's region of origin) searching for natural enemies that showed potential for controlling the pest in South Australia and studying their life cycles. The most promising organism identified was a parasitic fly whose larvae feed and pupate inside the millipede. The next stages would be to collect supplies of the parasitic fly in Portugal, introduce them under quarantine into Australia, develop methods for mass rearing under laboratory conditions, test the fly's specificity to the millipede and whether it is likely to attack other hosts, make field releases in the infested areas, and monitor the effectiveness in controlling the millipede. To keep the project moving, South Australia has offered to finance a $4,000 collecting mission to Portugal by the CSIRO scientist to gather supplies of the parasitic fly. It is intended that this will occur next August which is the most suitable time having regard to the reproductive cycle of the fly. The scientist would then supervise the project's succeeding stages outlined above which would be carried out in Australia rather than Portugal. Although the scientist is presently in the early stages of a project on the biological control of pest snails in South Australia, he will work on the millipede project as necessary. This will represent a Commonwealth contribution to the solution of the problem in terms of time, expertise, and salary and operating expenses. If further funds are required, at a later stage, CSIRO will approach appropriate authorities. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-In Question Time the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, in answer to a question, claimed that I had not asked him questions relating to his portfolio of industry and commerce and that I had not taken advantage of opportunities which were presented to me. In fact, apart from some six questions without notice which have been asked during the very short sittings that we have had this year, I have on the Notice Paper 16 unanswered questions asked since 6 September last year, of which nine are addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to which I am still awaiting answers. The Minister ought to check his facts before he makes his accusations. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in light of the allegation that I do not check my facts. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —My remarks at Question Time were directed to questions without notice asked of me by the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce. I made the allegation, which I do not hesitate to repeat as a matter of fact, that very few questions have been asked by the Opposition spokesman on this matter during the period in which we have been in government, which was the period to which I referred. That may be his problem; he may be in his room preparing questions on notice. But that was the allegation I made and I regard it as a factual one. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, it seems the Government misrepresents us a lot. Last night, during debate on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2), Senator Grimes brought forward an agreement that he said he had before him relating to the Royal Hobart Hospital. He said that clause 7 stated: The Board will: (a) in the name of the Doctor charge the intermediate patients of the Doctors fees for medical, pathological, radiological and other diagnostic services performed by him/her according to the specified fee as prescribed from time to time in Schedule 1 of the Health Insurance Act . . . Senator Grimes then said: The doctors signed that document to ensure that the fee charged was the schedule fee. The document was signed on 7 October 1983, just a few months ago. Senator Walters said that the doctors did not sign any such document. It is a voluntary agreement. The document was signed by four members of the medical profession elected by the medical profession to sign it. The doctors who agree with it and those who work in the Royal Hobart Hospital-and every other public hospital in Tasmania-are listed on the back of the schedule, although I point out that- I do not have the copy here with me. That was a pity. He continued: The doctors in Tasmania signed the document, thereby agreeing that only the schedule fee would be charged by them. We are told that it was signed by those four doctors on their behalf and on behalf of every doctor in the State. That is not accurate. Senator Crowley —Neither is your reading. Senator WALTERS —I was reading from the Hansard, and what Senator Grimes says is not accurate. Indeed, four doctors cannot sign on behalf of every other doctor in the State. Every public hospital has its employing authority and it would not be possible to do that. Doctors in the Royal Hobart Hospital do sign-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now not making a personal explanation; she is adding new matter. If she cannot stick to the personal explanation, I ask her to resume her seat. Senator WALTERS —What I am doing is saying that Senator Grimes said that what I said was not accurate. I am just proving that he was wrong and that I was accurate. Surely that is permissible, Mr President. There is no agreement in any other public hospital in Tasmania. There is no agreement signed by any doctor at any of the obstetric hospitals in Tasmania which have private patients. As I have said, there is an agreement at the Royal Hobart, but Senator Grimes said that it covered every other public hospital in Tasmania and that four doctors had signed it on behalf of every doctor in the State. As I have said, that is not possible and not accurate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Last night I spoke in response to a statement by Senator Walters, in response to an interjection by me, that doctors in Tasmania did not in fact sign an agreement, that doctors did not have any agreement that the schedule fee would be charged for their intermediate patients. In answer to that, I demonstrated that that in fact occurred at the biggest and most prestigious hospital in Tasmania. I have since discovered today that that also applies to Launceston General Hospital and the North Western General Hospital. Senator Walters was making the point last night that it did not apply anywhere in Tasmania. She was quite wrong; quite inaccurate. The four doctors who signed on behalf of the rest of the medical profession did so with the knowledge of the rest of the medical profession. The PRESIDENT —Still on the State of Tasmania, Senator Harradine has brought to my attention the fact that the reverse side of postcards on sale at the Parliament House bookshop shows a representation of the mainland of Australia complete with koala but omitting the State of Tasmania. Included among the scenes depicted on the cards is a photograph of the Senate chamber. I inform Senator Harradine that the postcards for the Parliament House bookshop are purchased by the Joint House Department from a number of suppliers and the current stocks were purchased some time ago. I assure Senator Harradine and all honourable senators that this most serious oversight will be remedied when further stocks of postcards are ordered. I have also directed the Joint House Department to ensure that any other items on sale at the bookshop displaying a map of the mainland of Australia have Tasmania represented as well. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The list circulated to honourable senators indicates that the annual report of the Australian War Memorial is in a typescript form and that limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office, the Parliamentary Library and the Senate Records Office. It also points out that final printed copies of the report are expected to be available for circulation to honourable senators towards the end of April 1984. I obtained a copy of this draft report from the Senate Records Office. The list which was circulated yesterday contained a statement from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). Time did not allow us to discuss that statement. When that paper comes up for discussion tomorrow I shall make some comment in relation to the timing of the annual report of the Australian War Memorial because it is relevant in the context of the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs tabled in the Senate yesterday. Today I will confine myself to the contents of the draft report of the Australian War Memorial. The report notes that a number of major achievements were made in the course of the 1982-83 financial year including a grant of $11. 5m over the full year from 1982 to 1983 for major building improvements and extensions, an increase of 30 in the full time staff ceiling and a very substantial increase in the Memorial's appropriation from $3,447,900 to $5,328, 000. This allocation, of course, was contained in the 1982-83 Budget, the last Fraser Budget. I welcome the fact that the then Government recognised the needs of the War Memorial and made substantial increases in grants in relation to capital funds, normal appropriations and staff. The Australian War Memorial has developed as one of the major attractions of Australia and probably the major attraction of Canberra. I am informed that the Memorial attracts more than one million visitors each year. I am well aware that , together with the National Library of Australia and Parliament House, it is a feature of trips by school groups to Canberra. The Australian War Memorial has become world renowned and for international visitors a visit is a must. As a consequence, the demands and strains on the facilities of the War Memorial were considerable and a building program and an increase in staff became necessary. As I have said, those matters were contained in the 1982-83 appropriation in the last Fraser Budget. Nevertheless, as is pointed out in the report, there is a need for some further expansion, particularly in the staffing area. The report will give senators an idea of the very wide range of activities of the War Memorial and the way in which a number of those activities are carried out with great distinction. For example, last year the Memorial received one of the awards for museums in Australia in the category related to education, which was recognition of an important function of the Memorial. It is not just a museum which gives us information about Australians at war; it is not just a memorial to Australians who have fought for their country in war. It is also an important function of the Memorial that it carries out educational and research programs. I wish to make a brief comment on the changes in structure. When it was revealed in the Press last year that there was to be a change to the War Memorial and to its facade, I raised a number of questions in the Senate and dealt with the matter on the adjournment on a number of occasions. I made two visits to the War Memorial and I and others were dismayed that the view of the Hall of Memories was to be obscured. On one of my visits there were present representatives from the National Capital Development Commission with their plans. I asked why they could not achieve what they had to achieve for the purpose of the convenience and comfort of visitors without changing the exterior of the building, and I was simply told: 'That is not possible'. I was not told why. Therefore, I welcomed the decision later in the year not to proceed with that change to the War Memorial. It was and is possible to make the changes necessary for the comfort and convenience of visitors. It was not necessary to change the exterior of the War Memorial. It is a warning to us all that when a structure as important as that building is to be tampered with by the experts we should closely examine their claims of necessity. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the more difficult debates that the Parliament had to face in the last five or seven years was the furore over the use of recombinant DNA technology in Australia, the uses to which hybrid DNA could be put, and the concern by some members of the community that there was danger in the technique. I thought at the time that some of the criticism was reasonable and well-founded, some hysterical and unreasonable. Some people sought to ban the introduction of recombinant DNA technology. That is simply not possible. It is now with us and gives the promise of considerable advantage to the community by way of the production of specialised organisms with particular biological properties. As yet the technology is only being developed. The development of this Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee to oversight the operation of this technology in Australia has been positive and its first report is impressive. I congratulate the Committee on the way it has gone about its work and draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the Committee has already detected and dealt with at least one breach of the guidelines it laid down for the application of this technology in Australia. I draw particular attention to the fact that this technology, which was feared by many and which many people did not understand, is being carried out extensively in Australia. The Committee has listed in its first report something approaching 200 different projects, around Australia-at a quick count the figure is at least 190 in all cities in all States in a variety of institutes. This technology will be a major source of advance not only in the area of medicine and its applications but also in a whole range of related technologies. Organisms with their DNA appropriately spliced, using hybrid DNA technology, will offer real advances to the people of Australia. I therefore hope that the rather hysterical debate of early days is well and truly behind us. I hope that this Committee can continue to offer the security and oversight which the community wishes it to do and I hope that the applications of recombinant DNA technology can in a very short time lead to very significant benefits for the people of this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.25) —Senator Baume said that once this technology is available we cannot go back. That is true, I suppose. Somebody said once the genie is out of the bottle we cannot put it back. But we must make sure that the genie does our bidding. I take the very strong view that those who believe in the technological imperative are a danger to the community; that is, those who believe that if it can be done it should be done. One of the problems we face with, for example, in vitro fertilisation is that there has not been an adequate debate in this chamber on that subject. A former Liberal Party senator who, I understand, wants to get back here, said on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program in respect of that issue and in respect of money for that sort of program that Australia has ethically induced paralysis. That is the sort of nonsense that is put forward by those who believe in the technological imperative. Of course, we are dealing with a slightly different matter. We are not dealing with IVF. This report deals with the monitoring of certain new developments in one area of what might loosely be called and described as genetic engineering. In some areas of so-called genetic engineering there are experiments of immense importance in human welfare. On page 13 of the report there is a reference to a project by Dr H. D. Niall at the University of Melbourne. It is entitled ' Cloning of relaxin genes'. When this breakthrough was announced in February 1983 the benefits of the commercial production of the relaxin hormone were described as: a reduction in 'the need for forceps deliveries and Caesarians, and, possibly, . . . a lower incidence of brain injury and spasticity among babies who have undergone difficult births'. There is also the possibility that Relaxin could help to loosen and soften stiff joints in arthritis sufferers. Admittedly, there is also the possibility that Relaxin might be of use in the contraceptive field. I would have to withhold judgment on that development until it was made clear what was envisaged. But with fewer birth injuries to premature babies and help for arthritis sufferers these are two objectives which would have the unanimous support of the Australian people. That is what I meant by making the genie do our bidding. I just use the case of relaxin, which is the subject of monitoring by the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee, to illustrate that while there is justified scepticism about some of the enormous advances in medical technology and research there are other developments which hold great hope for the relief of pain and distress. I make one final point, as my time is running out. I do feel that consideration should be given to the appointment of lay people, perhaps representatives of the Parliament, on monitoring committees such as this . I am not speaking of the scientific sub-committee but the overall monitoring committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I move that motion for a number of reasons. The Australian Honey Board was set up by this Parliament and as such we should maintain an interest in it. The honey industry is one of the smaller primary industries, but it is not so small that we ought to overlook it. I believe it is only right that an industry that is making the efforts that this one is to get its house in order, to keep itself properly organised and properly presented, should be given considerable encouragement. Another reason I choose to raise the matter now is that the annual report, having only just come to hand, is nine or 10 months late from the end of the accounting period. It was a matter of correspondence between the Board and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and produced an explanatory memorandum from the Minister. I take that as being quite acceptable. I would just make note, for the benefit of the industry, that we will certainly be looking for that next year and hope that it does not have difficulties again. One of the points about the honey industry is that it is not only an industry in itself but also it is vital to a whole range of other mainly seed producing industries and, as such, requires some special consideration. Production for the year ending 30 June 1983 amounted to 24,794 tonnes, of which 14,557 tonnes-a record-was exported. It was a record by 1,687 tonnes, which is quite a big increase and reflected the seasonal conditions of the year. While it may be a relatively small industry in some respects, I think it is important that we should notice that that was produced from 544,000 hives and 2,263 apiarists in all the States of Australia. At the time that the report was printed the apiarists were waiting in anticipation of what the Industries Assistance Commission might suggest as to the requests that were put forward by the industry. All I can say is that the draft report produced recommendations which, to say the least, would be disappointing for it. But I was relieved to find that on page 12 of the report, under the heading 'Freedom of Information Act', it states: No requests for information have been made. No rejections of requests have occurred. No costs have been incurred. That goes to prove the success of the freedom of information legislation as far as the honey industry is concerned. The honey industry is one of the universal industries and honey is produced in most countries. Even the report that is before us lists 55 countries as producing honey totally over 900,000 tonnes. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and the United States of America between them produce almost half of that and Australia is about tenth in world production. Australia exports the majority of our product and as such that makes it important as well. We export to about 25 countries. Of course, this means that we are working very much on the open end of the export market where the Australians costs and the usual difficulties that we have of location also work against us to some extent. Now we have the export inspection charges which will regrettably further press the economics of the industry. Honey is substantially an export product. World prices have to be considered and they are of considerable importance to the Australian industry. As such I will again take this opportunity to implore the Government to assist the industry and not hinder it if it can avoid it. I believe the extra costs of the inspection charges could well be shelved for an industry as small but as important as this which does a lot towards exporting its product to the world market. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.36) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I shall confine myself to one or two comments on this industry's report. It is very pleasing to note how on this occasion the report is absolutely on time. The Australian Wheat Board has, on occasions over the years had difficulty in bringing down its report at exactly the required time for very excellent reasons . However, this report, as I say, is on time and the Auditor-General has mentioned only a couple of matters. First, he referred to some moneys used in housing and in loan circumstances which had been conceded as being necessary in order to attain a standard which is sufficient to attract the type of personnel that the Australian Wheat Board needs in a highly competitive operation. The second matter referred to a small amount of 1981-82 wheat which appeared in the 1982-83 crop situation. That was identified as a small amount that came from Queensland and was too late in being recognised to be included in that 1981-82 year. I think it is necessary to remind the Senate that the Australian Wheat Board has an enormous responsibility as a primary producing marketing organisation and it has traded very successfully over a significant number of years. The difficulty of its trading circumstance I think has probably been emphasised more in the last couple of years than at any other time. For instance in the 1982-83 period the Australian Wheat Board was confronted with the worst drought this country has ever known and with a crop which was one of the smallest produced- less than nine million tonnes in all. Those circumstances were so severe that there was even a possibility of having to import wheat. Yet the very next year, 1983-84, which will of course be the subject of the Board's next report, the Board was confronted by diametrically opposed circumstances-probably the highest productive year Australia has ever seen in the wheat industry. Yet it was a year in which somewhat ironically it has found itself with five million or six million tonnes of downgraded general purpose wheat due to the extraordinary weather in the two or three months of harvesting. Another feature relevant to the operation of the Australian Wheat Board that needs to be referred to from time to time is the enormous task it has of marketing a crop which 10 years ago found itself suddenly denuded of the massive Europe- United Kingdom market. Since those days the Board has been able to take up the challenge caused by that loss of market and has moved very significantly into markets in Egypt, Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia and indeed most other parts of the world. I merely wanted to draw to the attention of the Senate the somewhat extraordinary circumstances that confront the Wheat Board from time to time, the measures it takes to meet the challenges that confront it and the fact that now it has the power to trade in futures and to borrow from overseas up to 50 per cent of the funds it sees itself as being in need of. In general it is carrying out an enormously important task on behalf of one of Australia's most significant primary industries. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: Construction of facilities for the Australian frigate project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria, phase A; Upgrading of facilities for introduction of F28 aircraft, Wagga Wagga Airport, New South Wales. Ordered that the reports be printed. (Quorum formed) Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.46) —I move: The the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to establish a trust fund for the purpose of making payments to refiners of crude oil. Related Bills, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill 1984, provide for the imposition of an additional levy on Bass Strait crude oil and for the collection of the levy. This package of Bills will impose an additional levy of $1.26 a kilolitre (20c a barrel) on all crude oil produced from Bass Strait. After rebates to the producers for exports and their producers' entitlement crude oil, the proceeds of the levy will be redistributed to refiners in a way that reflects the freight costs incurred in transporting Bass Strait crude oil from Westernport to each refinery. The Bill, and the related Bills, will not change the price of Bass Strait crude oil to the Australian community. Although the individual cost structure of each refiner will be affected by these measures, the overall cost to the industry will remain unchanged. Prior to the introduction of the Crude Oil Absorption Scheme in September 1970, lengthy discussions were held with the oil industry concerning details of its operation. The Government of the day recognised that there would be some extra cost involved in using Bass Strait crude oil, because of its movement to the various refineries, and it expressed the wish at the time to see this extra cost borne equitably between refiners. All companies undertook to examine the problem with the objective of finding a solution. In the event no solution was found and , although the matter has been examined a number of times in the intervening years, the problem has remained. Following further representations from some refiners in 1983, the matter was discussed at a meeting between the Minister for Resources and Energy and refiners in July 1983. At that meeting, the refiners were again asked to seek a solution acceptable to the industry. Again the industry was unable to agree and therefore, as was foreshadowed at the meeting with the industry, the Government has decided to take steps to resolve this matter. The indigenous Crude Oil Absorption Policy imposes a collective obligation on marketers of petroleum products in Australia to absorb indigenous crude oil and to arrange for its refining within Australia. Each company's share of the indigenous crude oil available is calculated on the basis of its share of sales in Australia of certain specified petroleum products. It is not a requirement that each marketer should refine its share of crude in its own refinery-the policy is designed to ensure that freight movements are minimised. For all producing areas, with the single exception of the Bass Strait fields, all production can be absorbed at the nearest refinery. The import parity pricing arrangements value indigenous crude oil at the notional cost of landing Arabian light crude oil at the refinery port nearest to the producing field. In the case of Bass Strait crude oil the nearest refinery is at Westernport, Victoria. Because that refinery cannot absorb the entire production, an adjustment is made to the import parity price which reflects the notional cost of transporting the overflow first to the other Victorian refineries at Altona and Geelong and then to refineries in Sydney and Brisbane. This calculation results in a reduction of 36c a barrel in the price of Bass Strait crude oil to all refiners, although the actual costs incurred in moving Bass Strait crude from Westernport to the various refineries range from zero at Westernport to around 96c a barrel at Brisbane. The arrangements proposed in this and the related Bills recognise this inequity by proposing a redistribution of 20c a barrel of the coastal freight adjustment component of the import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil among all refiners to reflect differences in the cost of transporting crude oil from Westernport. In deciding to redistribute 20c rather than the full 36c, the Government has recognised the investment made by the Melbourne refiners in pipelines to minimise their cost of moving crude oil and the additional costs they face in the coastal shipping of some petroleum products. The levy of $1.26 per kilolitre (20c a barrel) will be imposed on production of all crude oil from Bass Strait. This will be collected by the Bureau of Customs. Funds equivalent to the proceeds of the levy will be appropriated from consolidated revenue to a trust account to be administered by the Department of Resources and Energy. The full amount of the levy will be reimbursed to the producers for any crude oil produced that is not included in the allocation scheme. The balance of the funds will be redistributed among the refiners on the basis of movements of crude oil over the most recent 30 months and the assessed costs of transport to each refinery. Determination of distributions from the trust fund will be made on 1 January and 1 July each year but the first determination will be made immediately upon proclamation of this and the related legislation and will apply from 1 January 1984. For coastal shipping movements, the freight rates to be applied in making determinations will be the published average freight rate assessment (AFRA) and worldscale rates for large range tankers up to 80,000 tonnes (LR1), and insurance and loss will be based on the standard allowed of 0.6 per cent presently included in the import parity price calculations. In the case of pipeline transfers, the actual pipeline costs will be used. Each refiner's share of the freight equalisation fund will be calculated by the formula described in clause 9 of the Bill. The proposals in this and the related Bills represent a compromise between the views put to the Government in recent months by the Sydney and Brisbane based refiners and those of the Melbourne based refiners. The proposals are designed to resolve an unsatisfactory situation that has been a source of concern in the petroleum industry for a number of years. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill 1984 This Bill proposes to introduce a levy on crude oil produced from offshore areas in Bass Strait. The Bill is part of a package of measures to give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a scheme to compensate refiners of Bass Strait crude oil for costs incurred in moving that crude oil to the various refineries. Details of the scheme are outlined in the second reading speech relating to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984. This Bill provides for the imposition of a freight adjustment levy of $1.26 a kilolitre on the producers for crude oil produced in Bass Strait. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill 1984 This Bill is the third of a package of Bills prepared to give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a scheme to compensate refiners of crude oil for costs incurred in moving that crude to the various refineries. Details of the scheme are outlined in the second reading speech on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984. This Bill provides the machinery necessary for the collection of the Adjustment Levy. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) 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. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.49) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend, as appropriate, existing Australian legislation to enable the ratification of the 1978 Torres Strait Treaty. That Treaty, as honourable Senators will recall, is an important mile-stone in the history of Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea, our closest neighbour. It provides a solution to the problems of territorial and maritime jurisdiction in the Torres Strait, which at one stage had the potential to disrupt our good bilateral relations. The Torres Strait area includes many islands forming part of Australia-some only a few kilometres from the Papua New Guinea coast. The Treaty takes account of the interests of the traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait who have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy wide freedom of movement in the area, of the interests of commercial fishermen and mining companies, of the need to protect the marine environment, and of our ultimate right to take restrictive measures necessary to met any problems which arise. The Treaty balances all these considerations. As part of the novel regime that it requires, it establishes a 'Protected Zone' to facilitate administration of the key area of the Strait. It is a matter for regret to us all that, although nearly five years have passed since the Treaty was signed, it has not yet been ratified by Australia and Papua New Guinea. This has not been the result of any lack of will on the part of anybody-in Australia, successive Governments have given it unqualified support and I know that this has also been the case in Papua New Guinea-rather it is because of the novelty and complexity of the Treaty's provisions and the need to co-ordinate implementing legislation in two national and one State jurisdictions-the Commonwealth, Papua New Guinea and Queensland. It has not been a simple matter to harmonise Commonwealth and State interests, especially in relation to fisheries administration. My colleague, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, who will shortly be introducing the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, will comment on the detailed fisheries arrangements that are now proposed. Since the Treaty pays particular attention to the interests of traditional inhabitants in the Torres Strait area, the people of that area have been consulted, both during the period leading to the signing of the Treaty in 1978 and more recently, when the objectives of the proposed fisheries legislation were explained to them. This process of consultation will continue; indeed, the Treaty makes a number of arrangements for the participation of traditional inhabitants in its operation. Mr President, the people known as Torres Strait Islanders have been in occupation of this area since time immemorial. They are the original owners of this land. The Commonwealth accepts that these people have the right to recognition of their just claims. We recognise their interest in these lands, as Australian citizens of indigenous descent. My colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has foreshadowed legislation to take a consistent national approach to Aboriginal land rights. The same principles will apply as much to the Torres Strait Islands as in any other parts of Australia. The Bill before us, which would not have any measureable financial impact, would amend nine Commonwealth Acts. I shall describe briefly the effect of each of the amendments. The Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 are amended by disapplying those acts in the future to the Protected Zone and to any waters outside the Protected Zone proclaimed to be waters in which the Torres Strait Fisheries Act applies to a particular fishery. The powers of officers, and the offences relating to obstruction of officers, are preserved in those waters under both the amended Acts to enable fisheries enforcement staff to cross Protected Zone boundaries without diminution of their authority. The Torres Strait Fisheries Bill will authorise the making of arrangements between the Commonwealth and Queensland for management under a single law of a particular fishery in the Protected Zone or in an area outside that zone proclaimed in relation to that fishery, including, in either case, in Queensland coastal waters. The present Bill, therefore, amends the Fisheries Act to preclude an arrangement under that Act from having effect in relation to that fishery in those areas. The Fisheries Act is further amended to allow a Papua New Guinea boat that has an entry under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act to land its catch from the Protected Zone in any place in Australia. This authority will be granted under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act in specific cases and will not be a right that Papua New Guinea boats will enjoy automatically. Both these fisheries-related amendments contain savings provisions in respect of matters that occur before the amendments come into force. The Treaty requires customs procedures to be applied by each Party in such a way that there is no hindrance to the free movement and performance of traditional activities in the Protected Zone and its declared vicinity by the traditional inhabitants of the other Party. Part IV of the Bill, which inserts a new section 30A in the Customs Act, is designed to achieve this end by providing for exemptions to be able to be made from specified provisions of the Customs Acts. Not all of the provisions of the Customs Acts will be exempted however, as it will be necessary to continue to impose controls over such things as narcotic drugs. This action is permissible under article 16 of the Treaty, which allows each Party to apply such measures as it considers necessary to meet problems which may arise. Part V of the Bill inserts a new provision into the Customs Tariff Act to exempt goods relevant to the Treaty from Customs duties. The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 is amended to ensure that Papua New Guinea wrecks of special significance are placed in a similar category of protection to Old Dutch Shipwrecks as provided for in the Historic Shipwrecks Amendments Act 1980. Papua New Guinea wrecks located in waters adjacent to Queensland will continue to be protected should Queensland ever request that the Historic Shipwrecks Act cease to apply in relation to its waters. In addition, where the Governor-General is satisfied that arrangements which have been made with respect to PNG shipwrecks and PNG relics make it appropriate , he may by Proclamation declare that the Principal Act ceases to apply to them. The Migration Act 1958 is amended to exempt from entry permit requirements citizens of Papua New Guinea who are traditional inhabitants engaged in traditional activities in the Protected Zone area. However, the exemption will not apply to persons who would be prohibited from entry by virtue of suffering from prescribed diseases or having a criminal record or having been deported or excluded from Australia or another country in the past. Equally, the exemption will not apply to persons who cease to be inhabitants of the Protected Zone, who remain in Australia otherwise than in order to perform traditional activities or who enter a part of Australia which is not in or in the vicinity of the Protected Zone. Finally, it is proposed that the carriers of traditional inhabitants will be exempted from the provisions of the Act relating to the carriage of persons without visas or return endorsements. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 is amended to ensure that the northern boundary of the Queensland Adjacent Area will coincide with the Torres Strait Treaty seabed line. I turn now to the amendments to the Quarantine Act. That Act regulates for quarantine purposes the entry into Australia of persons, vessels and goods from any overseas place. Certain animals, plants and goods are prohibited entry, and all those not totally prohibited must pass quarantine clearance before being released to the importer. People entering the country are screened for various exotic diseases. In this way we protect ourselves, our rural industries and our unique range of plant and animal life. The Bill amends the Quarantine Act to allow the Governor-General to make special provision in relation to traditional inhabitants going about traditional activities, and for their vessels and goods. At the same time the Government will take steps to ensure that proper quarantine controls are maintained. I draw honourable senators' attention to Clause 31 of the Bill which proposes that the Governor-General be empowered to allow the entry of specific articles, animals or plants which otherwise would be prohibited imports. That provision will allow the Governor-General to exempt goods that are brought into a part of Australia that is in the Protected Zone by a traditional inhabitant for use in connection with the performance of a traditional activity. Clause 32 of the Bill amends the Quarantine Act to allow the Minister for Health to exempt from all or specified provisions of that Act or its Regulations traditional vessels that enter a part of Australia that is in the protected zone and on board which there are, apart from any government officials, only traditional inhabitants. By the exercise of this power the Minister will be able to allow the free movement of such traditional vessels in and around those parts of Australia that are within the Protected Zone. Without such an exemption persons on a vessel from a part of the Protected Zone outside Australia who wanted to land in Australia would first have to go to a first port of entry, such as Cairns or Thursday Island. The Government is determined to do all that is required to prevent these relaxations from lessening this country's quarantine security. The Minister for Health will be proposing compensating measures to the Governor -General, who has power under the Quarantine Act to regulate the movements of animals, plants and goods from those parts of Australia that are within the Protected Zone to any other part of Australia. The Minister will be able to ensure that, if an exotic disease is introduced into the Protected Zone, it will be excluded from the rest of Australia. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is amended by this Bill to reflect the fact that hunting of certain wildlife for subsistence and cultural purposes is an important traditional activity recognised by the Treaty. The Treaty also provides that each Party may implement within its area of jurisdiction measures to protect species of indigenous fauna and flora which are or may become threatened with extinction, or which either Party has an obligation to protect under international law. The Government reaffirms its commitment to nature conservation in the Torres Strait. In particular, it will maintain safeguards to ensure compliance with Australia' s obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, will initiate programs to monitor wildlife populations in the Torres Strait region, with particular emphasis on dugong and marine turtle. In conclusion, and on a general note, I would draw honourable Senators' attention again to the fact that, while we have accepted an obligation to apply procedures in such a way as not to prevent or hinder the free movement or traditional activities of traditional inhabitants of Papua New Guinea, the Treaty reserves our right to apply immigration, customs, health and quarantine measures, temporary or otherwise, as we consider necessary to meet any problems which may arise. Papua New Guinea has, of course, reciprocal rights and duties in this regard. This Bill, together with the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, would provide the complete legislative framework for Australia's ratification of the Torres Strait Treaty. We expect too that in both Port Moresby and Brisbane complementary legislation will very soon be introduced, so that we can move forward together in all three jurisdictions to complete the formalities of implementation of a Treaty which has been widely recognised as providing an innovative and balanced solution to a complex problem. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1984 This Bill implements the fisheries aspects of the Torres Strait Treaty. In conjunction with Clauses 4 and 14 of the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, it replaces the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, in the protected zone and for particular fisheries, outside but near the protected zone, with provisions that will enable the Commonwealth to manage the fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction in accordance with the Treaty. The Queensland and Papua New Guinea Parliaments will also be enacting legislation for the same purpose. Considerable work has been done to ensure that the three Bills will be in harmony with each other. Subject only to progress toward commencement of the similar Acts in Queensland and Papua New Guinea, ratification of the Treaty and commencement of the new legislation will occur simultaneously. Many interests will need to be taken into account before the Minister for Parliament and the Queensland and Papua New Guinea Ministers reponsible for fisheries matters exercise the powers provided in these Bills to deal with a variety of fishery management issues. Officials and scientists of the three Governments will need to consult each other; Commonwealth and Queensland officials will need to consult traditional inhabitants and commercial fishermen about the advice they offer to Ministers concerning application of measures which the Bills will authorise. These consultations have already started. Australian and Papua New Guinea scientists met in July 1981 and February 1983 to discuss research into the fish stocks which will provide a basis for future management decisions. Officials have consulted commercial fishermen about managing the fisheries in the protected zone pending ratification of the Treaty and commencement of the new legislative provisions. These consultations will continue and intensify as that commencement approaches and thereafter. Consultations are also being held with the people of the Torres Strait and adjacent coastal areas, particularly as they will have special rights to the fisheries resources of the protected zone. Officials have visited the area to discuss the Treaty and have explained the Bill to representatives of the Torres Strait people whom the Treaty defines as traditional inhabitants. These people will have a significant voice in the deliberation of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council established under the Treaty, including fisheries matters. The Bill provides for the Minister and the Protected Zone Joint Authority, established under Part V, to consult the Australian traditional inhabitants appointed to the Joint Advisory Council about fishery matters under the Bill affecting the interests of the Australian traditional inhabitants. As a domestic Australian measure, beyond the requirements of the Treaty, the Bill makes special provision, to which I will refer later in more detail, for commercial fishing operations by Australian traditional inhabitants. It proposes a minimum of control over such operations, subject only to the requirements of the Treaty and of effective management and conservation of the fish stocks. As well, it enshrines the right expressed in the Treaty of traditional inhabitants of both countries to undertake traditional fishing in the protected zone for their own and their dependants' consumption, with a minimum of regulation or restriction. Mr President, I have circulated a detailed explanatory memorandum dealing with the provisions of the Bill so I will not take the time of the Senate with an extensive summary. However, I believe that Honourable Senators would wish me to deal at this time with the Bill's chief principles, especially insofar as they give effect to the Treaty. In the defined area of Australian jurisdiction, the Bill applies to all fishing except recreational fishing with use of Australian boats by people who are not traditional inhabitants, which will be regulated under Queensland law. The area of Australian jurisdiction comprises the protected zone, south of the fisheries jurisdiction line in the Treaty. The area does not include Queensland coastal waters except where the Commonwealth and Queensland agree that a particular fishery is to be managed under Commonwealth law from the coast to the limits of the Australian jurisdiction. To give effect to the Treaty definition of ''Protected Zone Commercial Fisheries'', the Bill provides that, in relation to a particular fishery in a subsidiary arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty, Australia or Papua New Guinea may agree to include areas outside but near the protected zone in the area of Australian or Papua New Guinea jurisdiction, as the case may be, in relation to that fishery. It is proposed that this would happen where, for the good management of the fish stock inside the protected zone, Australia and Papua New Guinea agree that it is necessary to apply the measures in the subsidiary arrangement to the stock in agreed areas outside but near that zone. To stimulate commercial fishing enterprise among Australian traditional inhabitants, a special category of commercial fishing has been created exclusively for them. Only Australian traditional inhabitants or other people employed to provide them with technical advice or training will be allowed to engage in what are to be called the Community Fisheries. Traditional inhabitants under obligations to act in accordance with the instructions of principals not themselves entitled to undertake community fishing will be regarded as commercial fishermen in the normal way. This will contribute significantly to protection of the traditional inhabitants from outside exploitation in their fishing activities. Community fishermen will not be required to hold Master Fishermen's Licences. The Minister may declare that, for reasons of fishery management, community fishing boats are to be licensed in a particular fishery but unless he does so, licences will not be required. A traditional inhabitant will be able to voluntarily take out for his boat, a licence that Australia can nominate to Papua New Guinea to be endorsed for a fishery in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction, which is subject to an arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty. There will be no charge for the endorsement and probably only a nominal fee for the Australian licence. While the Minister may prohibit such matters as taking fish undersized, out of season or by particular methods in the course of community fishing, he may also publish notices reserving particular fisheries for community fishermen, including activities on shore relating to such fisheries. The provisions of the Bill relating to community fishing manifest the Government's intention to give effect to the spirit of Article II of the Treaty beyond the specific requirements of that Article. The concept of community fishing is an additional benefit for Australian traditional inhabitants, enabling them to undertake commercial fishing in the protected zone under conditions of considerable freedom from regulation. The Treaty definition of ''traditional inhabitant'' requires that they be resident in the protected zone or the adjacent coastal area and maintain traditional customary associations with the protected zone. Both Australia and Papua New Guinea will have to agree on what is declared to be the adjacent coastal area for each country. As Honourable Senators will know, there are communities of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. It is proposed that the declaration of the adjacent coastal area should include the people of Bamaga, on the north-western hinterland of Cape York Peninsula. Torres Strait Islanders will not be able to undertake traditional or community fishing in the protected zone from other ports, for example, Cooktown, Cairns or Townsville. The Treaty provides for the privilege of traditional fishing to be enjoyed by residents of only the protected zone and the adjacent coastal area and it would not be proper to extend that concept to areas that are manifestly not adjacent to the protected zone. Islanders normally resident in places beyond the protected zone or the adjacent coastal area will be able to undertake traditional or community fishing if they return there to resume long-term residence. One of the most complex provisions of the Treaty is Article 23, which requires Australia and Papua New Guinea, whenever they agree to manage a commercial fishery jointly in the protected zone, to determine the annual total allowable catch for the fishery and then to share the catch in accordance with the provisions of that Article. Clause 14 of the Bill provides, in conjunction with appropriate administrative measures, for enforcing the total allowable catch to fulfil Australia's quota obligations. The maximum penalty for knowingly providing false or misleading catch information in a quota fishery will be $5,000 or 2 years gaol or both. For continuing to fish after the fishery is closed for the remainder of the year, the maximum penalty will be $5,000. These penalties reflect the seriousness with which the Government regards attempts to evade Treaty responsibilities. The Bill makes special provision for collection of information of the catches of community fishermen in quota fisheries from processing plants or processing boats, so as to relieve community fishermen of the burden of acquiring radio equipment for reporting purposes. In any event, the quota requirements of the Treaty are to be phased in from the 5th to the 10th year after ratification. The licensing provisions of the Bill require only the Master of a commercial fishing boat to be licensed and do not extend that requirement to the Master of a community fishing boat. Boats are to be licenced to take, process and carry their own catch; a separate licence is required for boats used to process and carry the catches of other boats. While the Bill provides for licensing of foreign boats, that is, boats other than Australian or Papua New Guinean, it reflects the requirements of Article 27 of the Treaty that no foreign boat will be licensed to fish in the protected zone without the specific agreement of the responsible Ministers in Australia and Papua New Guinea. There is little prospect of a foreign boat coming within the Government's present fishery licensing policy to allow it to fish in the area of Australian jurisdiction. The current policy of the Papua New Guinea Government is similar to ours in that it encourages local residents to occupy protected zone commercial fisheries in Papua New Guinea jurisdiction. The Bill provides for Australia to endorse a Papua New Guinea licence for a boat which the Papua New Guinea Government nominates to fish in an area of Australian jurisdiction. This is a reciprocal measure that will only happen in relation to fisheries which are the subject of an arrangement under Article 22 of the Treaty. In accordance with paragraph 26 (2) of the Treaty the Bill ensures that no fee is payable for an endorsement. Part V of the Bill, which is not specifically required to give effect to the Treaty provides for the establishment of a Protected Zone Joint Authority comprising the Commonwealth and Queensland Ministers responsible for fisheries matters in the protected zone. The Joint Authority will have the power to manage particular fisheries, such as those covered by arrangements with PNG under Article 22 of the Treaty. The establishment of the Joint Authority provides for the Commonwealth and Queensland to jointly participate in the management of the major fisheries in the zone. I also point out that the provisions of Part V of the Bill are subject to any decision that the Government may take about the future of the offshore constitutional settlement. Because the Bill does not require individual employee fishermen to be licensed, it cannot provide the useful sanction of cancellation of the licence following conviction for a major offence. The Bill therefore gives courts a discretionary power to order persons convicted of breach of a condition of a boat licence or of a prohibition in a notice, to stay off commercial fishing boats in the protected zone for a specified period or incur maximum penalty of $2,000 or six months imprisonment. The Minister will have a discretionary power to suspend a boat licence or a Master-Fisherman's licence if the holder is charged with breach of a Ministerial prohibition or a condition of the licence and to cancel such a licence if the holder is convicted under Commonwealth, State, or Papua New Guinea fisheries law. Paragraph 28 (13) of the Treaty requires cancellations following conviction for a breach of Papua New Guinea law. Article 28 of the Treaty contains unique enforcement provisions. Each country will prosecute persons of its nationality authorised by both countries to operate in fisheries governed by an Article 22 arrangement and who commit offences in relation to such fisheries in waters under the other country's jurisdiction. Each country will prosecute persons of the other nationality who breach its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, by either unauthorised fishing in any fishery or by contravening management measures in Article 22 fisheries for which the person or his boat is not licensed by both countries. The Bill therefore provides for Australian offenders against Papua New Guinea law to be dealt with by Australian courts in the circumstances specified in Article 28. The Bill requires the Minister's consent for the prosecution of persons charged with offences in the area of Australian jurisdiction with the use of a Papua New Guinea boat. The Bill does not confer on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction over decisions made under it. The whole question of Commonwealth review powers over actions by State officials performing duties authorised under Commonwealth law is a difficult one and the Government intends to discuss it with the States at an appropriate time. Until the matter is resolved, the review powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and of the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act will in any event apply to decisions of Commonwealth and Queensland officials pursuant to the Bill. After consultation with the States, the Government will consider whether to amend the Torres Strait Fisheries Act, as it will then be, in relation to the proposed jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr President, those provisions of the Bill with which I have not dealt in detail follow the precedents of the Fisheries Act and relate to the powers necessary to manage the fisheries and to enforce the Bill in the manner required by both the Treaty and the standards of justice in Australia. The explanatory memorandum deals comprehensively with all the provisions of the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1984, the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1984 and Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1984 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That the Committees consider Proposed Additional Expenditure in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate on 22 April 1983. (3) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Wednesday, 30 May 1984. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.51) — The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) which was introduced into the Senate last week and which, as far as I am aware, was not the subject of any earlier public exposure, as often occurs with legislation in this field, contains a number of amendments to the companies and securities legislation scheme. The major provisions of this Bill are: It defines and allows for registration of persons participating in time sharing arrangements; it alters the law controlling the registration of charges to overcome some specific problems; and it contains a number of amendments which are required consequent upon the deregulation of the stock exchanges as from 1 April this year. Of course, in accordance with the co-operative scheme the Bill was quite recently approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. I do not propose to deal in the second reading debate with the amendments relating to time sharing and registration of charges. Suffice it to say that the amendments in relation to time sharing introduce legislative arrangements in relation to time sharing which is a growing industry and presents new legal problems which, I think, had been to a large extent overcome under existing law. As a result of the recent decision it was thought necessary to make the amendments which are contained in the legislation. Some difficulties with these amendments have been perceived by those in the industry and they have been in touch with me. At this stage all I say is that there is very considerable concern that amendments to matters of this kind should proceed at such a pace through the Parliament without those in the industry having time adequately to consider them and to make representations to senators and members. The major purpose of this legislation, certainly one of the greatest importance , is to change the legislation with respect to stock exchanges. This is an extremely important development in the organisation, membership and conduct of stock exchanges and members of stock exchanges in this country. The changes are very much in line with what is happening in the stock exchange at least in the City of London. These changes are very much on the side of greater competition, greater efficiency and, I hope, better advice and service for investors in the future. There has been a great deal of discussion about these changes in the Press in recent days. There are various concerns about just what the impact of the changes will be, but everybody agrees that they are major. Certainly they ought to result in the long term, if not immediately in the short term, in a better service for investors. In brief the changes allow: The opening up of negotiated rates; 50 per cent outside ownership of broking firms; the incorporation of broking firms; members to become members of more than one exchange; and non- broker directors of member corporations. Thus just a brief summary of the major features of the new arrangements emphasises the very great changes and the importance of them. Again, it is a pity that this legislation is being discussed after the actual amendments have been made to the stock exchange rules and the adapting of the Act. It did not have to come into effect before 1 April, but I think it would have been better if the legislation had been available for public discussion, certainly for discussion in this chamber, before 1 April when the changes came into effect. We come back to the same problem we discussed last time with amendments to the scheme; namely, that all this is done through Federal and State officials, through the ministerial council administering the scheme, and Parliament is just presented with a like it or lump it solution. I had some comment to make about that some months ago when last year we discussed the major Bill dealing with this subject. I do not propose to repeat those comments. Perhaps in this case there are particular reasons why it is necessary for this legislation to go through in this way. I indicate that in future the Opposition will not simply rubber stamp legislation of this kind. Certainly we will require proper time in this Parliament to debate the legislation; if we do not like the legislation we will propose that the matter be taken back to the Ministerial Council. We will not simply rubber stamp what that Council decides. The changes in this legislation, however, have a long history. It is an interesting and important story and one which I believe was brought about as a result of the previous Liberal-National Party Government allowing the legislation to proceed. It was its policy that the Trade Practices Commission should be able to retain its authority in this area, despite the fact that there was a great deal of suport, certainly in some sections of the securities industry, for the view that this power of the Trade Practices Commission should be removed and that the mater should be left solely to the National Companies and Securities Commission. The history of this matter goes back in fact to shortly after the introduction of the Trade Practices Act when the stock exchanges were put on notice that their restrictive trade practices relating to the fixing of brokerage rates and restrictions to membership of exchanges probably contravened the Trade Practices Act. An interim authorisation was obtained for those practices, but it was quite clear that at some stage or other something would have to be done about them. The matter was brought to a head in July 1981 by a group of merchant bankers seeking by mandamus proceedings against the Trade Practices Commission to compel the Commission to examine the rules and articles of association. The resultant case in fact was settled on an undertaking being given by the Commission to carry out such an examination, and almost immediately that examination began. The Trade Practices Commission issued interim findings and proposals in relation to those matters in about the middle of 1982, as a result of which a considerable amount of discussion took place-I can remember it myself-in the Ministerial Council about whether this procedure ought to be allowed to continue or whether this scheme should be amended in such a way that that power once again was taken away from the Trade Practices Commission and handed over to the National Companies and Securities Commission. However, that did not eventuate. The powers given to the Trade Practices Commission were permitted to take effect and negotiations were entered into. As I recall, submissions were made by the Ministerial Council or by the National Companies and Securities Commission to the Trade Practices Commission about the matter. The upshot was that in September 1982 the Trade Practices Commission issued its final decision, under which it refused authorisation of the existing rules but granted an interim authorisation for 18 months to enable amendments to be made. Those amendments have now been make, taking effect as from 1 April this year. In March this year the Trade Practices Commission granted an interim authorisation for those new draft rules and articles of association to which I have referred. An interesting development was that the interim authorisation allowed negotiated rates for all transactions over $100,000 but did not require the rates to be changed for those transactions under $100,000 for another 12 months. As I understand the position, certainly the stock exchanges in Melbourne and Sydney decided to permit the negotiation of rates in all transactions as from 1 April. So those stock exchanges have gone a step further than they were required to go. That is an interesting example of how changes in this area are moving at a greater pace than people thought would occur. As I said, the Ministerial Council has to approve the new rules. I understand that it has not yet done so. Perhaps the Attorney-General in his reply will give the Senate some indication of what stage the Ministerial Council has reached in its consideration of the matter. The present opening up of stock exchanges is being referred to as deregulation. It is interesting to note, however, that such deregulation had been imposed by the stock exchanges themselves under their restrictive practices; it was not done by government fiat. For want of a better word, it is being called deregulation. Senator Jack Evans —It is self-deregulation. Senator DURACK —I thank Senator Jack Evans. It is self-deregulation. That is a very good point. It is only part of the package. Quite a number of items in the package still have to be resolved, particularly those concerned with conflicts of interest. There is obviously a concern, with the incorporation of stockbroking firms, about a conflict of interest between the shareholders- directors of the firm and the business of the client. Various matters concerned with that aspect have to be discussed. It is important that they be resolved as soon as possible. Concern about that matter is perhaps not most immediate because it will be a few weeks yet before any corporate members are licensed to trade. However, that is clearly a fairly urgent problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. I understand that the matter of whether higher entry fees should be paid for corporate membership of a stock exchange has yet to be decided. Apparently no decision has yet been made on the question of crossing rules. A matter that I think should have been addressed at an earlier stage concerns fidelity funds. The new rules will enable a broker to be a member of more than one stock exchange. That raises the question whether the present approach in relation to fidelity funds is the appropriate one. Fidelity fund regulations at present operate on the basis of a broker being a member of only one exchange, and each exchange has its own fidelity fund. Discussion is taking place about whether there should be a national fidelity fund. That important aspect of the matter, as I said, has not yet been resolved. All these matters have been in the pipeline for 18 months now. It was known that major changes were to take effect as from 1 April-although perhaps not as many as have taken place-and that other aspects were under consideration. It seems a pity that further advances have not been made towards resolving those other matters in the package that require urgent decision. I come back to the point I dealt with earlier, namely, that many matters that should have been dealt with remain unresolved. The legislation dealing with this most important area should have been debated at an earlier stage so that the views of members of this Parliament could be obtained. A good deal of concern has been expressed in the financial industry about what attitude the Foreign Investment Review Board will take to the matter of overseas brokerage firms gaining membership of Australian stock exchanges. Both local and overseas organisations want to know now, at the inception of the scheme, whether the Government intends to allow overseas firms to participate in these new, more open stock exchanges in Australia. The Opposition welcomes these proposed changes and supports the measure. As I said, they are in line with the Opposition's policy of greater competition, greater efficiency in industry and more services being available to those participating in and benefiting from an industry, which in this case is the securities industry. In fact, the proposed changes follow the policies pursued quite firmly and definitely by the Opposition when in government. I have indicated the history of this matter. The Opposition hopes that the matters which are still outstanding, important as many of them are, will be not only urgently addressed but also resolved in the near future so that we can look forward, as a result of these changes, to greater efficiency in our stock exchanges. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.10) —I support what has been said by the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack. I refer to the point he made that most of the matters contained in the proposed amendment to the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) have been in the pipeline for 18 months or so. That is not said as a reflection in any way upon the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am certainly not raising it in that sense; rather I am making a point. The point is that progress in this area moves at an inordinately slow pace. Whilst I believe the use of co- operative federalism as an approach to overcoming a problem involving a very rapidly changing and very fast moving industry can be of considerable benefit in some areas of legislative operation, it is totally unsuited to companies and securities legislation. This has been one of the reasons for the considerable difficulties which have been experienced by the National Companies and Securities Commission. The National Companies and Securities Commission is made up of extremely competent senior staff. I know that the commissioners are extremely competent people who have the experience, the capacity and the good will to make the system work. Yet many people believe that to date the Commission has not succeeded, that it has not been able to notch up many successes in being able to clarify, expedite and reduce the cost of, the regulatory aspects of the conduct of business through the corporate state and transactions in relation to securities associated with corporations. I believe this to be a matter of some very considerable concern. This Parliament should give further consideration to the action to be taken which might enhance the role of the National Companies and Securities Commission and thereby expedite the process by which results can be achieved. I know that my saying that has not taken the Attorney-General by surprise, but I believe it is important to say, and to repeat, that changes are taking place. As I think my colleague Senator Durack said, one of the major changes is a change in relation to a form of self-regulation, self-protection, in which the stock exchanges had engaged, regarding their refusal to adopt negotiated rates. This system has applied in the United States for quite some time and is generally regarded there as being beneficial to the operation of the industry. In early October last year when I was in London I attended a securities function. At that time members who were attending that function were in the middle of their discussion leading up to the vote which was to be made a few days later on changes to be made in relation to regulation in the city of London regarding brokerage and other matters. This caused a sudden spate of activity in Australia among the brokers and led to the changes to which Senator Durack referred, which are in the nature of self-deregulation. I think one of the very welcome aspects is that some people have said and made quite clear they propose to go all out for the big business. Presumably they will fix their rates and services according to those which are required by the big clients. There is a variety of requirements of people associated with investment through the stock exchanges in Australia. Very often people tend to forget the difference between the very large institutions, which do their own research and make up their own mind as to what investment they regard as best suiting their purpose, and the smaller institutions. The larger institutions want from stockbrokers on the floor of the stock exchange professional expertise in relation to the transactions but not in relation to research and advice. There are other and smaller institutions which do not have and have not had the volume of investment funds which would enable them to have that sort of degree of expertise available to them unless brokers, for an appropriate charge, provided research services and advice to investors of, shall I say, the more medium category who wish to be able to receive expert, well-researched and in-depth analysis of the potential of various types of investment through the stock exchanges. Then there are the small investors, some of whom invest through investments available through unit trusts and other forms of combined investment. Those trusts do their own type of research and can give advice to the smaller client. Very often people who invest in a small way would like to invest in their own employer's company. Such people, who have their own ideas, do their own research and form their own hunches, find it burdensome to have a minimum fee charged by a broker for the transaction which they regard as a relatively simple matter. When I was involved with a Senate inquiry in relation to this matter I received a letter from a Melbourne school teacher who said that he wished to provide for his retirement and had decided that, in his opinion, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was the form of investment which would best suit his requirements for long term stability and capital gain. He intended to invest regularly every month, whatever income he obtained from the shares which he already had in BHP, together with his savings, in the purchase of further shares in BHP. He pointed out to me what was in effect a tax imposed on that sort of transaction by a relatively small investor. The investor had to pay duty and the minimum fee charged by the stockbroker. One of the developments that have come about now means that the type of person who knows what he or she wants and who wants the transaction carried out in the simplest way can take advantage of the real depth of opportunity for shares in companies listed on some of the major stock exchanges. Such transactions can take place at the shop front, over the counter as it were, rather than by the more complex means. Modern communications mean that it is possible simply to call up the board at either the Melbourne Stock Exchange or the Sydney Stock Exchange and by computer linkage be able to check the price so that the person can be informed by telephone, can make an instant decision and carry out the transaction in an extremely simple way. When Sir Cecil Looker was the President of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges and the Melbourne Stock Exchange, he brought Mr Gordon Gilmour from Canada to advise us about a new system for a scrip bank and a far more efficient system of transactions in relation to securities in Australia. Mr Gilmour, from whom I received a letter last Christmas, has gone back to Canada much the wiser but without very great enthusiasm for the prospects of change in Australia. He battled away. The scrip bank has been introduced in such countries as South Africa and in various other parts of the world. But Australia is still struggling to streamline its procedures. I do not think that the co-operative federalism approach that we are still continuing to adopt, in relation to what is undoubtedly now a Commonwealth area of responsibility, will enable the sorts of changes to which I have briefly referred to take place with reasonable expedition. I am not suggesting that people are deliberately holding up the process, but it is one which is inherently slow and inherently unlikely to be able to ensure that change can be made as and when necessary. The process has been extremely unfair to the members who have taken the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the National Companies and Securities Commission. I wish that Commission well. I take the opportunity to say that I do not believe that the idea which is sometimes floated in Australia, that we should adopt the city panel approach from the City of London, has any validity in Australia. There is a vast difference between Australia and the extremely close-knit operation in the City of London, one of the major financial centres, if not the major financial centre , of the world. It is dominated by the Bank of England and the Bank of England's capacity, together with the Board of Trade and the new Department of Industry and Trade in the United Kingdom, which have tremendous power in one city area, to be able to manage and regulate particularly takeovers and mergers. Australia has an entirely different and an entirely disparate situation, one which can be brought closer together and which will, with the advent of greater technological application of communications systems, be brought closer together. But the rate of change is not sufficient to warrant even the slightest moment of consideration of the application, in relation to the question of takeovers and mergers, of the British approach of a takeover panel. There is no way that that can be suitable to this country at this country's stage of development. I hope that we do not hear any more of that sort of attack on the National Companies and Securities Commission but rather some greater support for that Commission to be able to fulfil that task effectively and expeditiously. It is one of the areas in which there has been the greatest amount of complaint in the industry and from those associated with the industry. The mergers and takeovers area is one field with over-regulation and confusion rather than one in which it is possible to have some reasonably clear rules which enable desirable practices to take place expeditiously and efficiently, and undesirable practices to be banned. There is no doubt that the securities industry area is one in which, human nature being what it is, if one permits undesirable practices to take place, they will take place on the part of a percentage of the people involved. Fortunately, it is a small percentage but, as a casino, a race track and any other area of gambling and the making of a fast buck attracts the attention of the fast buck makers, so too can the stock exchanges and the securities industry attract the attention of the fast buck makers if their regulations are so sloppy , inefficient or cumbersome that they are not able to act expeditiously. Previously in this chamber I have outlined numerous shortcomings that exist at the moment in the present system, and I will not go through those again. I welcome the legislation. My colleague Senator Durack has made specific comment about parts of it and I understand my colleague Senator Hill is to make comments on other aspects of it. I have made those general comments because they need to be made from time to time, particularly in relation to the current debate as to whether there ought to be a more effective role for the National Companies and Securities Commission in relation to takeovers and mergers or whether we ought to consider some sort of Australian adaptation of the city takeover panel. The city takeover panel will not work in this country. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you think the time might be right for consideration by a Senate committee of the whole co-operative scheme? Senator PETER RAE —Yes, I have believed ever since this legislation was first mooted that a Senate committee should be set up to keep an eye on this scheme. It could be a contact point, a legislative focal point, for the National Companies and Securities Commission and other associated review bodies, such as in regard to accountancy and company law, to be able to have some associations and platform with and some input into the parliamentary system. I certainly believe that the time is well and truly right for that to happen. Some considerable advantage can come to Australia's economic development and to the operation of our capitalist system by the working efficiency overall of the industry. A Senate committee could assist in that. In conclusion I wish to say that, in case there is some doubt about my attitude towards regulation-some people seem to think that I have been an advocate of regulation for the securities industry-my chief complaint always was that there were 14 pieces of legislation with which industry, the larger corporate activities of Australia on an Australia-wide basis, had to combat and that what we needed was a unified approach, one which cut out the red tape, cut out much of the delay, was more cost efficient, more time efficient and more effective in achieving the objective of a fair, open, efficient and free operating market system in Australia. I have always believed that what is needed is a regulatory framework with the freedom to operate under some reasonably clear rules but with a stick behind it to make sure that it is working efficiently. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make these comments. I indicated that, like my colleague Senator Durack, I am glad to support the Bill. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.27) —It is a pleasure in this debate to follow the two constructive and informative speeches from my colleagues the shadow Attorney-General Senator Durack and Senator Peter Rae. It is a pity that there seems to be little interest in the subject matter from the Government benches. I simply touch upon the last point that was made by Senator Rae when he spoke of the frustrations and problems of a securities industry which had to exist under 14 separate pieces of legislation. I remind the Senate that that industry now has to exist under the Companies Code, the Companies (Fees) Act 1981, the Companies Regulations, the State Variations to Companies Regulations, the Companies (Fees) Regulations, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Code, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1981, the Companies ( Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act 1980, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Regulations, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Regulations, the National Companies and Securities Commission Act of 1979, the National Companies and Securities Commission Regulations, the National Companies and Securities Commission (State Provisions) Acts, the Securities Industry Code, the Securities Industry Regulations, the State Variations to the Securities Industry Regulations, the Securities Industry (Fees) Regulations, the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1980, the State Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions Codes, the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Act of 1981, the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Regulations, the Companies (Application of Laws) Acts, the Companies (Application of Laws- Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1982 and the Crown Debts (Priority) Act 1981. I remind the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of the further companies legislation that we passed in November of last year. Today we have a further piece of legislation, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) 1984. I notice that it is optimistically labelled No. 1. I presume that indicates that we can expect more in the course of this year. If Senator Peter Rae was looking for some consolidation and simplification of the new system, it is obvious that that has not come about. I simply want to make a few comments to voice my continuing concern as to the operation of the co-operative scheme and the quality of the Bills that we are receiving from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. A Bill that we debated in the Senate on 16 November 1983 contained many provisions that were ambiguous and contradictory. It contained a number of provisions that were of doubtful merit. On that occasion I raised many separate questions. I understood that the Minister could not reasonably be expected to answer those questions on the run. However, I was given an undertaking that the matters I raised would be looked at and considered and that I would be advised of the outcome of that consideration in due course. Much in line with general progress of matters in this area, I have not yet received that reply although in excess of four months have already passed. It is not unreasonable of me to think that that is unsatisfactory. I appreciate the problem that the Minister has because I am not sure who would actually give me the answers. Presumably he would not see it as his responsibility; he would refer it to the Ministerial Council. This is just another facet of this unsatisfactory scheme for corporate law and securities which we presently have in this country. I wanted to move amendments to the legislation we dealt with last November. No one was sure as to whether that was possible and if, in fact, the Senate did pass amendments, what would be the effect of those amendments. This is a problem that we are forced to address again today in that by passing this Bill we also alter a series of State laws. If the legislation were altered we would, in effect, be altering something that has already been agreed to by State Ministers . Of course, we bear in mind that in this most unusual procedure there are no opportunities for the State parliaments concerned to debate the legislation. So we have the frustrating position that we are presented with Bills of this nature and we are even unsure that we have the power to amend them. Certainly, we were warned against attempting to amend them because of the complications that would follow. That, I would respectfully suggest, reduces the Federal Parliament's role in this process to little short of a farce. To use the words of one of the previous speakers in this debate, it reduces the role of this Parliament to simply that of a rubber stamp. One might argue that that is what happens in any event in the other place. But we in the Senate believe that we have a responsibility to consider the detail of Bills that appear before us and to take such action in relation to those Bills as appears appropriate. But in relation to the unique pieces of proposed legislation under the co-operative scheme we are told that in fact we cannot do that. I think the whole sham which is this debate is made just so apparent from the fact that the deregulation, if I might call it that, of stock exchanges is to commence, as previous speakers said, from 1 April 1984. Of course, that day has already passed. Here we are now in the Senate being presented with a Bill that deals with the necessary changes to the Securities Industry Act 1980. What if we do not agree with those changes? Everything is in train. As I indicated, our role is simply being reduced to that of a rubber stamp. As previous speakers have mentioned, but it is worth stating again, the Trade Practices Commission put down its final report in September 1982. One must ask where the Bill has been in the meantime? Presumably it has been somewhere with the Ministerial Council. Furthermore, even though we now have the Bill after the deregulated scheme has come into effect, we are told-and this is obvious from the contents of the Minister's second reading speech-that this is not all that is going to be necessary. The Minister acknowledges that we are getting just a small piece on this occasion and that in the months ahead the Ministerial Council is 'likely', to use the Minister's word, to look at further matters. Quite helpfully, the Minister throws in a few that are apparent to him. There are others that would be apparent to anyone with experience in this area who gave the matter consideration. He mentioned the question that is going to arise as to whether national fidelity bonds will become more appropriate in cases of corporate membership. He also mentioned the question of the conflict of interest arising from the inevitable entry of financial institutions into the stockbroking industry, and that is clearly a question with which we should be concerning ourselves. My colleagues and I indicate our concern that it has taken some 18 months to get these changes to the securities legislation in order. Now, in a very unsatisfactory way, we are presented with a Bill which deals with a very small part of that package and are simply told that the Ministerial Council is likely to give further consideration to the other obvious matters in due course. I do not regard that as a satisfactory state of affairs. There is no better example that I can find of the web of intertwined legislation and regulation, the sheer mass of paper and the consequent difficulty and frustration of all those who have to live and work under this scheme, than in the amendments that are put before us today in relation to the registration of legal and equitable charges. It seems to me to be just a classical example of where we have gone in this field. Section 200 of the Companies Act describes the charges required to be registered. That is okay; it is a provision of long standing in corporate law. The Minister says in his second reading speech that it is necessary to clarify what securities come within section 200 (1) (h). We are given no further information as to why it is necessary to clarify this paragraph. The Minister proposes the insertion of new sub-sections after section 200 (4). Proposed new sub-section (4A) reads: The reference in paragraph (1) (h) to a lien or charge on a crop, a lien or charge on wool or a stock mortgage includes a reference to a security (however described) that is registrable under- (a) a provision that is a relevant provision for the purposes of this sub- section; . . . . I really do not know what that means. In my case it simply has the effect of confusing me further. Senator Gareth Evans —Read the explanatory memorandum. Senator HILL —I have read the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps in due course the Minister will make a better attempt of explaining to the Senate how that is going to clarify rather than further confuse the issue. Section 211 is the provision that avoids the need for double registration. The Minister says that there are doubts as to whether section 211 satisfactorily removes the obligation to comply with the relevant provisions of the instruments or bills of sale Acts of a State. The Government is attempting a new provision to cover the relationship with the code and the Australian Capital Territory Instruments Ordinance 1933. When that is read those concerned will have to substitute the appropriate State Acts, but the State Acts, the instruments Acts and the bills of sale Acts all vary. Therefore, as the Minister says, there is need for translator regulations in each State varying according to the differing approaches of States in their bills of sale and instruments legislation. So the process continues with the mass of paper forever building up, and the challenge to those who must interpret these provisions and work within and under them becoming more and more impossible. That is to say nothing of the tortuous drafting of proposed section 211. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you prefer to leave the matter in doubt and not have the redrafting? Senator HILL —I would not prefer the matter to be left in doubt. I would prefer it to be put in a way in which it was not in doubt. In passing this Bill, the Parliament will bind the States without the State parliaments having an opportunity to consider these matters. Therefore, honourable senators have a considerable responsibility which I feel they are not discharging. I said of the last Bill on this topic in November that it should have been considered by the Senate committee system. I listened with interest to the exchange between the Attorney-General and Senator Peter Rae on the way in which a Senate select committee could look at the whole operation of a co-operative scheme. I also would applaud such a step. I believe that the procedures that the Senate is now accepting are simply not good enough. I am embarrassed as I believe the Minister should be. If this so-called co-operative scheme is to continue, let us at least develop a system whereby the Senate can properly discharge its function in relation to these Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.42) —in reply-I welcome the support expressed for the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1), tempered on occasion as it may have been by the odd criticism of particular aspects. Nevertheless, there is support for the legislation, and that is appreciated, especially relating to the central part of the Bill which responds to the situation created by the opening up of the stockbroking closed shop following the original Trade Practices Commission determination in 1982 and the expiry of the interim authorisation in relation to brokerage rates on the first of this month. There has been criticism about the rush to legislate intermingled, it must be said, by criticism of the slowness of the legislative process to respond to stimuli that arise in this complex area of the law. But to the extent that criticism is made of the failure to expose the Bill to comment earlier than the 10 days or so as has been the case on this occasion, it fails to appreciate the special circumstances of this legislation. Although it is the case that the original TPC determination was made in 1982, and although it has been clear since last July that the TPC approach to this would prevail and that the Commonwealth would not take the view that stock exchanges deserve a continuing immunity from the operation of trade practices legislation, it has only been since January this year-three months ago-that the rules of the stock exchanges have been changed. Indeed, the last set of rules has been sorted out only now. As a practical matter it was not possible to draft this legislation, which is designed to accommodate the new structures within the stock exchanges and the firms that comprise them, until such time as the structure of those rules was finally determined. There is a need for the legislation to be in place and on the statute books by the time that the first corporate member of the stock exchange is admitted. That process may be only three or four weeks away now that that corporate membership is possible, following the expiry of the interim authorisation on 1 April and the opening of the exchanges in the way with which we are all familiar. That is the reason for the rush on that aspect of the legislation. As for the time sharing arrangements, again the rush is simply to close a loophole that became very visible when the Brentwood Village case arose last year and made it necessary to get the legislative fences quickly into place to ensure that the existing provisions of the Bill could not be sidestepped in a manifestly unintended way. Senator Durack foreshadowed criticisms of the particular content of the time sharing provisions of the present legislation. I do not believe those criticisms have substance, but perhaps it would be better to tackle that point in the Committee stage. As for the matter of charges, the third major subject area of the Bill, perhaps there is not the same degree of urgency to clarify the law which I believe this legislation does. But it is the case, and has been the case, that there has been a considerable degree of uncertainty as to whether the charges, be they related to wool liens and the various charges provided for in the Bill, were legally effective simply by virtue of being registered under the Companies Act. The matter in issue was whether simultaneous or dual registration was necessary under a miscellany of bits and pieces of State and Territory legislation. What is involved here is essentially the enactment of avoidance of doubt provisions to ensure that charges given over property which have been assumed to be valid are in fact valid. When these questions arise the commercial community always urges the Government to move quickly to avoid doubt. That is what the Government has sought to do through the Ministerial Council apparatus on this occasion. I believe that the contribution made by Senator Hill to this part of the debate drawing attention to the complexity of these legislative provisions fell short of the standard reached by his usual contributions in this place. Difficult and complex as this commercial legislation is, of course, it will be the case that any given part of any given section as proposed will be largely unintelligible not least when uttered out of context in a debate such as this. I do not believe anything follows from the complexity to which Senator Hill drew attention. I was asked by Senator Durack what was happening to the implications of the Trade Practices Act in regard to the stock exchanges. I was asked by him to comment or to give such further information as I could in relation to the proposed new stock exchange articles and business rules permitting corporate membership of the exchanges and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates. So far as the draft rules relating to brokerage are concerned, the draft rules abolishing the fixed brokerage rate were granted interim authorisation by the TPC on 10 February 1984 for the period 1 April 1984 to 1 October 1985. We understand that the Melbourne and Sydney exchanges adopted these rules last week , on 29 March, and that the other exchanges adopted them on 30 March. The rules here are non-controversial and the National Companies and Securities Commission is in the process of recommending to Ministers not to disallow them. I do not anticipate any problem in regard to their status. As to the draft articles relating to natural persons membership and corporate membership, the TPC granted interim authorisation to these draft articles on 6 March 1984. The exchanges were holding meetings last week to approve the new articles, and I understand they have in fact been approved. They will be lodged, if that has not already happened, with the NCSC this week when the statutory disallowance period of 28 days will start to run. It is premature at this stage to say whether there will be any difficulty in relation to those rules. If there is, I suspect it will be only at the margin. The carrying on of business and principal trading rules become available to the Government only during last week. They deal with a number of controversial matters, particularly those related to conflicts of interest. It is the case that the exchanges have not adopted a uniform approach to these issues so there may well be a degree of extra controversy and delay associated with the bringing of those rules into force and effect. I am not sure whether there is anything else that Senator Durack wanted to know about the current state of play but if there is I will be happy to try to accommodate him in the Committee stage. It remains only to say a word or two more generally about the operation of the companies and securities legislation and the present joint Commonwealth-State co -operative scheme. I note the concerns that were expressed by Senator Hill about the complexity of the scheme and I note the contributions he has made, particularly in the course of a very long and detailed speech in the latter part of last year in the last round of amending legislation designed to draw attention to some of the perceived deficiencies in the existing legislation. I am sorry that he has not had a detailed response from me yet as I promised to give him by way of comment on the points he made about the operation of that legislation. The answer basically is that he raised so many points of such complexity that it is only very recently, I am told by my Department, that the draft reply has, in fact, been prepared. Indeed, the Department's comments for my attention have been prepared in the context of a larger exercise designed to pull together all the criticisms that have been made of the current legislation with a view to attention in the next round of remedial legislation which will be considered by the ministerial council meeting in May. It was not originally anticipated that I would respond in detail to Senator Hill before the ministerial council had an opportunity to meet and consider these matters but if he presses the point I am happy to give him such interim response as I can before then. The remaining general point relates to the matters raised by Senator Peter Rae. I very much welcome the support that was given by him to the National Companies and Securities Commission, which has been something of an embattled warrior in this area since the date of its inception. I also particularly welcome the very obvious support he gave to the need for effective legislation in this respect in the whole area. It has been a familiar theme for both of us in recent years. I think Senator Rae and I are both very well aware of the deficiencies of the present system although Senator Rae has become a little more circumspect about articulating the weaknesses of the co-operative scheme as such since he assumed his place on the front bench of the Opposition. Nonetheless, I think that most of the deficiencies he perceives in the present system and a good many of the deficiencies that Senator Hill perceives could much better be accommodated in the context not of the continued operation of this Heath Robinson co-operative scheme but rather in the context of unilateral Commonwealth companies and securities legislation. The Commonwealth has made its position clear. It will not charge in to endeavour to overturn the existing co-operative scheme so long as it continues to operate reasonably satisfactorily and in the interests of the Australian commercial community. But it has become increasingly obvious to me after some time scrutinising the system from the outside and now with a year or more's experience of scrutinising it from the inside that it is an almost wholly unsatisfactory way of responding to the very real needs of the Australian business community. I believe, as I indicated by way of interjection to Senator Rae, that the time has probably come for a really detailed reconsideration of the whole future of the Commonwealth's attitude to the co-operative scheme. I suspect that one of the most useful ways of doing this and preserving a bipartisan flavour in the process may well be to give a Senate committee-maybe one specially constituted for the purpose, maybe the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or maybe some other committee-a reference to look at the way in which the aims of the co-operative companies and securities scheme have been realised or not realised as the case may be; the way in which, perhaps, the range of Commonwealth legislative powers might be utilised to underpin a single national scheme, not involving co-operative relationships of this kind, which have not worked awfully well; and the extent to which a national scheme, enacted by the Parliament, might or should encompass the matters currently covered by the legislation enacted under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. Broad ranging terms of reference along those general lines, would, perhaps, be the most appropriate way of opening up for reasoned public and parliamentary debate questions which I think are becoming overdue in their need for consideration. This is a matter which I do not float any more precisely than that at this stage. I think it is a matter on which there should be discussion and consultation within all the parties, with the individuals who make up this Parliament, before hurtling down that track. But I float the possibility on this occasion of such a Senate committee of inquiry as being one of the more usefully constructed ways we might proceed in dealing with this kind of legislation in the future. I acknowledge the points that were made by Senator Hill and which have been made by other contributors to this debate in the past about the essentially rubber stamp character of this legislative exercise in which we are engaged. I appreciate that it is not a terribly satisfactory state of affairs for any legislature to be reduced to that kind of role, acting at the request of an outside body, a ministerial council. It disrupts the traditional and familiar lines of governmental accountability. That is one of the basic reasons why I continue to hold the fairly strong view that a co-operative scheme is not the long term solution to our legislative problems in this area. With those comments I commend this Bill which, in its own terms is essentially uncontroversial, to the Senate. I thank honourable senators for their support and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.58) —I wish to raise with the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) some specific questions on the definition of time sharing but before I do so I will deal briefly-I will do so now rather than at the third reading stage-with the future consideration of the scheme and, in particular, the volume of legislation under it. I referred in my speech on the second reading of this Bill to the remarks I made in the debate last November on the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983. It was a major piece of legislation amending the companies and securities legislation and it was foreshadowed as being an annual Bill. I think that what I said then is very relevant to what has been said by Senator Rae and the Attorney -General in his reply. In that debate on 16 November last year, as recorded on page 2681 of Hansard, I said: . . . I believe it will be necessary for this Senate either to set up a special committee to cope with it- that is, with this sort of legislation- 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. The lengthy remarks I made at that stage and later were in relation to the volume and complexity of the legislation and the need to involve this Parliament in what would be at least an annual exercise. But it may be even more often than that, as has been happening lately. From what the Attorney has indicated, these new arrangements may need further legislative changes. The position is that as a result of the way the scheme has been set up and is operating this Parliament is asked to be a rubber stamp. As I mentioned last year Parliament is in the process bypassed by everybody. From my experience last year, nobody who is concerned with changes to the scheme thinks of coming to the Parliament at all. That is simply because the reality is that this Parliament is asked just to rubber-stamp decisions of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. I think we have problems at two levels. Firstly, how are we going to cope with the operation of the scheme, at the parliamentary level, so long as it lasts? My suggestion there is that a standing committee be set up specifically to keep the legislation under review and that an exposure draft of the legislation be followed as a practice, so that a committee of that kind could be working on the legislation before it actually came up for debate here. We would then have a much more satisfactory debate than is possible under the present system. I certainly agree that we need a committee, I think preferably of the Senate, to do this job. However the Attorney-General is talking, as I understand it, of a select committee to look at the whole scheme to see whether it should be maintained or scrapped. I will give some further consideration to that idea. It would seem to me that that proposal might be considered to be tendentious because the object of that committee would be to get rid of the scheme. Senator Peter Baume —You used 'tendentious' in its proper sense. Senator DURACK —Yes. He has now learned the meaning of it. I think that is somewhat down the track. What I do think is an immediate requirement is that a committee of the Senate be set up-I suppose it would have to be a standing committee, under the rules-to consider this type of legislation whenever it comes to the Parliament. I think if that very important step could be taken in the near future by the Senate it would help in having a more satisfactory consideration of measures of these kinds. I did foreshadow in my speech in the second reading debate that I had a number of specific questions to raise with the Attorney-General about the definition of time sharing. These are matters that have been raised by a body known as the Australian Time Sharing Resort Council, which claims to represent every developer and consultant in Australia interested in time sharing facilities. Because of the rush of this legislation through the Parliament that body was not able to make any representations about the matter to me or anybody else. I received these comments from it only after lunch today. I raise them now and hope the Attorney-General does not seek to dispose of them here and now but to give some thought to them before this legislation proceeds further in another place. I have given a copy of them to the Attorney so that he may be in a position to comment on them. Although I do not wish to discourage him from commenting on them, I think some of them may require a little longer consideration than has no doubt been possible. Senator Gareth Evans —And again they may not; wait and see. Senator DURACK —That is for the Attorney to judge, of course, but I hope he will give them more consideration. I do not want to hold up the Bill unnecessarily over the matter, but I seek an assurance that the matters will be fully considered before the Bill comes up for consideration in another place. The definition of time sharing, which is to be inserted into the legislation, and I think it appears a couple of times in the Bill, is: . . . a scheme, undertaking or enterprise- (a) participants in which are, or may become, entitled to use, occupy or possess, for 2 or more periods during the period for which the scheme, undertaking or enterprise is to operate, property to which the scheme, undertaking or enterprise relates; and (b) that is to operate for a period of not less than 3 years;'. The concern is that this definition is capable of application to a large number of schemes or enterprises which do not come within any concept of time sharing and which would not be intended to be covered by such a definition. The first question is, for argument's sake, a lease with a three-year option. I must say that I do not find that a particularly likely example to be caught by the definition. Perhaps it could be considered. Secondly, there are contracts for the use of public entertainment or sporting facilities, such as the use of a football ground once a week or something of that sort. That may have some greater relevance. Thirdly, there are computer sharing contracts. Fourthly, there are contracts with an airline to provide hotel accommodation for package tours. I suppose that is what the Bill has in mind. Fifthly, there are credit card facilities; and sixthly, there are universities and educational institutions in relation to students who attend courses for more than three years. Although the Australian Time Sharing Resort Council has had discussions with the NCSC following its paper on the subject in July 1983, to which the Attorney referred in his second reading speech, the NCSC issued a policy statement indicating the circumstances in which it was prepared to relax some of the provisions of the legislation in respect of schemes. Although there has been consultation, this body has had no opportunity of consulting the Government in relation to this definition and it has raised the problems which I now put down for further consideration by the Attorney. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.08) —I acknowledge the opening points made by Senator Durack as to the volume and complexity of this companies legislation and the desirability of there being a greater parliamentary involvement in that legislative process. Of course the difficulty about upgrading parliamentary involvement in the way that has been indicated both by Senator Durack and Senator Rae, with a standing committee working over the details of legislation, is that there is a certain incongruity about that kind of process in the context of the present legislative arrangements where the Commonwealth is, as it were, not a free agent but merely the legislative agent of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. It would work only for there to be really significant parliamentary committee type involvement in the process, where either the committee operated in an environment of very long time -lagged exposure drafts, which are not always possible, or alternatively if the committee were to be operating in an environment, as Senator Hill was last year, where he was putting down comments knowing that there was not much chance of their being accommodated in the context of the then current debate but in the hope that they would be accommodated next time around. There may be a role for the committee in that respect but it is difficult in the present co-operative scheme arrangements to have a better committee role than that. It is against that background, with that in mind and not because of any tendentious inclinations on my part-- Senator Peter Baume —Used in its correct sense, of course. Senator GARETH EVANS —I hardly need to add that it is used in its correct sense. I am not in the habit of using the English language otherwise than in the correct sense. It is in that context that I did float the proposal quite explicitly today for a Senate committee to look at the larger question of the whole future of the co-operative scheme. It is by no means an open and shut question because even if one were determined to go down that particular policy path, very real questions have to be explored about the reach of the Commonwealth's constitutional power and in particular as to whether or not section 51 (XX), the corporations power, will do all the jobs that it is necessary to do in this area to enable an effective national package of companies and securities legislation to be put together. That is just one of the matters that will be very much in issue and which would need to be explored by such a committee. That is the reason for putting the proposal in those terms rather than simply acceding with enormous enthusiasm to the idea of a monitoring or review committee while the present co-operative scheme stays as it is. I do not rule out the idea of such a monitoring or review committee; I just think it would be of limited utility while the co-operative scheme continues to stagger on in the way that it does. Perhaps these are matters that can be further debated by us both privately and publicly in the period ahead. The more particular matter that Senator Durack raised concerned the effectiveness of the definition of time sharing to confine its operation to what it is manifestly intended to cover, and that is the marketing of time-sharing arrangements in the context essentially of resort accommodation, which is the area in which time-sharing schemes have become most familiar. The criticism is that the definition of time sharing has been expressed so broadly that it might inadvertently catch a variety of investment schemes or activities other than time-sharing activities strictly so called. This is something which the Government will have another look at, as Senator Durack invites us to do, in the period between this debate and that in the House of Representatives to ensure that we really have done the best we can so far as this definition is concerned. We really do believe that it is not likely to catch unintended arrangements of the kind that are here suggested. I noted that even Senator Durack was cautious about embracing the particular proposal- Senator Durack —I am cautious about all of them. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that sometimes the honourable senator is only the mouthpiece of lobby groups and that he cannot be expected to embrace the various positions they put to him with more than token enthusiasm. Senator Durack —I am only a mouthpiece because of the rush in which this is going forward. I have not had time to think about it; nor have you. Senator GARETH EVANS —It has been only 10 days and I appreciate the difficulties to which that gives rise. Senator Durack —It has been only about two hours. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator had the Bill, with respect, Tuesday last week and we are now into the second week of the parliamentary period. I deal quickly with a couple of points Senator Durack raised. Common three-year leases with a three-year option are manifestly not the kinds of things that will be covered by this definition. The definition relates to two or more periods during the time of the scheme; that is, shorter periods within the duration of a marketed scheme as a whole. It is certainly difficult to see how a three-year lease which continues for the whole period of three years could possibly be caught by the definition. The other more general point to make not only about that but also about all the other examples that are given-public entertainment, sporting facilities, computer sharing contracts, hotel or permanent accommodation agreements and so on-is that the difficulty about all of these things is that they ignore one of the central elements in the definition of prescribed interest in the parent Act, section 169 of the Australian Companies Code, which makes it clear that what we are talking about here are schemes which are offered to the public, and something which is in the nature of a scheme. We have to have that element of offering to the public before we even get to first base in the context of the application of this definition because this definition is only a supplementary definition to make it clear that the existing rules and definitions of prescribed interests extend to this kind of arrangement . One has to read the definition of time sharing in the context, as I say, of all the prescribed interest provisions. I do not think it is necessary to say more than that about time sharing other than that the definition will be kept under review. It certainly can be amended if examples come to light of schemes which have been inadvertently caught or alternatively recourse can be had to the exemption provisions in scheme legislation relating to prescribed interests. That is in section 215C of the Companies Act and section 16 of the Companies (Applications of Laws) Acts in each State. I think I have addressed the particular matters as well as the general ones that Senator Durack has raised and I hope that we can now proceed to a vote on the Bill. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.16) —The Senate is considering the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. The purpose of the legislation is to entrench Aussat Pty Ltd in legislation and to define its role and structure. This legislation will serve a number of purposes. It confirms the commercial basis of the operation of Aussat. It declares that, together with Telecom Australia, Aussat will provide the national telecommunications network of Australia. It states the obligation of the directors of Aussat. It confirms the status of Aussat as a private company and authorises the sale of up to 25 per cent of the company to Telecom at a total cost of $21.2m. It prevents Aussat from providing public switched telephone or data services. It prevents third party use of leased satellite capacity. It permits Aussat users to operate their own earth facilities and as a result of this legislation it can be wound up only by a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. It is therefore very significant legislation which will have far-reaching and significant effects in relation to the operation of Aussat and the operation of Australia's satellite. The Opposition welcomes these Bills which give effect to the national domestic satellite system which Aussat Pty Ltd will operate. It is interesting that the whole idea of a satellite system is one which the Australia Labor Party a few years ago bitterly attacked. I have a Press release issued by Senator Susan Ryan on 18 August 1979 in which she said, inter alia: The establishment of a separate satellite authority is not the rational way to develop Australian telecommunication services. It would result in loss of revenue for Telecom and seriously erode the value of the public's $6,500 million investment in Telecom. That was the view of Senator Ryan, speaking for the ALP in 1979. We are delighted that her Party has chosen to ignore the sentiments expressed in that Press release and to proceed with this legislation. The Bills will introduce to Australia a new era of communications providing for a comprehensive telecommunications capability which at present we do not enjoy. Much credit for this legislation must rest with the former Government and some of its Ministers. This process began in 1977. At that time the former Government established the national communications task force to investigate the feasibility of a domestic satellite system. As I mentioned, in 1979 Senator Ryan thought the process was sufficiently advanced to complain about it and to criticise the concept on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. But the Liberal-National Party Government pressed ahead and in November 1981 Aussat Pty Ltd was incorporated by the Fraser Government as a wholly government-owned company. We would like to say how gratifying it is that the present Government is continuing the process, picking up the framework, and continuing the thrust of what we began. I congratulate the Government and assure it that it has our support in terms of the general direction it is taking . Insofar as the Government is picking up the procedures and the framework we developed, we are delighted to see what is emerging. It is widely acknowledged that the satellite will be of enormous benefit to the entire Australian community. Its introduction comes at a time when a revolution is occurring in communications technology around the world. The benefits of this new technology and its application through Aussat will be enormous. We are aware that many isolated communities will be provided with a direct broadcasting service for television and radio, a service that has not been possible for some of them by any kind of terrestrial means. It has not been possible in some cases because of technical limitations; in other cases it has not been possible because of the costs involved, even if the technology was there. Air navigation and emergency services communications will be improved. Telephone services will be extended to remote areas of Australia beyond existing planned or terrestrial communications systems. I observe that I have very good friends living inland just behind Bodalla in New South Wales. In the last 10 years they have actually lost their telephone service. They used to have a direct home telephone service which they have now lost as a result of certain economies that took place. For people like them, living perhaps only 30 miles from one of the coastal towns, there will be the capacity now for telephone services which are necessary. The satellite will provide for expanded and enhanced communications for the business and financial community. Of course, very importantly, it will provide for an expansion and enhancement of distance education for many Australians who are not able at present to get access to educational institutions. School of the Air and other distance education initiatives can be developed and expanded. In this way the benefits of education technology can be brought closer to students even if they live in the most remote parts of Australia. When I was Minister for Education I became aware of the great disadvantage suffered by many of the students in remote areas. I am delighted that the satellite will go some way towards equalising the opportunities for those people who are forced to rely on services such as the School of the Air for their education. I pay tribute in passing to the work done on behalf of these isolated children by the group of parents who act on their behalf, the Isolated Children's Parents Association. As a group representing special interests it has been one of the most positive, reasoned and constructive groups with which it has been my pleasure to deal over a number of years. I have indicated the benefits which we think will flow from the satellite. I refer back to my experience as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and say that I think there could also be some detriment. Having travelled in some of the most remote parts of Australia, for example to some of the areas in the Pitjantjatjara homelands where a number of Aboriginal people have been living a traditional lifestyle, I know that one of the things that has maintained that lifestyle has been the cultural unity within that community. I think we will have to accept that with the advent of the kind of popular entertainment that we regularly put on television in this country there may well be some destructive effects upon that kind of community as it tries to maintain its cultural identity. It is already difficult enough, as honourable senators will know, when Aboriginal people move into centres of population. I think the enhanced communications will have some detriment to these people as well as some benefit for them. As long as we are aware of that and are willing to address that problem and not run away from it we can still hope that the beneficial effects will outweigh the costs. The Opposition therefore supports the legislation and we will not oppose the Bills at the second reading stage. We do have some reservations about aspects of the legislation which I will outline by way of amendments in Committee. I add that there is an amendment we wish to move in relation to one of the Bills at the second reading stage. Because of the procedures the Senate has adopted, about which the Opposition is quite happy, we have a second reading amendment which I will introduce at this stage before I go on to discuss some of our concerns. I move: At end of motion, add ', but in relation to the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 the Senate is of the opinion that companies formed, or participated in, by the Australian Telecommunications Commission and partnerships entered into by the Commission, should be subject to the same tax and dividend requirements, etc., as competing commercial companies'. The amendment refers, as I have indicated, only to the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill, but because of the way we handle these Bills I move it as an amendment to the cognate second reading motion. The amendments which the Opposition will propose and the areas about which we have concern or to which we are opposed are: First, the obligations of the directors of Aussat Pty Ltd; secondly, the Telecom Australia shareholding; and thirdly, the restrictions on third party private data and voice traffic which will be permitted through Aussat. The Opposition strongly supports the requirement for Aussat to operate as a completely commercial company as is detailed in the legislation. The Government has our support on that aspect. The Opposition supports Aussat being able to direct its own telecommunications facilities for satellite links. The Government has our support for the proposal that private companies using the satellite are to be allowed to erect and operate their own earth stations. But we are concerned that this legislation gives the impression that Telecom is being unnecessarily protected by some of the terms of the legislation and by some of the restrictions. This is in no small way due to the enormous pressure that certain unions have exerted on the Government. I have just one of the Press releases put out in relation to satellite legislation in the name of the ATEA, the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. It was signed by Mr W. C. Mansfield, the Federal Secretary of the Association. It suggested to the Government a far more centralised and unitary system. I congratulate the Government for withstanding some of that pressure and for continuing to promote Aussat as an independent company. But there has been enormous pressure put on the Government to give certain protections to Telecom. Some aspects which in some way might threaten Telecom's stake in the communications sphere are matters to which the union has objected. I will concentrate just a little more on several aspects of this good Bill to which the Opposition will object and about which we are not happy. The first concerns the obligations of the directors of Aussat. The Bill as drawn stipulates that as far as practicable the directors are required to ensure that space facilities should be made available for: First, air navigation and related safety services; secondly, Australian Broadcasting Commission remote area television and radio; and, thirdly, Telecom telephonic services for remote areas and emergency services. That is fine, but there was a fourth obligation contained previously which is now missing. What is not mentioned and what was in the original charter for Aussat and what has now been removed is the Government' s obligation, and Aussat's obligation, to provide for a free commercial television and radio service for people in remote areas of Australia. It is a matter of regret that that obligation on the part of the directors will be removed by clause 8 of the Bill. It may be that the Government sees no mileage for itself in seeking to make obligatory the provision of commercial television and radio services to people in remote areas. However, the provision of commercial television and radio services to those people would increase their choice of programs. They can turn the dial of their radios and tune in to the broadcasts of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In fact, usually I tune into nothing else on either the television or the radio. The argument at least can be advanced that those people who wish to listen to commercial radio or watch commercial television should have those services available to them. The providers of commercial radio and television services want those people in remote areas of Australia to have that option. The great majority of Australians take for granted the wide choice of radio and television services available. It is a matter of regret that, in spite of the difficulties that might ensure in determining how commercial radio and television organisations could participate in the scheme, the directors of Aussat are not required to fulfil that obligation. The Opposition will indicate its concern by moving an appropriate amendment at the Committee stage. That leads me to deal with the question of ownership of Aussat. One of the most contentious aspects of the Bills has been that of ownership and the Government's decision that it would permit or require a certain number of shares to be held by Telecom Australia. The Government has been forced to change its policy in that regard. The Opposition believes that that was a direct result of pressure exerted by the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association on Caucus members during their discussions. The Opposition regrets that that policy change has occurred. It understands that a proposal was advanced that Aussat should be 100 per cent owned by Telecom. That is said to be the alternative if the Opposition does not agree to Telecom having 25 per cent ownership. The Opposition's duty is to look at the principle and what is in the best interests of Aussat and the best long term interests of communications in Australia. The Opposition does not believe that it is necessary to ensure or that there is any real advantage in ensuring this cross linkage of ownership between Aussat and Telecom. Opposition members have some concern that Telecom, which already has enormous responsibilities, may not need or may not have the kinds of interests to be involved directly with a satellite or that, if it is interested and does become involved, it may have vested interests of its own that may not necessarily be completely congruent with those of Aussat Pty Ltd. The Opposition would be quite happy if Aussat were to remain a private company for the time being. At the Committee stage I shall move an amendment that will seek to confirm the present status of Aussat as a private company with all of its shares being owned by the Commonwealth. The Opposition simply sees no reason to sell off part of Aussat to Telecom Australia as is proposed. The next matter of concern to the Opposition is to be found in clause 13 of the Satellite Communications Bill. Clause 13 prohibits Aussat from providing services of a kind known as public switch telephone or data services. As I mentioned earlier this prohibition will confirm for Telecom its existing monopoly in this area. The Opposition feels that it should examine carefully any proposal that seeks to preserve a Telecom monopoly in relation to activities that Aussat might take on or might be able to take on. The Opposition is concerned to ensure that the provisions of the Bills do not or should not prohibit Aussat from leasing transponder capacity for private companies or for the use of private organisations. However, it is the degree of additional use by a third person or what constitutes the limits of a company or an organisation for such purposes known collectively as third party traffic that is a matter of some debate in Australia and in other countries in relation to telecommunications generally. The Minister has given an assurance in another place that the Government's intention in restricting third party traffic by Aussat is, in his words, in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. The Opposition does not think that that means that Aussat will have equal rights to those of Telecom. The potential users of Aussat have complained vociferously that whilst Telecom is allowed to determine its own rules in relation to third party traffic, Aussat will be constrained by ministerial regulation in that area. At the Committee stage I shall move an amendment seeking to give Aussat exactly the same power that Telecom has in respect of third party traffic; that is, the power to determine its own regulations. I have already mentioned that the Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the second Bill in this package of Bills. That amendment expresses our general concern and the concern of industry that any joint venture, subsidiary company or technical consultancy should be genuinely commercial and should be subject to commercial requirements similar to those to which any other company in the commercial world is subjected. Having said all that, I point out that the Opposition believes that the legislation offers to Telecom Australia and to Aussat Pty Ltd a great opportunity in the area of communications development. It offers a great opportunity particularly to remote Australia. The Opposition believes that it offers a great opportunity in the area of new commercial ventures and new commercial opportunities. The Opposition supports the Bills with the few reservations that I have mentioned. We welcome the Bills. We wish Aussat every success. We wish every success to the activities that are planned for Aussat. We hope that the people in remote Australia will get every advantage from this project. The Opposition urges the Government to give sympathetic consideration to the amendments that I have foreshadowed because they are offered in a spirit of co-operation and compromise on a package of Bills that the Opposition is supporting and in relation to which it congratulates the Government. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.37) —The Australian Democrats support this project enthusiastically. We look forward to the satellite providing diversified broadcasting services to the remote areas of Australia. Senator Peter Baume touched on the history of this matter. The Fraser Government proposed that Aussat Pty Ltd be 51 per cent government owned and 49 per cent privately owned. As we understand it, the Hawke Government agreed with that proposal, at least in principle, in its economic statement of May 1983. The Australian Democrats supported the position the Government took. Ideally we still support the proposal that Aussat be 51 per cent government owned and 49 per cent privately owned. Having looked more closely at the proposal that it be 49 per cent privately owned, I am now starting to have second thoughts as to whether that is a practicable proposition. Obviously the Liberal Party would prefer Aussat to be 49 per cent privately owned because that is the proposition it put forward. In the past the number of people who own and control television stations has diminished. With intertwining shareholdings and what have you in these companies it is very difficult to police their ownership in the way that all of us would like to. I have read papers that suggest that it would be possible for three or four powerful groups to gain a large enough share of a 49 per cent holding to make the management of Aussat biased. At least it would endanger the independence of the board of directors of Aussat. Notwithstanding that, as a point of principle, the Australian Democrats would favour 51 per cent government ownership and 49 per cent private ownership, with the reservation I have just mentioned. In August 1983 Caucus overturned the proposal that Aussat be 51 per cent government owned and 49 per cent privately owned. It decided that 25 per cent of Aussat should be made available to Telecom. At the time the Australian Democrats announced their disappointment at that decision. We were disappointed for two reasons. Firstly, Telecom, having opposed the purchase of a satellite initially, was a late comer to the proposal and, secondly, Telecom had an unchallenged monopoly. We believed that diversity was needed through an independent Aussat. The Satellite Communications Bill which we are discussing enables Telecom to purchase 25 per cent of Aussat, among many other provisions. The basic position of the Democrats is to minimise, as far as possible, Telecom influence. We opposed 25 per cent because we would have preferred nought per cent involvement of Telecom per se. However, it has been made clear to us from several sources that there is a likelihood, if not a certainty, of Telecom gaining 100 per cent of Aussat if the 25 per cent share of this Bill is defeated. Senator Peter Baume —It is almost blackmail. Senator CHIPP —That is one word for it. It is almost blackmail. I believe-and this will influence the way I vote-that if the Senate amends the Bill and it goes back to the House of Representatives it then has to go to Caucus again. I understand that if it does go back to Caucus it will be scrapped and, by another method, Telecom will totally control the satellite. Possibly Aussat will be disbanded and a space division will be established in Telecom to take over the project to ensure that the satellite goes ahead as close to schedule as possible . I think that would be the worst of all worlds. If Senator Baume wants to call it blackmail or almost blackmail I do not think I would disagree too much with him. I am not going to run the risk of sending this Bill back to Caucus and letting it roam at large. Members of the Press, who normally accurately report meetings of Caucus, have informed us that at the time the 25 per cent shareholding got up in Caucus some members of the Australian Labor Party were not present-they were marooned in mid air-but had they been there it would have been a 100 per cent Telecom owned proposition. That, with great respect to Telecom-and I have great respect for Telecom-would have been the worst of all worlds. Therefore, we believe we would be running a great risk, if this Bill were amended in the Senate, if it did eventually lend control to Telecom. The Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, has said-I apologise if I quote him wrongly-'That would not be too bad for us', namely, the National Party and the Liberal Party, the Opposition, 'because it would be easier to unscramble an egg after we return to power'. If Telecom owned the lot a Liberal-National Party government could then sell the lot to private enterprise. That is a fairly cynical view because what will happen to the people who will benefit from Telecom in the meantime-in the one year, four years or however many years it will be-before the Liberals and the Nationals return to power? Many people in outback Australia enjoy public broadcasting. A whole host of people who would benefit from these Bills would suffer during that interregnum. That is another reason we feel it would be irresponsible for the Senate to send the Bill back. I can understand the point put by Senator Baume and the Government. I have sympathy with it, for the reasons I have given, but clearly the Senate is faced with a dilemma. We have come to the decision that we will, with reluctance, accept the Telecom 25 per cent share. We note with interest and are thankful that the shares cannot exceed 25 per cent and that the percentage cannot be changed unless it is done by an Act of this Parliament. At the same time, because we are deeply concerned that, notwithstanding the limitation of a 25 per cent shareholding by Telecom, by some device or devices Telecom can get virtual control of Aussat by getting a disproportionate number of directors on the board . That would mean that Telecom could virtually control Aussat while being limited to 25 per cent. I thank the Government deeply for agreeing to a suggestion that we have put that it will accept an amendment at the Committee stage that the number of directors that Telecom can appoint, or who are Telecom related, will be no more than 25 per cent of the total number. I understand that the Government will accept that amendment. I believe it improves the legislation in that Aussat will be protected by the Bill itself. A shareholding of no more than 25 per cent can be controlled by Telecom. Telecom related directors cannot be more than 25 per cent of the total number; in other words, two out of the 11 directors. We believe that, given the current political environment, Telecom's influence has been substantially limited. Given that the Government, Aussat and the private sector are happy, an independent and viable satellite program is assured. I hope that the Opposition will support the Democrat amendment. I foreshadow an area of concern to the Democrats which is contained in the Bill . Aussat has to be a commercial enterprise. We support that. Aussat has to be paid adequately for its services. That is fine in principle, but what about those who would benefit greatly from the satellite but who cannot afford to pay? I refer to Aboriginal radio stations, educational institutions, public broadcasting stations, and so on. There should be some provision for cross- subsidisation within Aussat's budget. Senator Townley —They may be able to pick up the transmissions through remote satellite stations. Senator CHIPP —I hope so. I would like the sort of response that Senator Townley gave to come from the Minister when he rises to close the debate. With those few reservations, the Democrats support the project. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.47) —I rise to support the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill and the amendments that the Opposition will be moving. The Bills give effect to the recent Government decision on the ownership and management of the national communications satellite system. Together the Bills express the Government's intention that the telecommunications system provided by Telecom Australia and the satellite telecommunications system provided by Aussat Pty Ltd shall together form one national telecommunications network for this country. The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, said in his second reading speech: The Australian satellite system will provide enhanced broadcasting and telecommunications facilities for the provision of services that would not be possible, or would be prohibitively expensive, using terrestrial based systems. The unique nature of satellite technology means that distance is no longer a major inhibiting factor in bringing news, information and entertainment to all Australians, wherever they may live. For this country it will become a new era in communications. Canada has had a satellite service for some 10 years. I believe Australia is somewhat slow in getting to that stage. For the information of the Senate I will run through the background of the events leading up to the introduction of these Bills. In 1977 the National Communications Satellite Task Force was established by the then Government to investigate the feasibility of a domestic satellite system. The Task Force produced a report in July 1978 with the recommendation that the planning for an Australian satellite system proceed immediately. In October 1979, the Fraser Government announced its decision in principle to establish an Australian communications satellite system. Detailed planning for the system was undertaken to ensure that the technical specifications and overall satellite design satisfied the special communication needs of this country, particularly with regard to the remote and isolated communities which are scattered throughout Australia. The Government identified the Overseas Telecommunications Commission as the interim owner and manager of the satellite pending the formation of Aussat. Aussat Pty Ltd was incorporated in November 1981 as a wholly government owned company. The memorandum of association provided for the sale of some shares to the private sector. In October 1980 the Government announced, as Senator Chipp said, that it would float some 49 per cent of Aussat's equity on the share market. The Hawke Government, in its economic statement of May 1983, accepted that policy in principle but later, in July 1983, Caucus recommended that this decision be overturned and that the management of the satellite system be integrated with Telecom. Both Senator Chipp and Senator Peter Baume mentioned the amount of pressure that was put upon certain members of Caucus by some of the unions to see that that happened. The Australian Telecommunications Employees Association was adamant that Aussat be merged with Telecom in order to prevent competition. The Government agreed to that and in a Press release dated 15 November 1983 the Minister for Communications announced the Government's decision to retain Aussat as a separate Commonwealth owned company which would operate as a commercial taxpaying enterprise. We have already said that we very much agree with Aussat being operated on a commercial basis. The Government also decided that Telecom would be invited to purchase up to 25 per cent of the Government's shareholding in Aussat. There is really not much difference between Telecom having 25 per cent and the Government having the lot except that, as Senator Chipp mentioned a moment ago, it would be very much more difficult in the future to make the whole satellite system a commercial venture rather than a government owned one, if such a decision were ever made by any government in the future. As I have said, we in the Opposition support these Bills. We welcome them. They bring to fruition an idea that the Australian Labor Party once attacked. We have been told by Senator Baume that, as well as there being benefits to certain sectors of remote areas in Australia, there could well be detriments. I hope that the Government will take on board his ideas and make sure that any detriments are kept to an absolute minimum. Senator Baume also mentioned in his speech the omission of one of the obligations of the directors. He mentioned that the Bill states: The Directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as practicable, Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities- (a) of the Commonwealth for the purpose of the provision and maintenance of air navigation facilities and related safety services; (b) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of the provision by the Corporation of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings; and (c) of the Commission for the purpose of the provision of telephonic services in remote areas and of emergency services. The major omission, though, was the obligation on the directors, which was previously in the structure of Aussat, to give commercial television and radio some kind of transmission via the satellite. I ask the Government: Why should not people in remote areas be allowed another frequency apart from ABC radio and television stations? Why should there not be commercial radio and television, even in spite of the difficulties that will be found in trying to decide who would get that commercial outlet? It certainly seems to me, coming from an area where we have fairly limited television-in Hobart we have only two television stations, an ABC one and a commercial one-that to have one channel limits the people in the outback in a way that they should not be limited in this modern age. From a technical point of view, there is absolutely no reason why they should be limited. It certainly seems that a dual service, with provision for even more expansion as the cost of earth receiving stations comes down, is a good idea. I believe the Minister in the other place said that it was the Government's intention at some stage to take into account this matter and to have commercial stations. But I would prefer to see that requirement in these Bills so that the Senate knows exactly what is going on. I will not go into the ownership of Aussat. It has been dealt with by both Senator Chipp and Senator Baume. The Opposition, whilst not agreeing entirely with the way the Government is dividing up the ownership, is not particularly distressed by it although we would like to see somewhat different arrangements. I will be pleased to see the launching of this satellite come to fruition in 1985. I hope that the piece of machinery that is launched does not meet the fate of a couple of other satellites that were launched recently by the United States of America. I think they were owned by India and Indonesia. I am sure that we will take care to see that our satellites do not get into that kind of situation . This is an interesting advancement in communications in this country. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, it will complement Telecom's present service rather than compete with it. I believe that in some areas perhaps Telecom should have some competition. As an electronic engineer I will watch with much interest the future development of this satellite. In closing I say that we welcome the Bills. We note that the ALP once attacked the principle. We have some reservations that Senator Baume has mentioned. We have moved an amendment to the second reading motion and we will move some amendments at the Committee stage. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(5.58) —The introduction of Australia's domestic satellite system is, of course, a major landmark in the history of the nation's communications system. It is particularly important to me that the domestic satellite offer people in remote areas access to radio and television services. In many cases this has not been possible in the past. However, tonight I wish to raise some of the concerns that have been put to me by both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a regional television station, North Queensland Television, regarding the maintenance of local identity within regional areas. As honourable senators are probably aware, I am inclined to keep arguing that it is very important that regional areas maintain their local identity. While there are obvious benefits to all Australians in being able to tune into national news , sporting events, quality entertainment and educational programs beamed from capital cities, I argue and so do many people in regional areas that there are equal benefits to be gained by regional communities receiving news, sport, weather and general information programs about local areas and topical events. I believe that it is most important to remind ourselves of the disadvantages inherent if a realistic balance is not maintained between those two positions. I wish to cite an example. Last Friday in Brisbane the choice of television in that capital city was between Australian current affairs, which I hasten to assure honourable senators I chose, and three American crime programs which offered very little variety, very little choice to the viewer and very little in the area of quality entertainment. One may well ask then, what is the purpose of having access to three commercial channels if 'canned crime' is monopolising prime viewing time in capital cities. Senator Peter Baume —It is not all that is shown. That is the thing. Countdown on the ABC is not a great program for all of us. Senator REYNOLDS —I might say that many of the young people enjoy it. We do not want to see an extension of the situation that I have outlined developing in regional and remote areas of Australia where viewers, it could be argued, could be obliged to accept the often dubious choice of city-based programmers. I return to the representations that I have received from people concerned about regional input. I wish to raise a particular concern about ABC television in central and northern Queensland from Rockhampton and Townsville under the proposed Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. Basically, it is proposed to install two earth stations, one in Rockhampton and one in Townsville. These dishes, or earth stations, will be equipped both to send and receive radio signals to and from the satellite. However, in relation to television, the situation is presently envisaged. The earth stations will be able to receive only and will not be equipped with 'up-link' capacity, that is, to send signals direct to the satellite from either Rockhampton or Townsville. In effect, it may mean a significant reduction in the program reach from either centre. This will certainly be the case if the terrestrial system currently in use is disbanded as a cost saving measure. It will mean that transmission cover will be restricted to areas immediately surrounding Townsville or Rockhampton associated with the power of their transmitters. The decision to curtail the earth station capability is based on cost. To provide an earth station with two-way up and down linking will total around $5m whereas the more simplifed version will be approximately only $1m for both dishes. It appears as if the cheaper option could be considered. I would argue that regionalism in television is just as important as in radio. It would be a retrograde step to opt for the $1m version compared with the $5m version. Senator Peter Baume —Can it be upgraded later? Senator REYNOLDS —I do not know whether it can be upgraded later. But I think that that is not good enough. I think we need to be assured that the preferable choice is instigated at the beginning of planning. It is true that programming can be delivered from Brisbane to the outback via the satellite with the regionals providing material. However, it will be inevitably a macro coverage for all but the immediate environs of Rockhampton or Townsville. The consequence is a decrease in important regional coverage and identity. I trust, therefore, that the ABC will seriously consider the absolute priority of recognising the $5m version if north and central Queensland are not to be isolated in terms of their ability to transmit and contribute to programming in a direct and efficient manner. I know that people in this chamber will, as I have said before, tire of my reminding them that north and central Queensland are very distinctive regions with a total population considerably in excess of that of Tasmania. I think it would be unacceptable if such a decentralised region should inevitably be relegated to direct control from Brisbane. I am afraid that this sort of thing happens in a number of areas. I also wish to raise the concerns of regional commercial television and in this regard I am certainly speaking in terms of future decisions of the Government. North Queensland Television in its submission to me documents the arguments for and against the three currently debated options for providing commercial television to remote areas outside the service areas of existing stations. It argues that option 1, the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service II concept, is apparently problematic as the advertising revenue generated by the service would be insufficient to cover the cost of the four high powered transponders. In regard to option 2 it argues that subscription television is unacceptable as it would be totally discriminatory for people living in remote areas. Option 3, which provides for a networking arrangement to allow major networks to transmit directly to remote areas, is concerning for this station and I believe other regional stations. North Queensland Television claims that because the networks would be transmitting on national beams there would be no regard to time zones and censorship requirements. For example, adult only movies which were being shown in the east at 8.30 p.m. would be seen in Western Australia at 6.30 p.m. It is reported that the networks claim this problem is merely a distraction and is of such insignificance that it should not be allowed to detract from the benefits of remote areas audiences having access to three national commercial networks. In the light of my experience which I outlined earlier I would perhaps question the benefits of access to three national commercial networks. Nevertheless, I think we do need to take the point that North Queensland Television has raised, that if the Government were to accept that view it could in fact make a mockery of everything that has gone before in regard to program standards and censorship regulations. It could, in fact, mean that the people in the outback would receive television signals originating out of Sydney or Melbourne with no local content and no orientation in programming towards the needs of remote area audiences. With three network signals in the outback there would be tremendous pressure on regional stations with only one or two transmissions to increase their program content in quantity but not necessarily quality. The influence on programming by the major networks would then be strengthened to the extent that in some of the smaller markets, regional stations could become virtually no more than relay stations for the major networks. I would like to raise this evening a possible solution that has apparently been discussed. North Queensland Television has proposed that a possible solution would be for State governments to become involved in the provision of a second Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. While on this occasion I will not go into the details of this proposal, I know that this information has been forwarded to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I think it is well worth consideration. I believe that at the moment the Federal Government is conducting a review of the policy on localism in Australian commercial broadcasting to examine the extent to which localism should be maintained. Localism is at the heart of the existence of regional stations and should therefore be maintained and, in fact, further developed. Modern communications via the satellite offer an outstanding opportunity for the extension of media services throughout Australia, but we must ensure that diverse regions throughout this extensive country of ours are not in fact swallowed up by an absolute concentration of programming in capital cities and larger provincial areas. I hope that ongoing discussion of the issues I have raised will in the long term lead to acceptable compromises which will in fact give recognition to the role of regional stations in reflecting and catering for the communities they represent. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.10) —The Satellite Communications Bill lays the foundation for an exciting development in Australia's life. The satellite will bring communications systems to those people who live in the remote areas of our vast country. Although I join Senator Baume in congratulating the present Government and its predecessor on bringing this legislation to finality, there are a number of aspects in this Bill that will involve problems for us all, and particularly for Australians in remote areas. I concur with Senator Baume's remarks about the structure of Aussat, its relation to Telecom and the Opposition's stance on these matters. I also concur with Senator Reynolds, who rightly reflected the interests of the people of north Queensland. I shall endeavour to do the same in regard to the interests of the people in South Australia in the vast northern areas of my State. About a year ago, after the election of the present Government, the future of Aussat was in some doubt. There were pressures on the Government to delay or seriously change the pattern of developments set in train by the former Government. I am happy to see that, despite those pressures, the present Government has endorsed the initiatives set in place and that Aussat will be on time. The satellite should be operating towards the end of 1985. I warmly congratulate the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the other Ministers for the continuing progress in the achievement of the satellite. Some 300,000 people in remote parts of Australia do not have the usual access to telephones, radio and television. They represent some four or five electorates in terms of the House of Representatives and should have some political clout within Parliament. They and others in remote areas of the country are somewhat dispersed over 10 electorates. Fortunately, the Opposition parties represent most of them and one hopes that we shall one day represent them all. We must take up the interests of Australians in remote areas and ensure that the facilities afforded by the satellite will be used to the best effect in improving the quality of their lives. One hears a great deal, not least from those of us in the Senate who are concerned about education policies, about equality of opportunity. We talk about equality of opportunity between government and non-government schools. In regard to the sex discrimination legislation, we talk of equality of opportunity betwen men and women to ensure that there is similar access to jobs or accommodation. We talk about equality of opportunity in the work force when we consider the tragic situation faced by the unemployed. We talk of young Australians having equality of opportunity in finding their share of the jobs that are available. But what about equality of opportunity for Australians in remote areas? Only infrequently does one hear about their needs, and even less frequently does one hear those needs put in terms of equality of opportunity. Honourable senators in all parties often consider the goals of equality of opportunity for black Australians, white Australians, women, men, the young and the old. We should think in similar terms of the needs of those who live in remote Australia. Those needs lead me to outline two problems related to the satellite development. The first is the educational needs of isolated children. In the second reading speech on the Satellite Communications Bill the Minister spoke of the great boon provided by the satellite to communications. He said that it would bring 'news, information and entertainment to all Australians, wherever they may live'. Unfortunately, in those happy phrases the Minister did not mention education. He went on to say: Clearly, the satellite will be a boon to those living in the more remote and outback regions of Australia. It will bring to those Australians the benefit of ABC radio and television services, through the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. However, the Minister did not mention education services or the educational gains from such a satellite. In the discussion in the last few years the public has become excited at the hope of a boon not only in the area of news, information and entertainment communication but also in education. As the dimensions of the practical outworking of the satellite become clearer and clearer as this country approaches 1985, there is fear and concern throughout remote areas of Australia that little indeed will be made available in terms of educational services. Let us consider some of the reasons for this state of affairs. I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television service will be provided through four footprints-four regional ABC television programs. There will be one station for Western Australia, a second involving the Northern Territory and South Australia, a third for Queensland and northern New South Wales and a fourth for New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. Those four footprints receiving ABC television will have some ability to program educational material, whether for children or for adults, at appropriate times as a part of the overall programs throughout the week. There will be some regional diversity since at least there are four footprints, but I understand that the commercial television provided by the satellite will in every instance be national-in other words, one footprint for the whole of Australia. There will not be scope for regional diversity; it will be one national program. If a commercial television station were to program some educational material, all well and good, but it will not have the flexibility which Australians have become used to in the School of the Air programs. They are highly localised and geared to particular educational needs and there is a great deal of feedback from local regions. As I have outlined, the television services from the satellite will have this four-pronged ABC approach and one, two or three national commercial broadcasting approaches. But even if that range of television gives a one-way communication of some useful educational program-especially for children but also for adults, and not least paying regard to the particular needs of Aboriginal communities- there will not be very ready access to a two-way communication process. It will cost any isolated homestead or dwelling an estimated $1,500 to install the meter diameter dish that will be able to receive these programs. That is fine. Most families can save $1,500 over a few years even if they have limited means. In some areas where there is a concentration of 10 or 100 families access to receiving that one-way communication will be even cheaper. Some material will come down from the satellite but there will not be the ability to transmit back up. The cost of the facility for two-way traffic will be 10 times the outlay of $1,500. It is estimated that it will cost $15,000 for any isolated family to be able to broadcast back up. I understand that the transponders and other electronic equipment in the satellite will not have the capacity to receive a response from a whole range of individual families involved in, say, a two-way idealised television communication in an educational mode. I think the people in remote areas of Australia need to understand that it is no accident that the Minister has not referred to education as one of the great boons, as he put it, to come from the satellite. This is a real disappointment because in the last several years the expectation has been excited that there might be. It has also, to some extent, been excited by the presence of that excellent Australian, Mr Rory Treweeke, as one of the directors of Aussat. Mr Treweeke from northern New South Wales is the President of the Isolated Children 's Parents Association, that altogether responsible and exciting association Australia. It has been formed now for 13 years. It was initiated by the remote families of Australia in themselves to do something about the needs, especially education needs, of children on remote homesteads involved in correspondence schools and schools of the air and children taught next door to the kitchens of their mothers and fathers. These marvellous people, working in difficult and remote areas, are amongst those Australians to be included as the salt of the earth. I noted the references of my colleague Senator Peter Baume to the ICPA earlier. I have been proud to be associated with the ICPA throughout the whole of my time in this place. A week ago my wife and I went to Port Augusta to the annual meeting of the ICPA. It was attended by representatives of families in the whole electorate of Grey, in the area from the Peterborough-Broken Hill road, east of Burra, around to Ceduna and to the places between, the Gawler Ranges and Coober Pedy. Unfortunately, some of the most remote communities such as the Pitjantjatjara communities around Marla were sufficiently remote that it was difficult for them to be represented at that annual conference. At that conference I was again reminded that these families are the salt of the earth. They are marvellous people and they are responsible in what they are seeking. One of their highest priorities is the educational needs of their children. It is dawning upon family by family as these meetings see the fuller picture of what Aussat can provide that the educational opportunities will be very limited. There will be some indirect gains, such as the fact that there will be access to entertainment and television and radio voices in addition to the immediate surroundings of an isolated homestead. But if we are to speak about educational programming as part of a curriculum for year 3 or year 7 children, for an adult Aboriginal education program or for any other directly programmed educational objective, unless we see some breakthrough or hear some news beyond that which has been available to date the high expectations that have been excited in recent years will not be lived up to. I therefore make no apology in drawing attention to the fact that the Government, through the Minister's introduction of these Bills, has not referred to educational opportunities from the satellite. I make the point and underline it that we ought not to delude ourselves that some of the present programs of educational benefit to isolated families ought to be denied just because a satellite is coming. Let me refer to the correspondence schools, the schools of the air and the educational video loan scheme. These are now well established facilities assisting families in remote areas but there is some assumption that because the satellite is coming in we may not need these programs and that the satellite will provide for all the remote communication needs. That is not true. Happily, Senator Button is in the Senate. I make a personal appeal to him that in the coming Budget there be confirmation of the moneys available for the home loan video scheme which assists children in remote families. Senator Peter Baume —Also within the satellite you would like to see some of that dedicated to education, still, would you not? Senator TEAGUE —I would still like to see that. Senator Peter Baume knows as does Senator Reynolds that the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has considered my suggestion that we have a Senate inquiry into the educational opportunities made available by the satellite to see what can be achieved and how we can go about making sure that opportunities for educational programming through the satellite are achieved. Certainly we have not seen it yet from Aussat. We have not seen it in terms of the public inputs to the various inquiries that have been conducted by the Department or by Aussat itself . All the hopes that Senator Reynolds has expressed in broader terms about localised communication and the sorts of things I have been speaking about still want to be achieved by very many people in remote areas. Yet we have not got the mechanism or information to give assurance that they can be achieved. As I said, Senator Button is in the chamber. I appeal to him as he is a senior Minister in the Budget process to ensure that there is confirmation of the moneys available for the home loan video scheme. At the moment an isolated child receives two video cassettes each fortnight from a production and distribution centre within the Education Department in each State. A team of people put together appropriate material, some of which includes the child's teacher communicating not only with the voice but, as it were, in person with a picture on the video cassette. They are specially prepared programs that are of interest and are more durable as part of a curriculum appropriate to each level of education. There is no assurance that money will be available for this scheme in any State of Australia after 30 June this year. The program is living on a year- by-year gasp. We need, particularly in the coming financial year, to see the continuation of this program and some statement of policy with regard to the relationship with Aussat and the satellite. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator TEAGUE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, in the debate on the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill I was referring to the educational needs of isolated children in remote areas of Australia and the lack of any direct reference in the Government's support of these Bills to any educational programming or indeed any educational advantage that will be specifically provided through the satellite. In the minutes that remain I want to go on to a second large problem area which a number of people in the community have referred to already but which I do not think has been directly referred to in the debate in the House of Representatives or here in regard to these Bills, and that is, the detrimental impact that Aussat communications are likely to have on remote Aboriginal communities. Inevitably, from the end of 1985 the blanketing of Australian Broadcasting Corporation television and subsequently commercial television and radio programs will have a direct, visual and audible impact upon all of the Aboriginal communities in remote areas. In the last 200 years the more than 200 languages indigenous to Australia have been reduced to about 150. Of those 150 there are only 50 Aboriginal languages which can be called viable; that is, they have a community of at least 100 speakers. About only 10 have a community of speakers of more than 1,000 and some of those range up to 10,000. But of the 30, 000 Aboriginal people in remote communities speaking these 50 to 150 languages we now see the inescapable intrusion of mostly what we can predict will be English language problems compatible with all other Australian listeners, and that continuous blast of the language acceptable to the majority of us in Australia will have a detrimental effect upon the retention and maintenance of those remaining indigenous languages. Whilst this factor has been discussed in some parts of Australia it has not been discussed in the Parliament. I believe that even in Aussat there ought to be a realisation of the impact that television especially will have on these remote communities. I do not wish to be entirely pessimistic because we ought to be looking to the advantages that any good new development in Australia will bring. I will certainly not deny that the Aboriginal communities of Australia will find advantages in information and in widened horizons and a greater understanding of the unity of Australia through the television programming. But let us see that Aboriginal education programs and processes are hit not only by the detrimental effects of television. In these last 200 years we have had the impact upon those communities of the diseases introduced by settlers in Australia that have decimated the population, and then the terror of alcohol and the detrimental effects it has had upon the Aboriginal people. I fear that the third big wave that will undermine the culture and integrity of the Aboriginal people will be this pervasive television. One submission to an inquiry about satellite television which was put in by the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association-CAAMA-which is based in Alice Springs, put it in these terms: . . . the introduction of television to remote communities will have profound effects on the social, linguistic and cultural structures of traditional Aboriginal life. We also believe that the satellite can either be a force for destruction or a powerful tool in the development of Aboriginal people. Consequently, CAAMA feels that remote Aboriginal communities should have complete control over the introduction of any broadcasting services into their communities. Now that plea at the end is just unrealistic. Given that as I pointed out before the dinner break there will be only four ABC footprints in terms of the target areas for the ABC broadcasts, it is totally beyond reality for one regional media association in Alice Springs to have some control. Maybe there will be a public broadcasting approach to the ABC programming that will allow public participation, including CAAMA, and including the Aboriginal communities direct. I put that to the Government and to Aussat. Senator Peter Baume —Has there been any consultation with the communities? Senator TEAGUE —There has been consultation with the communities but it has not reached any real threshold of awareness in the remote areas. I think there have been only small groups that have raised these social and educational questions. So I think that the hope expressed by CAAMA is unrealistic. But let us respond to the fears expressed and to the expression that there be more local involvement so that there can be programming that is responsive to the leadership of local communities themselves and a context of educational and social understanding of how to receive the new medium of English language television amongst these remote communities. I would also like to encourage the greater giving of resources to bilingual education schools in Aboriginal communities and, indeed, to adult educational programs that are bilingual because we will lose a great deal in Australia and in particular the Aboriginal communities will feel a great loss, if a pervasive English television saturation from 1985 denies the maintenance of local languages. The two matters that I have especially tried to raise in my contribution to this debate are the two matters that have been totally omitted in the Government 's own statements in support of this legislation. Both of the matters are of an educational and social nature and deal with isolated children's educational needs and the context of Aboriginal communities and how they may be able, with encouragement, to gain positively rather than be devastated by this new medium that will be upon them. I genuinely urge the Government to make sure that resources are available for compensating measures, complementary to the advances that we will see through this new communications system. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.09) —The Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 are, as far as I am concerned, as a person who comes from the remote areas of Australia and who represents the Northern Territory, the most important pieces of legislation that I have seen before the Senate for quite a long time. They are important because the advent of Australia's own satellite, Aussat, which will be up and flying in 1985, will have a tremendous effect on the people of the outback. A great deal of sophisticated communications equipment has been brought into use in the last decade. It has been very widely used in the highly populated areas of Australia, the eastern seaboard and our cities, but quite often the people who live in those places forget, or perhaps do not even know, the circumstances of many people who live in remote areas. I have lived in these remote areas since I was a child and so have been able to observe the situation. I can well remember that in the late 1920s my uncle was a radio ham. It was he who, in the bar room of the Stuart Arms Hotel, kept tapping out his morse, keeping contact not only with the hams around Australia but also, even in those days, with other countries. Alice Springs had a population then of about 140 or 160 people, with a few miners and pastoralists living in the area. The area was so remote that he was really the centre of communications. It was an incredible time. Very gradually communications in the outback struggled upwards. We had Flynn of the Inland and the pedal wireless set, on which the operators tapped away their message or endeavoured to get their voice over. They pedalled away to generate power, as though they were on a bicycle. Communications gradually progressed until eventually we had improved wireless and the radio telephone. The radio telephone was an enormous leap ahead, but it has not advanced very much over the years. I can say without any doubt whatsoever that communication in the outback is still very poor despite the sophistication and advantages of improved communication as other people know it. This Aussat satellite that will cover the whole of Australia will bring to the people of the remote areas something that those in the cities take for granted. It will make a tremendous impact on the people. I wonder at times whether they consider what that impact will be because into their isolated homes will come communication systems and television not only from Australian cities but also from around the world. There are still very many isolated homes in the outback. Senator Baden Teague made some reference to the Aboriginals. They are gradually finding their way through this new sophisticated world with which they are coming into contact more and more. One must consider what will happen to them. Press statements have been made recently regarding the Aboriginal people. I note particularly reports of two submissions to the inquiry into satellite program services, one by the Northern Territory Government and one by the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. The Association's submission says: We also believe that the satellite can either be a force for destruction or a powerful tool in the development of Aboriginal people. Consequently, CAAMA feels that remote Aboriginal communities should have complete control over the introduction of any broadcasting services into their communities. The Association stresses that it would hope to provide some input itself and that there should be balanced programs which are educational, informative and culturally sensitive. The Northern Territory Government's submission says: While it is true to say that many Aboriginal communities are already exposed to films and video programs of dubious quality, the impact of these and the detrimental effect already indicated will in no way compare with the damage that is likely to occur through saturation of second-rate material on a regular and intensive basis through AUSSAT. Social impact studies in the Third World and of American Indians show the socially destructive effect of unsuitable programs, cultural destructiveness and the contribution to lawlessness and deliquency. It would be naive to expect television not to have some detrimental impact on Aboriginal people and not to bring about some changes. This notwithstanding, it is important that government support concerned Aboriginal organisations in their efforts to ameliorate the potential television has for damage to the social and cultural fabric of Aboriginal society. So it goes on. One must consider, too, the children of the bush, whether living on mining fields or in pastoral homesteads. All these people will be affected by the satellite. I wonder what will happen. Senator Baden Teague raised the same query. It has not yet been said plainly what educational facilities will be available and what the input from local communities into the Aussat system will be. Will the School of the Air still be the dominant means of education? Thank goodness we have had the School of the Air because it has been tremendous for the children of the bush. Will Aussat improve the situation? Will programs contain such a national input that there will be no room for the children of the bush, including the Aboriginal children of the bush, to participate? Will it be just another type of television? While it will bring enjoyment to the people in the remote areas during their leisure time, what more will it contribute? I wonder. Nevertheless, I feel the satellite will be a tremendous thing. I wonder, too, about the fact that people in the cities can switch on their sets and go from program to program and choose whatever they like. They can see national sport here and national sport there. Perhaps they watch it on Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs; perhaps not. Will Australians in remote areas be able to see those national sports which are of such appeal to the people in these remote areas? Is it a fact that the planning of Aussat has changed to such a degree that now we will see an ABC channel but not commercial stations? Why is it that people in the bush have to take what is given to them rather than what was promised to them? Senator Button —Who by? Senator KILGARIFF —It was promised in the original planning of the satellite system. It was my understanding and that of the people at various conferences and such that the people of the bush would have a choice of program. Is it so much to ask for a second channel so that they can have a choice? Are they second -rate citizens? Do they have to be thankful for small mercies? I do not think the satellite is a small mercy. It is a tremendous thing. I am merely saying that surely the people of the bush should have the ability to turn that knob to a second channel. It is very doubtful that those people will have a second channel. It has also been said, very unfairly, that the coalition partners, the former Liberal-National Party Government, actually impeded the process of bringing the satellite to Australia and to the people in remote areas. I note that the honourable member for the Northern Territory made that charge. On what grounds did he do so? As I see it, the project to bring to the people this enormous facility has been a joint effort between the previous Government and this Government. I do not think that in these circumstances political capital should be made of a situation that does not exist. There was also the criticism that somehow or other the coalition would have increased Telecom charges. I have yet to see substantiation of that claim. The question becomes one of how this Government envisages the arrangements for the administration of Aussat as against the arrangements envisaged by the previous Government. I still do not see why private enterprise with a minority shareholding could not have had a say in the satellite. I think that all Australians would agree that control of Aussat should be firmly in the hands of the Australia Government . I agree with that, but I believe, as was initially planned, that 49 per cent of Aussat could be held by private enterprise. If a 49 per cent shareholding were held by private enterprise a tremendous partnership would have developed to the advantage of all Australians. I really do not see the necessity for the decision to have the satellite wholly owned by the Government with perhaps 25 per cent owned by Telecom. I give tremendous support to Telecom. Its systems throughout Australia are doing a tremendous thing for Australia. We can be proud of Telecom and its technical advances. Nevertheless I ask why the Government, because of a particular union pressure, has found it necessary to give 25 per cent ownership to Telecom. Senator Button —Don't be silly. You don't know what you are talking about. Senator KILGARIFF —I appear to be getting some reaction from the Minister. As I have said, I believe Telecom is a tremendous organisation, but I do not see the necessity for its having a share in Aussat. It will be one of Aussat's main clients. I see absolutely no reason for it to hold that shareholding. I return very quickly to the point that a partnership could have been developed between private enterprise and the majority holding of Aussat by the Australian Government. I have been most interested in what has happened to communications in the outback. There is no doubt that in the next two, three or four years we will see enormous steps forward. In the last two days I have received an answer to questions I put to the Government through the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, (Senator Button) regarding Aussat and communications. I thank the Minister for that answer and take the opportunity very briefly to repeat parts of it. I think that it is a very good answer and indicates future directions. The answer states: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be provided with the resources necessary to establish and provide the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service . . . which will enable people in remote areas to receive one ABC television service and at least two radio services. I think it would be very good if there were a briefing paper of the services that will be brought forward by Aussat and by the ABC in the future. We know that in the next two years there will be high fidelity umbrella types of ABC transmitters in the Northern Territory. These transmitters will be at Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. That high fidelity radio through an umbrella network of transmitters will be spread throughout the outback, so that people will receive ABC broadcasts whether they are on cattle stations, a mining field, an Aboriginal settlement, on horseback, in a droving camp or in a vehicle. I repeat that I believe these questions as to how the satellite and the ABC terrestrial system will operate should be answered in a briefing paper. The Minister's answer continues: Funds and resources have been allocated to the Department of Communications to conduct tests of reception of television services by means of small low cost earth stations. When these tests are concluded, the Government will have the information on which technical standards for such earth stations will be determined. This is of a lot of interest to people in the outback. The answer continues: There has been a long standing program for the extension of television and radio services to remote communities and this is continuing. The program includes consideration, in particular instances, of extension by means of satellite rather than terrestrial distribution systems where this is shown to be the most cost effective means to adopt. As an addition to the on-going program, the Government allocated funds from the 1983/84 budget to undertake further extensions to ABC (National) Services through the Remote and Underserved Communities Scheme which will extend radio to 12 nominated areas and television to a further 42 communities. Once again, in the interests of the people of the outback, could there not be some more briefing material provided? The answer continues: In addition, Telecom has announced a program to bring telephone services to remote areas by 1990 through the terrestrial network using Digital Radio Concentrator Systems (DRS) which are designed to extend the basic telephone service to more remote areas in the cheapest possible manner. The cost of providing telephone services to the outback through the satellite system would be considerable. It is my understanding that in the initial planning stages the satellite was to provide telephone services to the outback. What has become of that proposal? The people concerned have not been told in a clear statement whether they can expect telephone services to be provided, as was indicated would be the case in the early planning stages of Aussat. Are they to receive telephone service through the satellite system, or has that proposal been changed? If it has been changed, was that done because of costs? Will the terrestrial network, using digital radio concentrator systems, be more effective and cheaper? Perhaps there is to be a combination of both systems. As I have indicated before, this matter is of tremendous importance to the people of the outback. They have been told so many different stories that they have become very confused. The answer I received continues: Telecom has also announced the Iterra satellite service, designed to provide a range of switched and leased voice and data services for enterprises such as mining, exploration and tourist developments where service is required ahead of normal program-timing. The technical and financial aspects of the provision of a telephone service to those few communities that will be reached by DRCS by 1990 are still under consideration. The people of the outback are Australians and the satellite system is now being developed supposedly for Australians in remote areas. I think the Government could tell these people much more about the project. They are not second-rate citizens. I wonder what benefit these people will eventually receive from the project. The Coalition parties in the House of representatives have made clear their feelings about the various matters concerned with the ownership of Aussat and whether it should provide commerical radio and television services and what have you. However, they did not have the numbers in the House of Representatives and their proposals were defeated when put to a vote. The project has not been delayed. Although the coalition parties' original concept of Aussat has changed to some degree, the coalition has not delayed in any way the passage of the legislation establishing Aussat. This also applies to the coalition parties in the Senate. It is not my wish to take the place of the Opposition senator who is responsible for communictions matters; I merely indicate that the Opposition has very strong feelings about the original concept of the satellite and the services it would provide. Some of those services are no longer to be provided. Because we do not have the numbers we will not be able to have the system that we desire. However, because the satellite means so much to the people of Australia the coalition parties would not consider disrupting the program that will result in Australia having its own satellite. I congratulate the Government on continuing with the project I represent approximately 150,000 to 160,000 people who are scattered over some 540,000 square miles. That is one person for every three square miles. The project is tremendously important to them. The Isolated Children's Parents Association, which is an extremely active organisation, is concerned about many aspects of the proposal. Its members wonder how the satellite will have application to the education of their children. Will it mean a vast improvement in the education available to their children, or will the promises they have heard and read about come to nothing? An important consideration is whether people living in places other than the capital cities will have an input in the determination of the services that the satellite will provide. I do not have anything against the capital cities; I merely wonder whether the people of the outback will have an opportunity to have an input in the determination of whether their region will be provided with education facilities, news services and all those sorts of things that add to communication and the quality of life today. Senator Teague said that a receiving station will be established in Darwin from which broadcasts will be able to be received in the footprint covering the Northern Territory and the northern part of South Australia. If that is the case then there is some merit in the plans. I return now to deal with the Aboriginal people. As I said before, the project will make an immense impression on the Aboriginal people. It will be foisted on them whether they like it or not. As I have said, CAAMA is concerned about this matter. The Northern Territory Government is concerned also. I ask very firmly- not suggest-that before the satellite is launched in 1985 all these matters to which I have referred be resolved. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.38) —The Senate is debating the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill. It is of very great concern to me and to many of the people I represent in Western Australia's remote regions that the policies of this Government in relation to the use of the satellite will prevent many of the potential benefits of the satellite from reaching the people for whom they were originally intended. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has frequently expressed his concern to provide services, including commercial services, to people who at present receive only a limited service or no service at all. Mr Duffy described the Federal Cabinet's decision of 13 July last year to proceed with the development of the national communications satellite as 'splendid news for the whole of Australia, and in particular for remote areas of the continent which have been isolated from adequate radio, television and telephone services for so long'. On 15 November 1983 Mr Duffy delivered to the House of Representatives a statement on the development of satellite related broadcasting services. He said: Our major concern is to provide commercial services to Australians who are presently deprived of them. In the same statement he went on to say: The Government is most concerned about those areas where viewers do not have a choice of services. There is considerable imbalance at present between people living in large metropolitan areas, who can choose between two or three commercial television services, and those in regional areas who have only one service. Doubtless many Australians will recall the rural policy speech made by the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, which he delivered in Griffith in February last year. Regarding the satellite he said: We will give priority to ensuring that the domestic satellite . . . is used for the purpose for which it was originally intended-to provide better broadcasting and telecommunications services for outback communities. Yet all these expressions of concern have been completely negated by this Government's decisions on the use of the satellite, in particular its pronouncement that: Only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will provide direct broadcasting services from the first two satellites. Commercial broadcasting uses of all transponders will be confined to national beams and will be encoded. Quite simply, that means that remote and isolated communities will not now be able to receive commercial television. Each satellite has four of the powerful 30-watt transponders. The 30-watt transponders on the first satellite will be set in spot beams covering the north-east, the south-east and the western and central regions of Australia. The signal strength from these spot beams will be sufficient for reception by a small earth station costing around $1,000. These transponders have been set aside for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to provide the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. This means that for the first time 315,000 people who have previously been without television will now be able to receive the ABC-whatever blessing that might be. However, it should be remembered that to do so they will have to pay $1,000 or more for a service that the great majority of Australians have already and, of course, take for granted. Originally the four 30-watt transponders on the second satellite were envisaged as providing a backup to the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. It was soon realised that this would not represent the best interests of the satellite's capacity and the four transponders would be best used in providing a commercial homestead and community broadcasting service. The previous Liberal Government had clearly expressed its intention that this would be how the four 30-watt transponders on the second satellite would be used. In outlining the proposed service requirements for the communications satellite system in 1980, the then Minister for Post and Telecommunictions, Mr Staley, indicated that the satellite should facilitate 'arrangements conducive to the provision of a second homestead and community broadcasting service'. This was reiterated by the then Minister for Communications, Mr Sinclair, in May 1982 when he said that it was the Government's intention that the services provided by the satellite would include 'the use of a second homestead and community broadcasting satellite service'. If the 30-watt transponders on the second satellite are allowed to be used for commercial broadcasting through a spot beam, people will be able to receive a commercial television service through the same earth station that they instal to pick up the ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. However, this Government in its wisdom has decided that this is not to be the case and that commercial broadcasting is to be allowed only through a national beam. That means that the strength of the signal from the 30-watt transponders will be greatly reduced so it will not be possible for the people in remote and regional areas to receive commercial television unless they can afford the large antenna costing in the region of $7,000. In any case, the signals are now to be encoded so they would be able to receive only the signals from approved stations and they would then have to be transmitted. As Mr Duffy admitted, quite simply this means that at this stage it will not be possible to receive direct broadcasts of commercial stations in the home via the satellites. This will come as a severe blow to the estimated 682,000 Australians who presently do not have access to commercial television. It would be particularly unfortunate for the people in my electorate of Western Australia which has a high percentage of its population living in isolated and remote parts of the State. The Commonwealth Government's 1980 publication Atlas of Australian Resources presented an analysis of the population distribution. This separated three zones of concentration of population, with zone 3-the zone of sparce settlement- representing the zone with the lowest concentration of population. Interestingly , of all the States, Western Australia had the greatest percentage of its population living in zone 3. The figures were based on the 1976 census. At that time there were some 110,000 people living in zone 3 out of a total population in Western Australia of 1.1 million. Furthermore, the analysis showed that the number of people living in zone 3 had increased more quickly than in any other State. During the period 1971 to 1976 the number of people living in the sparcely settled zone increased by 4.2 per cent, compared with an increase of 2. 6 per cent in Queensland, and decreases in New South Wales and South Australia. In quantitative terms, 42,000 people in Western Australia have no television service whatsoever. It is estimated that some 117,000 people receive no commercial television. Of course, in absolute terms we are talking about a small number of people. I concede that. However, it might be worth considering that many of the people who live in remote and isolated areas, and do so without many of the services that the rest of the community take for granted, contribute a great deal to the Australian community as a whole. Many are engaged in the production of mineral and other agricultural products which create wealth for the country quite disproportionate to the number of people involved. I suggest that there is a very great contrast between what these people contribute to the Australian community and what the Australian community contributes to them. The decision regarding the allocation of the 30-watt transponders rests ultimately with Aussat Pty Ltd, which must take into account the Minister's guidelines which state that all transponder capacity allocated for commercial television must be in a national beam, and signals using this capacity must be encoded before transmission via satellite. The very likely outcome will be that the three major capital city networks will take up three of the transponders and use them to distribute programs to the regional stations. This task could be performed quite adequately by the 12-watt transponders. To allow use of the more powerful transponders for this purpose represents, in my view, a tragic waste of the satellite's capacity and a misallocation of its potential. The Government has introduced a supplementary licence scheme, whereby a commercial television or radio station located outside a capital city may apply for one supplementary licence to provide an additional service in the same medium. This will increase the choice available to viewers who already receive a commercial television service but, as Mr Duffy admitted: Unfortunately, supplementary stations are no advantage to the 200,000 households in remote areas who do not have even an original commercial television service. The Government's argument for scrapping a commercial homestead and community broadcasting service, using the 30-watt transponders in a spot beam configuration, is that it would not a viable service for a commercial company to operate. Again, I quote Mr Duffy: The thinly scattered population in remote areas is not financially attractive to advertiser-supported services. Yet clearly they are people who disagree with the Government upon this point. In Western Australia, the Golden West Network Limited has submitted a proposal for a remote community television service which would involve leasing a 30-watt transponder in a spot beam configuration. The proposal of the Golden West Network would provide two alternative commercial television channels to Western Australians living in remote and regional areas. The network plans to use a mixture of programs from the major networks and a substantial amount of local news and content. In addition, the Western Australian Government, in its submission to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry into the use of satellite program services, suggested that it would be possible to provide a commercial service to remote areas by forming a consortium of State Government and commercial interests. This consortium would share the use of a 30-watt transponder fixed in a spot beam. The submission from the Western Australian Government pointed out that it was people living in isolated areas who at present received only ABC television or no television at all 'that are most likely to be neglected in any commercial efforts to use satellite program services . . . as presently envisaged, namely where relatively weak signals from the satellite are received at many ''community'' stations, for later retransmission or for more or less instantaneous reradiation'. The only barrier to those schemes is the Government's refusal to allow commercial broadcasting via the satellite in a spot beam configuration. The other point I make in this regard concerns the delay on the part of the Government in deciding whether to allow some sort of pay television service, where viewers would pay a fee to receive television programs. I believe this is another choice which may be available to all Australians. However, I believe that the priority ought to be to provide free commercial television so that everyone in Australia has the choice of television viewing that already most people in Australia take for granted. In November the Minister for Communications stated: Every Australian will have at least one commercial television service potentially available; I would like to know exactly what he meant by that. Certainly under the restrictions that have been imposed, only people who now receive commercial television will benefit by possibly receiving a greater choice of channels under the supplementary licence scheme. Those people who already are out of range of their local television station's transmission range will not receive commercial television. Certainly the satellite provides the potential for all Australias to receive commercial television. This Government's policy has simply removed the means by which this can be done. I turn now to the further section of the Bill that deals with the ownership of Aussat, namely, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of 25 per cent of the shares in Aussat to Telecom Australia. I make the observation that, of course, this is a reversal of the decision that was announced by Mr Keating, and I suspect supported by Senator Button, in the economic statement of May 1983. The then Government said that 49 per cent of its equity in Aussat Pty Ltd would be sold to allow private sector participation in the ownership of the satellite communications system. Senator Button —Why do you fix me with your bizarre speculation, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not think it is speculation and I do not think it is bizarre, but if Senator Button wants to deny it categorically I will accept his word. Now we are told that Aussat will be retained as a separate Commonwealth-owned company and in addition Telecom will buy one quarter of the Government's 100 per cent shareholding. Clearly, the reason for this is to allow Telecom some measure of control over the development of satellite related services. However, surely it would have been possible for Telecom to obtain adequate protection through legislative provisions rather than squandering taxpayers' money in this venture. Indeed, this Bill already seeks to give Telecom a great deal of protection from potential competition. For example, the Bill will prevent Aussat from providing public switched telephone services and public switched data bases, thus confirming and preserving Telecom's monopoly in this area. It is hard to see where the necessity for a 25 per cent shareholding in Aussat by Telecom lies. To take up this shareholding will cost Telecom in the region of $19m. Surely this money would be far better spent in upgrading its terrestrial network. In my State of Western Australia alone there are still some 412 customers-let us remember that an isolated homestead counts as just one customer so the number of people affected would be rather higher-who are still using one of the 64 manual exchanges in the State. One hundred and ninety-six customers have party lines. In addition, almost 200 people are at present on a waiting list of three months or more to have telephones installed. The new digital radio concentrator system will undoubtedly effect great improvements in Telecom's ability to provide telephone services to people in isolated regions. As I understand it, Telecom has estimated that it will be possible to connect all the remote areas of Australia to the national automatic telecommunications network for a cost of some $400m. In my view Telecom would do better to concentrate its efforts and resources on this important work. One also wonders exactly where Telecom will find the funds to take up this 25 per cent shareholding. In the last financial year profits fell by $12m to $263m which represents only a 2.9 per cent return on capital investment. To find the money to buy into Aussat, it would seem to me that Telecom will either have to make cost savings and perhaps slow down its program of improvements to the terrestrial network, or increase its charges so that Telecom users will find themselves subsidising Telecom's shareholdings in Aussat. Telecom has already increased its charges very substantially in the last few years. Since 1982 the cost of a local call has risen from 9c to 15c. Since 1981 the cost of renting a private telephone has risen from an annual charge of $85 to $115. Likewise, the cost of renting a business phone has risen from $120 a year to $190 a year. The latest of these increases came into effect in only October of last year. I can see no justification for Telecom outlaying funds on Aussat and I am sure that Telecom's customers would much prefer, as would the great majority of Australians, to see this money used to keep down telephone charges. Certainly Telecom should be allowed to make some contribution to the future development of the satellite, but this does not require that it should own part of the company. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(8.55) —I thank honourable senators who have contributed to this debate with a series of wide-ranging observations about what is in fact a fairly simple piece of legislation. Listening to some of the speeches-I regret that sadly I did not have the opportunity to hear them all -I was reminded of that great story of Gertrude Stein on her death bed. She is alleged to have sat up in bed and said loudly: 'What is the answer? What is the answer?' She then said 'But of course, what is the question?', and fell back and died. In the course of the debate on this legislation there have been many of those sorts of rhetorical questions. It really is surprising, when one views the history of this matter. I will come to that in a minute. Many of the specific questions, which I will not answer, relate to what the Government might do in the Budget about video programs for children and things of that kind. I do not think it is the responsibility of any Minister to try to answer those questions in the course of a debate on this legislation. Senator Kilgariff asked a number of rhetorical questions about what the satellite will do for people in the bush. I will come to that in a minute. If one reflects on the history of the satellite it had rather the same sorts of characteristics about it as the history of the film incentives, for example. Allegedly that scheme was suggested to the former Prime Minister by a make-up girl at Channel 7 and it subsequently became government policy. In fact, if one looks at the history of the satellite, the idea was suggested to the former Government by Kerry Packer who commissioned the Bond report. If one goes back to that report one will find many promises about the sorts of services that the satellite might provide to people in the bush. Those non-government proponents of the satellite really did beat up a whole series of suggestions in support of otherwise dubious arguments in favour of Australia having a satellite. The history of the development of the satellite up to the stage of this legislation, or until quite recently, has really been a chaotic one in which the promises have been made, the details not adequately considered-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Expectations lifted too high. Senator BUTTON —I agree that expectations were lifted too high. Indeed, I might unfairly characterise it as an extraordinary example of planning whereby one actually gets to the stage of technical development of the satellite proposal without at that stage realising what the market is for its services. I would have thought that one would begin by trying to assess the market and then go to planning of the service which would provide satisfaction in the market, rather than the other way round which in fact is what has happened with the development of this project. In remote areas, of course, the satellite will ensure services by radio and by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television service to a lot of people who currently do not obtain those services. I think it is fair to say that it is not possible to put it higher than to say that, in providing an extra facility in the telecommunications system, it is possible that in the future it will enable the provision of a wider range of services to people in remote areas than if the satellite had not been there, but sometimes at considerable cost and at considerable technical difficulty. That is something for the future. Of course it will, in terms of its very existence, improve the services available to people in the outback, which I suppose was the burden of Senator Kilgariff's speech. There are all sorts of speculations about what might happen in relation to the provision of extra services to remote communities. I do not think it is fair to say that the promises to which Senator Kilgariff referred were made by people in this Government. There was a lot of wild speculation early in the history of the development of the satellite proposal. The essential features of this Bill, which if I might say so not uncharitably were scarcely the topic of debate in the Senate, establish the ownership and management structure of and particularly the shareholding arrangements for Aussat Pty Ltd. Secondly, the features can perhaps be described as integrating the telecommunications service by Telecom Australia and Aussat into one network. I think the point about integration is of great importance because at an early stage of planning of the satellite proposal not much coherent thought was really given to the question of integration of the services which are provided by the satellite and the services which are provided terrestrially by Telecom. I think the provision of that degree of integration is an important aspect of that legislation. That degree of integration is reflected in part in the provisions relating to ownership and the 25 per cent Telecom shareholding in Aussat. I think the third feature of the legislation which is important and which also relates to that same issue is that the regulation of third party traffic on the satellite will be along the same lines as existing Telecom regulations in relation to existing services. I think that in a sense those three important points in the legislation all go to that one question of the importance of integrating the two systems into one telecommunications service for the benefit of all Australians. I think there will be great benefits in that. I do not want to anticipate a whole series of questions next time around by making promises about when and to what extent those services will be able to be delivered. One other comment I would like to make is that many honourable senators have raised a whole range of issues relating to their approval or otherwise of Telecom. A number of important issues were raised regarding telecommunications policy, many of which were dealt with in the report of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia. That committee looked at Telecom. I just make the point that when people talk about the charges and the profits made by Telecom and so on it should not be forgotten that Telecom is there to provide a community service. It does provide a community service. It does provide a community service. In particular it provides a community service to people in the remote areas of Australia by way of cross-subsidisation of the very expensive services which are delivered to those communities. I do not think that those issues should be forgotten in the course of a debate of this kind. I remind Opposition senators that while the Government of the day dithered over the recommendations of the Davidson committee of inquiry-I think it is fair to say that the responses of the then Government were as coherent as the Opposition 's current responses on wages policy-many of these essential issues in regard to the provision of telecommunications services in Australia were potentially overlooked. I do not think that in 1984 we should go through that same process again. The Government is not particularly concerned about Senator Baume's amendment to the motion that the Bills be read a second time. The amendment, in part, seeks to add to that motion an opinion of the Senate. That opinion simply is that the services provided by the Australian Telecommunicatons Commission and partnerships entered into by the Commission be subject to the same tax and dividend requirements as competing commercial companies. I think that is a very sensible opinion. Whether the Government follows that sensible opinion or not will be determined at the appropriate time. There are things to be said on both sides of the argument in relation to that issue and I do not want to canvass the issue beyond that at this stage. If the Senate wants to express that opinion I have no dubt that the Government will take notice of it in any decision it makes about this matter. I thank honourable senators who have contributed to the debate and I commend to the Senate the second reading of these two Bills. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. (Quorum formed) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —As there are amendments to both the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, is it the wish of the Committee that the Bills be considered separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS BILL 1984 Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Obligations of Directors of Aussat). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.10) —I move: (1) Page 3, clause 8, sub-clause (1), after paragraph (c), add the following new paragraphs: '(d) of a commercial television service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia; and (e) of a commercial broadcasting service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia.'. Clause 8 stipulates that the directors shall carry out certain functions. The Government has dropped one of the Opposition's prime objectives for Aussat, namely, that of providing remote areas with commercial radio and television services. Our amendment seeks to include provision of commercial television broadcasting services for people who live in remote communities and dwellings. Honourable senators who spoke in the second reading debate drew attention to the problems involved in the narrow choice of the phrase 'remote Australia' and pointed to the desirability of giving directions to the directors of Aussat that these functions shall be provided. The Opposition believes that it is the right of every Australian to have as wide a choice of services as possible. If it is possible to make the choice broader than the excellent service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Opposition believes that such services should be made available to the public. In our view, this satellite will afford such an opportunity. The previous Government proposed four zones with high powered transponders on the second satellite, or a mix between the two satellites on spot beam, to cover Australia with a free commercial service. My colleague Senator Teague drew attention to some of the problems which remain unresolved on the topic of national versus regional services as to the proper way in which regional services would operate. But that is not the threshold issue. That issue is whether commercial services should be made available. The Opposition believes that the Government, having taken a decision on the transponders with reference to satellite program services to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have probably made it impossible for free commercial television services to be provided in the cheapest and simplest way possible. We believe that the people in remote Australia-non-metropolitan Australia-deserve some commitment to commercial television and commercial radio as well as receiving the excellent ABC services. I commend the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.12) —The Democrats commend the Opposition on moving this amendment. However, my party cannot support the amendment for reasons I gave in my second reading speech, plus the brief comments which I shall now make. The Opposition amendment alters the obligations of Aussat to include the provision of full commercial broadcasting and television services to remote areas. That is a commendable idea and indeed is the rationale behind the satellite. However, the provision of a free commercial service does not satisfy the requirement of specialised and relevant broadcasting for remote communities. We believe that there are options for broadcasters using the satellite other than existing commercial operators which would better serve the interests of remote communities. It is a savage indictment that remote communities will have to wait until about 1986 or 1987 for relevant broadcasting. In our view, that service should not now be compromised by creating an obligation that it has to be commercial. We understand the thrust of the Opposition amendment but, for the reasons I have given, the Democrats cannot support it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.14) —The legislation contains no prohibitions on the development of commercial services on the satellite for remote communities. The Opposition's intention in seeking to include such a proposal in this Bill is unnecessary, however commendable in motherhood terms it might be. The purpose of this clause is designed to ensure that the public interest aspects of the satellite transmissions are met and that the obligation is placed squarely on the directors in terms of their responsibilities. The clause requires that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Department of Aviation and Telecom Australia be given priority in satellite capacity. They are essential government services which have been much lauded in debate in the Senate in the last few hours. To place commercial broadcasting on the same footing as an essential public service as provided in the clause would elevate it, however highly one might think of the commercial broadcasting services, to a position that is not justified. It would not be appropriate for the objects of providing commercial broadcasting to remote areas to be included in this clause of the Bill. The Government is fully aware of the fact that the satellite might at an appropriate time provide commercial broadcasting services to remote communities. The Government is currently examining how this can be done and decisions on this matter should be publicly available at some time in the latter half of this year . In using satellite technology, as with the existing Australian telecommunications technology, one is concerned with add-on arrangements in terms of services. They all involve additional planning and costs. The Government is mindful of that factor, and does not want in this legislation to be saddled with an obligation which is put in motherhood terms. For those reasons the amendment is not acceptable. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCrichton-Brown, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Harradine, B. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J Cook, P. F. S. Watson, J. O. W. Tate, M. C. Hamer, D. J. Georges, G. Jessop, D. S. Ray, Robert Townley, M. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 8A. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.24) —I move: Page 3, after clause 8, insert the following new clause: 'Directors of Aussat 8A. (1) In this section- 'Commissioner' means- (a) the Managing Director of the Commission; or (b) another Commissioner holding office under section 22 of the Telecommunications Act 1975; 'prescribed person' means- (a) a Commissioner; or (b) a person holding an office in the Service that is higher than any office in the Service held by a person who is principally responsible for the management of the affairs of the Commission in a State; 'Service' means the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service established by section 38 of the Telecommunications Act 1975. (2) At any time- (a) the Directors of Aussat shall not include more than 2 persons who are, or, within the period of 3 years immediately preceding their appointment, have been, prescribed persons; and (b) at least three-quarters of the Directors of Aussat shall be persons other than persons who are, or, within that period, have been, prescribed persons.'. The amendment relates to the number of directors of Aussat Pty Ltd. If the number of directors increases from the present number of 11, there is a provision that at least three quarters of those directors shall be persons other than Telecom-related prescribed persons. The whole thrust of the amendment, as I said in my speech on the second reading, is to limit the number of Telecom or Telecom-related directors to two persons out of the current 11. As I said, if that number increases beyond 11 there is provision to cover that. The Bill already contains a provision that the shareholding by Telecom in Aussat cannot exceed 25 per cent. Any amendment to that situation has to be approved by the Parliament; it cannot be made by regulation. This amendment shores up the other danger of a takeover by Telecom in that its management, in the form of the number of directors on the board, cannot exceed 25 per cent. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.25) —The Opposition supports the amendment which has been moved by the Australian Democrats. We believe, for the reasons set out by Senator Chipp, that it is a suitable amendment. As we have made clear, we would prefer a different relationship between Telecom and Aussat. Senator Chipp —So would we. Senator PETER BAUME —So would the Australian Democrats, but given the situation we face this amendment seems to have merit and it will have the support of the Opposition. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.26) —Mr Chairman-- Senator Chipp —Come on, let's have consensus with a big 'C'. Senator BUTTON —Right, we agree too. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clauses 9 and 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Shares of Aussat). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.26) —I move: Page 3, clause 11, lines 24 to 39, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: '11. (1) Shares in Aussat are not capable of being held by any person other than- (a) the Commonwealth; (b) a person as trustee for the Commonwealth; or (c) such non-statutory corporation, entity, or person as may be prescribed. (2) Each share in Aussat shall be issued with the same rights and restrictions with regard to voting. (3) No shares in Aussat can be sold or transferred unless a statement of the proposed sale or transfer has been laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposed sale or transfer has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament. (4) Any issue, sale or transfer of shares, or any arrangement or agreement, that is contrary to this section is void and of no effect.' The amendment is in line with the sentiments raised during the second reading debate. We are concerned about the proposal to offer some shareholding to Telecom Australia and we wish to retain Aussat Pty Ltd as a private company with the shares completely owed by the Commonwealth and without any shares held by Telecom. Although I did not point this out during the second reading, debate, the role of Telecom throughout the last few years has been a most interesting one. It lobbied very hard initially to prevent the satellite project proceeding and it did all it could to obstruct the setting up of Aussat and the whole establishment of the projects. Having failed in that it then sought to reverse its ground and did a real Sir Humphrey act. Having failed there it wanted to take over the whole operation. Having tried to obstruct it and to have the whole satellite operation contained within Telecom and having failed, it came back to see whether it could control Aussat. During the debate I quoted certain Press releases which were issued by Labor Party spokesmen in the late 1970s. I am sure that they were prompted by pressure from Telecom putting a certain view about the whole Aussat proposal. Senator Chipp —Or by the Telecom union. Senator PETER BAUME —And/or by the Telecom union. We have some documents from the Telecom union which make quite clear what its proposal is and what its view is. Certain people are talking about the acquisition of power and the using of power. We can understand what has gone on in those kind of terms. We simply believe that it is not appropriate and we think it is not necessary for Telecom to be a shareholder in Aussat. We think that that arrangement gives power to Telecom over the operations, the future and the development of Aussat. We think it is more appropriate for the ownership of that company to remain either completely with the Government or, as we proposed when we were in government, with some form of private shareholding. I understand the point that Senator Chipp made in the debate, that his Party had considered the same proposition and it had concerns as to how that private equity would be granted and whether one could get past the use of nominees to concentrate ownership. I understand that problem and I do not believe that it could not be resolved. Senator Chipp —It has not been resolved properly for the ownership of television stations, has it? Senator PETER BAUME —I still think we could have resolved it and built sanctions within the legislation had we gone down that road. We cannot see any really rational reason for the Government to have proceeded as it has. We think the revised decision by the Government with respect to ownership of the satellite is a measure of the power which the particular union has over Government members and Caucus and therefore over the Government. It is widely known that the ATEA, the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, wants to protect its position of power over the provision of telecommunications services in Australia and, of course, that power is weakened to the extent that the Aussat system does not come within the purview of its union. It has undertaken intense lobbying and it has been able to reverse the statement and the commitment made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last year in his May statement, the mini-Budget statement, when he confirmed that 49 per cent of the shareholding of the satellite would be sold to the private sector. This is just one of many policy reversals. It is a matter which we believe is wrong as a method of government operation, and to that extent we think it is wrong in principle. Because of that we have moved amendment No. (2), which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition, which seeks to leave out clause 11, lines 24 to 39, and to insert certain other words which have the effect of restricting the ownership in the way in which I have set out in this speech to the Committee. I commend the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.31) —Mr Temporary Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Button, set a magnificent example of brevity in his last response which I would like to follow. Senator Button —You have set a magnificent example of inaccuracy in describing me as the Leader of the Opposition. We have been here for 13 months now. Senator CHIPP —Yes. I stand quite properly rebuked and I ask the Leader of the Government to forgive me. But for reasons I gave in my speech at the second reading stage, although we sympathise very much with the sentiments and everything that Senator Peter Baume has said on behalf of the Opposition, the Democrats cannot support the amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.32) —The Government will not accept this amendment. The actual effect of it would be to allow the sale of shares to private shareholders up to 100 per cent and, of course, to exclude participation by Telecom Australia or by statutory authorities in the ownership of Aussat Pty Ltd. I do not know what Senator Baume is talking about when he says that on the one hand the Opposition thinks Aussat should be fully owned by the Government- 100 per cent-which is what he said a minute or two ago, and on the other hand he says we can have an optional policy which involves 50, 51 or 49 per cent owned by private enterprise or, for that matter, 100 per cent. I think it is extraordinary that an amendment should be moved like this and supported by comments like that. The Opposition is saying: We will have anything rather than what the Government has proposed. 'We have no idea what, but anything will do rather than what the Government has proposed'. I just make the point again that I made in the second reading debate: If the satellite-imposed on this country by a series of ad hoc decisions made in haste rather than in quiet reflection, made in terms of grandiose speculations about the benefits which would be provided rather than serious assessments-which has been thrust upon us and which this Government inherited is to operate successfully, it must do so as part of an integrated telecommunications network. It cannot do so in terms of two rival systems, totally divorced in terms of ownership, competing in terms of this most valuable resource, the provision of telecommunications services. It must be, to use Senator Chipp's phrase of a few minutes ago, a consensual arrangement, a co-operative arrangement, between Aussat and Telecom. We do not in any way retreat-and I do not want anything I said earlier to be taken as a sign of retreat-from the benefits which the satellite can provide to Australia in terms of provision of the most up to date telecommunications services. But those benefits cannot be fully gained with an amorphous sort of ownership structure, as suggested by the Opposition. They can be gained only by the integrated approach which the Government has developed both in relation to the development of the services and the ownership and management of the satellite. Senator Chipp —With respect, what you are saying does not differ essentially from what Senator Baume is saying. Senator BUTTON —Oh, yes it does, Senator. The Government's proposition is quite simply about the ownership of the satellite. It provides for a 25 per cent ownership by Telecom and the remaining 75 per cent to be held by the Government. The purpose of the 25 per cent ownership by Telecom and indeed the purpose of the honourable senator's own amendment in a sense, Senator Chipp, is to provide that there is a sensible integration of management at the board level in Aussat. What Senator Baume is saying is: 'We, the Opposition, do not like that arrangement and we suggest a few optional bargain basement alternatives'. Senator Chipp —Which was your original position, with great respect. Senator BUTTON —I am not talking about anybody's original position, I am talking about what is in the legislation. We were offered a couple of alternatives which there is no clarity about and which do not in any sense ensure any integration between the two arms of the telecommunications system. That is what we are concerned to do. The amendment is not accepted. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.36) —I really must respond to what was a most non-logical argument; it was simply not logical. Senator Grimes —Try 'illogical'. Senator PETER BAUME —Well, illogical, if honourable senators wish. But there has been no really coherent argument as to why the integrated approach the Government holds so essential in April 1984 is the one that must be preferred. Senator Chipp —In 1983. Senator PETER BAUME —Whereas in May 1983, which is precisely the point Senator Chipp is making, the Government propounded with equal fervour a different proposition, in fact the one that we believe still is the more appropriate one. The only logical reason we can see is that the Government was giving way in the face of pressure from the union involved and there has been no real argument or demonstration as to why this integration, which was not present in 1983, is now so essential in 1984. Secondly, Senator Button has criticised the form of this amendment as permitting ownership up to any per cent by private individuals. I think he should read the amendment. First of all, it merely provides a framework within which the shareholding can take place. But if one reads further through that amendment, at all stages it requires government decision, government action and parliamentary acquiescence to any course that is proposed. Of course this would permit any individuals to hold any shares, even with this legislation in place, only if it was the wish of the Government so to proceed. It says so quite explicitly. First of all clause 11 (1) (c) refers to such non-statutory corporation, entity or person as may be prescribed. So unless bodies or individuals are prescribed they cannot hold shares. Secondly, it goes on to state: . . . No shares . . . can be sold or transferred unless a statement of the proposed sale or transfer has been laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposed sale or transfer has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament. This is nothing that can be done without the acquiescence of government. It requires both Houses of Parliament to agree. Control stays with the Government. The clause goes on to say that any sale or transfer of shares contrary to this section is void and of no effect. So all we are trying to do is provide a framework and say that the Government then controls what happens subsequently. That is why I drew a number of alternative possibilities. I still believe that the amendment proposed is a desirable amendment, and the Opposition will press it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.40) —Briefly, in 1983 the Government inherited two things from the previous Government-an economic mess and a mess of planning in relation to the satellite. Both those problems had to be resolved. I suppose some of the Government's suggestions in 1983 were an attempt to sort out the economic mess at the expense of the most rational and sensible planning for the development of the satellite. It is important to remember that even in the 1983 proposal there were very serious strictures about public interest. The suggestion is that the Government changed it mind between 1983 and 1984 as a result of union pressure. The union pressure was for 100 per cent ownership of the satellite by Telecom Australia. If it is suggested that that led to the Government's decision, I doubt very much whether that could be described as a very good example of successful pressure. The decision made by the Government relates to and is reflected in this legislation. That is the matter we are debating here. On that basis the amendment is not acceptable. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator K. W. Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Martin, M. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, M. E. (Teller)Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Hilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Harradine, B. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S. Hamer, B. J. Tate, M. C. Chaney, F. M. Georges, G. Durrack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Ray, Robert Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 12 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 (Aussat satellite facilities not to be used for certain businesses). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.48) —I did not rise to speak on clauses 13 to 16 because the amendments the Opposition wishes to move to clause 17 are not unrelated to those clauses. Under clause 13, Aussat Pty Ltd will be permitted to offer private but not public switched television and data services. This is designed to create considerable competition with Telecom Australia for the growing company and business organisation traffic. It is generally felt that Telecom has been slow to provide this service for industry. It was not our decision to oppose that provision. Although some representations were made and we had to consider whether that was the best arrangement, we did not oppose it. However, we now come to clause 17 which involves restrictions on third party use. It is generally considered that the restrictions on third party use contained in clause 17 are more restrictive of Aussat than the public switched exclusion that I just mentioned, in that the restriction on such use will be inserted by legislation and regulation whereas with Telecom, management itself can determine its own rules in relation to these matters. Thus Aussat will be limited by legislative limitation whereas Telecom has the advantage in that it has no such detailed limitation upon it. Telecom, Australia Post, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and others determined by the Minister are exempted from this restriction on third party use. Telecom is already exempt from ministerial regulation for the public switched network and it is allowing an increasing amount of such traffic. We think that clause 17 will severely limit the ability of Aussat to offer worthwhile communications services for the business sector in competition with Telecom. It is thought that those affected could include television networks, regional television stations, Qantas Airways Ltd, computerised booking services, the wire services of Australia, Australian Associated Press, and electronic mail and data services. The private sector has been very concerned about the restriction in this provision. In fact, it thinks the restriction is far more important than anything contained in clause 13 to which I referred earlier. We would like to see Aussat able to operate in this area on the same basis as Telecom. We do not think that that is unreasonable; yet Aussat has been put on a different, more restrictive basis than Telecom. It is for that reason that we propose amendments (3) and (4) to clause 17. I seek leave to move both amendments together. Leave granted. Senator Peter BAUME —I thank the Committee. I move: (3) Page 5, clause 17, sub-clause (1), lines 18 and 19, leave out 'Aussat or an eligible person', insert 'Aussat, an eligible person or an authorised user to the extent (if any) permitted by agreement entered into between Aussat and that authorised user'. (4) Page 5, clause 17, sub-clause (3), lines 27 to 32, leave out the sub-clause , insert the following sub-clause: '(3) In this section- ''eligible person'' means- (a) the Commission; (b) the Australian Postal Commission; or ''authorised user'' means a person provided for in sub-section 16 (2) to the extent (if any) authorised by agreement between Aussat and that authorised user to conduct such a business.'. The intention of these amendments is to place Aussat Pty Ltd on the same basis as Telecom Australia in the very limited area of private data and switched traffic which is about 4 per cent of Telecom's business. This is not attempting in any way to interfere with the public switched network of Telecom; that is to say, it is not attempting to interfere with the public telephone system. We are talking about a degree of competition in a specialised area which represents about 4 per cent of the traffic. The growth in competition will be such that in any one year competition in this very limited area will not be very significant to Telecom. We are not sure that it would be very significant to Aussat, but we think it should have the capacity to compete equally with Telecom. As yet we have not heard what the Government's intention or what its definition is with regard to regulations for third party traffic as between Telecom and Aussat. We do know that it is intended that there will be some severe restrictions. Many people in the business community are anxious to learn the Government's intentions in this regard. We believe that in the interests of equal competition the amendments we have moved are appropriate. I therefore commend them to the Committee. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.54) —These Opposition amendments are intended to allow competition between Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd and authorised private users in the area of private data transfer. As with the Opposition's other amendmens, they have an appealing ring. One can warm to the thrust of them and to the reasons for which they have been put forward. However, it has been pointed out to us that these amendments, although their thrust is desirable, could have serious side effects. As I understand the amendments, they follow representations from the private sector to the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The Australian Democrats also received those representations. People in the private sector have expressed grave concern that they could not operate their proposed businesses. I have been in contact with Aussat to seek its reaction to the problem. It assured me that the people raising the problem would be able to operate their information businesses. Senator Baume might well say that that is all very well but that it would be better to have that assurance in the legislation. I would agree with him. I just feel nervous about fiddling with this legislation. During the second reading debate Senator Baume, in an exchange with me, described the Government's position as it has put it to us as being blackmail or something like that. I was not quite as unkind as that to the Goverment, but being a realist I am impressed by an argument that has surfaced in the Press that the Liberals, the Nationals and the Democrats are lucky to have this legislation in its present form with Telecom having only a 25 per cent share in Aussat. This debate tonight has been so gentlemanly, if the Committee will excuse a sexist term, that we have not mentioned- Senator Button —Don't be a faddist. There is nothing sexist about that. You are either a gentleman or a cad. You know that. Senator CHIPP —I have never argued with an expert in these areas; therefore I will not argue with Senator Button. I am nervous about amending this legislation when it has not been proven that an amendment is necessary and given those forces in Caucus which want Telecom to own the whole thing and more particularly want the Telecom union to play all of the shots. I do not want to give them even a semblance of a chance to do that, so I would rather err on the side of conservatism. Where could we go to try to seek a middle line? The Democrats have tried to find that middle ground by seeking an assurance from the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, through his colleague in the Senate who happens to be our friend and colleague Senator Button, that these private businesses will be allowed to operate under the regulations to be determined by Telecom and the Government. Today I wrote to the Minister, Mr Duffy, seeking that assurance. In that letter, inter alia, I wrote: In this light I will be asking in the debate for some assurances from the Government. This relates to clause 17. I continued: We have received representations from the private sector that raised concerns as to whether their businesses involving private data transfer could operate. My office received an assurance from Aussat that such firms could operate under clause 17 as it now stood. AAP, Reuters Communications was a specific proposal. I would like the assurance that Aussat has given me to be given by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Button, tonight so that it can be read into the record of the Senate. That assurance strengthens the position of private businesses, although it does not go to the desirable lengths asked by the Opposition; that is, it is not written into the legislation. Because of the delicate balance to which I referred, the Democrats would be satisfied with that assurance given by the Minister which would be read into the record. We believe that assurance would go almost all the way that the Opposition requires in its amendments. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.59) —Following Senator Chipp's remarks, the assurance of Aussat Pty Ltd is good to have, but it is not sufficient if the Government then determines in relation to the regulations that a different course should be followed. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button), in responding to Senator Chipp, will not merely confirm what Aussat has said but will give some assurances to Senator Chipp along the lines of what the regulations and the ministerial instructions might allow. Only then will the assurances received by Senator Chipp about Aussat have any meaning. If I am wrong, I would invite an interjection from the Minister. The members of the board of Aussat will ride to instructions, but as yet we do not know what the regulations will be. As I say, all that we have heard is that they will be fairly restrictive. If the Minister were able to respond to Senator Chipp by giving some indication- Senator Chipp —I do not know that the people on the board of Aussat would 'ride to instructions'. Senator PETER BAUME —I take up that point. Once the legislation is through and the regulations are promulgated, the framework within which the directors can operate will be set. They will not be able to operate outside that framework. I would be grateful if the Minister in responding to Senator Chipp's remarks will answer the concerns I have expressed in the same area. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.01) —The Government does not accept the amendment moved by Senator Baume. In a sense it goes back to the question of integration about which we talked earlier in the debate. The Government's position, as I now state it, is that Aussat should be able to allow third party traffic consistent with Telecom's policy. This ability will be provided for by regulation. The other purpose of this clause is to protect the directors of Aussat who are under a legal obligation to promote the good of the company within the confines of the law. It is unfair to expect Aussat directors to breach this obligation to take into account the wider questions of overall economic benefit to the community. So, in the interests of open, consistent administration, the non-commercial objectives to be imposed on Aussat have to be clearly expressed in the legislation. The regulations will be consistent with that view. In a letter addressed to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) dated 3 April-today's date-Senator Chipp asked for some clarification of the Government's position on this matter. I read into the Hansard record the following statement from the Minister on this matter: The position is that clause 17 (1) of the Bill is intended to place on users of the satellite system those same restrictions on third party traffic as are now applied by Telecom to users of the terrestrial network. Section 92 of the Telecommunications Act provides Telecom with the equivalent powers. It should be understood that a person is not prohibited under clause 17 (1) if the use is not in the course of the business of providing telecommunications facilities. For example, subscribers to a data service who can provide and retrieve information would not be acting contrary to the clause as the object intended would not be a telecommunication service but an information provision service. Because the objective of the satellite legislation is to set up an integrated national communications network in Australia, it is necessary to provide that restrictions on satellite usage be consistent with those applying to Telecom's terrestrial network. Therefore any services that are now being provided by businesses such as AAP Reuters, Data Service using Telcom facilities will continue to be provided in the same way through the use of satellite facilities. That is the end of the Minister's statement. I go on to offer a personal observation on that matter. It is consistent with that statement if the usage of terrestrial services provided by Telecom in respect of data transmission extends , so will there be a consistent extension in relation to Aussat. The regulations that will be promulgated under this legislation will be consistent with that statement and that policy. The Government does not accept the amendment for those reasons. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984 Bill agreed to. The Satellite Communications Bill reported with an amendment; the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill reported without amendment; reports adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party)(10.06) —The Opposition supports the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I shall spend only a few moments in talking on this measure. It is probably necessary and proper to make one or two observations about this quarantine Bill if for no other reason than that quarantine is of importance to a vast island continent such as Australia. Only a day or so ago the Senate was talking about the need for surveillance in relation to defence, against terrorist activity, illegal immigration, drug running, and so on. We have to be just as alert in the surveillance of our coastline to maintain quarantine arrangements. Australia is an island continent. We have massive sea lanes of communication. Our economy is very significantly dependent on healthy stock and healthy plant life. Therefore we need to establish a quarantine system that maintains that healthy stock and plant life. The Bill basically seeks to increase the penalties currently imposed. They have not been increased for some five or six years, and I believe that the Bill increases them quite properly and quite severely. In the case of individuals, the Bill seeks to increase fines from a maximum of $10,000 to $50,000. It seeks to increase gaol sentences from five years to 10 years. Both penalties may apply . In the case of a corporate body, the maximum penalty is to be raised to a fine of $200,000. One only has to contemplate the horrific effects of the outbreak of any of a number of diseases in our animals to realise the enormous consequences that that would have on the economy of this country. If foot and mouth disease, which has occurred in a number of countries around the world, were to break out in this country it would probably denude the agricultural or primary industrial economy of something like $2.5 billion in the first year. Its ultimate effects are hard to evaluate because such a disease would be not only disastrous in that it would kill a vast number of our livestock but also it would make great inroads into the bloodstock lines and into the breeding capacities which have taken generations to establish. The real and ultimate losses of such a circumstance can be imagined and seen to be of enormous consequence in that field. I believe it is unfortunate that at the moment the amount of aerial surveillance which is carried out in Australia has been reduced. We have lost the operation of the Nomad aircraft with its 360 degree radar search capacity. That is a serious blow to our capacity to observe and tighten the quarantine controls in this country. If Australia is not protected from the outbreak of disease it will not only mean significant loss to one or two specific industries but also it will have an equally disastrous effect on employment, particularly in the northern parts of Australia. The legislation carries out a number of virtually administrative procedures which improve the operation of the quarantine laws, and it is to be commended on that ground. For instance, it rationalises the appointment of quarantine inspectors. Only the Director of Quarantine and chief quarantine officers will now be appointed by the Minister, the rest of the staff can be appointed by the Director. This, of course, simplifies the procedure and has to be seen as more efficient. I remind the Senate that it was the observation of the Australian Labor Party at around election time that the quarantine management of animal and plant life should be transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. To date that has not occurred. I must agree that such a transfer would appear to be a thoroughly acceptable and logical move. I express the hope that in the months that follow the Government will increase its attention to the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory which was established at Geelong. That is an organisation, an institution, of the very highest level of capacity in the scientific evaluation of the problems that relate to animal diseases. It is a laboratory which, when it reaches its maximum capacity, will be an institution of world-wide renown and acknowledgement. With those few observations, I express again the support of the Opposition for the Quarantine Amendment Bill and wish it a speedy passage. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.14) —I thank the Opposition for its support of the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I believe, as does everyone in this place, that the importance of an efficient quarantine system should be of bilateral, or perhaps even trilateral, agreement in this place. I echo the words of Senator Scott: Australia is a large continent with a large land mass and a large sea border. Fortunately, Australia is free of many of the plant and animal diseases which affect the rest of the world. It is important that we maintain that situation for as long as we can. One of the means by which we can do so is by making the penalties for a breach of our quarantine regulations more in keeping with the severity of the offence. Another is to make our surveillance more efficient. I can assure honourable senators that that is what this Government is about. I believe this Bill, in a small way, assists in that regard. The legislation, as has been acknowledged in both Houses, is the culmination of efforts of Ministers and former Ministers from both sides of the House. I think it is an important, even though small, piece of legislation. I thank the Opposition, particularly Senator Scott, for its speedy passage and commend it to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.18) —Tonight I wish to speak briefly in the adjournment debate on a matter which is of considerable concern in the Northern Territory-alcohol abuse. The Northern Territory has a crime problem almost 500 per cent higher than that of the national rate. Eighty per cent of this crime is alcohol-related. The Northern Territory Government has taken a number of initiatives to combat this problem. One, of course, was the introduction of the Northern Territory Criminal Code which has specific provisions dealing with alcohol-related crime. I am sure that the Northern Territory Government was pleased with the Federal Government's change of attitude regarding some of these sections of the Criminal Code. In particular, it was pleasing to see the Federal Government accept the provision that accused persons seeking to rely on the defence of intoxication should be presumed, evidentially, to have foreseen the reasonable consequences of their actions; and that if they want to use intoxication as a defence they should be required to give credible evidence to that effect. The Northern Territory Department of Health has also taken a number of steps aimed at combating the abuse of alcohol in the Northern Territory. In a few minutes I will seek leave to have a section of the Health Department's 1982-83 report incorporated in Hansard. This section deals specifically with some of the measures taken by the Department. It also gives morbidity, mortality and perinatal statistics for that year. Among the activities of the Health Department has been the establishment of a Drug and Alcohol Bureau. This co- ordinates the many government and non-government endeavours in drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation. It also has the ability to provide research and evaluation expertise to assist the Government in developing well informed policies. The Health Department has continued with its education campaign ' Boozers are Losers' which was launched in 1981-82. This, in conjuction with an alcohol and drug education program which has been introduced in Territory schools, has raised public awareness of the problems associated with drugs and alcohol. The Territory Government has also introduced a number of liquor control measures which are summarised in the papers I am about to seek leave to have incorporated . The Drug and Alcohol Bureau, along with other agencies, is evaluating these measures to discover what impact they have on the various sections of the Territory community. I seek leave to have these papers incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The papers read as follows- The NT Drug and Alcohol Bureau has also been established in order to better co- ordinate the many Government and non-Government endeavours at treatment and rehabilitation, as well as provide research and evaulation expertise that can be used to develop informed policies in this much debated area. A major public education campaign, the ''Boozers are Losers'' campaign, was launched in 1981/82 to raise public awareness of this issue, and the Education Department has introduced a core-curriculum component on alcohol and drug education into its school programme. Through the Health Department's Grants-in-Aid programme, community initiatives have developed at a rapid rate and more are in the pipeline. What is evident, so far, is that, like so many other social welfare issues, the legislation component of intervention/prevention/treatment packages tends to inconvenience the many in order to treat, assist or protect the few. As with vehicle seat belt legislation, most of those whom it affects do not experience its benefits since most drivers do not have accidents. The Northern Territory is in a position of taking initiatives in the face of mounting alcohol related problems that do and will impact on the community at large while, in many cases, benefiting only the few. The impact of the five liquor control measures discussed above, can be summarised as follows: (a) The licensing provisions of the Liquor Act have raised the standards of licensed premises in the Northern Territory, and have allowed the public easier access to the licensing and review processes. (b) The restricted areas provisions of the Liquor Act have had a beneficial impact in some localities, whereas in others they do not appear to have worked. The most important feature of this initiative is that the option is open for communities to use these provisions, if they chose to do so. (c) Sobering-up facilities for people intoxicated in public are still too recent a development for any evaulative comment to be made. This approach to public drunkenness, however, places a high priority on the welfare of the individual in contrast to the punitive measures that are often espoused for dealing with 'self-inflicted' conditions, such as drunkenness. (d) The amendment of the takeaway liquor trading hours has not been received well by the liquor industry nor by those sectors of the public which are inconvenienced by this restriction. No evidence has yet been submitted, however, demonstrating that the industry has been harmed by these changes to the trading hours. On the other hand, some health and welfare agencies have expressed strong support for the changes. (e) The public drinking legislation, otherwise known as the ''two kilometre law '', has been by far the most controversial of the Government's initiatives. The public response has been similar to that seen on the introduction of random breath testing in 1979. Public drinking has decreased in the Northern Territory following the implementation of the two kilometre law. The protective custody rate has also fallen. Public drinking has been a feature of the Territory way of life that has long made an impression on visitors. The range and number of activities that Territorians engaged in with a can or stubby in hand were enormous-running, jumping, riding and walking. There is no doubt that such deeply entrenched practices contributed significantly to the large public drunkenness problem. The two kilometre law may focibly change such practices and in the process effect an attitudinal change to drinking practices and behaviour. Evaluations of the liquor control measures discussed above are being conducted by the Drug and Alcohol Bureau and other agencies. They aim to show clearly just what impact the initiatives have had on the various sections of the Northern Territory community. Following the submission of the evaluation reports, the responsibility will be with government, once again, to assess, from its perspective, the balance between the costs of such initiatives and their benefits. REFERENCES1. Northern Territory Department of Works, in conjunction with other NT Departments and the Road Safety Council of the NT, Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. [Darwin, Department of Transport and Works] 1983. 2. Northern Territory Liquor Commission. Report on Restricted Areas. [Darwin: NT Liquor Commission] 1982, pp 1-2. 3. R. O'Connor. ''The Myth of Alcohol Rehabilitation and the Reality of Social Change in Aboriginal Central Australia.'' Paper presented at the 53rd ANZAAS Congress, Perth, WA, 1983. 3. MORBIDITY, MORTALITY AND PERINATAL STATISTICS 3.1 Population 3.1.1 Population Age and Sex Distribution 3.1.2 Births 3.1.3 Fertility Rate 3.1.4 Terminations of Pregnancy 3.1.5 Deaths 3.2 Maternal and Child Health 3.2.1 Obstetrics in Hospitals 3.2.2 Abnormal Deliveries 3.2.3 Births Outside of Hospital 3.2.4 Maternal Deaths 3.2.5 Stillbirths 3.2.6 Neonatal Deaths 3.2.7 Infant Deaths 3.2.8 Paediatrics in Hospitals 3.3 Morbidity 3.3.1 Hospital Morbidity Data 3.3.2 Cancer 3.3.3 Gram Negative Intestinal Infections 3.3.4 Hepatitis 3.3.5 Leprosy 3.3.6 Malaria 3.3.7 Tuberculosis 3.3.8 Sexually Transmitted Disease 3.3.9 Trachoma 3.3.10 Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureas 3.3.11 Ciguatera in the Northern Territory 3.3.12 Road Trauma 3.3.13 Dental Health 3.3.14 Hearing 3.3.15 Mental Health Act 3.1 POPULATION 3.1.1 Population Age and Sex Distribution Table 1 shows that percentage of the population of the Northern Territory aged 45 years and over is about half that for Australia as a whole and the proportion of those aged 65 and over is one third of that for Australia. Also noticeable is the marked contrast with the age groups 0-14 and 15-44 for Aboriginals and non- Aboriginals. This is due to a much higher fertility rate in Aboriginals than for non-Aboriginals over an extended period. Table 3 PERCENTAGE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF NORTHERN TERRITORY AND AUSTRALIAN POPULATIONS* Northern Territory Northern Territory Male Female Australia Age Group (Years) Aboriginal Male Aboriginal Other Male female 0-14 44.3 26.2 40.5 29.6 25.6 24.3 15-44 42.4 56.7 45.0 55.6 46.9 45.3 45-64 10.0 14.3 11.0 11.6 19.3 19.1 65+ 3.3 2.8 3.5 3.2 8.2 11.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Source: 1981 Census 3.1.2 Birth The birthrate for the Northern Territory fell slightly during 1982 but it continues to be higher than the Australian rate. The rate for Northern Territory Aboriginals is about double that for all Australians. Table 4 NORTHERN TERRITORY LIVE BIRTHS AND CRUDE BIRTH RATE* AND AUSTRALIAN CRUDE BIRTH RATE Aboriginal Other Total Northern Territory Australia Year Births Rate Births Rate Births Rate Rate** 1965 743 35.9 931 25.5 1674 29.2 19.7 1975 899 35.7 1311 21.0 2210 25.2 17.2 1980 909 32.5 1850 21.2 2759 23.9 15.3 1981 958 33.4 1912 20.3 2870 23.4 15.8 1982 941 32.0 1982 20.2 2923 22.9 *** Source: NT Department of Health Collection * Crude Brith Rate = Number of Births per 1000 mid year population. ** Australian Bureau of Statistics catalogue 3101.0, rates are per 1000 mean estimated resident population. *** Not available. 3.1.3 Fertility Rate Previously published fertility rates have been revised following the release of new data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The rate remains higher than the relatively stable rate for Australia as a whole. Table 5 NORTHERN TERRITORY CRUDE FERTILITY RATE* BY ETHNIC GROUP 1978-1982 AND AUSTRALIAN CRUDE FERTILITY RATE Year Aboriginal Other Total N.T. Australia 1978 151 88 102 71 1979 137 81 94 69 1980 145 83 96 68 1981 146 78 92 70 1982 138 76 89 ** Source: Department of Health collection and population estimated based on the 1976 and 1981 Censuses. * Crude Fertility Rate = number of live births per 1,000 mid year population of women 15-44 years of age. ** Not available. 3.1.4 Terminations of Pregnancy An increase in the number of pregnancies terminated occurred in 1982. Table 6 TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BY AGE GROUP AND PERIOD OF GESTATION 1981 AND 1982 Age Group (years) 1981 1982 Under 15 6 6 15-19 99 98 20-29 273 292 30-39 81 107 40 and over 8 14 Total 467 517 Period of Gestation (weeks) Less than 10 343 374 10-13 116 133 14-20 8 10 Over 20 nil nil Total 467 517 3.1.5 Deaths The Northern Territory crude death rate continues to be lower than the rate for Australia and the younger age structure of the Northern Territory population is a contributory factor. The Aboriginal death rate continues to fall. Table 7 NORTHERN TERRITORY DEATHS AND CRUDE DEATH RATES BY ETHNIC GROUP AND AUSTRALIAN CRUDE DEATH RATES 1978-1982 Aboriginal Other N.T. total Australia Years Deaths Rates Deaths Rates Deaths Rates Rates 1978 357 13.5 248 2.9 605 5.4 7.6 1979 328 12.2 275 3.1 603 5.2 7.4 1980 381 13.9 258 2.7 639 5.3 7.4 1981 308 11.1 285 2.9 593 4.7 7.3 1982 300 10.2 309 3 .2 609 4.8 ** Source: Department of Health Statistics Unit. * Rate = total deaths per 1 000 population ** Not available. 3.2 MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH 3.2.1 Obstetrics in Hospitals The upward trend in the numbers of live births in Northern Territory Hospitals continued during 1982. High fertility rates, particularly amongst Aboriginal women, and the relatively young population overall are contributory factors. Table 8 LIVE BIRTHS* IN NORTHERN TERRITORY HOSPITALS 1979-1982 % of total Hospitals Year Aboriginal Other Total N.T. Darwin 1979 278 1 201 1 479 61.8 1980 254 1 290 1 544 60.3 1981 265 1 354 1 619 60.2 1982 269 1 363 1 632 58.1 Alice Springs 1979 244 321 565 23.6 1980 273 338 611 23.9 1981 280 331 611 22.7 1982 301 378 679 24.2 Gove 1979 76 88 164 6.8 1980 96 95 191 7.4 1981 99 76 175 6.5 1982 89 78 167 5.9 Katherine 1979 48 71 119 5.0 1980 65 83 148 5.8 1981 105 89 194 7.2 1982 133 113 246 8.8 Tennant Creek 1979 71 49 66 2.8 1980 30 36 66 2.6 1981 35 57 92 3.4 1982 33 50 83 3.0 Total N.T. 1979 663 1 730 2 393 100.0 1980 718 1 842 2 560 100.0 1981 784 1 907 2 691 100.0 1982 825 1 982 2 807 100.0 *Includes live births to Aboriginal residents from other States. 3.2.2 Abnormal Deliveries There was a reduction in the number of forceps deliveries, with an equalising increase in the number of Caesarian and vacuum deliveries. Overall, the number of abnormal deliveries remained stable. Table 9 ABNORMAL DELIVERIES IN NORTHERN TERRITORY HOSPITALS* BY ETHNIC GROUP IN 1982 Total Total Deliveries Caesarian Forceps Breech Vacuum Abnormal % % % % % Aboriginal** 825 15.2 9.1 1.5 3.6 29.4 Other 1 982 11.4 10.4 1.4 2.4 25.6 Total 1980 2 560 11.8 14.2 1.6 0.7 28.2 Total 1981 2 691 11.9 12.0 1.7 1. 1 26.7 Total 1982 2 807 12.5 10.0 1.4 2.7 26.6 *Hospital figures include residents from other States. **Approximately 17% of Aboriginal births occurred outside hospital. 3.2.3 Births Outside of Hospital Fewer Aboriginal women had babies outside of hospital during 1982. Of those delivered outside of hospital the majority presented to health centres for assistance from suitably trained personnel. The practice of bush births is discouraged. Table 10 LOCATION OF NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINAL CONFINEMENTS* BY REGION OF USUAL RESIDENCE 1982 **Darwin & East Alice Springs Katherine Arnhem & Barkly % % Location Regions Region Regions Total 1982 1981 Hospital 348 143 313 804 82.8 80.9 Health Centre 57 36 35 128 13.2 15.2 Outside of Health Centre 12 7 20 39 4.0 3.9 Total 417 186 368 971 100.0 100.0 *Includes live and still births. **Separate statistics for each region are not available for the full year. 3.2.4 Maternal Deaths. One maternal death was recorded in 1982. The patient from East Arnhem Region was transferred from Nhulunbuy to Darwin but died in the Intensive Care Unit, Darwin Hospital. 3.2.5 Stillbirths There was little change in the total number of stillbirths this year compared with 1981. The rate for the total Northern Territory fell slightly. Table 11 NORTHERN TERRITORY STILLBIRTHS* BY ETHNIC GROUP 1976-1982 Aboriginal Other Total N.T. Australia Year Number Rate Number Rate **Rate ***Rate 1976 30 34.7 21 11.5 19.0 9.2 1977 32 36.5 23 12.5 20.3 8.3 1978 24 26.8 15 8 .5 14.6 8.4 1979 25 29.5 10 5.7 13.5 7.8 1980 28 29.9 17 9.1 16.0 7.5 1981 32 32.3 22 11.4 18.5 7.2 1982 30 30.9 23 11.5 17.8 n/a *Stillbirth rate-number of stillbirths per 1 000 of total births both live and stillborn. **Based on foetuses and infants weighing at least 400 grams or at least 20 weeks gestation at delivery. ***Based on foetuses and infants weighing at least 500 grams or at least 22 weeks gestation at delivery. n/a. Not available. 3.2.6 Neonatal Deaths Neonatal death rates continued to fluctuate. The rates rose during the year. Table 12 NORTHERN TERRITORY NEONATAL DEATHS AND DEATH RATES* BY ETHNIC GROUP 1976-1982 Aboriginal Other N.T. Total** Australia *** Year Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Rate 1976 20 24.0 23 12.8 43 16.3 9.5 1977 36 42.6 15 8.3 51 19.2 8.3 1978 18 20.6 16 9.1 34 12.9 7.8 1979 17 20.7 11 6.4 28 11.0 7.2 1980 19 20.9 8 4.3 27 9.8 6 .7 1981 15 15.7 14 7.3 29 10.1 6.1 1982 18 19.1 15 7.6 33 11.3 n.a. * Neonatal death rate = number of deaths of infants under 4 weeks old per 1 000 live births. ** Based on foetuses and infants weighing at least 400 grams or at least 20 weeks gestation at delivery. *** Based on foetuses and infants weighing at least 500 grams or at least 22 weeks gestation at delivery. n.a.-Not available 3.2.7 Infant Deaths There was an increase in the infant mortality rate for 1982, as shown in the following table. Table 13 NORTHERN TERRITORY INFANT DEATHS AND DEATH RATES* BY ETHNIC GROUP 1979-1982 Aboriginal Other Total N.T. Australia Year Number Rate Number Rate Rate Rate 1979 37 45.0 17 9.8 21.1 11.4 1980 33 36.3 11 5.9 15.9 10.7 1981 29 30.3 19 9 .9 16.7 9.9 1982 36 38.3 21 10.6 19.5 ** * Infant mortality rate = number of deaths of infants under 1 year old per 1 000 live births. ** Not available. Although the figure for Aboriginals is high, the following graph depicts a steady decline in the Aboriginal infant mortality rate over recent years. Table 14 ABORIGINAL INFANT DEATHS BY CAUSE OF DEATH 1980-82 Other Infant Birth Dysmature/ Congenital and Death Trauma Premature Infection Abnormality Unknown Total Rate* Darwin & Katherine Regions - 4 3 3 1 11 27.0 East Arnhem Region - 1 4 3 2 10 55.6 Alice Springs & Barkly Regions 1 3 6 1 4 15 42.4 Total 1982 1 8 13 7 7 36 38.3 %1982 2.8 22.2 36/1 19.4 19.5 100.0 %1981 (29 deaths) 3.5 27.6 24.1 24.1 20.7 100.0 %1980 (33 deaths) 9.1 30.3 33.3 15.212.1100.0 * Infant death rate-number of deaths of Aboriginal infants under 1 year old per 1 000 Aboriginal live births. Senator KILGARIFF —I wish to make just a brief comment on one aspect of the neonatal deaths. I refer particularly to infant deaths. The records are there for the mortality rate of infants under one year old per 1000 live births. They indicate that there was an increase in 1982 in the infant mortality rate as shown in table 13 which has been incorporated. Although the figures for Aboriginals are high, the graph which accompanied the table depicts a steady decline in the Aboriginal infant mortality rate over recent years. It shows an increase also in the number of deaths from infection. This was the significant factor responsible for the increased infant death rate for Aboriginals in 1982. The number of deaths is still high. There is a continuing problem. I would like to commend the people who are working in the field, particularly the co-ordinator, the Aboriginal person who is in charge of the Aboriginal health workers, the health aides, and the very many dedicated doctors and nurses who work in the field and in the hospitals in the outback endeavouring to bring about better statistics, or at least to cut down the number of deaths of Aboriginal children. I talked previously about the haves and the have nots. It is a long hard road to better health for Aboriginal children in the outback. Conditions are still very poor. As the figures indicate, in 1982 infection resulted in the death of many Aboriginal children. Their living conditions are poor. The only way this can be really improved is by governments. The Federal Government is doing well as is the Territory Government. They have to give more assistance to the Aboriginal people in the field. The advent of Aboriginal health aides is helping tremendously. They are working amongst their own people, and with encouragement and more facilities I am sure we will see the infant mortality figure decrease. But it will be a long hard road. This is a report of activity in the Northern Territory but the statistics in this brief report are of national interest. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.24) —I wish to raise an aspect of the policy associated with the administration of Commissioner for Housing loans in the Australian Capital Territory. It relates to the case of a woman attempting to obtain an additional loan, for which in principle she is eligible, to enable her to buy out her husband's interest in the house. She is obliged to pay him the sum of $5000 thereby to retain the house for herself and her children. The present mortgage is $23,000 and that would then raise the mortgage to $28,000. Taking into account her income, excluding maintenance, she would be eligible only for a mortgage of $21,000, as the guidelines presently stand. Taking into account the maintenance and her other income, she would be eligible for $29,000 which is more than the amount she requires. On the face of it, if the Department will not take into account the maintenance she faces having to sell the house, paying her husband $5,000 and not having enough left to buy a house for herself and the children. At present she would find it extremely difficult to get any other accomodation. In the private rental market she just would not have the income to be able to rent. In a letter she states: . . . the Minister for Territories and Local Government-who has a policy of not evicting people for non-payment of rents but would deny my children the opportunity of a loving and secure home. The situation is that the Department of Social Security takes into account maintenance payments when assessing other payments made to a sole parent, but the Department of Territories and Local Government will not take that figure into account in this situation, which is quite a different situation from any other sort of mortgage loan; it is specifically designed in a sense to ensure that children can stay in their home if possible. I realise that there has to be a cut-off point in any rules at some point but it seems to me that she cannot get that money on the one hand because the Department of Social Security does take it into account and on the other hand she cannot get the additional money she needs to secure her home because the other Department will not take that into account. Julie Elliott, who has written to me, is concerned about her future and her children's future. She certainly believes that she has the capacity to cope with this loan, probably by going without to a fair extent at this stage at least. It seems to be a sufficiently border case. Maintenance is excluded from the calculations in one department but included in another. Maybe this matter ought to be reviewed given that this aspect of the policy, as I understand it, is in part to do with assisting people to retain the home in the event of a matrimonial breakdown. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.28) —I will refer all the matters raised tonight by honourable senators to the respective Ministers. But, as it happens, I have a personal interest in all of them so I will give the Senate the benefit of my brief comments. Senator Kilgariff raised first of all the matter of alcohol related problems in the Northern Territory and the new Northern Territory ordinance. I will certainly raise that matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I will raise the matter of the infant mortality rate in the Northern Territory with Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health. I make the personal comment that infant mortality has almost an exact correlation with the standard of living of the people affected. The best thing we can do for the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory and elsewhere is not only to provide the assistance necessary to overcome the sorts of infections that Senator Kilgariff talked about but also, in the long run, raise the standard of living so that infant mortality rate goes down in correlation. I was interested in Senator Reid's case because I have recently had a case with which I was personally involved concerning almost exactly the same situation with the Department of Territories and Local Government and the Commissioner for Housing loan. As Senator Reid says that Department ignores maintenance payments whereas my Department, the Department of Social Security, takes them into account. This crucial disregard of maintenance payments can in fact make the difference whether someone gets a loan or not. That is terribly important. I agree with her that it is much more important to keep people in the home in which they have been living and enable them to maintain themselves in that home rather than their having to sell out and go into what is a very rigid and difficult private rental market at the moment. Therefore, I will certainly, as a follow up to the sorts of cases I have had, take up Senator Reid's example with the Minister for Territories and Local Government in the hope that we can sort out what seems to me anyhow, superficially at least, to be an anomaly in the system. But in any case I will take all matters up with the relevant Ministers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Bounty (Agricultrual Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 44. Copyright Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 43. Defence Amendment Act-Inerim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 41, 42, 45 . Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 48. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 49. Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 51 . Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos. 46, 47. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 50. Telecommunications Act-By-lays- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 37. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 30. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 37. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 42. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 345) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: What is the amount of revenue expected to be raised from baking powder, cream of tartar and bi-carbonate of soda for use other than for culinary purposes which are now to be taxed at 20 per cent in this year and in a full year? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Statistics of baking powder, cream of tartar and bi-carbonate of soda for use other than for culinary purposes are not available. However, the amount of sales tax revenue expected to be raised from taxing them at 20 per cent is not considered to be significant. (Question No. 651) Senator Macklin asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware of the difficulty experienced by the Youth Advocacy Centre in Brisbane in obtaining on-going Commonwealth funding to allow it to continue its work. (2) Will the Attorney-General give an undertaking to investigate the matter of funding to ensure the Centre's future. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth's program for funding of community legal centres in Queensland is co-ordinated by the Queensland Legal Aid Commission, which has brought the funding needs of all centres to my attention. (2) For the calendar year 1984 the Commonwealth has provided an amount of $93, 000 for distribution to centres in Queensland. This provision represents an increase of 121 per cent over the $42,000 provided for 1983. Of this amount the Youth Advocacy Centre is to receive an amount of $27,779.10 for 1984 which represents an increase of 131 per cent over the amount received in 1983. On a national basis, for 1984, the Commonwealth has provided funding of $1m for community legal centres compared to a provision of $505,500 in 1983. This represents an increase of 98 per cent. (Question No. 661) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Is it possible under the new electoral provisions for a company, organisation or individual to make a sizeable donation to a political party or candidate and deliberately fail to notify the Australian Electoral Commission of that donation, without fear of detection. (2) Is the Special Minister of State confident that any such attempts to avoid disclosure of political donations would be detected and thwarted. (3) Would the investigation of these offences be the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) and (3) Under section 153J of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, agents of parties and candidates have the responsibility of furnishing returns which disclose the total amount and number of gifts received over a specified period. The period which applies to political parties is from the day after polling day in the previous election until the expiration of polling day in the election after which the return is furnished. In the case of a donation of $1,000 or more to a party and of $200 or more to a candidate, the return furnished by the agent must disclose the amount or value of the gift, the date on which it was made and the name and address of the donor . In the case of a donor making several gifts in the period covered by the return, the relevant details will be disclosed if the total value of those gifts is $1,000 or more in the case of gifts to a party or $200 or more in the case of gifts to a candidate. In addition, section 153K of the Act requires that a person or organisation which during the election period makes a gift of $1,000 or more to a political party or candidate is required to furnish a similar return to that provided by the political party; that is, a 'front' organisation which makes a sizeable donation during the election period is required to give details of any gifts of $1,000 or more received by it during that period. Section 153L provides that it is unlawful for a political party to receive a gift of $100 or more unless the name and address of the person making the gift are known to the person receiving the gift, or the gift is received on the condition that it be used for a purpose other than one related to an election or by-election. Similarly, it is unlawful for a candidate to receive an anonymous gift of $200 or more. Where an unlawful gift is received, an equivalent amount is payable to the Commonwealth. The Act confers on the Commission very extensive powers in relation to the investigation of possible breaches of the funding and disclosure provisions and the accuracy of returns. An officer authorised by the Commission may serve a notice on a person requiring that person to produce documents or to give evidence relating to the commission, or possible commission, of an offence, or to matters set out in a claim or return. In certain circumstances an authorised officer may apply to a magistrate for the issue of a search warrant to seize things that may afford evidence relating to the commission of an offence. In these circumstances the Commission would have a variety of options including seeking the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. Fines of up to $5,000 for an agent of a party and $1,000 for any other person are provided for failure to furnish a return within the required time. A further fine of $100 per day is provided for late returns. Fines of up to $10,000 for the agent of a party and up to $5,000 for any other person are provided for knowingly providing false or misleading particulars in a return (see section 153V). (Question No. 692) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) What aspects of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act was Australia requested to clarify early in 1983 by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-Dumping Committee. (2) Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce inform the Parliament of the details of Australia's response to this request and when it was produced, if not when will it be produced. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Several signatories to the GATT anti-dumping and subsidies and countervailing duties codes sought clarification and elaboration on aspects of Australia's anti -dumping and countervailing legislation in early 1983. The questions related mainly to conformity of the legislation with the GATT codes and some criticism of what was seen as a lack of transparency and absence of administrative procedures. Written responses were made at the October 1983 meetings of the GATT committees and most of the issues raised were covered in the recent amendments to the legislation. Full details of the questions raised and Australia's response have been provided separately to the honourable senator. (Question No. 694) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) What is the effect of the 2 per cent revenue duty on the effective rate of assistance for manufacturing industry as a whole? (2) What is the annual amount of revenue collected as a result of the 2 per cent revenue duty? Senator Button —The following answer is provided to the honourable member's question: (1) The effective rate of assistance takes account of the fact that assistance to the production of one good is a penalty on the production of goods using it as an input. If the 2 per cent revenue duty is applied to inputs in the form of raw materials, components or capital equipment, it should have the effect of reducing the effective rate of assistance for the final good. On the other hand, if it falls directly on the final goods themselves it will increase the effective rate of assistance for those goods. However, as a number of items are exempt from the duty, it is difficult to gauge the overall impact on the effective rate of assistance for manufacturing. (2) The approximate amount of revenue raised by the 2 per cent revenue duty in recent years has been: Year $m 1979-80 100 1980-81 120 1981-82 140