Tuesday, 1 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) left Australia on 15 April to visit the United Kingdom, Greece and Italy for negotiations on reciprocal social security arrangements. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is Acting Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) will represent Senator Grimes in this chamber until his return on 5 May. I also inform the Senate that the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) left Australia on 23 April to attend the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Amsterdam and will return to Australia on 5 May. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is acting Treasurer in Mr Keating's absence. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Medicare To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other States. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80 per day in the other States. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $ 40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 2,874 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 decision 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 Senators Robertson (from 12 citizens) and Scott (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation' s historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 38 citizens) and Robertson (from 30 citizens). 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: a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, farmer unrest at seed prices, monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, 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 drafted 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 Senator Robertson (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, being Electors in the State of New South Wales respectfully submit that the Government review its intention to tax Friendly Societies after so many years of service to the community at large. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 66 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, plead that the Senate will not legalise the sale, hire, or supply of all 'video tapes, video discs, slides, and any other recordings from which a visual image can be produced', which are listed in category 1 and 2 of the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 and we strongly oppose such legalisation of these categories for the following reasons: Because academic research elsewhere has proven that where such material is available to adults, 40 per cent of children do in fact view it, most without parental knowledge (British Parliamentary Inquiry 'Video, Violence and Children' 23 Nov. 1983). Because video film is assiduously portraying cruelty and violence to child viewers as the norm in today's society, and may well be the catalyst in establishing such behaviour as the norm in tomorrow's society. Because adults have had the freedom to view R film in a restricted way in places of entertainment for a long time, we feel that the new categories for video are a vicious intrusion into the family home, and are abetting legal commercialism of brutality, sadistic violence, cruelty, mutilation and sexual perversion, with legalisation condoning, and conferring on this material the stamp of government approval. Because research has shown that such child viewing causes children to develop a physical stress response, an enkephalin/adrenalin state resembling addiction is produced, forming a generation of 'violence addicts'. Because it is in the best interests of society that first priority be given to the protection of children, and that their rights be placed above all other considerations. Because video material shows perverted adults how to commit further cruelties they themselves could not invent. Because pornography is degrading to women, and must be challenged for portraying women as an exploitable sexual commodity. Because pornography is downgrading to men, both in changed attitudes to and declining respect of, their partners. Because video film is an overwhelming teaching medium whereby scriptwriters and film producers are dictating what will be said, and what will be done in the future, the results of which are irretrievable, irreversible and probably already with us. Because it constitutes a variable in the new social phenomena of transience in human relationships. Because it will give rise to a substantial increase in serious crime, (27.4 per cent in a four year period in the U.K.) (page 1 Video Violence & Children) in 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 Durack (from 179 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent, and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 48 citizens) and Withers (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That Bozlin Pty Ltd trading as John Bozic Automotive Services, have provided for many years good and reliable service to customers near Parliament House, and represent the only Automotive Service Station available in the Parliamentary triangle, convenient to visitors and persons working at, or near Parliament House. That the National Capital Development Commission has indicated its intention to close the access road between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place. That access has existed in one form or another between Kaye Place and Coronation Drive for most of the last fifty-five years, and in the judgement of petitioners that access road is convenient, and represents no traffic hazard. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that the traffic link between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place is not closed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 2,258 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from six citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas Australia underwent an unprecedented expansion in riches (of wealth) post war and the economy is once again on the upsurge, the pensioners and the disadvantaged have slipped further behind the general standard. In this period of renewed expansion their position is being further eroded. Therefore, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray: (1) The proposed Assets Test be rejected completely. (2) That Government instead meet with pensioner, Union and Employer Organisations to work out the method of financing and a timetable for the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme. (3) That the May 1984 adjustment include the CPI increases up to the end of March, and thereafter be increased quarterly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth; that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 65 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, contingent upon the Senate proceeding to the consideration of Government papers pursuant to sessional order, I shall move: That so much of the sessional order relating to the consideration of Government papers be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the President. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) -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 law relating to income tax. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled 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. Attributable Aviation Costs-Review of Valuation Methods-Report by the Bureau of Transport Economics. 2. A.C.T. House of Assembly-Business of the Assembly-Publication 1982-83. 3. President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Annual report for year ended 13 August 1983-Pursuant to Section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 4. Australian Wool Corporation-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972. 5. Australian Dairy Corporation-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to Sub-section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry relating to the report. 6. Outlook for the Aviation Industry-Information Paper. 7. Australia Council-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. 8. Life Insurance Commissioner-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-Together with a Half Yearly Financial and Statistical Bulletin. 9. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation -Annual reports 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976- The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1983-Together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements-Further report by the Auditor- General in regard to the statements-Also the report of the Inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the reports. 10. Taxation Statistics-1981-82-Supplement to the 61st report of the Commissioner of Taxation. 11. The Way we P(l)ay: Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation-Text of a statement made in the House of Representatives on 5 April by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. 12. Australia-United States Relations-The Extraterritorial Application of United States Law-Text of a statement made in the House of Representatives on 5 April by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator COLLARD —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to close regional television stations at Townsville and Rockhampton in Queensland. Does Senator Button agree with me that the Chairman of the Corporation, Mr Myer, is misguided when he claims, as he did on the AM program yesterday, that the job of the ABC is to try to meet competition at the national and State levels? Mr Myer also stated: We have to concentrate in the first instance our total resources in our major markets. Does he further agree that the Chairman's view is quite inconsistent with the charter of the Corporation, which imposes no obligation whatsoever on the ABC to indulge in a ratings battle with commercial stations? Is this the sort of treatment country people in particular can expect from the Hawke Government's new Board and new Chairman of the ABC? Has the decision been influenced by the reduced real term funding provided to the Corporation in the Hawke Government's first Budget? Lastly, what action can or will the Government take to reverse the Board's decision? Senator BUTTON —I will put the question in some perspective by indicating to Senator Collard precisely what is produced by the ABC at Rockhampton and Townsville. First of all, the programs produced at both Rockhampton and Townsville are: A five by five-minute regional news service, a five by five- minute weather bulletin, a one by 30-minute public affairs program-- Senator Chaney —What is a 'five by five'? Senator BUTTON —That means five minutes for five days of the week. It is a highly technical expression which eludes the Leader of the Opposition and, I must say, temporarily eluded me when he interjected. But that is the expression which is used. As a combined effort, there are also five 15 minutes per week of rural items. Having said that, I was asked to comment on a number of matters. Let me first of all say that the decision to phase out locally produced ABC regional television services in the two cities is, in essence, a decision for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to make in accordance with its corporate responsibilities, as set out in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 . It is not a matter in which the Government would normally interfere. But as it is an issue of great concern to members of the Senate and to the public, the Minister for Communications will be contacting the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board, Mr Myer, seeking a full report on the reasons for the Board's decisions. I do not wish to answer that part of Senator Collard's question which asks me whether I think Mr Myer's statement is inconsistent with the charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and things like that. Undoubtedly a bush lawyer would embark on that sort of exercise at Question Time in the Senate, and I do not propose to put myself in that category. However, I understand Senator Collard's concern about the fundamental question involved in relation to this matter. Senator Collard will recognise that in this chamber over many years I was concerned about the provision of broadcasting services in country areas. I will personally ask the Minister for Communications to expedite his inquiries. Following those inquiries, it may be possible for me to provide a further answer to Senator Collard which hopefully will be more helpful than the answer I have given today or any of the attempted interjections of Senator Lewis. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can he inform the chamber of the level of the March quarter consumer price index? Does it represent a vindication of the Government's policies and management of the economy? In particular, is there any validity in the criticism that the CPI is based on fictitious and not sound methodology? Senator BUTTON —I am very surprised that this question should arise today. I indicate to the Senate that in the March quarter the consumer price index fell by 0.4 per cent-the lowest outcome for 30 years. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —If these noises could be made later rather than now it would be helpful because all those honourable senators who are concerned about the state of the Australian economy would then make different noises from the ones made in the last minute or two. Over the year to March the increase was 5.9 per cent, down from 11.5 per cent a year ago-the lowest rise on this basis since the March quarter in 1973. Australia's inflation rate on this measure now compares favourably with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 5.8 per cent in the year to February. Of course, a significant factor related to the introduction of Medicare which reduced the index by about 1.6 percentage points. In spite of this there was a significant decrease in the underlying rate of inflation also. If one takes out the hospital and medical service component the CPI rose by 1.2 per cent in March which is half the rise of the December 1983 quarter and a percentage point less than the rise in the March quarter of 1983. This is the lowest quarterly rise in this component of the CPI since the March quarter of 1978. In the year to March the non-medical and hospital component rose by 7.6 per cent-that is excluding the Medicare factor-down from 10.9 per cent in the year to March 1983. Senator Withers —Does that include a medical factor too? Senator BUTTON —Yes. This is the lowest annual rise since the December quarter of 1978. All of this of course is good news for Australians. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is good enough for an early election. Senator BUTTON —That is a view which I will pass on to the Prime Minister. It is not an idea that had occurred to me but I will pass it on. All this is good news for Australians concerned about the economic situation in this country and, of course, all of those of us in the Government who have tried to achieve this sort of result in terms of the Government's macroeconomic policies. Taken with other indicators, it shows that the Government's economic policies are by and large on track. Indeed, in terms of predictions which were made last year we are further down the track than we would have anticipated. As I have said on many occasions in the Senate, it is very important that this Government gets the macroeconomic policies right to provide the preconditions for sustained economic recovery in Australia, especially insofar as I am concerned, in the industry area generally. Therefore, the Government is generally satisfied with the figures. It does not mean that we can approach them with anything more than cautious optimism for the future and with a great deal of diligence in the terms of the administration of government policy. I hear no further noises from the Opposition. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer him to the Prime Minister's rather extravagant promises about steel during his visit to China. When does the Minister expect the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd's Kwinana blast furnace to reopen? Senator BUTTON —First of all, with regard to the allegations of extravagant statements by the Prime Minister, I think it is very important to see the context in which statements which might be described as extravagant were made. They were made in the context of both long and short term considerations. I should say for the benefit of those honourable senators who will speak on the Opposition's matter of public importance which is scheduled for later today that very worthwhile negotiations are proceeding in relation to some of the short term anticipations arising from the Prime Minister's visit. Senator Durack —That is what you were asked about. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. I do not need any help from Senator Durack. He may have been a Minister for 450 years but I can still answer a question. The point is that in respect of many of those short term predictions very encouraging negotiations are taking place. Of course it is the Government's hope and it is the Government's every effort to encourage the reopening of the Kwinana blast furnace. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is optimistic about that possibility. It remains no more than that at this stage. Negotiations on it are proceeding. But to ask me on what date that will occur is an extraordinary question. I do not think even Senator Chaney would ask me to put a particular date on that because, of course, that is a matter for negotiation between BHP and the Chinese, negotiations which are taking place and which may or may not prove successful. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note that the Minister said it may or may not take place. Senator Button —No, it may or may not prove successful, I said. Senator CHANEY —It may or may not prove successful. Is it a fact that it would require a 15 per cent rise in the world price of steel and increased Chinese demand for the blast furnace's product before the company would be justified in spending more than $10m on reopening the facility? If the Minister agrees with that, when does he think a rise in the world price of steel is likely to occur which would permit the reopening of the blast furnace? Senator BUTTON —I do not think it is as simple as that question emanating from a sort of chartered accountant's mind would indicate. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account in relation to-- Senator Chaney —Perhaps percentage return. Senator BUTTON —There are a lot of factors to be taken into account, especially questions such as the duration of any arrangements which might be made with the Chinese. For example, if I might illustrate very simply what I mean by that, it would not necessarily require a 15 per cent increase in the world price of steel if BHP were able to reach a very long term arrangement with the Chinese. That is a matter which is subject to negotiation, so I cannot answer that question. I do not expect a 15 per cent increase in the world price of steel in the foreseeable future. There is excess capacity in the world steel industry, so I do not expect that. As I said earlier, I hope these negotiations will succeed and will be brought to a successful conclusion. The Government will be giving every encouragement it can in relation to those matters. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to his recent announcement of the Government's policy decision on a resource rent tax. I ask the Minister: Will the resource rent tax have any effect on the price of petroleum products, such as petrol and distillate? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments suggesting increases in excise on petroleum products as an alternative to a resource rent tax? What would be the effect of such an alternative if it were to be implemented? Senator WALSH —Clearly in some ill-informed quarters there is some confusion about the possible effects of the taxation of Australian crude oil, whether it be by means of a resource rent tax or by means of the existing or a future levy on the price of refined petroleum products. The answer is simple and unequivocal : Those taxation arrangements do not affect the price of refined petroleum products. Ever since 1978 the price at which Australian crude has been supplied to domestic refiners has been determined by the import parity price, which is periodically adjusted. That price has been adjusted twice since this Government has been in office. The total reduction in the price of Australian crude oil to domestic refineries has been about $3.50 a barrel. Notwithstanding that, I note that a complaint was recently received by me from the honourable member for O' Connor, the redoubtable Mr Wilson Tuckey, alleging that the resource rent tax arrangements would increase the price of petrol. I propose to say more about that in a minute. Other means of raising revenue were suggested in another part of the question which Senator Cook asked. Indeed, I note that before the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association conference on 10 April the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and shadow spokesman on minerals and energy acknowledged that governments frequently feel obliged to raise additional revenue and that, if a Liberal government were in office now and needed to raise additional revenue, its priorities within the total petroleum area anyway for raising that revenue in descending order would be, firstly, to increase the excise on refined petroleum products; secondly, to impose an excise on what is presently classified as new oil; and, thirdly, a resources rent tax. In other words, the top priority of a Liberal government as enunciated by Senator Chaney would be to tax Australian motorists and Australian industry instead of taxing those companies that are currently producing oil, regardless of how profitable that oil production may be. Let us be perfectly clear about that. Senator Chaney proposed on behalf of the Liberal Party that motorists and Australian industry pay more but that Esso-BHP, which is currently receiving net revenue of the order of $1 billion a year from the Fortescue oil field, pay no tax on that other than corporate tax and a 12.5 per cent royalty. That is a fact that seems to have escaped the notice of Mr Tuckey, the honourable member for O'Connor, who displayed abysmal ignorance on two questions: Firstly, he asserted in his letter to me that, as a result of the introduction of a resources rent tax, the price paid for petrol and distillate would increase, an assertion which is totally without foundation. Secondly, he seemed to be unaware of the fact that his Party's shadow spokesman on this area had proposed a policy which would do precisely that, that is, increase the price of petrol, distillate and some other petroleum products to Australian consumers. I suggest that, in other words, Mr Tuckey's party is advocating a policy which is directly opposite to that which Mr Tuckey himself purports to be advocating and which would be directly in conflict with the interests he purports to represent. That is a matter which I can only suggest Mr Tuckey take up within his Party to try to resolve that conflict between what he says are his objectives and the inevitable consequences of his Party's policy. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Firstly, is it true that the Government is contemplating resuming large areas of land in the Tamworth, Dubbo or Bathurst/Mudgee areas of New South Wales for an army training school and/or an artillery range? Is it true that consideration of this proposal was initiated under the former Government when the right honourable member for New England, Mr Sinclair, was Minister for Defence, although there was no public knowledge of the proposal until April of this year? Is it true that the property of the right honourable member for New England forms part of the land which may be acquired in the Tamworth area? Is it true that it is not proposed to make an initial decision on which of these three areas, if any, will be acquired until June of this year and that a specific decision on whether to go ahead with the project will not be made until 1986? Secondly, in light of the alarm and indignation very naturally expressed at public meetings in the affected areas over the last few days, what immediate steps has the Government taken to alleviate these genuine concerns, especially the lengthy period before any final decision, it is said, is to be made? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Mason has asked me a fascinating series of questions which deserves a much better answer than I am able to give him in the absence of a brief on this matter from the Minister for Defence. I will do my best to give him an answer as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . In October 1978 my colleague Senator Gietzelt and I asked questions in this chamber about the burial of radioactive materials in South Australia, including those at Maralinga. In view of the recent allegations made by Mr Burke, an ex- Royal Air Force technician, was the Senate deceived by the answers given by the then Government? How comprehensive was the inquiry carried out by the Department of Defence into the buried material at Maralinga? Was the list of locations of buried radioactive materials ever sent to the South Australian Government, as claimed in a reply given by Senator Carrick? Will this Government institute a full inquiry into these matters and give a report in full to the South Australian Government? Does the Minister agree that the whole affair has been handled in an evasive and irresponsible manner by the previous Fraser Government ? Senator WALSH —Senator Elstob has asked a number of questions, the first of which was whether the Senate was deceived by answers given by Senator Carrick, I think it was, in 1978. I have looked up those answers and I think it would be probably overstating the case to say that the Senate was deceived by Senator Carrick. The answers he gave, however, were at best limited in their scope and at worst somewhat evasive. I am not sure whether a report was sent to the South Australian Government, as Senator Carrick indicated in 1978-he did not assert it unequivocally at that time-had been done. Nor am I aware of the precise content of that report, if indeed such a report were sent. There would be a possible further problem even if such a report were sent. Senator Elstob's question referred to locations of buried, radioactive materials. There may be some dispute at the margin as to what is radioactive material because a great deal of material which has never had anything to do with a nuclear explosion is radioactive to a limited degree. In my view, the facts surrounding this whole issue are still not entirely clear. The relevant documentation is widely dispersed, both within Australia and also in the United Kingdom. The records, even if they all could be retrieved and processed, may well be, for all we know, inadequate to establish with certainty all the details of what happened in those locations. But with that important caveat or reservation, the general situation with regard to the disposal of radioactive material in those areas is that the material, which is clearly radioactive, was buried. The more intensely radioactive of that material was also capped with concrete. Those sites were documented by United Kingdom authorities during 1964 and 1967. Almost certainly, other material is buried within the Maralinga area, material which apparently was not classified as being radioactive, but in my view the possibility exists that it could be contaminated to some degree. Senator Elstob asked whether the Government would institute a full inquiry into these matters. I think it would be premature to make a decision to have such an inquiry, if by that Senator Elstob means an inquiry of the nature of a royal commission. It would be premature to do that, at least until such time as Dr Symonds, a former officer of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, who has been commissioned to write a report on this matter, presents that report, which should happen about mid-year. Senator Maguire and, indeed, Senator Carrick also took up this question at Estimates Committee C yesterday. A good deal of additional information was supplied by officers of my Department at that hearing. I suggest that Senator Elstob, or anyone else who is interested, might like to look up that record. The attempts to discover the relevant facts pertaining to these incidents are continuing. While noting the difficulties in doing so, to cite just one example, I would have thought that some months ago it would have been a relatively simple matter to determine the precise location at any time of Australian military personnel on duty in the last 30 or 40 years. If it is possible to do so at all, it is possible to do it only with great difficulty, because the records are not available in any readily retrievable form, if they are available at all. Finally , I can give Senator Elstob an assurance that this Government will not be a party to covering up information pertaining to these tests, although there is one caveat which should be lodged to that assurance. Given that a significant amount of the relevant factual material is held by the United Kingdom Government and that some of that is supplied on the understanding that it is confidential between governments, that does impose some limitation on the degree to which we can subsequently make available all the facts, or as many of the facts as we know. To a lesser extent, some Australian security requirements could be involved. But I can give an assurance that, with those two reservations, the Government will certainly not be a party to any attempt to suppress information which the public is entitled to know. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Government still unable to provide details of the new taxation arrangements for lump sum superannuation? It is almost a year since the changes were announced by the Government. I ask whether the likely deferral of this legislation is yet another example of the Government's plan to put off electorally unpleasant changes in the lead-up to an opportunistic early election. If there is information that can be provided by the Minister, I would be interested to hear it. If there is to be a deferral or if there are changes to the Government's plan, would he, on behalf of the Treasurer, make these clear so that those members of the Australian public who may be affected will know what is the situation and we will not have any further delay in finalisation of the Government's plans? Senator WALSH —I think it is audacious that a member of the previous Government should ask a question such as this, because the previous Government announced in July 1982 a whole list of taxation changes and election bribes and never got around to enacting them. Indeed, changes subsequently had to be enacted by this Government after it took over the ruins left by the previous Government at the beginning of 1983. However, I am able to tell Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that there has been no deferral of this matter. Either the Treasurer or, as is perhaps more likely, the Acting Treasurer, will make an announcement in the House of Representatives about this very soon. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Further to the earlier question regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's arbitrary decision to scrap television programming in Rockhampton and Townsville, is the Minister aware that this decision discriminates against a population which is three times larger than that of the Australian Capital Territory? Has the ABC consulted the Government in regard to this policy of downgrading local television in smaller centres? Does the ABC plan to phase out local television in Darwin, Canberra and Hobart? In discussions with Mr Duffy, will the Minister seek extensive consultation with the Chairman of the ABC so that this decision cannot be imposed on northern taxpayers without full investigation of the relative needs of all areas where local television is currently available? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that the area serviced by the ABC from Townsville covers about 400,000 people, if the islands are also taken into account. I suppose the point of Senator Reynolds's question is whether blocks of 400,000 people which are perhaps less scattered in other communities such as Canberra, Hobart, Darwin and so on, are to be treated in the same way. I would hope not. But insofar as the substance of the question is concerned, I am fully aware, as I indicated to Senator Collard, of the degree of concern which arises from the decision in relation to north Queensland. In the consultations which the Minister for Communications will be having with the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation I shall endeavour to ensure that the various other supplementary matters raised in Senator Reynolds's question are addressed at the same time, because they go to the general question of principle in relation to service to rural subscribers. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and I hope that he is a little more fluent and more cerebral than he was in answering that last question. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MacGIBBON —Has the investigation into the leaking of the Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy document been completed? If so, has the source of the leak been identified, and what action has been taken against the person or persons concerned? Can the Minister confirm the accuracy of a report in the Inside Canberra newsletter of 6 April that the source was tracked down within 24 hours and that it was found to be in a government office in this building? Senator BUTTON —I, too, hope that I am a bit more cerebral than I was when I answered the last question. One always hopes to improve. But I do not need to improve in order to answer Senator MacGibbon's question. In answer to the specific questions that he raises, the inquiry into the leak of the strategic basis document which is being conducted by the Australian Federal Police is not yet complete. It is anticipated that it will be completed in the next couple of weeks. In the circumstances, no source has been identified. In those circumstances, no action has been taken. I am also asked whether I can confirm the accuracy or otherwise of a report in Inside Canberra that the source had been traced to some office in this building. The answer to that question is, of course, no. It is not the Government's business to inquire on an hourly basis how the Federal Police are getting on with their inquiries. When they have completed them, they will report to the Government, and I presume that in due course some appropriate statement will be made. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Recent instances of over-spray and spray-drift of pesticides from agricultural aircraft in Tasmania have highlighted the inadequacy of control measures relating to hazardous chemicals. While the State Government duckshoves the responsibility between departments, the enormous personal, social and economic costs are ignored. In December 1982, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recognised the inadequate and fragmented controls and, in its report on the inquiry into hazardous chemicals, recommended Federal legislation. What legislation, if any, is the Government considering? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has said that he is not aware of recent incidents in Tasmania concerning environmental contamination from aerial spraying of pesticides. He suggests that the question be referred to the Minister for Primary Industry for information about any such incidents. He points out that the control of the applications of pesticides is principally a matter of State responsibility. However, the Commonwealth controls the safety of operations of aircraft used for aerial spraying under the Air Navigation Orders. The Government recognises the importance of proper management of chemicals to aviod potential hazards to human health and the environment. A substantial increase in funds and manpower, therefore, was provided to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment in 1983-84 for work in this area. The Government has also moved quickly to implement its national occupational health and safety strategy, with a particular focus on chemical hazards in the work force. I think it would be more useful to Senator Hearn if the details of her question and its reference to the House of Representatives Committee and follow up were referred first to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and then, as she suggests , to the Minister for Primary Industry for further information. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to the extraordinary speech by the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, Professor Richard Harding, to the New South Wales Branch of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration on 4 April. I particularly draw the Attorney's attention to comments by Professor Harding concerning the Opposition's role in the debate over the so-called Age tapes. A large amount of the speech is, I think, relevant to this matter. In particular he stated: In ignoring the deliberate, systematic and flagrant illegalities that must have been committed to obtain the ''Age'' tapes (or those of them that have ever existed), the alternative government is throwing away one of the few values that is integral to the functioning and survival of the modern democratic state. They are doing so for short-term political gain. A little later Professor Harding stated: In my view, the ''Age'' tapes affair depressingly testifies that the right in politics have yet to recapture any sense of responsibility for the overall political health of the nation. I ask the Attorney to put aside his agreement with a number of these statements made by Professor Harding. Does the Attorney believe that public officials- Professor Harding holds an independent statutory office-should make such deplorably partisan political statements? Has he or anyone on his behalf spoken to Professor Harding about the speech? If not, will he do so and suggest to the Director that if he continues making this sort of contribution to current political debates his only proper course is to resume his academic career? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the Government's view that independent statutory office holders such as Professor Harding should enjoy very wide freedom of public comment in relation to matters coming within or related to their functions. I appreciate that that is not a point of view that has been traditionally shared by the Opposition parties in this place but it is one that is very much associated with our commitment to free speech and open government. The fact that an issue is controversial and that the comments are robust in character does not remove the matter from being a proper subject for comment by a statutory officer or anyone else. The fact that those comments might be unpalatable either to the Government or to the Opposition of the day as the case may be is, I believe, irrelevant. However, I think it is fair to say that the expression of comments in a way that could be construed as politically partisan should be avoided, and I have discussed this aspect of the matter with Professor Harding. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney tell us what advice he has given to Professor Harding? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to add anything to the answer I have just given. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the recent allegations made about atomic testing at Maralinga , including the new allegation that there are 15 to 20 unmarked dumps containing radioactive material in the former nuclear test area. I ask the Minister: As the records held by the British Government, which the Minister referred to in his reply to Senator Elstob, appear central to any full investigation of these and other disturbing allegations, will the Commonwealth Government be making an approach to the British Government for the release of documentary evidence on nuclear testing at Maralinga and elsewhere? Senator WALSH —I will take the last part of the question first. We are continuing to try to obtain relevant factual material from the British Government and other sources. I think the latest allegations to which Senator Maguire refers are probably about Mr Burke's comments or allegations about previously undisclosed dumping sites for hot rubbish or, in other words, what is unequivocally radioactive rubbish or radioactive material, including some which may have been fairly highly radioactive. As I mentioned to Senator Elstob, the location and contents of burial pits were documented by the United Kingdom authorities during clean-up operations in 1964 and 1967. All the pits containing radioactive materials at Maralinga, with the caveat that there is at the margin perhaps some dispute as to what is and what is not radioactive material, are located within the boundaries of four fenced areas, some of the pits being capped with concrete, depending on the nature of the contents or its degree of radioactivity. None of the pits can be identified at surface level without instruments or detailed documentation. The evidence given to Senate Estimates Committee C yesterday by, I think, Mr Daniels or Mr Garran from the Department, who visited the area recently was that the radioactivity is very difficult to detect at all outside those fences and does not give a very high reading on instruments inside the fences. As I indicated earlier to Senator Elstob, there is some other material which was classified as non-radioactive buried at the test sites Emu, Maralinga and Monte Bello. The Department is aware of the location of those pits and following recommendations from the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Councl all those burial areas have been covered with topsoil and cannot be distinguished from surrounding areas without reference to documents which are currently held by the Department. The Department is unaware of any other burial sites outside the three test sites and the condition of those areas is regularly monitored by scientists and officers of the Department. I understand that the next Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council check of those sites is to take place this month. Senator Sir John Carrick —Next month. Senator WALSH —It is May, according to my note here. I think I ought to say again just in case somebody reads this in isolation that, because of the wide dispersal of these records and prima facie evidence I think of some carelessness at the time, it is difficult to be absolutely categorical about the incidents that took place or the precise nature of what is buried and where and whether, with certainty, it can be stated that we know the location of everything that is buried. But from the best available information the conclusion by my Department is that it does know where all the relevant material is buried and that the monitoring and checks of those burial sites confirm that the disposal has been adequate and safe. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and is also about the address by the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, Professor Richard Harding, to the New South Wales Branch of the Royal Institute of Public Administration. I ask whether the Attorney-General is aware that Professor Harding, referring to the Age tapes, said: To the extent that they are actually tapes, they are tapes of tapes, characterised by patching and tampering. A little later he said: In summary: No ordinary person of common sense would make the simplest decision affecting the most mundane aspect of his daily life on the basis of such inherently defective information. The material is worthless. I ask the Attorney: Has Professor Harding had any access to the material now being investigated by the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge? If so, did the Attorney or anyone acting on his authority make the material available to the Director? If not, does the Attorney agree that Professor Harding could not justify such sweeping assertions without first-hand knowledge of the material involved? Senator GARETH EVANS —Professor Harding has had no access whatsoever to the Age tapes or transcript material. His comments, he assures me, were based entirely on publicly available material. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a group calling itself the People's Coalition for Civil Liberties? Is the Minister aware that this group aims to discredit the peace movement by accusing it of being a communist inspired and backed conspiracy aimed at undermining the willpower of Australians? Given the Minister's long involvement in the issue of civil liberties, can he assure the Senate that this group has no connection whatsoever with legitimate civil liberties organisations throughout Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware, if somewhat dimly, of some of the fevered outpourings of the so-called People's Coalition for Civil Liberties, in particular its claimed attempt to educate Australia about the rampant Marxism which threatens to swamp us all! I am aware that this group has been accusing the peace movement of being a cross between a communist conspiracy and a covert Soviet operation whose likely effect will be to reduce the Australian people to a mindless and directionless mass. Needless to say, public statements such as these are the worthless product of vivid imaginations. On a slightly more serious note, as raised by Senator Zakharov, it is of some concern that fringe groups such as this coalition, so-called, can speak and sometimes obtain public notice by attaching the label 'civil liberties' to their name. It is important to make clear to the Senate that this fly-by-night organisation has no connection whatsoever with any of the legitimate and long- standing civil liberites organisations, most notably the State councils for civil liberties throughout Australia. I should also say that people and organisations with a real commitment to civil liberties, such as this Government , regard the activities of the peace movement, in engaging in vigorous public protest and debate, as exemplifying the very aspects of our way of life which have made Australia a free society. As the very large marches all around Australia before Easter demonstrated, the concern for nuclear disarmament is felt in all sections and at all levels of Australian society and it is felt deeply and sincerely by all those who would give up their days and weekends to make a public expression of their concern. The Government recognises and respects that expression of concern. It will continue, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have been making clear, to pursue its very strong commitment to nuclear disarmament and the goal of peace notwithstanding the attempts of ratbag organisations, such as the one to which Senator Zakharov referred, to discredit that very noble purpose. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, concerns the Prime Minister's recent handling of the export beef negotiations with Japan. Is the Minister aware of the beef industry's very bitter reaction to reports that Japan has given the United States of America a substantial increase in market access for beef? Does he acknowledge that the cost of this decision to Queensland and other beef producing States will be very significant? Will the Minister concede that the Prime Minister has been unforgivably incompetent in his efforts to retain Australia's share of the Japanese market and, indeed, has been deceitful in statements to the media that this had in fact been achieved? Senator WALSH —Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me whether I was aware of a few things. I am actually aware of quite a few things; in particular I am aware of the fact that, for many years, Australia's percentage share of the Japanese beef market has been steadily declining. I think ever since 1978 that has been happening, although I would not like to be held to a precise date on it. I am also aware of the fact that, a few weeks ago, the present Leader of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's Party, who for most of that period presided over that decline in Australia's percentage share of the Japanese beef market, suddenly became aware of the fact that it had happened. After presiding over the decline for something like five years he suddenly became aware of that decline and decided it was a dreadful thing and it meant the end of Christian civilisation as we know it in Queensland. I think what is demonstrated quite decisively by the reaction of the present Leader of the National Party of Australia, or perhaps one should say pro tem the Leader of the National Party, is his selective indignation and his selective discovery of facts and their likely or alleged consequences. Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me-I am paraphasing, I hope reasonably, the allegations and assertions-whether I would agree that this would be at great cost to Queensland. I ask, at great cost compared to what? I suppose it is arguable-indeed it is even possible-that if Australia had managed to secure a greater share of the Japanese beef market a somewhat higher average price may have been obtained. I do however want to caution Senator Bjelke-Petersen, and other perhaps well meaning but simple-minded people, of the dangers of simply multiplying X tonnes of beef which somebody assumes could have been sold into some market at Y price and adding to that a similar calculation for some beef which could possibly have been sold into some other market and adding them all up and saying that this has cost us $200m. With that sort of calculation two assumptions are made. The first is that the beef would have been available to supply to all that those hypothetical markets and the second is that there are no alternative markets to the hypothetical market for the beef which it was thought could otherwise have been supplied. Although it is possible that the total income of the Australian beef industry may have been increased if Australia had managed to secure a larger volume of sales into the Japanese market, it is quite wrong simply to assume that a certain quantity could have been sold at a stated price and the fact of it not having been sold automatically means that the total income of the Australian beef industry has been reduced to that extent. Senator Lajovic —Lucid answer. Senator WALSH —Apparently it is beyond Senator Lajovic's capacity to understand the point that I made. If that is really so I will be quite happy to drop him a note and endeavour to set it out in monosyllables. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to answer Senator Bjelke- Petersen's question. Senator Gareth Evans —In monosyllables. Senator WALSH —Yes, in monosyllables. As for the final series of undisciplined allegations about the Prime Minister which Senator Bjelke-Petersen threw about, I do not, of course, agree with any of those. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to reports of criticism by spokesmen for the Northern Territory Government that the Federal Government has deliber- ately delayed approvals for a number of road construction projects on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin? Is there any substance to these allegations? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the rather outlandish statements made by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and, of course, the contradictory nature of the statements made by the Northern Territory Government spokesmen- both the Minister for Transport and Works and the Chief Minister. When the matter of the railway was being canvassed the Government made a very definite offer to the Northern Territory Government in respect of upgrading the Stuart Highway. It was told promptly by the Chief Minister that there was no need for that highway to be upgraded in terms of construction and making it part of our national highway network. Now, of course, he seems to have had a change of heart , possibly connected with the fact that he is considering whether to be a candidate in the next Federal election, and feels that he should show some concern about the state of the highway. The Australian Government has consistently suggested that non-contradictory recommendations of the Northern Territory Government should precede the Australian Government's providing the essential funds. Both Senator Robertson in this place and Mr Reeves in the other place have been persistently asking the Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, for sufficient funds for that upgrading to take place. They have been putting the Government in a position of needing to decide on this matter before the Northern Territory Government has formulated a consistent position. Now that the Chief Minister has publicly complained about the lack of funds for the Stuart Highway, and as he is on record as saying previously that there was no need for such construction funds, the Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, sent a senior officer to conduct an inspection on his behalf. A technical inspection of the highway between Alice Springs and Darwin was carried out in association with the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Reeves. As a result of that inspection the officer has advised the Minister for Transport that the essential works should be carried out. As a result of that the Minister for Transport has approved the construction work, which means a sum of $47.5m will be provided for projects associated with upgrading the Stuart Highway. Of course, that confirms the view the Government took initially, a year ago, that upgrading the Stuart Highway was a priority job and one which should be supported by the Northern Territory Government. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. In view of the planned withdrawal of regional television facilities in northern Queensland, can the Minister assure me that there will be no downgrading or elimination of the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Channel 3 in servicing the viewers of northern Tasmania through its Launceston studios? Senator BUTTON —I cannot give Senator Watson any understanding on that matter at the moment. I have answered two previous questions in which I have indicated that the Government is concerned about the implications of the Townsville decision by the ABC for people in north Queensland. In answer to a subsequent question I indicated that of course the Government would not see that as a desirable precedent, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of that decision. I just add that general comment. I will ask the Minister for Communications when he is discussing the matter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board to deal with the details of Senator Watson's question as well as the other matters in respect of which he will be seeking enlightenment. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that material relating to the judgment of the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr Dobson, on the Don Witheford case, addressed to our overseas missions has been intercepted within the Department of Foreign Affairs? Has material on the same case addressed to Foreign Affairs staff in Canberra also been intercepted? Will the Minister provide full details, including the action he proposes to take against those responsbile for these outrageous breaches of privacy? Senator GARETH EVANS —As usual, I have no knowledge of the matters to which Senator Primmer refers, but I will again, as usual, refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek such early reply as the Minister feels able to provide. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and relates to the Maralinga and Emu tests and to the claims by Mr Burke that he saw a number of Aboriginal bodies in a bomb crater in 1963. I ask: First, is it not a fact that no atom bomb tests were made in 1963 and that the only tests were trigger-type tests using conventional materials? Secondly, is there not in existence and available to the Government and to its experts the expert Pearce Committee report prepared in the mid-1970s from British information and detailing the location of contaminated materials and sites? Senator Walsh —Which report was that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It was the Pierce report. If I may respond to the interjection, Mr President, it was referred to by departmental officers yesterday when appearing before Senate Estimates Committee C. Thirdly, was that report not made available to the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council to enable its scientific investigation? Fourthly, did not AIRAC report in its most recent report to this Parliament that there was no evidence of nuclear injury to any member of the Aboriginal population? Finally, on something which is not quite related to this matter, now that the Minister has restored himself from laryngitis, may I have the remaining answer to a question I asked when last we met? Senator WALSH —As accurately as I can remember them, all the statements made by Senator Sir John Carrick about the reports and the findings of those reports are correct. I have a note on some of the more technical details of the minor trials -that is the term used here-that were conducted in 1963. These are the trials which were referred to in AIRAC report No. 4 of 1979, which in turn was derived from a United Kingdom report prepared some time earlier. I will read out a little from the technical details I have here. The minor trials have a series of objects. These are their code names: Tims, a position/timing study of the movement of material and shock waves through the assembly; Rats, a further timing experiment similar to Tims; Kittens, trigger, initiator, mechanism tests; Vixen, studies of the consequences of accidents; Ayres, no details are available ; Hercules, the initial clean-up of the Maralinga area; and Brumby, a final clean up of the area. The minor trials were completed by 1963 and the clean-up process continued into 1967. On the best information available to us it can be stated that no atomic explosive tests were conducted in 1963. Whether it was entirely responsible to do some of the tests that appear to have been conducted at that time may be another matter. Senator Sir John Carrick referred specifically to Mr Burke's allegation that he saw four dead Aborigines in a bomb crater. Firstly, there is no evidence in the possession of the Government that that is so, but it was more than 20 years ago and, as I have already said several times today, the records of this whole incident are widely dispersed and quite possibly incomplete. There is certainly no evidence available to the Government to support that. Senator Sir John Carrick's question, however, implied to me that the alleged bomb crater was only recently excavated or blown out. That is not necessarily the case, I think. I just say again that investigations are continuing in this matter. I think the concern shown by a number of people inside and outside the Senate is well merited, but that investigation is not enhanced by an overreaction, which I think has occurred in some quarters, to the disclosures and allegations pertaining to this matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I share the Minister's concern that all the facts should be revealed, if possible. Because of the importance of the matter, will he make available whatever information is available from AIRAC and others relating to the Aboriginal presence in the area, particularly to material that I think AIRAC raised regarding the outbreak of an epidemic of german measles at the time and the widespread deaths of the people, I think, of the Pitjantjatjara tribe. The details are now hazy with me. I would welcome it if the Minister could make that information available. Senator WALSH —I can see no reason why that sort of information should not be made available. While I am on my feet, there is another fact which I neglected to mention earlier. I am not sure whether the arrangements have been completed yet, but I set in operation this morning moves to interview Mr Burke by officers from the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Resources and Energy and the South Australian State Government with a view to taking a deposition from him. The question had arisen yesterday and I had decided, in view of Mr Burke's health, that we should not seek to obtain a deposition from him. In view of the fact that he was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last night and apparently is willing to be interviewed by other people, I changed that decision this morning. I apologise for not mentioning the question which Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a few weeks ago. I am afraid I do not have the details of that in my mind now. I will supply it in writing or by a statement to the Senate, should the honourable senator prefer that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in Question Time Senator Mason asked me a question about Army proposals for land acquisition in New South Wales. I am unable at this stage to give him any information about the extent to which Mr Sinclair might have benefited personally from any land holdings of his own in the Tamworth area. What I am able to say is that the Leader of the National Party of Australia and his predecessor as Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, had been, prior to the change of government, in the thick of negotiations to acquire land for the Army in New South Wales and that any promise now emerging from the National Party to restore future land acquisitions is gross hypocrisy. Of course the property owners in the areas under question are concerned. They would have known of the proposals much earlier if the Leader of the National Party had not feared that it would provoke an electoral backlash and thus jeopardise his own position. Turning to the particular details of the proposals, as was explained in a Press release issued, I think, yesterday by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), the proposals may, in fact, be broken into two parts. The first involves the acquisition of some two million hectares in the Cobar district for a new Army manoeuvre area. The second part involves the acquisition of about 167,000 hectares for a schools complex. Areas to the north of Dubbo, in the Bathurst/ Orange area and to the north of Tamworth are under investigation for this purpose. The schools complex will enable the School of Artillery, now at North Head, and the Infantry Centre, now at Singleton, to be relocated. Pressure has been mounting for some years for Army to vacate or to restrict activities in its training areas at Holsworthy, North Head and Singleton. The proposed areas for the schools complex are now under study by Dames and Moore, a Sydney-based firm of environmental consultants. Their task is to identify a site for this complex which is sparsely populated, has low economic potential, contains no or few places of ecological or historical importance, satisfies Army's location, terrain and vegetation requirements and would, with appropriate land management, be able to sustain continuous training activities. A report by the consultants will be ready by the end of June for study by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. A decision on the site for the schools complex could be expected in September 1984. An environmental impact statement will be available for public comment by mid-1985. Approval could be announced in the Commonwealth's 1986-87 Budget, allowing acquisition to begin in late 1986. Construction of the schools complex is unlikely to begin before the end of the decade allowing operation by the mid-1990s. In the event that land is acquired, negotiations will be conducted by the Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services under the provisions of the Lands Acquisitions Act 1955. Any such acquisition will be made only on the basis of fair compensation to the property holders concerned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the reference given to it by the Senate on the 17th November, 1983. The essence of the reference was 'That the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report, on or before the 30 April 1984, as to whether the Bills fulfil effectively the objective of investigating organized crime and official corruption.' The Committee worked under undue constraints as to time. This prevented that full discussion and deliberation around the table over a period of time which normally characterises the work of Senate Committees and explains much of the worth of their reports. Nevertheless I believe the Committee can be proud of a very commendable achievement in presenting to the Senate this report which is lengthy and contains recommendations whose range indicates that there was no shirking of a lot of hard thinking on issues seldom addressed by Parliamentary committees. The Committee was assisted by its Secretary, Mr Chris Fogarty, Research Officers, Mr Cleaver Elliot and Mrs Mary Louise Willheim, and Legal Adviser, Mr John Lord of the Melbourne Bar. Tribute should be paid to the extraordinary hours put in by the secretaries and word processors who have helped the committee meet the deadline set by the Senate. The Report In outlining the report I will be speaking of it as the Committee's Report. I point out, however, that there is a substantial dissent entitled 'Minority report of Senator Alan Missen' and dissents on a small number of particular recommendations by individual Senators. However, apart from the caution concerning Senator Alan Missen, the Senate will not be misled if I speak of the Report as the Report of the Committee. Also, throughout my statement and the Report, the body to be established is referred to as the National Crime Authority (''The Authority''). In fact, the Committee recommends that the title of the body be the Australian Crime Commission but for ease of comparison with the Bills under review the term Authority is used in the Report. In General The Committee has concluded generally that the Bills which were presented to the Senate had grave defects or omissions. Fundamental change is required to the legislative framework upon which the Authority is to operate. We concluded that the suppression of organised crime and official corruption is an attainable goal , but if the Authority is to play a significant role in such suppression it must be given a fighting chance. It must be vested with an adequate range of powers which it can exercise largely free of political interference. However, not all recommendations are directed at strengthening the Authority. In its recommendations as to private hearings and the indemnities to be offered those compelled to give certain types of self-incriminating evidence, and its proposal for speedy access to the Courts for resolution of grievances against the Authority, the Committee was equally concerned to safeguard individuals subjected to the operations of the Authority. The general concern of the Committee has been to free the Authority as much as possible from undue dependence on Governments for the initiation or direction of its activities. The intervention of Governments should be confined to those occasions where it is thought necessary to make inroads into the traditional rights and liberties of the subject in order to further the suppression of organised crime. Short of that point, the Parliament should directly confer a range of functions on the Authority, the proper discharge of which will depend on the structure and general accountability of the Authority. To that end, the Committee departs from the structure of the Bill as drafted and proposes that a distinction be recognised between ordinary and special functions of the authority. This distinction, fundamental to the approach of the majority of Committee members, is elaborated shortly. Relevant Criminal Activity But, whether functioning in an ordinary or in a special way, the authority should not dissipate its resources. The Bill, in setting general parameters as to the criminal activity which should be of concern to the Authority, establishes a list of ''relevant criminal offences', the maximum punishment for which is imprisonment for not less than three years and which require substantial planning by more than one offender. The Committee considers that such listing of offences carries the danger that very relevant crimes may be omitted either altogether, or by reason of the fact that the maximum punishment provided for would be less than three years imprisonment. Such appears to be the case with SP bookmaking. It would be better if the definition of 'relevant offence' were re-drafted so as to require the National Crime Authority to direct its activities to offences which appear to be connected with one another, involve several offenders, substantial planning and organisation and the use of sophisticated methods and techniques. The Authority should be required to then give particular consideration to types of offences similar to those defined as 'relevant offences'. These should be set out in an illustrative, not exhaustive manner. Admissible Evidence Again, whether functioning in an ordinary or in a special way the Committee recommends that the Authority be responsible for the collection and assembly of admissible evidence for appropriate civil or criminal court proceedings. The Committee does not perceive successful proceedings as the sole criterion by which to eventually judge the Authority's success. But it does believe that the task of ensuring, either from within its own resources or by supervising and co- ordinating the work of other agencies, that admissable evidence is assembled, will act as a focus for the Authority's activities. It is not incompatible with the task of investigating and compiling intelligence and should be undertaken as a matter of course. I return to the distinction between ordinary and special functions of the Authority. Ordinary Functions Ordinary functions are those which can be undertaken by the Authority of its own volition, independent of Government directive. They should be clearly set out and sufficiently empowered as a direct statutory charter for its activities. Such ordinary functions would include- the collection, analysis and dissemination of criminal information and intelligence; the investigation of 'relevant criminal activity'; to assist such investigation, the creation of task forces comprised of Commonwealth agencies and the co-ordination of task forces consisting of State and Commonwealth agencies; the making of recommendations for law reform. The carrying out of these functions would enable the Authority to get a long way down the track without specific governmental initiative or intervention, and would represent a considerable advance on the present Bill. The Committee was most concerned at the apparent lack of co-operation between the Government agencies in the provision of information relevant to combatting organised crime. The Authority would be severely impaired if this intolerable situation were to continue. The Committee therefore recommends: The Bill should be amended to empower the Authority to require the transfer to it of information held by any other Commonwealth agency; that the various secrecy provisions in Commonwealth legislation preventing the disclosure of information held by Commonwealth agencies should be overcome by the secrecy provision governing the Authority; the Bill should be redrafted to provide for the Authority, in exercising its ordinary functions and powers, to receive from the Commissioner of Taxation information relevant to taxation or tax-related offences; the Bill should be redrafted to provide the Authority with the power necessary to enter into arrangements with State instrumentalities private institutions and persons to receive information from them. Special Functions Special Functions embrace a range of coercive powers whereby the Authority will be able to compel persons to assist in its investigations. The Committee recommends that such coercive powers should only be exercisable under a term of reference granted by Government. It would be salutary for the Authority to be constrained to articulate reasons for wishing to exercise extraordinary powers, and salutary for governments to have to take responsibility for permitting such exercise. The major special functions and powers with which the Committee deals are the powers to compel the attendance of persons to give evidence and the power to compel the answering of questions or the production of documents. Its recommendations have been designed to advance the ability of the Authority to gather and assemble admissable evidence. Passports Thus, concerning the attendance of witnesses, the Committee endorses the Bill's provision for the delivery up of passports, but further recommends that the Authority should be empowered to apply to a judicial officer for an order to arrest a person where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is about to leave Australia to avoid giving evidence to the Authority. Summons to Appear The Committee also consider it sufficient that the summons to appear should set out the notice describing the terms of reference given under Clauses 11 and 12 without the need to set out the general nature of any line of questioning. Search Warrants In relation to search warrants, the Committee is anxious that material not be tampered with or destroyed which may be the case if normal ''notice to produce'' procedures were employed in some circumstances. The Committee endorses the general tenor of the provision requiring application to a judge for a search warrant where such loss of evidence is likely, but it considers the requirement that the evidentiary material which the Authority seeks to seize be on the premises in the 24 hours following the issue of the warrant is unnecessarily limiting. It should be sufficient that the Authority have reasonable grounds for suspecting that at that time, or some definite future time within the one month life of the warrant, the evidence is likely to be in a particular place. The Compelling of Answers and Documents In relation to compelling the answering of questions or the producing of documentary materials the Committee's recommendations were much influenced by the desire to enable the Authority to ''follow the money trail'' either without hindrance altogether, or in a way which allowed as much of the evidence as possible to be admitted in later court proceedings. Documents evidencing property or financial transactions assume particular importance in this regard. Legal Professional Privilege For that reason, for example, the Committee recognises the claim of legal professional privilege but only in the narrowest understanding as set down in the recent High Court decisions in Baker v. Campbell and Grant v. Downs. These confine the privilege to communications brought into existence for the sole purpose of their being submitted to a legal adviser for advice; or for the sole purpose of their use in existing or anticipated legal proceedings. Self-Incrimination In its endeavour to ensure that effective court proceedings could be taken on the basis of admissible evidence, the Committee was conscious of the strictures of the common law courts that the right to refuse to answer questions or produce documents on the grounds of self-incrimination is not to be abrogated, except by express terms and then generally in a way which does not allow self- incriminatory evidence to be used against the person compelled to give such evidence. The Committee deliberated at length on the balance to be struck. In the end the regime proposed: (1) does not acknowledge any claim to the privilege made by corporations; (2) does not acknowledge any inhibition on the use of compelled evidence in civil proceedings. This is particularly important in stemming the cash flow, or confiscating the assets, of criminal organisations; (3) in prosecutions for an offence (criminal proceedings) (a) does not acknowledge any claim to the privilege in relation to records of a business or financial institution. These documents, so essential to the following of the money trail, can be freely used as admissible evidence against any person including the (natural) person compelled to make them available to the Authority; (b) acknowledges the force of a person's claim to the privilege to remain silent on the grounds that certain oral testimony or documents (other than 3a) may tend to incriminate him. The Committee recommends that the claim be abrogated or over-ridden, but the compelled answer or document, or evidence derived from it, should not be available as evidence in criminal proceedings against the person compelled to give such evidence. Of course, the evidence is available against that person in civil proceedings, and against any other person in any court proceedings; (4) recommends that the grant of an indemnity in return for compelling self- incrimating answers or documents (to be known as a ''use-derivative use indemnity'') should be granted by the Authority and not by the Attorney-General as presently provided in the Bill. In comparison with the Bill, these recommendations narrow the range of compelled evidence in relation to which the privilege can be claimed (see 3 (a)) but strengthen the indemnity offered to a person in the instance where the claim is recognised but abrogated. The Committee believes it has struck the right balance and is particularly mindful of evidence received which suggested that such recommendations would not lead to the loss of admissible evidence against major targets. In fact, we believe that we have enhanced the possibility of furnishing such evidence in criminal prosecutions. Taxation Records The Committee considers that the Authority should have speedy access to the fullest range of taxation records relevant to its enquiries under its terms of reference. The National Crime Authority (Consequental Amendments) Bill sets out a cumbersome procedure requiring an order of a judge of the Federal Court who is required to give attention to criteria much more restrictive than is the case with designated Royal Commissions, many other Commonwealth agencies (and State and P.N.G. tax departments), who have ready access to tax records for the purpose of administering laws for which they are responsible. The Committee recommends similar access in the case of the Authority and considers that information derived from the handing over of such records ought be available for use in preparing court proceedings. The Inter-Governmental Committee It is desirable to have a body which represents the range of Governments throughout the Federation whose co-operation at a practical level will be of great assistance to the Authority. The constitutional reality of State and Commonwealth jurisdictions must also be recognised. The Committee has therefore accepted the need for an Inter-Governmental Committee (consisting of the Commonwealth and participating States) but has greatly reduced those occasions on which it can exercise a decisive influence on the Authority's activities. Thus, if this Committee's recommendations on ordinary functions are accepted, the I.G.C. loses the ability to frustrate a line of enquiry or impede the gathering of evidence by non coercive means. The Authority can go a long way without directive from, or dependence on, the I.G.C. Granting of a Reference It is desirable that the Authority be required to justify, and governments be prepared to accept the responsibility for, the exercise of special functions. This should be expressed in the granting of terms of reference. But possibly the greatest defect in the Bill is contained in Clause 9 (3) which allows one member of the I.G.C. to veto the whole resolution approving a term of reference, rather than merely that portion of it over which the Government exercising the veto has jurisdiction. The latter cannot be prevented as it is constitutionally required that the Commonwealth or relevant State confer coercive powers in relation to the investigation of offences in their respective jurisdiction. The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth be able to grant the Authority a reference relating to relevant criminal activity offending Commonwealth laws without the concurrence of the I.G.C. This is constitutionally sound and recognises the practical point that the Authority is Commonwealth established and funded. In those matters which involve a breach of State law occurring wholely within a State, the Committee recognises the constitutional need for the State Minister, sufficiently empowered by State law, to put the reference before the I.G.C. for its approval so as to confer coercive powers on the Authority. In that sense only does the Committee recognise a veto power existing within a State. In cases of mixed references, that is those involving Commonwealth and State jurisdictions and laws, clause 9 (3) should be amended to provide that any State veto is limited to that portion of the reference which falls wholly within its jurisdiction in the sense explained above. The reference must remain alive in relation to the jurisdictions of either the Commonwealth or such other States which wish to grant a reference. In summary, the resolution approving the reference must not wholly founder because of a veto exercised by one particular Government. Withdrawal of a Reference To prevent the frustration of the use of coercive powers by the withdrawal of a reference part way through an investigation the Committee recommends in the case of the Commonwealth that such withdrawal only take place on the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This enables the early termination of coercive powers where the Government can demonstrate good reason, yet lessens the chance of an inquiry being truncated for unscrupulous reasons. Commonwealth legislation cannot prohibit the State withdrawal of its portion of a reference. Duplication of Police Enquiries A matter of concern related to the requirement that the I.G.C. not approve a reference to the Authority unless satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation were not likely to be effective. Whilst agreeing with the need to avoid duplication of effort which could be undertaken by existing agencies, the Committee considers that the present Bill requires a judgment which could be speculative and premature. It therefore recommends that before approving a reference to the Authority, the I.G.C. shall take into account whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are likely to be effective. Seeking of a Reference by the Authority The Authority should be expressly empowered to approach the I.G.C. in order argue the case for a reference. If the Committee's recommendations as to ordinary functions are accepted the Authority will have undertaken considerable investigations before concluding that terms of reference are necessary. The results of such investigation can be laid before the I.G.C. If the request is rejected the Authority should only be entitled to report such rejection in its annual report if it is satisfied that to do so would not prejudice the reputation or safety or fair trial of any person or the operations of law enforcement agencies. Publicity A major issue requiring resolution by the Committee was that of the publicity which ought to attach to the work of the Authority, particularly in its hearings . Private Hearings The Committee acknowledges the concern of the Bill to prevent disclosure to the public of the indentity of persons whose reputation, safety or fair trial might be at stake. The Bill vests power in the Authority to hold private hearings where such matters are imperilled. The Committee has concluded that such protection should be more fully assured and recommends that all hearings should be conducted in private out of the public gaze. Of course, a person summonsed to appear before the Authority should be entitled to representation by legal counsel. It is the task of the Authority, inter alia, to gather and assemble admissible evidence and to present such evidence to the appropriate body to decide whether to undertake civil proceedings or prosecutions (such as the Director of Public Prosecutions). The Committee's recommendations on privacy of hearings would emphasise this preliminary role of the Authority, and would render its activities in carrying out investigations and gathering evidence more akin to those of the grand jury and ordinary police investigations rather than the Royal Commission. In those cases where a public airing of allegations of criminal or corrupt activity seems desirable at both the hearing and reporting stages, the Committee believes that the traditional machinery of the Royal Commission is appropriate. But the Authority should not be structured or empowered to undertake this role. Public Sittings Nevertheless, there is a very important role for the Authority in educating and alerting the public to the nature and scope of relevant criminal activity in Australia. This could be undertaken by the issuing of special bulletins, but the Committee also recommends that public sittings of the Authority be held during which the members of the Authority could, for example, detail a fraudulent tax evasion scheme of which it has become aware. Public sittings will also be appropriate and useful for the carrying out of the Authority's function under clause 10 (e) of the Bill, concerning reform of the law relating to relevant offences, reform of administrative practices and reform of administration of the courts in relation to trials of relevant offences. Defamation Should the Government not accept this preference of the Committee for a grand jury type role to be assumed by the Authority in conducting its hearings in private, the Committee recommends that the traditional defence available to reports of similar proceedings be available to the media in any action for defamation based on a report of a public hearing. The Committee does not consider it appropriate that the defence of fair and accurate report of proceedings be stripped from defendants as proposed by the Bill. The Government should await a more comprehensive resolution of the issues as being undertaken by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Prior Statements Whilst all hearings should be held in private, any such evidence can be available for subsequent court proceedings (subject to the privilege against self-incrimination). However, the Authority may give a person an undertaking that evidence given will be held in strictest confidence and not made available in litigation. The Committee clearly perceived the value of such an undertaking in encouraging the disclosure of information. Against this, it had to balance the right of an accused person in a criminal trial to have access to prior statements of a witness in order to probe for inconsistencies, perjury and such like. If Mr Justice Anderson is a recent unreported judgment in the Supreme Court of Victoria is correct, the common law requires the automatic overriding of any claim that evidence was given to an authority in deepest confidence. The Committee does not agree that the common law situation should be maintained and recommends that when the Authority has ordered that evidence be held in confidence, a trial judge may, in his discretion if he considers that a finding as to the guilt or innocence of the accused may turn on that evidence, direct the Authority to make the evidence available. Structure of the Authority It was clear to the Committee that the composition of the Authority will be crucial to its likely efficacy and public acceptance. The integrity of the Authority's members will be the primary safeguard against the abuse of power and , unless the community is convinced of such integrity, it may be expected that support for the Authority will waver. The Committee accepts the method of appointment of Members of the Authority set out in the Bill. However, it disagrees with the provision for a maximum two year term with the possibility of renewal of a further two years. Whilst acknowledging the opportunity thereby given for ministerial responsibility to be exercised, the Committee is conscious that renewal of the term may become a matter of political influence. It recommends four-year terms for the members of the National Crime Authority with no provision for renewal. Provision should also be made upon the Authority' s establishment to stagger the terms of office of members so as to enable continuity of experience and leadership. Finally, if members were to sit alone, the possibility of inconsistencies in method and approach would be very real. This would be accentuated if members were informally alloted different geographical jurisdictions. Such differences could have adverse consequences for those subject to the Authority's coercive powers and could lead to a loss of the Authority's credibility. It is therefore recommended that, when conducting hearings, the Authority should be constituted by at least two members. Accountability of the Authority The Bills propose to establish a quite new and exceptional body within the Australian community. In being responsible for its creation, the Parliament will need to be satisfied that the Authority will not stray beyond a limited and acceptable role. There are several provisions in the Bill intended to render the Authority accountable for its actions. Judicial Audit The Bill provides for a 3-yearly judicial audit of the operation of the Authority to determine its efficiency and whether it has acted illegally or in a way detrimental to rights and liberties of individuals. The Committee was not convinced that this review could actually be successfully undertaken. Not only would the task of examining the Authority's activity be enormous, but a more immediate method of remedying grievances should operate. In short, the provision for judicial audit is illusory and should be deleted from the Bill. Ombudsman Much the same argument as was put concerning the effective and timely work of the judicial auditor was put concerning the calling in of the Ombudsman by an aggrieved person. But additionally, evidence was given of the likely disruptive role of the Ombudsman in the day-to-day work of the Authority. The Committee concluded that provision for the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to be extended to the Authority should be deleted. Parliamentary Scrutiny The Committee believes that the ordinary operation of the parliamentary system, particularly the consideration of, and deliberation on, the annual report of the Authority, provides adequate opportunity for scrutiny of its activities and the overall achievement of its goal. The Committee makes several recommendations which would make the annual report a more useful document, for example requiring the compiling of statistics on relevant criminal activity in a manner not heretofore undertaken, and in outlining actions and decisions in the courts, arising out of disputes between the Authority and persons caught up in its activities. These ordinary operations of the parliamenstary system are to be preferred to a permanent parliamentary committee, not only because it is improbable that it would achieve a level of detailed awareness such as the public might expect of it, but because it could also be drawn into the ethos of the Authority from continuous contact with it. Ministerial Responsibility Whilst acknowledging that the relevant Ministers should be able to issue guidelines to, and be informed of the activities of the Authority, the Committee recommends that the Bill should be amended to make it clear that, in furnishing guidelines or giving directions to the Authority, a Minister is precluded from doing so in relation to a particular case. In addition, the Minister should be required to table a copy of any directions or guidelines in Parliament within 15 sitting days of their publication in the Gazette. The Committee further recommends that the Bill should be amended to prevent Commonwealth or State Ministers from requiring to provide information concerning a specific matter in relation to its operations, where the provision of such information could prejudice the safety, or reputation or fair trial of a person, or the operations of law enforcement agencies. Review by the Courts The Committee is attracted to the proposal that a means should be provided for a person aggrieved by some action of the Authority, especially in the exercise of coercive powers, to obtain an appropriate remedy by speedy judicial process. Existing procedures, especially under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, were said to be slow and could be abused by those wishing to hinder the Authority's operations. To enable speedy resolution of a grievance, the Committee recommends that a person be entitled to make summary application for remedy to a judge of the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court. The immediate determination of a matter in issue between the Authority and a person is preferable to the processes provided under the present Bill. Conclusion Mr President, I believe that the Committee has discharged the task given it by the Senate in a comprehensive and rigorous manner. It has made sensible recommendations which will enable the Government, if it is so minded, to bring into this Chamber a much improved legislative framework upon which to establish the new body required to aid the suppression of organised crime and official corruption in Australia. I finally wish to extend my appreciation to my colleagues on the Committee, who have supported me through a difficult task under inordinate time constraints. The report is the outcome of their deliberations, and at times, their forebearance. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.14) —Incorporated with the tabled report, is a substantial minority report by me. I think that is incorporated in the motion that the report be printed which has already been moved. I seek leave to table and to have incorporated in Hansard a summary statement by me on the tabling of the minority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the investigation into the national crime authority legislation 1983. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- SUMMARY STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALAN MISSEN ON THE TABLING OF THE MINORITY REPORT TO THE SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION INTO THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY LEGISLATION 1983 There is common agreement between all members of the Committee that the Attorney-General's proposed National Crime Authority Bill 1983, and accompanying legislation, is in various areas highly deficient. As presently drafted it will not achieve the effective fulfilment of ''the objective of investigating organized crime and official corruption'', the subject of this Committee's inquiry. Substantial evidence before the Committee, contained in public Hansards, has disclosed many weaknesses in the legislation which is the product of disjointed and unsound compromises between many conflicting interests. The growing and alarming ramifications of organized crime in Australia call for stringent efforts and the proposed legislation gives no promise of success in suppressing organized crime and corruption; indeed as a successor to the Costigan Royal Commission, it will clearly fall far short of its successful operation. To proceed to establish a Commission with the present defects, would mislead the public and ill serve this nation. The Australian people, already facing the dangers and costs of organized crime, are entitled to expect their legislators to produce a workable Crime Commission and to accept national responsibilities. They are not bound by the misjudgments of the Commonealth Attorney-General and his abject surrender to the demands of certain State Governments and civil liberties organizations. The Senate Committee has, in its Majority Report usefully analysed these weaknesses but, in my opinion, has settled for soft options and partial remedies that should not satisfy the Australian people. It would create a ramshackle, ineffective body. Consequently I have advanced specific additional remedies to cover such deficencies. They relate mainly to the recommended establishment of an Australian Crime Commission which has widely expressed purposes and functions, and operates with sufficient powers of information gathering, surveillance and collecton of evidence to the point of prosecution, and is backed by necessary coercive powers to produce results akin to the Costigan Commission, but over a wider field of organized crime. It must be freed from the obstructions and '' veto'' powers residing in an Inter-Governmental Committee, be able to require answers from witnesses and acquire documents without excessive resort to defences of ''self incrimination'' and rights to indemnity. It must be enabled to inform the public through the right of public hearings where required. The Commission must be appointed by methods that guarantee fearless and highly competent Commissioners and staff and its work should be carefully monitored by a permanent Joint Parliamentary Committee. My recommendations are backed by the best evidence available to the Senate Committee. The existing Act, the National Crimes Commission Act 1982, must not be repealed unless its substitute is legislation of unquestioned utility-and not a sham and delusion. The details of these proposals are set out clearly in the Minority Report which I have the honour to present today. The conclusions to that Minority Report, which summarise its contents, are annexed to this Press release. I am available to discuss any aspects of the Committee inquiry and recommendations. Senator MISSEN —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Rae proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The deception of the Australian community by the Prime Minister on the prospects he had secured for Australia's steel and beef industries on his recent Asian visit. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.15) —The matter of public importance for discussion by the Senate reads: The deception of the Australian community by the Prime Minister on the prospects he had secured for Australia's steel and beef industries on his recent Asian visit. The visit to which I refer took place in February this year. The countries which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visited included Japan and China, along with a number of other countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I wish to refer particularly to Japan and China. The Prime Minister, during his visit to Japan, dramatically announced-my colleague Senator Scott will develop the consequences of this matter in more detail-the agreement which he had been able to obtain from the Japanese Prime Minister guaranteeing the position of Australian beef exports to that country. This is a matter of great importance to the beef industry, which has already been under substantial strain in relation to export markets. It is a matter of considerable importance to a large and significant industry in Australia. This agreement was denied by the Japanese Prime Minister after it was announced by Mr Hawke who, apparently not being prepared to learn from the first mistake of claiming agreements which had not been entered into, went to China. We are told, and have no reason not to believe as it has certainly not been denied, that during the flight to Peking someone-there have even been suggestions as to who it was-brought up the idea that one of the matters that could be discussed by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, with Mr Zhao in China was the resumption of steel imports. There is a history in relation to that matter. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd had installed and built at very considerable expense a plant at Kwinana in Western Australia which was used for the export of steel to China. That plant was closed in 1981 as a result of the refusal of the Chinese to continue with the purchase of Australian steel, because they had reached the stage of becoming a steel exporter and no longer required to import steel for their purposes. They therefore caused Australia a very substantial loss, because one of its major companies and a major employer was forced to close down the Kwinana plant, forced to lose the value of that investment and place it on hold because no other market was able to be found. It is important to note that no other market was able to be found, because around the world in the past three years there has been a most dramatic oversupply of steel. The world has seen horrific employment problems created as a result of the downturn in the demand for steel and the overproduction as a result of the building of a capacity in various countries which meant that world capacity was way beyond world demand. So, not unnaturally , there have been problems so far as BHP is concerned, not only with its Kwinana plant but with its plants in New South Wales and South Australia. However, the Prime Minister, with great trumpeting of success, claimed that he had reached this agreement with the Chinese that the Chinese would not only go back on what they had done in 1981 but that they would be taking a very large part of their total requirements from Australia and that there would be a major new development. I quote from the Age newspaper of Friday 10 February, in which it is reported from Peking that: Mr Hawke's dramatic announcement about the potential for big crude steel exports to China comes at a most unlikely time in the planning of steel production in China. Rather than promote a rapid expansion in steel making and related heavy industry, the priority of China's economists recently has been trying to rein in unrestrained capital construction and correct a bias of heavy industry over light, consumer-oriented industry. The report goes on to make other points. It says: For this reason, the official agreed, it would probably be more than a decade before any substantial sales could be made by Australia. That is a report of as early as 10 February. We then find Michelle Grattan reporting from China, as reported in the Age of 13 February. She said: If his Asian trip is any guide, Bob Hawke could be in danger of succumbing as Prime Minister to a weakness he displayed as ACTU president. In those days, he used to outline grand schemes for enterprises and activities that the ACTU could enter. Some of his plans succeeded, but others had to be abandoned or greatly scaled down. As I shall show shortly, the success rate was abysmal. What Michelle Grattan said was: When Mr Hawke stood in the foyer of the Fragrant Hills Hotel near Peking last Friday, painting a glowing picture of the potential for the Australian steel industry, one was uncannily reminded of some of those earlier high hopes. She went on to say: The Prime Minister has staked a lot more of his credibility on the steel plan. He has talked it up with very little reservation. Later she said: But few in the industry or in Government departments believe Mr Hawke's feet are touching the ground when he talks about doubling Australia's raw steel output by the end of the century. Some of the most significant people who do not believe it are the directors of BHP, as Mr Loton, Mr Laver and Mr Rice have in recent times made so clear. They have pointed to the absurdity of the idea of anyone, at a time of world oversupply, investing the $7 billion in current dollar terms which would be necessary for the doubling, when they have just had to go through a major restructuring, and when one of the few points at which the Government can look with some pride of achievement in the past 12 months has been a plan to restructure the steel industry to overcome some of the problems and to provide some preservation of employment opportunity. But oh no. Not recognising any of the reality of this, Mr Hawke retorted in a way which could be regarded only as petulant when he said: 'If BHP is not interested, there are other fish in the sea'. None of the other fish has come very far out of the sea so far. There is talk about Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, but I would imagine that CRA has the same sort of view towards investment as do most of those in charge of investment around the boardrooms of Australia today-that is, that this is not a time when major investment is being anticipated. In fact, as the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed just last week, the anticipated investment in the next financial year will show a drop of 15 per cent, which will follow a drop of 15 per cent in the current year. We find such glowing situations reported further in the Press, as in the Age of 16 February 1984, when the Minister at the table, Senator Button, was photographed welcoming home to Canberra the Prime Minister. I am not quite sure what Senator Button was thinking at the time, but I can imagine that he might have liked to be consulted a little more than perhaps he was and a little earlier than perhaps he was in relation to the matters which were discussed and announced. I would not feel it at all improper if he were to confirm that that was the feeling that he had when he was photographed greeting the Prime Minister . The report stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, returned last night from his 18-day visit to Asia with detailed work on his plans for the steel industry and regional trade talks high on the Government's agenda. If the preparation with the Department responsible, that is, Senator Button's Department, and Senator Button as the responsible Minister had been as detailed as it was with the major company involved-that is, a somewhat casual telephone call the evening before the announcement-one imagines that Senator Button would have some justification for feeling as the Age stated, namely, that although Mr Hawke is obviously pleased with the outcome of the trip, which received good publicity at home Senator Button would wonder how long that good publicity was going to last. Of course what has happened now is that the reality of the situation has fallen down around the ears of this Government. It has been demonstrated to be a government which puts more emphasis upon the glib statement , as Mr Hawke has had a history of doing, than upon checking the facts and making things work. Senator Button —It made this economy work better than you ever did in seven years. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Minister for his comment. Let me look at it and see how it goes. What happened? The drought broke, and not even the Prime Minister claims the full credit for the breaking of the drought. The international recovery took place, and not even the Prime Minister can claim the full credit for that. The wages pause had given Australia an opportunity for a break in inflation and some encouragement for investment and, as soon as the drought broke, there was a significant upturn in manufacturing industry and in the use of the capacity of that industry. That has lasted for a temporary period whilst the lull caused by the drought was caught up. However, the fear that has been induced in the board rooms of Australia is what is the real test. That is what is causing the real concern, not the talkup, not the Hawkespeak; but the real investment decisions that have been made show the lack of confidence. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to rate a little below Hoges as a popular television star but it is another thing for people to have confidence in the capacity of his Government to manage the economy of this country in a way which will lead to the successful outcome of investments being undertaken. Let me demonstrate what sort of Prime Minister we have. When he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in November 1973 he suggested to the Whitlam Government that the Federal Government should break an election promise and increase income taxes. Mr Hawke said that Mr Whitlam's Government had made a mistake in making the promise and should not consider itself bound by it. In other words, if one later finds the promises that one made and upon which one was elected do not appear to be promises that will suit, one breaks them. That, of course, is the record of this Government. It campaigned throughout the period leading to the 5 March election last year on the basis that it would manage the economy in what can be shorthandedly described as a Mitterrand phase one manner. The day after the Government took office if changed to Mitterrand phase two or Hawke phase two, whichever way one likes to put it; however it did not implement the plan on which it campaigned which it stated that it would implement. Let us look at the reputation which Mr Hawke has in some sections of the media. On 20 May 1980 the Melbourne Herald, in an editorial, stated: Mr Robert Hawke, present ACTU president, future Labor MHR and putative Prime Minister, has been party to the banning of normal newspaper cover of the ACTU's five-day Executive meeting in Hobart. . . . As one concerned with liberty, truth and freedom of information, it might have been expected that Mr Hawke would have assured the ACTU Executive did not pursue this stupid line. . . . The truth, which Mr Hawke will not accept, is that today's businessman, as opposed to the gold-watch-chained, morning-coated, top-hatted figure of cartoon fun, is a hard-working (hard-headed too) man who knows the world of money, materials and manpower better than the ACTU. The Herald then had no faith in Mr Hawke; it would have less faith now. It had no faith in his judgment as opposed to the judgment of the people who make the investment decisions in Australia. It had no faith in his attitude towards rights and liberties of citizens. What has happened with this Government is that every time there is a challenge, every time there is any criticism, there is an almost fanatical response. There is a response which leads to Mr Hawke, as he did in the past couple of weeks, severely criticising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation because it had dared to mention one critical word. How sensitive can one be if that is the problem. I will quote something of the great record of the Prime Minister as a businessman and propounder of great and wonderful ideas. The article stated: When he was elected to the ACTU presidency in September, of 1969- I am reading an article from the National Times for the week ending 6 October 1979- Bob Hawke was painted as the union movement's 'new Messiah.' Yet a comparison of his pace-setting ideas in the 1960s with his actual achievements as union leader suggests that while Hawke is the most popular political figure in the country, he has not achieved all of his aims for the unions. The article listed the unions. It stated: The hire-purchase company. In 1969 Hawke said that 'the ACTU' should work for a national trade-union hire purchase company . . . Early plans were shelved, and no company has been established. The article mentioned an insurance company which did not get under way. There was going to be a retail store. Everybody knows the story of the retail store and what happened to Bourke's and what sorts of losses it made. What an absolutely disastrous venture that turned out to be for the ACTU. After losing $ 276,000 in the year, it decided that it would close it up and get out. It could not run it because it did not have the capacity to run it. The housing finance company, which Mr Hawke was going to have as a non-profit company, would lighten the burden on people by providing finance at much lower interest rates. That is the same man who, a couple of years later, was trying to tell the Whitlam Government to put up interest rates to cure inflation. He said that in November 1973. No action was taken on the finance company. The consumer credit scheme never got off the ground. Let us look at what happened with ACTU Solo, with the travel company and the rest of the things the great man was going to introduce. This man is the same man who overstated totally his achievements on his Asian tour, who overstated totally the arrangement, possibility and reality of the agreement with China about steel, who overstated entirely what had been the arrangement and the reality of any discussion with the Japanese Government in relation to beef. In other words, the manic pursuit of popularity, which seems to absolutely overwhelm this man's judgment, is the only objective in his continued holding of the prime ministerial office. This is not for the good of the country, not for the good of the people of Australia, not even for the good of the Party, but for the position of the rating of Bob Hawke, the entertainer. I think it is disastrous that we should find ourselves in the situation where all that has happened is deferral of decision after decision by the Hawke Government as it ensures that it does not do anything which might upset the plans and wake up the people of Australia to what is really going on or not going on in this country. The cat was let out of the bag very well in the Mercury newspaper of Monday, 30 April, when it stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has told his ministers to avoid, or postpone, controversial matters until after the federal election, tentatively planned for December. That is what is happening. It is abundantly clear that no decisions are being taken. The hard decisions are being deferred either because the Government has not got the capacity or the will to be able to make the hard decisions or, alternatively, it has not got the intention of making any hard decisions which might cause any recognition of the reality of what this Government's lack of achievement has been. Trouble is impending both in economic terms and in every other way as we look to the year 1985. The Australian Merchant Bankers Association summed it up very well when it estimated that in 1985 this country will see an increase in inflation back to 10 per cent and an increase in unemployment back to a similar figure. What is happening is that we are being crucified as a country in the interests of the man who believes himself to be the great trade negotiator but who is a demonstrable failure-the great businessman who was a demonstrable failure, the great conciliator who has more industrial strife in Australia at the moment than we have had for years, the greatest economic planner who has a disastrous economy predicted for next year and the greatest confidence trickster who is rushing us to an early election. That is what is a matter of public importance. That is what this matter is about . We believe that it should go further than just a matter of public importance. There should be public recognition by all Australians that there was a deliberate deception by this Prime Minister in relation to his claims of achievement during his Asian tour. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.35) — Listening to Senator Peter Rae one gets the impression that he is critical of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), indeed that he perhaps even does not like him and might belong to that 26 per cent who fall into that category. One would have thought that in a matter of public importance dealing with steel and beef negotiations overseas one would not have thought it necessary to support that argument by reference to articles in the National Times of March 1979 and in the Melbourne Herald of 1980 to events which took place in 1969 which have nothing to do with beef or steel which are allegedly the subject of the matter of public importance. One would have thought that if the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce wanted to make allegations about the question of levels of industrial unrest in Australia in 1984 he might have gone to some trouble to substantiate them. It is quite clear to me why he did not. If Senator Peter Rae goes out on the hustings in the election which he keeps talking about and tells the people of Australia that in his view the level of industrial disputation has increased in the last 12 months they will begin to wonder about the honourable senator because they know what is going on. They know what is going on compared with the year 1982 when the Opposition was in government. It is quite extraordinary to me that the Opposition should seek to make political capital out of issues such as these. Sadly, Senator Peter Rae has not sought to make much political capital out of issues such as steel and beef which his matter of public importance suggests he was going to talk about. The reason why he does not seek to make political capital out of these issues is that the hypocrisy in what has been said is quite breathless when one considers the record of the previous Government in respect of these issues. Senator Rae did devote a few minutes of his time to the steel industry. Just on this question of performance, let us look at what the Fraser Government did about the steel industry in 1983. Confronted with the problems of the steel industry, as it was, the Fraser Government took the breathtaking action of appointing a Australian Steel Industry Advisory Council to consider the problems . Senator Rae talked a little about the question of investment and the levels of investment which, as we have said as Government Ministers in this place on a number of occasions, are unsatisfactory. But look at the levels of investment which we are seeking to compare in the years 1979-80 and so on when the then Government under Malcolm Fraser spent all its time in this Parliament and elsewhere talking up a resources boom in the mining industry which led to a lot of very important investment. Look what has happened to that now. If we are going to have a serious discussion about investment, we ought to be looking at where investment is likely to be. It is not going to be talked up by this Government in the same sort of way it was in previous years. It is essential that the Australian Government at present pursues exports, particularly in the Association of South East Asian Nations region, or the Pacific rim generally and it is essential that we do that as a matter of priority because it is something which the previous Government notoriously failed to do. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about the Chinese-Australian steel initiative, so-called, and what it was about. Let me just remind the Senate of some of the facts of that matter. The Prime Minister and Premier Zhao of China have agreed to the establishment of a joint working group to examine the prospects for complementary development of the Australia- China steel industry. That working group has been established. Any government in Australia that did not participate in discussions of that kind and participate in the setting up of a working group of that kind would be derelict in its duty and remiss for failure to explore every opportunity on behalf of this country in respect of exports to a country such as China. The fact of the matter is that the so-called defunct, or dead, Chinese steel initiative is progressing quite well. A joint working group to be known as the Chinese-Australian Iron and Steel Industry Joint Study Group has been established. That is examining specific issues such as exports to China of iron and steel, iron ore, manganese and coal. It is also examining Chinese investment in iron ore mining in Australia and Australian investment in the Chinese steel industry and technical co-operation in upgrading Chinese steel mills. I think there have been four exchanges of groups from both governments to discuss these issues. A delegation of senior Australian officials recently visited China. The Chinese Minister of Metallurgical Industry, Li Dongye, who is the responsible Minister in China, will visit Australia in May. It does not mean that, because he is visiting Australia in May, there will be some enormous and significant result from that visit. But he is not coming here for the good of his health; he is coming here to look at the Australian iron and steel industry and to have discussions with the Australian Government about the matters which were raised by the Prime Minister in the course of his visit to China. The Chinese have indicated to officials involved in the joint study group that they are very interested in the proposals that are emerging from that initiative . They are anxious to expand their steel production and indicate aims to achieve a doubling of steel production by the year 2000. They want to gain access to the best available technology. They are having discussions with representatives of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited regarding those matters. There will be room for co-operation between Australian and Chinese industries at each stage of iron and steel production. The group of Australian officials who went to China recently came back with a number of proposals to further progress on expanding those areas where co-operation between Chinese and Australian industries could be most beneficial. I mention these things because I should emphasise-I do not shrink from doing so for a moment-that the final decisions depend on the economic feasibility of all these proposals. Considerable lead times might be involved given the size and nature of some of the proposals. If we succeed, as a result of these discussions , only with a degree of technological exchange with China, in increasing somewhat the iron ore exports to China in a small way, then the whole initiative will have been worth while from the point of view of this country. It is no fly- by-night scheme along the lines of the Malcolm Fraser plans to revitalise world trade on a gradiose basis; it is nothing of that kind. It is a proposal which requires steady work, persistence and so on by both governments. It is a long term, substantial proposal which offers the promise, not the assurance, of long term benefits to Australian industry. It is very sad that the proposal has been misrepresented by an Opposition desperate to find an issue to discuss in this Parliament on the first day back after three weeks away. There is no suggestion that there will be any overnight doubling of the Australian steel industry. Contrary to what Senator Rae said, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, certainly in the statement made by Mr Loton, said that there would be no doubling of BHP's steel production capacity in connection with this initiative. But BHP has agreed that the initiative has been very helpful and has significantly increased Chinese interest. That company recognises that Chinese long term plans involve large increases in steel production. CRA is also , as I have said, discussing proposals with the Chinese. Of course time scales are involved in all these matters. In the short term there is the possibility for spot deals in steel and increased technical assistance. In the longer term there is a possibility of contract sales of iron and steel to China and the potential for Chinese investment in Australia. Further down the track it may be possible to give a supply of semi-finished steel to China. At the moment, however, it is important that we are talking about real initiatives which should not have been bypassed or overlooked by the Australian Government. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the importance of the initiatives is that Australian industry has to get out into the Asian market and be looking at every possibility which is available to it. We must become part of the fastest growing region in the world, especially in relation to our own industrial development. These are things which the Opposition, the former Government, just failed to recognise in seven lost years. Everybody who was thoughtful about the prospects for the Australian economy, who was aware of the changing patterns of imports and exports with Japan and the Association of South East Asian Nations, as distinct from Europe and the United States of America, over that seven year period knew that those figures all pointed in a particular direction. There were seven dark years of failure to take initiatives, of failure to grasp opportunities, as a result of which it has become harder for each successive government in Australia. We are not about seeing that the last 15 or 18 months is in the same dark category as those seven years to which I referred. We have not been about that since we came into government. In any event, it is extraordinary hypocrisy for this Opposition to be carping about this Government' s handling of the steel industry when one looks at the previous Government's record. The steel plan, as Senator Rae acknowledges, has given a real boost to the industry in this country and has resulted in pulling that industry back from the rim. I wanted to say something about the beef industry. I assumed, as I have the advantage of a university education and can read what people are going to make a speech about, that Senator Rae would be saying something about beef. He said very little about beef. Let us say something about beef so that those people who want to read the historical record of Hansard will know what this debate was supposed to be about. Senator Peter Rae —I did explain that my colleague, Senator Scott, would speak primarily about beef. There is a limited time. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. It is a pity that the honourable senator wasted so much time talking about what the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions did in 1969 and things like that if he was worried about a shortage of time. The fact of the matter is that one of the topics of this matter of public importance is beef. The posturing of the Opposition on Australia's access to the Japanese beef market is again extraordinarily hypocritical. As the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, said in answer to a question during Question Time today, the percentage share of Australia's access to the Japanese beef market has been declining since 1978. It is only in the last fortnight that the Leader of the National Party of Australia , who was Minister for Primary Industry over much of this period, began to wake up to that fact. Senator Cook —Who was in government in 1978? Senator BUTTON —I do not think I have to explain that. Senator Rae might have had some objection as to who was in government in 1978 but he is not complaining about it now. Again, the fundamental objective of the Government in respect of negotiations with the Japanese authorities on beef has been to try to maximise access to that market. Our public position on that has reflected that concern. This has been put by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). This stance will be maintained by Mr Kerin when he goes back to Japan on 14 May. What has been going on is well understood by the Australian cattle industry, with which the Government has been in regular consultation. On the other hand, the Opposition has made every effort to weaken and undermine Australia's negotiating stance and to work against our national position in respect of those negotiations. I make it quite clear that what is perfectly obvious and an historical lesson for us is that Australia does not have the economic and political leverage of a country such as the United States in negotiations with Japan on these issues. I suppose if we looked back over the history of this matter that should have been realised. For example, if one goes back to 1978 to the time of the Strauss- Ushiba agreement of that year the Japanese beef market was increased by 10,000 tonnes on a global basis. Of course, part of that agreement was that Australian competitors were precluded from an increase in that share as a result of the actions of the United States Government on behalf of United States suppliers. That difficulty has been encountered ever since. At the time of course it was meekly accepted, even applauded, by the then Liberal-National Country Party Government. As I said earlier it is something that subsequent governments have to live with. The position of our beef industry has been hurt by the recent deals struck between Japan and the United States which were discriminatory and, in important respects, contrary to the spirit of multilateral trade negotiations. It has not however diminished this Government's concern to bring about the best possible results for the Australian beef industry. Those discussions, as I indicated earlier, will be continuing in Japan in a week's time. I make the point that as a result of these negotiations in 1978 and the subsequent 1979 agreement the Australian share of Japan's global quota fell absolutely from 100,000 tonnes in 1979, to 92,000 tonnes in 1980, to 90,000 tonnes in 1981 and to 90,000 tonnes again in 1982. This was not just market share but represented an absolute decline in tonnage. It is an extraordinary attitude for an Australian Government to have taken at the time but we will not repeat that attitude in the course of the present negotiations. This is reflected in the talks between the Japanese Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia and in correspondence between the two Ministers. The key section of the communique between the two Prime Ministers states that: The Japanese side confirms that it has no intention of dealing with the trade problems with third countries at the expense of Australia. Of course, both these matters of beef and steel are in the same basket. The Government will not be deterred from continuing negotiations as hard as possible with the Chinese and the Japanese in relation to both these matters. As I said at the beginning we would be derelect in our duty to this country and in our approach to trade in this region if we were lacking in diligence in pursuit of those matters. We will not be deterred by Opposition matters of public importance which have so little substance about them that half of them are devoted to personal abuse of the former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.54) -I rise to support the matter of public importance which alleges 'The deception of the Australian community by the Prime Minister on the prospects he had secured for Australia's steel and beef industries on his recent Asian visit.' The word 'secured' is the operative word because there really has been no suggestion that the maintaining of the share of the Japanese market was anything other than something that was a virtual guarantee, barring only problems that related to Australia's capacity to supply or which, indeed, related to the quality of the product. Of course, they are natural provisions. In listening to Senator Button I was impressed with his statement that he had a university education and was able to understand the problems relating to the debate this afternoon. Even though perhaps a year or two after Senator Button I also had a university education and I probably have a closer actual association with primary industry than the learned Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Button impressed me in that he displayed a real measure of caution. In doing that he was significantly different from his leader, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. If he had not displayed that sort of caution and commonsense then perhaps he would be another Mr 74 per cent. Senator Button at least has an indication of how he might rise to those giddy heights. I do not think it would be good advice because in the longer term the Australian people will prove to be extraordinarily intelligent and will not be fooled by ecstatic views or by pipe dreams. At this stage I am reminded of Michele Grattan's observation in the Age newspaper of 24 April. She said: Bob Hawke's excess of enthusiasm during his Asian trip has caught up with him. Yesterday he was the emperor clutching for the bathrobe. Perhaps that will be proven to be even truer as time goes by. From the point of view of the Australian beef industry one certainly hopes that it is not true. One would have thought from the ecstatic reports of 3 February that there would really be no need for tripping backwards and forwards to Tokyo and that there would be no need to confirm matters that were made clear at that time. This was to the extent that the Australian people and the Australian industry in particular were delighted with the proposition that the Prime Minister had put forward whilst he was in Tokyo. Ever since then there seems to have been a negating of those glittering reports and those great hopes for this most important industry. Senator Button in his remarks referred-as honourable senators on the Government side in this chamber so often refer-to the seven lost years or the dark years, call them what you will. I think in passing that Senator Button should be reminded that six of those years to 1981 saw some remarkable successes. It is worth remembering that inflation in that period from the end of the Whitlam era dropped from 17 per cent to 8.8 per cent. It is worth remembering that the Australian deficit in that period dropped from nearly $5 billion to practically level pegging. They were very significant achievements during the years that Senator Button chooses to describe as dark years. Indeed it was only the rapid onset of a world recession, the wages spiral in this country and the onslaught of the worst drought recorded that finally brought the disastrous economic circumstances not only to Australia but also to a major part of the trading world. I think there is a lesson to be learned from the subject matter of this debate. Indeed, there is a lesson which all Australians and indeed all people living in democracies around the world could well look at and think about. This debate has been brought about by the pipe dreams of a Prime Minister who, through media presentation and various other measures, has been seen to be something deserving of great popularity. He has been seen to be developing-I hope he has been seen to be developing-the politics of personality. It is therein that lies the great danger to the Australian people and to people who treasure democracy anywhere around the world. I am quite sure that many of the things that the Prime Minister says from time to time which I might from time to time find acceptable do not sit terribly well in a theoretical sense with his own socialist supporters. So we have to be careful that we do not find ourselves swamped by what can most easily be called the politics of personality, whereby the level or curve of an eyebrow or the mannerism of a brushing of the hair is more important than economic policy or political philosophy. That is something that even the learned leader of the Government in this chamber probably believes . I am sure he will devote some thought to it. The glowing stories that have emanated from the trip to South East Asia and in particular to the Japanese area concerning steel and beef have been dampened very significantly. From the point of view of the steel and beef industries and from the point of view of the Australian people at large that is a great shame. It would seem those stories were the product of significantly over enthusiastic statements. The view of Mr Loton of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd was that he could see no way in which an expenditure of $7 billion to establish the sort of steel production that Prime Minister Hawke was talking about could even be contemplated, particularly in a situation in which Japan, next door to China, stood there with some 40,000 tonnes of surplus steel and a massive vacant capacity to produce even more. One would think that BHP and its directors had virtually no knowledge of the steel industry or of potential markets for their product around the world. One would think that after almost a century's association with the great land of China they had no idea that she wanted to be involved in some sort of steel deal. Of course they are very well aware of trading circumstances in their industry, be it in the Far East, in Europe or wherever. I turn to consider for a moment the beef industry in Australia because that is the industry that bore the greatest brunt of this unfortunate enthusiasm. Indeed , it will be unfortunate only if it proves to be significantly untrue. We hope that is not the case. But if it is untrue it is most unfortunate indeed. I am sure it has stirred in an industry which is of great significance to this country-an industry which has enormous potential and an industry which has suffered from a whole range of problems in the last five to ten years-a significant hope that here probably was the capacity for a real increase in the market for its product. The Australian beef industry is an industry which represents in total some $2.2 billion. It is a massive industry. Just over 10 years ago it lost its entry into the whole of the European market. It was faced with an enormous challenge, a challenge to find markets for something like 75 per cent of Australian beef production. It accepted that challenge and, indeed, found new markets. It found new markets in the Middle East, in South East Asia, in Japan of course, in South Korea and so on. Senator Peter Rae —Eighty five per cent of Taiwan. Senator SCOTT —It found markets also in Taiwan. Now, somewhat ironically, those markets, carefully established over the years, are being threatened by the surplus of the European Economic Community. The beef industry in Europe has grown so dramatically under the subsidised system that it adopted in the common agricultural policy that European subsidised surpluses are entering the markets of Egypt and indeed other areas in the Middle East, and are now even spilling over into South East Asia. In the short period of movement by the Prime Minister in South East Asia, Japan and China we have lost very significant markets. Indeed, we have lost the total Singapore market. We have lost a very significant share of the Korean market. Now it would appear that we may well have lost a proportion of the Japanese market. I want to make it absolutely clear that the industry was concerned on very sound grounds. I think I should quote just briefly from what Mr Hawke said in Japan to indicate why this problem has arisen. In a joint communique with the Japanese Prime Minister this was said: The Japanese side believes that the position of Australia as a supplier of primary products including minerals will not decline so long as these Australian products maintain their competitiveness and the stable supply is assured. Further, at a Press conference in Osaka the Prime Minister said: First we have had discussions with leaders of government and industry to ensure that Australia maintains its share in the traditional areas of supply which, of course includes mineral products and primary products-particularly beef. So there can be no doubt that on the basis of those words there was a real reason for some measure of enthusiasm in the industry. One can only hope that the ultimate result of racing to and from Tokyo is that that sort of extended market will become a fact. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there can be no doubt that this is just one other exercise in the politics of personality. It is one other desperate attempt to vindicate and to run off some of the problems that are confronting this economy as a result of this Government's policies in recent months. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.09) —In mid-January this year the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, Mr Bryce, and the Minister for Minerals and Energy in that State, Mr Parker, went to Peking. They were met at a television reception by the Premier of China, Premier Zhao. On that mission they also met the Minister of Metallurgical Industry, the gentleman who is shortly to come to Australia, Mr Li Dongye. Shortly after they met the Premier they went several thousand miles by aircraft to a province near Tibet and were greeted overwhelmingly by the citizens of that small community. It turned out that the joy with which they were received was caused by the fact that those citizens had seen them on television meeting their venerated Premier, Premier Zhao. That served to remind them, as they recounted to me on their return, that there are over 1,000 million people in China. As they remarked, in the 30-second grab on Peking television broadcast nationwide they were probably seen by more people than they would ever be seen by if they continued to appear on Western Australian or Australian television. If we could sell only a pair of bicycle clips to each of those 1,000 million people, the future of the Australian steel industry would be secure. I start with that anecdotal evidence to underline the point that the size of the market we are talking about in China is gigantic; it is huge. The size of the market in Asia is beyond the dreams of a domestic Australian producer, but the Chinese market has been closed since the Chinese Revolution to most countries as that country has tried to develop its own economic philosophy of self-sufficiency. Due, in part, to the early recognition of China by Gough Whitlam when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1971, due to the development of the China-Australia Association by the Australian Government under Whitlam and now under Hawke and due as well significantly to major internal developments in China, the Bamboo Curtain has now been lifted and other countries are being invited to share in supplying the Chinese domestic market. It is vitally important that Australia, a near neighbour of that giant, achieve a foothold in that huge market and develop an association, not just for the short term but over a long term perspective, which will stand domestic producers, be they steel , iron ore, beef or any other aspect of the Australian economy, in good stead for years to come. I would have thought that would be debated in this discussion of a matter of public importance. I have to confess that I am somewhat flabbergasted that the prospects for Asian trade, specifically Japanese- Australian trade, have been taken so negatively in this debate and not looked at realistically with an eye to what possible optimistic scenarios can be developed so that we can rise in our imaginations to crack that gigantic market to the benefit of the living standards and employment prospects of Australians and obviously, through the trading relationship, for the living standards of our trading partners. Senator Peter Rae —Let some officials visit Taiwan and develop the trade there. Senator COOK —I apprehend some interjection. I cannot understand what it is about, but it causes me to comment that under the new rules of the Senate matters of public importance can be lodged until 12.30 and debated at 3 o'clock. I would have thought that, given the limited time for preparation by the Government to respond to matters of public importance from the Opposition, which has unlimited time to prepare the substance of matters of public importance, we would have been met in this debate by cogent, reasoned and rational argument. In fact I am surprised to find that the contributions from the Opposition in this debate are boring me to death. All that Senator Rae did was to rail against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his role as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If I get some time at the end of my remarks I will take the opportunity to repudiate point by point what Senator Rae said, because the Prime Minister's contribution to the ACTU is so significant that the cynical and journalistic approach adopted by Senator Rae and others is such that they can never even begin to understand it. But I do not want to be thrown off the course of talking about something that is vitally important to the people of Australia, namely, the Prime Minister's tour of the near Asian area and specifically what he has achieved in Japan and China. I should make another comment about the boring nature of the Opposition's case. Senator Scott started by saying that deception or, as he put it, alleged deception is not the operative word but that 'secure' is the operative word. He then explained in a long litany of hardly intelligible argument why it was important, part of which was some concern about the politics of personality, the curve of the eyebrow or the brushing of the hair. We were told by Senaor Rae, cueing the contribution of Senator Scott, that Senator Scott was going to talk to us about beef. Senator Scott, in his 15-minute address, spent 10 minutes on the curve of the eyebrow and the brush of the hair and five minutes on the beef industry, leading any observer of this Parliament to conclude that there was precious little that Senator Scott or Senator Rae could say about beef. I turn to the matter of public importance itself because it invites from the Government a very cogent case which ought to be proudly expounded by it. The matter of public importance begs the question: What is the role of government in trade? I think that quite clearly the role of a government is to make at diplomatic and international level the openings and the opportunities for the commercial interests to follow in the government's footsteps and take up those opportunities. To compare my view of the purpose of government initiatives in the trade area and with what Mr Hawke did in February let me quote from the ' Canberra Observed' column of the 27 April edition of the Australian Financial Review in which Gregory Hywood, commenting on what the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had achieved on the steel issue, said: Mr Hawke's role was to provide the commercial opportunity through effective diplomacy. This he did. That is the significant role of government as contained in the impartial comment of a journalist observing the actions of government in these circumstances. That achievement stands tall against the laxity, ineptitude and apathy of the previous Government which was not bothered to disturb itself too much about promoting an effective role for government in creating trade opportunities. It is important I think in this debate to put into context the purpose of Mr Hawke's Asian tour. His purpose was to diversify Australian industry towards its most competitive areas, concentrating increasingly on expanding the Asian market for Australian products. The role of government was proactive and positive, to get employment, investment, development and growth opportunities in Australia. It was a role which the Government was playing in the context of a general economic recovery in Australia and an increasing confidence in the Government by industry and business. It is ironic that this is the first vaguely economic matter of public importance raised in this place since as long ago as I can remember. That perhaps says a lot about the Opposition's refusal to take on the Government on economic issues, thus suggesting that the Opposition recognises the reality that the people of Australia clearly understand that this Government is a government of economic improvement. The initiative taken by the Prime Minister has to be seen in that context. Because Senator Button has done more than justice to the argument about beef, I turn only briefly to the beef issue. The significant achievement of the Prime Minister's negotiations in Japan on beef hinges on the Hawke-Nakasone joint statement. This was an agreed communique, not a Press statement of comment by the Prime Minister on what he saw as significant. It was a joint declaration from two heads of state setting out commitments one to the other. The relevant passage in the comment is: The Japanese side believes that the position of Australia as a supplier of primary products including minerals will not decline so long as these Australian products maintain their comeptitiveness and their stable supply is ensured. The Japanese side confirms that it has no intention of dealing with trade problems with third countries at the expense of Australia. That commitment has been the basis for the following through of the beef negotiations in which an Australian Labor government is trying to pull out of the fire the fat that was allowed to fall into it by the previous Government which presided over a decline in our beef trading fortunes with Japan. This Government has followed through persistently at various levels of ministerial responsibility to try to negotiate a better deal for Australian beef producers, given the profound and excessive leverage that the United States has on the Japanese market in that area. It is not a matter that we are walking away from. It is a matter that we are strongly and aggressively pursuing in the interests of all associated with the beef industry and with Australia generally. It is something that the Australian Cattlemens Union has been kept briefed on and has been informed of as we have gone through. The significant attainment will be to achieve the commitment which makes the ongoing pressing of those negotiations possible. I turn briefly to steel. It is uncomfortable for this matter of public importance that the Chinese Minister for Metallurgy, Mr Li Dongye, is coming to Australia this month. He is coming, not because he likes the weather, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) said, but to follow up the initiatives undertaken by the Prime Minister. His presence here will be tangible proof that the Hawke initiative is producing results in terms of moving towards a position of improving our trade relationship with respect to iron ore and steel, a multi-tiered relationship, given short, medium and long term time scales in which a comprehensive integration of our steel industry and the supply of pig iron and steel is hoped to be achieved for Australia. I do not want to go into a long justification, but let me again quote the Hywood article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review to put into context what, in fact, is being argued against us. It states: The initiative-- let me interpose that this is the steel initiative- he sold so hard while in China could be portrayed by his political opponents as having come virtually to nothing. If this were to occur, it would be largely untrue. The fact is that the China steel initiative is progressing quite well. When the Chinese Minister for Metallurgy, Mr Li Dongye, visits Australia next month, BHP will be presenting him with a hard proposal relating to the reopening of Kwinana and the possible expansion of crude steel production from the East Coast. Having been advised by China that it wants to import from Australia enough pig iron and crude steel to enable the reopening of Kwinana, BHP is to put to Mr Li a formula involving an interest in its Koolyanobbing iron ore mine and the possible leasing of Kwinana. China is understood to have indicated a willingness to deal on the basis of 5- year contracts. The article goes on to talk about what is in it for Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd and what is in it as well for employment and other prospects. If that is deception, if the achievement of the possibility of securing those goals is deception, I do not think the Opposition has any case to raise at all and its matter of public importance falls on the boring arguments of attacking the personality of the Prime Minister and his performance regarding the ACTU. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any great defence but, as someone who witnessed the Prime Minister's presidency of the ACTU at first hand, I say that the ACTU and the Australian trade union movement is vastly better for the decade of Hawke with the ACTU as is Australian industrial relations and the Australian business community than it would have been had that not been so. I have no further time to continue. This matter of public importance is a farce . It raises no substantive argument. It seeks to attack the Prime Minister on his personality, thus doing great damage to the national achievement in terms of opening up a major market with a great potential for Australia. The fact that the Opposition has diminished itself by seeking to deal with personalities and not issues is, I think, the most damaging and eloquent remark that can be made about its case. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.25) —I think it would be fair to say that I have just as much hope as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or Senator Cook has of improving trade with the great country of China. What I want to know is whether the passage of information that we have received from the Prime Minister is totally true, whether it is totally realistic, whether it represents the facts, whether it will serve Australia well or whether it was, in fact, the size of the potential market that has gone so far as to mesmerise the reality of the situation. I believe quite clearly that this is the point we are debating here today. In former days China, of course, was noted for its activities involving the taking of substances of a nature so as to produce euphoric, even if ultimately fatal, conditions. I am inclined to think that the Prime Minister is still in one of those euphoric dreamlands. He holds the belief that he is in the real world, that commerce and trade are for him, that the world is just a slightly bigger Australia and that the vast experience and knowledge that he has accumulated can be shared with others for the general world good. The Prime Minister is also, of course, renowned for his great skills in many other areas, but I will leave most of the better known ones alone. Amongst other areas, of course, he is great in sport. We remember only too well the triumphs of the America's Cup, the Davis Cup, the Melbourne Cup and so on. But I wonder how he will fit in with the homecoming of the test cricketers. I am starting to wonder whether the great curve is starting to subside. Then there is the weather , of course, He did great things in drought breaking. We had big increases in grains and great savings of livestock. But what about next year? Perhaps the success curve may decline there also. What about the success of the United States economy? What about interest rates? What about employment? What about development? What about accord? Yes, what about accord. I have before me a report by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on industrial disputes for the week ending 13 April 1984. In this great year of accord, 19 1/2 pages for that week are devoted to strikes around Australia. This is at a time when the Government members are so proud of the industrial situation. Nineteen and a half pages of disputes are in that document, a considerable proportion of which disputes are totally outside the accord and the consensus, or whatever the word is. Yet still they go on. What about the mines in western Tasmania? What about the wharves in Melbourne? I see that $200m worth of cargo is stranded by wharfies on a go slow campaign in this year of accord. What about the new Parliament House in Canberra ? What about telegram deliveries? What about the seats for life in the Melbourne Entertainment Centre? What about non-contributory superannuation? What about consensus, the great word which means getting what one wants at the expense of calling everybody else a fool if they do not? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Archer, I do not want to interrupt your argument, but I would like you to work around to the subject of the matter of public importance. Senator ARCHER —I am saying that this is the man who decided that he had the great skills of the world. I am trying to work out what his skills are and how he uses them best. In fact, I am wondering whether he does not support the statement of Mr Willis who says that we might be the poor white trash of Asia. Why? It is simply because we are taking more than we are giving. We are now in the hands of the deliberate disruption and destruction of the basis and system of our whole way of life. We have only to look at who controls the arteries of Australia-communications, energy, transport and trade. One does not need to be smart to see who is in there and why. How much consensus is there? The Prime Minister has a reputation of being Mr Fixit. It is a pity that he lost it somewhere between when he left the Australian Council of Trade Unions and when he became Prime Minister because he has certainly done nothing towards fixing any of these problems, unless one would call demolishing sections 45D and 45E fixing anything. I would like to know what happened to the people whom sections 45D and 45E used to protect. What will protect them now? The workers who used to look to those sections to keep them in work, to keep them in their jobs generally and to keep their families secure are now unprotected. What are we to do to replace that protection? What sort of protection will they get? Is it more important that we should look after the requirements of a few of the major unions than to look after the workers of those unions? I think it is time that Mr Fixit, the man who can fix everything around the world, started to look at that matter. Where has all this prowess gone? His commercial experience is also absolutely impeccable! Senator Peter Rae made mention of some of his more opportunistic approaches to the commercial field. As Senator Cook said, he had a great record before he entered parliament with regard to all of the things that he did or nearly did. In 1969 we nearly had a hire purchase company. We nearly had an insurance company. We did get Bourke's. We nearly had a housing finance company. We nearly had a consumer credit scheme. We did wind up with Bourke's. On 16 August 1980 an article headed 'The Shop Shuts for ACTU' stated: The store manager, Mr George Revelman, said yesterday the operation would revert to its original ownership after a four-week clearance sale. That was the great dream. A Press article of 29 January 1980 stated: The long cherished dream of ACTU President Bob Hawke to develop a network of union controlled and patronised retail outlets founded on Bourke's Melbourne Pty Ltd is in tatters. That is the trading experience, the business experience, of the man who decided that he could go abroad and teach the rest of the world how to trade and how to deal; we should not worry about the professionals in the area, but leave it to him because he could fix it. Was it the great commercial experience that he had that encouraged him to take on both China and Japan in the one trip? My goodness , what an ambition! What a performance! I totally agree with Senator Button when he says that it is absolutely essential that we pursue exports. But we must be realistic about it and we must face the facts. We need to have in the negotiations the best and highest skills that Australia has to offer. Where does this notion of the Prime Minister to succeed in the international field come from? No one on this side of the House or the other side of the House could but agree that the Prime Minister has the front and self-opinion to believe that he has all the answers, and he probably has the egotism to believe that he could teach the hardest and most experienced bargainers in the world about negotiating in regard to probably the two most difficult products in the world. Nothing that I know about the man would pull him back from entering these sorts of negotiations. The beef business of the world is a rough and tough operation. It is operated by people whose existence is pretty tough. Australian beef producers should be applauded for making a living in certain areas of Australia. Negotiations in the beef business take years to set up and they are based very much on trust, understanding, performance, reliability and government friendship. In this regard the Prime Minister came back and clearly created expectations that were wrong. The statements that he made were incorrect. He knows so much about trading in international fields that he did not even understand what the people overseas had said! He made a complete misinterpretation of the careful wording of what they had said. He walked right into the trap and came out congratulating himself. He then said what a great job he had done when, in fact, all he had done was to agree totally to the cut that they had imposed upon us. How many of the criteria for all the things that I listed that go with negotiations and with trading with these sorts of countries would this total novice in international trading have been able to provide? Do we have an arrangement that is based on trust, understanding, performance, reliability and government friendship? On what basis would he, or could he, have really expected to do any better? I would have preferred to have placed my trust in true professionals in the field. It is all very well for the front man to go along and wave a flag, but when it comes down to negotiating we need to have people who are proven to be successful in the area. If we had done something like that, the results may well have been better. I hope that now the professionals may be able to pick up the remains and restore the relationship and the sales that are involved. Eighty per cent of our exports come from agricultural products and minerals. The potential markets, most of all, fully understand the unreliability of this country's delivery record. This was covered by Des Keegan in the Australian of 23 April. In part, he stated: About 80 per cent of our export income is earned by agriculture and mining, particularly coal, iron ore, aluminium oxides and base minerals. The former is under threat from European surplus farm output and the latter from strikes and dismal metal prices. Unless we improve our performance we will not stand any chance of getting any more of those markets, and we know it. The Prime Minister may well have dreamed up this steel deal when he was heading north in the rarified atmosphere of 35, 000 feet. But how did he cover the question of delivery? I wonder what sort of undertakings he gave concerning the unrelenting ambush tactics of that element of the mining unions involved? I think I know why the Chinese gentleman to whom I have referred is coming to Australia. I think he wants to have a look at the record of some of the mines to see the total unreliability that we have in supplying our contracts. He will see for himself the work that should be done in trying to get Mr Fixit to get the bandits to turn the ships around and get them moving to fulfil the orders that we have, so that we can be in a much better position. I doubt that the Chinese would be unaware of the apparently unresolved problem that Mr Fixit seems unwilling to clean up. That is, of course, unless we take the action on sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act as being the clean -up. Maybe that was one of those things that the Prime Minister was referring to , as reported in yesterday's Hobart Mercury, when he told Ministers to steer clear of the difficult decisions and, in effect, not to talk about the things that might hurt. Not one of the potential problems of the deal with the Chinese is a problem of the Chinese. Every single thing that may go wrong is a problem of us in Australia. I, like all hardworking, taxpaying, loyal Australians, respect this. I appeal to those whose desire it is to destroy Australia to reconsider their aims and to help get this and other Australian ventures moving. My desire is to see development of Australian resources and employment of Australian skills and capital. I believe that in this regard we are second to none in the world and we should be able to get it working. I would like to understand why the Prime Minister, on his return, or at any time since, has failed to discuss the matter in the Parliament. He has not made a statement of any type. He has not put anything down. I believe it is quite extraordinary that he should have regarded the trip as not worth reporting. All Australians would regret that the implementation-even if it is well intended-of his trip was so abysmal. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.39) —We have been subjected to a dismal portrayal of what the Opposition says is a matter of public importance. Senator Archer —'Realistic' is the word. Senator ELSTOB —It is not realistic; it is very dismal. Much has been said today about people needing to be academics to understand this matter. I am not an academic, but I believe that in regard to anything Australia produces, whether it is in the secondary or the primary industries, it is essential to export a part of the process of that manufacture. If we do not do that, that particular industry will be doomed to failure. I believe that that would be accepted by all sides. Today all that the Opposition is thinking about is knocking the industries, whether it be manufacturing industries, such as the steel trade, or the primary industries, such as beef. If it were sincere about improving the Australian trading position in the world, it would be offering its help to the Government. If it has a point of view to put, it would not be in here taking the attitude it has taken today. I do not believe that Senator Archer believed what he said. From what he was saying, it seems that he would be almost pleased to see the trade negotiations with China fall down over more imports of iron ore or of beef. Senator Archer —Nothing of the sort. Senator ELSTOB —If Senator Archer reads what he said, I think he will find that is correct. He was hoping for more strikes. He was hoping that when the Chinese Trade Minister came to Australia he would see that we would not be in a position to export competitively to China. With that sort of attitude Australia cannot expect to improve her trading position in the world. I believe that Australian beef is as competitive as any beef in the world. Australian grass fed beef can be competitive. It has a higher quality taste. There is less fat on it than on grain fed beef. We should be in the market-place as Australian nationals. Whether belonging to the Government or to the Opposition, it would do every politician a world of good to get in there and spout the benefits of Australian beef. That is what we should be doing-instead of getting the silly attitude of the Opposition and its knocking. The 74 per cent figure seems to obsess the Opposition. It has no answer to this. But it will not be recognised while it takes the negative attitude that it does to our trading situation. I assure honourable senators opposite that people do take notice of these matters. Why are business people saying to this Hawke Labor Government, 'Thank goodness we have a government that will listen to us, a government to which we can talk and from which we can get some sensible answers' ? That is the attitude of business today, but the Opposition has lost that corner of the vote because it has neglected to service the needs of those people . When Mr Hawke went to Japan and China he looked for the benefits which would flow to this nation. He is a loyal, dedicated, honest Australian trying to improve the conditions in this country. We have to improve our export trading facilities. That is no reflection on Mr Hawke. We should be looking not just to those nations but wider. For too long we have relied on so-called traditional markets. We must get out in the trading areas and do better. I agree that the Hawke Labor Government has a consensus here, and this hurts the Opposition. We now have a government that is reducing the number of strikes-whatever the Opposition says. That is paying off. Honourable senators should talk to business people. The situation is improving. Senator Peter Rae —The number of strikes was doubled in the mining industry in January. Senator ELSTOB —It was doubled? But what was the position during the years in which the honourable senator's Government was in power? Senator Peter Rae —It was double what it was during the years in which we were in power. Senator ELSTOB —What the Opposition always did was to bring in legislation to hammer the workers into the ground. The workers would not have accepted that. Had the Fraser Government continued in office, there would have been almost a revolution. That is no way to carry on. One has to live in a democratic society, and that is what the Opposition forgets. In a democratic society one has to convince people. In the end that is far better because, by convincing people, they will participate. They want to help. They are a team, and that is what is happening in this country. Today, Australia is becoming a more united nation. We understand the problems as people. It hurts the Opposition that that is happening. When the Fraser Government was in power all the Australian people were disunited. They all wanted to go various ways. Now, we understand the difficulties that we face. What the Opposition has put up today is very un-Australian. Look at what it has said. It does not do the beef industry any good for the Opposition to say what it has stated. It would improve matters if the Opposition offered its services. Certainly, there are people in the Liberal Party of Australia and in other political parties that form the Opposition who can help. But they do not help. The Hawke Government will see that our exports increase. As I said, any industry that is not prepared to export cannot survive. It is impossible. We do not have the numbers of people or the capacity for use of goods in this country. Today, industries must have the benefit of economies of scale. Unless that is achieved, they just cannot survive. Exports are essential to any Australian industry. That lesson must be learnt very quickly. We understand the importance of exports. The steel trade with Japan is very important. As my colleague Senator Cook said, there are 1,000 million people in China. We started the negotiations under the Whitlam Government. I admit that the Fraser Goverment carried on and became friendly with China. But it is important for a Prime Minister to go to China and Japan and talk to the heads of government and bring about a better understanding. Then it is up to the business communities to finalise agreements. We must get down to the working parties. Australia is a great supplier of raw material. We are a great supplier of foodstuffs. It will be essential for Australia to export in our region especially. Other countries will want to improve relationships with Australia. The Australian attitude is accepted very well in the region. In the region of the Association of South East Asian Nations we have a very good name. We should go out and exploit that, although not in a devious way. We should improve our understanding and our trading facilities. We can help in innumerable ways. It does no good to this nation for the Opposition to just knock. It was a very silly attack. This is not a matter of public importance in that sense. The Opposition has failed miserably. When representatives of the meat industry read what Opposition members have said today, they will say, 'We have no hope with them. They have no positive thing to put forward'. When the manufacturing industry looks at it, it will find nothing positive. All that the Opposition can think about is knocking, and worrying about Mr Hawke with his 74 per cent and all the credibility. That is what the Opposition is thinking about, and it is destroying it. There is no effective Opposition in this country today. That is a great shame. In many countries, people will unite, whether they are in government or opposition, over various things, especially trade. It is about time that honourable senators started to think about that. It is not we, as the Government, members of the Labor Party, or honourable senators opposite, as Liberals, who should be solving this problem; we should be solving it together as Australians. All that the Opposition is worried about is Hawke. Today it has no credibility whatsoever in the electorate simply because it has neglected over many years to look after the interests of this nation. As I have said, we must increase our exports. All that Liberal governments have done is to rely on England. When England joined the Common Market we had no markets. A large percentage of our exports now go to Japan. If the Japanese suddenly said 'we do not want your exports' that would be no good. We should spread our exports; we should be looking for wider fields than we are looking at. This Government has very friendly relations with both the Japanese and the Chinese. We will improve our relations with Indonesia with whom we have good relations and with the Association of South East Asian Nations. Trade is a real possibility. All of those nations are gaining in importance. They have money to spend and they will spend it. Senator Peter Rae —They are not too happy with your Government. Senator ELSTOB —All Senator Rae wants to do is knock Australia. He is anti- Australian and that is a tragedy. He should be in there battling for Australia. We are a great country; we are the lucky country and the honourable senator should realise that. The matter of public importance which has been raised today has no credit whatsoever. Senator Peter Rae —You go out and tell it to some of the wharfies holding up the ships in Melbourne and the BLF holding up the construction of the new Parliament House. Senator ELSTOB —The honourable senator talks about wharfies holding up the ships . He wants to bring in more legislation against them. That is not the way. This Government will talk to them. The number of strikes are being reduced and will be reduced. The trade union movement is united. It is of no use Senator Rae saying that because some disputations are taking place the whole situation is out of control. It was out of control when the Fraser Government was in power; there was disruption all over this country. I refer to the reduction in the consumer price index which is improving all the time. That is happening only because management and labour are getting together. I know there is some distance to go but there will be further improvement. More than ever people realise the importance of getting together. Certainly we have some problems; there will always be some problems. We would not want them to be handled in the same way as they are handled in Poland. The Opposition would not want that sort of condition to prevail. Senator Peter Rae —That is the way your Prime Minister attacks the ABC. That is the way he treats the ABC. Senator ELSTOB —That is absolute rubbish. People should be free to criticise. Criticism, in the terms in which it was made, of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was justified. The Opposition in its matter of public importance has made no case whatsoever. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.54) — I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This inquiry is linked with the present Government's inquiry into cost recovery for the aviation industry in Australia. The whole concept of cost recovery, under the user pays doctrine, is a creature of a previous Australian Labor Party administration and is founded on the specious argument that the user should pay for the services provided. That might be very relevant with respect to medical fees or something like that but where the community derives a large benefit, as it does quite clearly from the aviation industry, it is very wrong to charge the user 100 per cent of the costs involved in providing those services. The cost of providing those services is enormous. When it is put on a small tax base one limits the life or growth of that industry and reaches a situation, as one has in Australia today, in which costs for the passenger airline industry are so high that people are not travelling. While that is partly due to the two-airline policy, which inhibits any form of commercial competition between Trans- Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia on the internal airlines, it is also true that the huge cost burden of maintaining the airways services in Australia under the cost recovery doctrine puts an unfair impost on the users of the airlines in Australia. There are two points to consider. The first is the use and relevance of the airlines to the whole trade of the country, to the commercial development of the country and, of course, to tourism. There is a great multiplier effect in both fields, commercial development and tourism. The community benefits from strong tourist traffic. The community benefits from facilitating communications between the various elements of commerce in the country. The community therefore derives a real commercial benefit and an employment benefit. The second point to consider about the aviation industry that we have within the country is its reserve potential from a defence point of view. We have no strategic freighting or logistic capability in the Royal Australian Air Force, with the possible exception of the two Boeing 707s which we have. We rely very much on the facilities held Qantas Airways Ltd and to a lesser extent TAA and Ansett to provide a strategic airlift capability as a reserve. It is not right to inhibit that by loading all the costs of the operations of the Department of Aviation onto the users. Another point I make about the cost recovery doctrine is that even if one accepts the validity of the argument that the user should pay-which I do not because I believe there is a tangible community benefit from it-it must follow that the user has a say in what charges are levied against him. At the present time and ever since the policy was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government nearly 10 years ago the users have never had the opportunity of exercising a veto on what the Department of Aviation allegedly spends on their behalf and for which it then bills them. There is no facility at all for cost effective analyses, whether a required facility is the most cost efficient way to go. If the users are to be charged for a facility they must have a say in what is provided for them. Whenever one has a go at the Government or the Department of Aviation on this whole matter it is cloaked in the holy circumstance of safety. Once one mentions costs to the Department, it says: 'We have to do that because we have to be safe and, of course, we are the safest operators of aircraft in the world'. Safety is expensive; there is no cheap way to achieve safety in the air. What we have in Australia with the Department of Aviation is a licence for bureaucratic incompetence. This document, the Attributable Aviation Costs from the Bureau of Transport Economics, is an academic treatise which I fear will pave the way for a new explosion in charges. One of the points that I would like to make in the time I have left is the way that the Bureau is recommending that we move from historical cost for assets to replacement cost. Some of the assets for which the Department charges exorbitant rental are hangars. Over 90 per cent of hangars on Australian airfields were built between 1939 and 1942 and were ceded by the Department of Defence to the Department of Aviation at no cost at all. So to charge the users for a replacement cost for those is quite dishonest. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to mention two matters that are referred to in the report. One is the Australian Capital Territory Employment Task Force report which was referred to the House of Assembly by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). This report, which I referred to previously, has been given to the Minister by a committee which spent a lot of time preparing it. It had within it some 60 recommendations with respect to employment specifically in the Australian Capital Territory. As yet the Minister has not responded to that report. It is a matter that ought to have his attention and he ought to give a high priority to the recommendations of the Committee which deals with employment problems in the Australian Capital Territory. The other matter that I wish to raise, which again is referred to in this report in several instances, relates to the development of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory and the transitional provision should this go ahead. Of course the House of Assembly has a considerable interest in this matter. The report of the Committee set up by the Government to report on self- government chaired by Mr Gordon Craig was given to the Government apparently in February of this year. There can scarcely be a document in this Territory at present that has more significance for the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Minister whether he has any comprehension of the fact that the people of Canberra are very concerned about the proposals for self- government. There can be no doubt whatever that a large proportion of this community is opposed to any developments towards self-government. There can be no doubt that only a few years ago this community voted very forcibly and said no, it did not want self-government brought in. I wonder whether the Minister has any intention whatever of making this report public so that this community can have some opportunity to consider its recommendations and to debate the implementation if it is to be put into effect and the implications on the community. There are so many areas that are significant that have not been discussed. I wonder whether the Government has considered the report and its position in relation to it, whether it intends to accept the recommendations that have been made and when it will make an announcement. Does it intend just to tell the community what will happen without any consultation about the report ? The Government has had the report since February, which is a long time. I think the report ought to have been made public and we ought to have the opportunity to consider it. The other report which is outstanding is the White report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission. Again, the House of Assembly has referred to this several times in the report before us today. It certainly has examined it. Most organisations in the community have examined it. It is now well over six months that the Government has had that report and has not yet made its comments on it. These are important matters to which the Minister for Territories and Local Government ought to apply himself and make decisions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The decision by the Wool Council of Australia to alter its position on freight charges is a cruel blow to the industry in Tasmania but of course there is no doubt that the industry in Tasmania is still held in very high regard. That industry can ill afford a further addition to its costs at this time. This will in fact occur as a direct result of the proposed changes being implemented. At present the freight on Tasmanian wool is calculated from the nearest overseas container port, usually Melbourne. The cost of getting the wool to Melbourne is included in the freight charge and thereby shared by all wool growers. It is surprising that the Wool Council has adopted this attitude because it is not its normal policy. It has been its policy to balance things out and to put growers around Australia on pretty much an equal footing. I wonder whether this is the forerunner to what could be different floor prices for different parts of Australia. It does mark an important precedent and change in this sort of operation. This decision also applies to other mainland outports. It is estimated that the freight costs of Tasmanian wool producers would increase by up to $14 a bale if the present scheme were replaced. Clearly, this is an intolerable impost penalising, as it does, wool producers who do not live or operate in close proximity to an overseas container port. Although freight charges are incurred after the wool is sold there can be little doubt that buyers will manage to pass the increased cost back to the various producers. It is conceivable that producers in Tasmania will opt to sell their wool in Melbourne and thus be able to take advantage of subsidised freight rates for interstate cargoes. If this were to occur there would inevitably be widespread repercussions within the wool industry in Tasmania which, in my view, would be disastrous for my home State. I urge the Wool Council of Australia to reconsider seriously its position and move to maintain the status quo. The other problem relates to the purchase by mainland scourers of Tasmanian wool. If this were to occur they would certainly buy on the mainland rather than come to the preferred Tasmanian scouring types which are in such demand in Tasmania because local Australian mills would not be able to participate in the market as the freight costs would make them uncompetitive. Figures that have been given to me today indicate that the cost per bale differential would be as high as $25. I make these comments on the Wool Council on the occasion of the presentation of the report of the Australian Wool Corporation because the Wool Council has enormous influence on the Wool Corporation. One has to see only the wool grower representatives as members of that Corporation. Although the members representing the wool growers-who are listed in the 1982-83 report-have undertaken substantial changes, the bulk of the members represent grower interests. As I indicated in my earlier speech on the wool industry, growing problems face the Australian industry. One problem is that the Australian wool exports to Japan, which is Australia's largest wool customer, have been decreasing for some years as a result of heavy inter-fibre competition, changing consumer life styles and structural strategies. It is refreshing that, to some extent, that has been offset by the People's Republic of China becoming a major importer of wool. I think we must acknowledge that there are some changes. The demand for apparel wool in the current year is expected to increase as a result of the continued recovery of the world economy. I think this is indeed good news for the wool industry. Also textile activity in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is expected to increase at a rate greater than for synthetic fibres. Again, this is good news for the industry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Scott —No. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator Scott —Has the motion that the Senate take note of the paper been moved? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is correct. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.08) -I will address my remarks briefly to the 1982-83 report of the Australian Wool Corporation. I am glad to see that it has come down well and truly within the extended time limit. The Corporation sought an extension because the Auditor- General's report was not available and it undertook to bring its report down within six weeks of the availability of that report. That has been done. This is an opportunity to say just a word or two about the Australian Wool Corporation which has really strode from strength to strength over the last ten years or so and about the Australian wool industry which has the significance of being one of the few Australian industries which stand totally on their own feet. The Wool Corporation and the industry have come through a particularly difficult period in the 1982-83 season, to which this report refers. There was a depressed economic circumstance virtually around the world which made significant inroads into the demand pattern for raw wool and, more particularly or more relevant to that, the demand for woollen products. Added to that problem, the 1982 drought in this country took a very great toll of the industry, from the point of view of both stock numbers and the nature and character of the wool. As a result of both those things the Australian Wool Corporation, in implementing the reserve price system, was forced to purchase very significant amounts of wool. At the end of June 1983, the stockpile was 930,000 bales. The stockpile is greater today, although fortunately the demand for wool is improving quite a bit now. The Australian Wool Corporation has proven to be a successful operator of the reserve price system. It has succeeded in stabilising the wool industry and all the wool textile and manufacturing industries around the world that are dependent on it. It is worth remembering something of the functions of the Corporation, which has the virtual total control of the marketing of raw wool. It administers the reserve price system and negotiates overseas freight rates in the industry. It has the added duty of organising promotion, both within Australia and globally, in conjunction with the International Wool Secretariat. It co-ordinates wool research around the world and encourages innovation in the wool marketing industry, in research and presentation. The Australian Wool Corporation has seen this industry through some pretty serious downturns. It has been able to maintain a relatively viable industry as a result of its reserve price operation. At one stage some years ago it was forced to take in reserve some 1.9 million bales of wool and it has successfully been able to distribute or sell most of that wool. Finally, it is perhaps in the field of promotion almost more than in any other field that we need to look for increasing amounts of money. In the five years that follow, $9m a year is to be spent in expanding, extending and developing the United States of America market for woollen products. It is my hope that the industry will receive support from outside if it needs it. After all, 8 per cent of the gross return from wool is directed towards market funds, research and promotion. It is to be hoped that the industry receives the sort of additional help it may be in need of if promotion causes the sort of expenditure that may be expected in the next three years. Debate (on motion by Senator Martin) adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report before us for the year 1982-83 did little more than touch on what I believe is the important factor. On the first page of the report the last four lines of the summary state: 1983/84 in prospect looks bleak for the Australian dairying industry with a further increase in production of at least 5%, tight marketing opportunities and declining returns. That was the Australian Dairy Corporation's expectation for 1983-84, which has nearly finished. The year 1984-85 becomes what I think we could refer to in colloquial terms as the crunch year. I say this because in the United States of America and the European Economic Community production is virtually unchanged. In spite of some noises that they have been making about a reduction it really has not come about and I do not think it is likely to in the short time frame. New Zealand, like Australia, is fighting for markets and it also is really not reducing. The relationships of Australia with free enterprise governments such as those of Japan, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia are not improving. I doubt that they will in the short term future when those governments have opportunities to deal with countries other than Australia. We have to remember that the costs of wages, taxes and inputs generally in Australia are almost out of control. The prices of the products must inevitably be up for cutting. The oversupply of milk has to be curbed. The States in their own rights have not as yet agreed on how this is to be done. There are two distinct, opposite points of view from the high-producing States as against the low-producing States. I fully understand and appreciate both those points of view but I only come up with the inevitable answer that, one way or another, agreement has to be reached. If we continue to produce in excess of the market requirement there will be either a total price collapse or a total market collapse or, at worse, both. At present, a system of levies on production is under discussion to buoy up the export market. This will also eat into the return at a time when the price payable to the producer is likely to be cut. Incidentally, I was very heartened to hear a Mr Halfpenny in Victoria talking about ensuring that the price of food is reasonable and fair. I only trust and believe that he is broad-minded enough and sufficiently a man of the world to ensure that the producers of the food get adequately paid as well as that the consumers pay only what is adequate. I assume that that will happen. One of the big problems in the future is the contigent $14m loss in Pt Indomilk . I would say that this is getting more and more certain as the days pass. The methods of covering this are still not determined in any way. I am quite satisfied that there needs to be considerable restructuring in the various organisations concerned with the industry. I believe that we cannot any longer have any of these organisations operating within one another. An arm's length deal between any of the industry groups has to be attained. I believe that there is still room for much more research into the industry in the areas of management, manufacturing, new products, better marketing and so on as the time goes on. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1982-83 annual report of the Australia Council is a little different from many of the reports that appear before us in the Senate. Quite a number of the reports that we receive are very general statements of activities of either a department or an authority. The report contains quite an amount of debating material on the subject of the arts. I congratulate the Australia Council in the sense that it has given to us a report which contains useful and interesting points of view on the subject of the arts. However, I raise a query in relation to one section of the report. The matter of the funding of the arts in Australia , so far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, is, of course, an arm's length situation. Therefore, we do not see very often before us Bills or any other matters that give us the opportunity to debate the arts. Nevertheless, I think it is relevant that we express opinions on the arts and the expression of that opinion should not be taken as meaning that we are trying to interfere with the arts. The subject of community arts is something that is a matter of some debate in the community, particularly amongst politically involved people. There are those people who say: 'What on earth are the community arts?' For people who feel puzzled by this I recommend a statement starting on page 38 of the report. I think this is a very fair and good statement of what the community arts are, the role of the Community Arts Board and what is the valid role of the Board. However, I am a little intrigued by one section of that statement. I draw the Senate's attention to it. The report states: Other activities, ranging from the experimental or innovative edges of the arts to a great deal of apparently mundane activity, long ignored (even despised) and denied the credibility of belonging to the genus 'Art' are equally disadvantaged because they do not fall into recognised categories. Quite often the ignorance and denial of these activities has its roots in class, gender and race-in attitudes which effectively maintain the status quo. Stability and continuity may be appropriate in other areas of human activity but arts practice must be continually encouraged to go beyond what is known and accepted. I think the last sentence in this statement is a very good one. However, I am disturbed by the preceding sentence that refers to a denial of certain activity, a denial which 'has its roots in class, gender and race-in attitudes which effectively maintain the status quo'. I think this is an extraordinarily political statement to have in a report supposed to deal with the nature of the arts. I wonder whether the author of that statement-whoever that author was- means to suggest that the status quo in the arts is somehow upper class. To me it implies that the so-called established arts, that is, orchestral concerts, opera, ballet, theatre, literature, poetry and so on, are parts of the status quo and are part of the establishment. The report seems to imply that people who are from a different class-one assumes the lower classes in this sense-are people whose views and artistic expression are denied. I hope I am wrong, but I do not think I am. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —Order! The time allotted for consideration of Government papers has now expired. Senator MARTIN —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I present a report by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to proposed works in the parliamentary zone, namely: (1) Construction of two standard bus shelters and one additional street light in King George Terrace. (2) Relocation of police guard boxes in Queen Victoria Terrace. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 1 May 1984, namely: (1) Construction of two standard bus shelters and one additional street light in King George Terrace. (2) Relocation of police guard boxes in Queen Victoria Terrace. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) 1984 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 Quarantine Amendment Bill 1984 Satellite Communications Bill 1984 Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1984 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill 1984 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill 1984 Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill 1984 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.28) —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- AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend certain of the arrangements under which financial assistance is made available to the States and Northern Territory under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. I should point out to the Senate that this Government when in Opposition supported the objectives of the program when the Act was introduced by our predecessors. Because of the declining level of Commonwealth expenditure on roads the need for such an initiative was obvious. However, we were concerned about some of the provisions of the legislation, particularly the compulsory tendering requirement, and during last year's election campaign we undertook to review it. Upon coming to Government we have accordingly reviewed a number of provisions of the ABRD Trust Fund Act, in addition to those relating to the calling of tenders. In giving this undertaking this Government was concerned to have provisions that were reasonable to all parties. Consistent with our approach to conciliation and consultation detailed discussions were held with the States, local government, industry and relevant unions. This process identified three areas where changes to the provisions of the legislation were necessary. The first, as identified earlier, related to the provisions which required that all construction work on national, urban arterial and rural arterial roads must go to tender. The second related to the provisions requiring the States to maintain in real terms their expenditure on roads for the duration of the ABRD program. We do not disagree with the broad objective. We were concerned, however, that there was no recognition of circumstances where a State had substantially exceeded its real terms maintenance of expenditure, possibly for a number of years, but that the excess could not be taken into account in subsequent years should the State fall behind the necessary rate of expenditure. Thirdly, a number of States pointed out that, where a State wished to take the option of directing part of its urban arterial roads allocation to urban public transport projects, additional conditions were imposed without the State receiving one additional cent of funding. Having regard to the much greater rates of investment that most States are making in urban public transport than the funds that would be available under the ABRD program, this Government is satisfied that the requirement that the State also maintain its urban public transport real terms expenditure is unreasonable. The amendments to the ABRD Trust Fund Act therefore make the changes which this Government considers are desirable in order to improve the operation of the ABRD program. Turning to the provisions of the legislation, firstly the Bill varies the requirement that tenders must be called by a State for all construction works associated with national and arterial road projects. Under the legislation developed by our predecessors this was an absolute requirement with no provision whatsoever for it to be waived. While this Government recognises the merits of the general principle of calling tenders for road construction, there is a need for some flexibility to cover situations where the process of calling tenders is either impractical or not cost effective. The Bill therefore allows the Minister to approve an exemption from the requirement to call tenders for specific works where a State can demonstrate to the Minister's satisfaction that: there is an emergency requirement for the works to be performed, or the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional cost, or it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications for the works, or the works are of such a kind that competitive tenders are unlikely to be received, or the works involve adjustments to utility services which would normally be undertaken by a government department, a government authority or a corporation not primarily responsible for the construction of roads, or the performance of the work under contract would cause unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. This last provision also requires the State or local government to demonstrate that it has taken all practicable action to avoid this problem. The Bill provides for this amendment to come into effect from 12 February 1984, the date on which the Government's intention to revise these provisions was announced. This will enable to States, upon enactment of this legislation, to seek exemption in respect of any works which have been commenced subsequent to that date. I must emphasise that each of these provisions for exemption has been carefully considered. They have been included as there are obvious circumstances where time or costs make the tendering process inappropriate. It is the Government's intention that the ministerial discretion will be used very infrequently, and then only after the most rigorous and detailed examination of all the factors involved. The second area of amendment relates to the requirement that States maintain their own roads expenditure in real terms during the life of the ABRD program. The Act currently provides that, where a State fails to maintain its roads expenditure in real terms in a given year, it is required to make up the shortfall in the following year. Should it fail to do this then its allocation under the ABRD program may be reduced. However, there is no provision to allow a State which exceeds the real terms requirement in a year to carry forward that excess as a credit against a later year. While the Government firmly intends that States should be required to maintain their own expenditure effort, it considers that the current legislative provisions are, from the States' standpoint, both inconsistent and inequitable. Accordingly, the Bill provides that excess expenditure by a State in any year shall be taken into account in determining the level of expenditure by that State in a subsequent year. This provision is comparable with arrangements which have previously applied under Federal roads assistance legislation. The third area of amendment relates to the requirement that, where a State proposes that part of its urban road allocation be directed to urban public transport capital works projects, it must maintain in real terms its own capital expenditure on urban public transport. As it stands, a State which decides to apply part of its ABRD entitlement to urban public transport projects receives no more in total assistance than if it were to direct all of its funds to road projects. On the other hand, the State becomes liable to a requirement to maintain a specified level of State expenditure on both roads and urban public transport in each year of the program . This Government's transport policy is to assist the States to improve and maintain urban public transport systems. It is clearly inconsistent with this objective to maintain an arrangement which disadvantages States which wish to apply part of their ABRD funds to worthwhile urban public transport improvements . The Bill therefore removes the requirement that State urban public transport expenditure be maintained in real terms where this option is taken up. These amendments, developed in close consultation with all the parties concerned, further reinforce the Government's commitment to improve the effectiveness of Australia's road system. This commitment is nowhere more clearly evident than in the increase of 45 per cent to $1,233m in our allocation to the States for roads this year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. ROAD GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 24 of the Roads Grants Act 1981, under which provision of financial assistance to a State for a national road construction project is conditional upon the State inviting tenders for all works associated with the project. The amendments for which this Bill provides are fully consistent with the corresponding amendments for which provision is made in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill. My previous remarks in relation to the tendering aspects of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill apply equally to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984. Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. Debate resumed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.30) —I rise to continue debate on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which is now before this chamber. It is a report in relation to the National Crime Authority Bill and accompanying legislation. It is a report on which the Committee has given, as the Chairman's tabling statement indicates, a great deal of consideration. Of course, the Committee had a fixed term of reference which was short and, in my opinion and in the opinion I think of all members of the Committee, probably did not enable adequate time to discuss fully all aspects of the issue. But I believe the report which has come forward does examine a great number of very important defects in the National Crime Authority Bill. I trust that the dissenting reports, including the minority report which I have presented, and which disagrees in a very substantial way with a number of the important aspects of the Committee's report, will enable the Senate to have an excellent debate on the issue and that the Senate will be able to determine that, if any legislation on this subject is to pass this Senate, then it is effective and is able to be implemented. I think that the Committee investigation once more justifies the way in which the Senate operates through its committees. It has given to very important witnesses, including a number of royal commissioners, special prosecutors and counsel who appeared in dealing with the problem of organised crime for some years, an opportunity to come before it and submit documents before it. Much of that material is represented and is explained in the report and in my dissenting report. Therefore, I think that the Government's opposition to sending this National Crime Authority Bill to the Committee is shown to be a false attitude. I think the Chairman of the Committee, as a fair man, recognises now that the investigation was well worth while. I say that even though I find some of the recommendations extremely inadequate for the purposes of dealing with this problem. Before I deal with the major matters involved unfortunately I must make one remark. One of the signatories to the report is Senator Cook, a member of the Australian Labor Party. I have already challenged the fact that he has signed the report because, as I recall, he did not attend any of the hearings of the Committee when witnesses were called. He did not attend any of the discussion and debate on the report when the Committee was examining the matter and was making up its mind. It is my opinion that that was very unsatisfactory. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has a proud record . Its members should be active or should resign from it. In my opinion it was unwise for Senator Cook to give his name to the report in which he has actually played no active role. I leave the matter at that. In the words of the Chairman in the report, the Committee 'finds grave defects or omissions' in the Bill which is before us. That is certainly a true statement . Honourable senators will find from the 49 recommendations, a number of which are double or triple recommendations, that a great deal of improvement is required if the Bill is to be effective. From 10 of those recommendations I dissent in a number of important areas, but it is quite clear that the Bill, as it stands, is totally inadequate to deal with organised crime which, as evidence before our Committee indicated, is a growing menace in our community. It is an enormous enterprise whereby people are becoming wealthy and from which the risk of corruption of our society and our institutions is very great. We cannot afford to compromise just for purposes of agreement in the Parliament if we are making compromises that are not effective. The Bill itself, as the report and minority report show, is indeed an impossible compromise between what I consider are irreconcilable elements that have been interested in the debate on this subject. Views are expressed by civil liberty organisations and individuals who by and large do not want a national crime authority or commission at all. I understand and appreciate the honesty of their views, but they have then accepted that, if there is going to be an authority, the one that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has produced legislation for is good enough. It is what they call a reasonable balance. On the other hand, if it is a balance which produces an authority that has no teeth , if it is an organisation which has no effectiveness, it would be better to have nothing at all and not confuse the public. At the same time, the compromises which the Attorney-General and the present Government achieved with the States in regard to these Bills are quite deplorable. Of course, the States have not endeavoured to move away from those compromises, which have enabled them, through an intergovernmental committee, the opportunity of hamstringing the proposed National Crime Authority in its essential work. As honourable senators will see, both from the recommendations of the Committee which would greatly reduce the extent of that ability of the intergovernmental committee and from my recommendations which would take away much of that power altogether, it is necessary to act in that way. I think the report which the majority of the Committee has supported has a number of soft options in it. It has come to major problems, which I will mention, not in great detail but which, as I have indicated already in my minority report and in the Press statement which I issued today, are of fundamental importance if this is to be an effective proposal. But I regret that some members of the Committee who in the examination of witnesses I thought were lions have turned out to be lambs when it has come to the recommendations in the body of the report. I regret that even if the Committee's recommendations were accepted what would be created in this country would be a ramshackle body. I think Senator Sir John Carrick described the authority proposed in the original Bill as a Heath Robinson institution and I think that is still applicable-one which perhaps produces a lot of steam and a lot of effort but produces very little result in the end. Unfortunately, the years would pass before we realised how defective was that machinery and the damage would be done in this society. We have had members who have taken a very active role in the issue of organised crime over the years. Senator Chipp is one of those. I find it inexplicable that Senator Chipp at this stage could be satisfied with the recommendations which the Committee is making to deal with this problem. I want to read from just a few statements of Senator Chipp when, on 17 November 1983, we were referring this Bill to the Committee and he was taking a hot and strong attitude on the subject, as he has for years. In the early part of his speech, in quoting Mr Frank Costigan, QC, he said the following: Organised crime thrives on corruption. Any proper investigation of its activities will inevitably find evidence of corruption. If a State Government or the Federal Government has the right to forbid a particular line of investigation then the independence and integrity of the commission is destroyed . I am afraid that under the Committee's recommendations that would still be possible, not to the same degree but still possible. Senator Chipp went on to say: This Bill gives a State Government the right to forbid a particular line of investigation. On those grounds alone I believe it is unsatisfactory in the present circumstances. I say too that in fact rather than do that we would do better to operate under the Commonwealth powers, getting the same sort of co-operation no doubt as that which Mr Costigan obtained from the States but not thwarting the organisation in the way in which this Bill would. Senator Chipp went on to say, in dealing with the debate at that time and an earlier debate on the 1982 National Crimes Commission Bill, the following: In fact all Australian Democrats are in favour of an effective national crimes commission and we all voted for it, for a model that maybe had some shortcomings , but a model which I thought was first class-the so-called Fraser-Durack model. If we are accused of holding up legislation to fight organised crime I simply say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he has a Bill right at this moment that has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament and all it needs to implement that particular crime authority is for him to get in a car and go out to Yarralumla. I wish Senator Chipp had that same sense of urgency now. In that speech at that time he went on to speak about the powerless way in which this National Crime Authority Bill was constructed. He said: I acknowledge the urgency of this matter but I would rather wait another five months and have an effective body to fight organised crime than come in with something-I do not want to be unkind to the Attorney-General-which one journalist has described as an authority which does not have in some instances as much power as a policeman on a beat. I say, without going to the extremes of Senator Archer, that it is a toothless tiger. I believe it would not make any significant contribution to eroding the $700m or $800m profits per year that are now going to organised crime. We must be satisfied from the evidence received by this Committee that that was a grossly inadequate estimate of the amount. The amount of profit from organised crime was put to us as between $5,000m and $10,000m a year, which makes the need for an authority even greater. I will quote further from Senator Chipp's speech. He referred to an article by Marian Wilkinson, whom he applauded. He quoted her article as follows: Under the new National Crime Authority, it is unlikely that crucial aspects of the bottom of the harbour tax frauds would have ever come to light. Mr Costigan and other witnesses made it clear to us that, under the proposals in the Bill or even under the Committee's Bill, these matters would not come to light. In fact the crazy arrangement whereby there would be ordinary powers and special powers, with the authority denied the opportunity of investigating, calling witnesses and demanding answers at an early stage of an investigation, makes it clear that that would happen. Senator Chipp, in that speech, referred with approval, as I do, to the five royal commissioners-Mr Justice Moffitt, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Woodward , Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Costigan-and pointed out that each of them said that we needed a national commission. Senator Durack interjected: 'An effective one'. Senator Chipp said: Yes, an effective crime authority. These people had all the facilities of royal commissions at their disposal. . . . If my memory serves me correctly, they certainly were in favour of one of the two models that the Attorney-General put forward, and they would have been appalled at the present Bill before the Senate . From the evidence we had from them, I say that they must now be appalled that the recommendations, even those approved by this Committee, are not adequate. One view is that the powers of this organisation should be akin to those of a royal commission-different in some ways, but very similar. I take that view. On the other hand, there is a view that it should be a form of extended police inquiry meeting in secret, with all the public criticisms that it would receive as a result. Among the soft options, the Committee has introduced two weaknesses which go beyond the present Bill. One is in regard to private hearings. In the Bill there are provisions which hypocritically make it almost certain that no public evidence will be called. The commissioners and others who gave evidence before the Committee made it clear that there is allegedly a right to call public hearings but that it will not happen. The Committee has said that this is hypocritical and that we must get rid of it. What did it do? It threw the baby out with the bath water. It said that there would be no public hearings at which evidence could be produced to show the ramifications of crime in this country but that it would all be done in secret. I set out in my minority report how dangerous that would be and how critical it would be to the operations of these organisations. Secondly, the Committee suggested that we go further than the indemnity clause, which gives people the opportunity to take the self-incrimination point, which the Attorney-General put into his Bill, and allow people what is called the derivative-use indemnity so that the statements of witnesses before the authority cannot be used not only in criminal trials. That is fair enough, and the Attorney-General has provided for that. But the majority report of the Committee goes further than that in that it recommends that any information derived from that and any lines of inquiry coming from that are not used against that person, thereby nobbling the authority in the very use of its powers. Those are the two weaknesses introduced in the majority report of the Committee. What in brief are the major matters on which I dissent? They are based on the best evidence before the Committee-the evidence of the royal commissioners and their earlier reports, the special prosecutors, counsel before such commissions, and people such as Mr Bob Bottom, who has been in the thick of this problem of crime for years. On those basic issues I dissent along a number of lines. Firstly, I believe that this report does not make an effective attack on the problem of organised crime. It would not enable a body like the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to exercise the same sorts of powers and effectiveness as that Royal Commission. Mr Redlich, QC, who is of course a special prosecutor, used strong language in his evidence before the Committee when he said that the authority's actions and powers would be 'gravely deficient in this regard'. In comparing it with the Costigan Royal Commission he said: The Bill thus deprives the Authority of a vital initiative which has been developed by the Costigan Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has been able to gather, collate and analyse vast amounts of information in a manner hitherto unknown resulting in the identification of criminal activities previously undetected. The identification of the Hamidan scheme is a striking illustration of the success which can be achieved if the Crimes Authority is able to maintain this initiative. Section 10 (d) of the Bill will not enable this to occur. Therefore, in the first place, if we go along this line, the authority will not have the same effect as the Costigan Royal Commission. In the second place, the purposes of the authority set out in the Bill are inadequate. The Committee recognised this but did not go to the length of saying that there should be no catalogue of various offences. It removed the ludicrous proposal that the authority should be concerned only with offences which attract terms of imprisonment of three years or more, but it did not go far enough in defining these matters. Furthermore, I have referred to the absurdity of the distinction developed by the Committee between ordinary powers and special powers which make it very clear that it would not be possible for the authority to get a power from an intergovernment committee as it would have to go before such a committee to get a reference. How would it prove need? Would it do so on the scanty information that Mr Costigan had from the Victorian Police about the painters and dockers? It would never satisfy such an intergovernment committee and clearly, therefore, the authority would be prevented from exercising important powers at the beginning. I mentioned the intergovernment committee, a monster. I agree that it is necessary to have something supervising this because the States are involved. I set out the detail of this in my minority report, but the way in which the Attorney-General has moved from his past full-blooded attitude for a commission based on federal powers is extraordinary. Most of the people concerned in these criminal operations act across State borders and deal in Federal and State crimes. This inter-governmental committee would be given powers which would enable it to hobble the operations of a crime commission. As Mr Costigan says, that would be a sin. One can imagine that any attempt to go before it to obtain specific powers would be known well in advance by those who wanted to destroy records and to protect themselves. So, it is necessary to avoid that and to take away the veto powers given to governments, even the veto power given to the Commonwealth Attorney-General under this Bill. I have said in my minority report that the public hearings must be maintained. This authority must have the right to warn the people of Australia of the type of activities going on. It is no good having public hearings just to discuss law reform or matters in general or to issue what I think the Committee called bulletins on public statements. That is not adequate unless there is the right to call, in necessary cases, public evidence of the nature of the conspiracies. I say also that the appointment of commissioners under this Bill is inadequate. The chairman is to be appointed by the Commonwealth, but the others are to have their own 'constituencies'. One is to be appointed by the police Ministers of the Commonwealth and States-mostly the States, of course-and the other by the Attorneys-General. If the Ministers do not unanimously agree within three months , the Federal Government will make the appointment. Even the Queensland Government has seen through that and has said that this really gives it no power . It is fraught with the certainty of disagreement. Indeed, it means that commissioners will be inoffensive to everybody but will not have courage and determination to do the best job. I think this provision should be changed because, vital to this whole exercise, is the fact that we must have excellent commissioners. All the other methods of protecting and defending civil liberties will fail if the commissioners are bad. They are the vital issue. Senator Gareth Evans —It would be a wonderful discipline for you to get into government one day; it really would. Senator MISSEN —Talking of getting into government, the Committee unfortunately discarded joint parliamentary monitoring and said that ordinary parliamentary committees can deal with the reports that come from this body. We all know that ordinary parliamentary committees cannot deal effectively with matters at the moment. My own Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, has a number of references before it. The reports of various bodies are sent to us every year. There is not enough time and not enough staff to deal with them. We know that if the ordinary parliamentary methods are used and if there is not a special committee of both Houses-because both houses are concerned with this problem-we will not have proper monitoring of the system. That is another matter about which Senator Chipp and I are in agreement. We agree that a joint committee of the Parliament should be set up. Finally, I say that we already have the National Crimes Commission Act 1982. That Act was passed by Parliament two years ago. The more one looks at that Act, the better it seems. In fact, it should have been proclaimed and put into operation. After it was proclaimed and after the change of government, the Hawke Government received a report from the proposed Chairman of the new Authority, Sir Edward Williams. In a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 22 December 1983, together with accompanying documents which he has made available to our Committee-extracts of which I regret I did not incorporate in my minority report -he analysed what is necessary to get the operation under way. Nowhere did he suggest that there are not reasonable powers and proper powers being applied. In his statement to the Prime Minister he said: What is required is a concerted co-ordinated effort. There must be effective co -ordinated use of State and Federal resources, particularly skilled manpower, which are already being asked to meet very heavy demands, and the effective usage of which is under increasing threat by a proliferation of effort. A National Crimes Commission offers an opportunity to advance this. It ought to be a first priority. A second priority which emerges is that there ought to be emphasis on the effective prosecution of those engaged in organised crime. There is already information concerning those engaged in it and their activities-more is emerging. The time has come for the emphasis to be on turning that information into evidence founding convictions. This is envisaged by the Crimes Commission Act. Of course, Sir Edward Williams was not allowed to act. He was not allowed to continue. The matter went into a state of discussion, in which it has been for some considerable time. Mr Justice Williams, in his many recommendations at the end of the document, in which he was suggesting how the Authority would operate in the way he described, proceeded to make very sensible proposals. In clause 12 he said: The Crimes Commission Act will have to be proclaimed. At least one further commissioner will need to be appointed. There is a logic in this being Costigan, QC, if that were to prove acceptable to him. If he is to be appointed, it will have to tailor with his Royal Commission appointment. We know that Mr Costigan will not consider the appointment. He thinks as the Committee does, that four years is long enough for one person to be involved in this matter. It is a disgrace to this country that we have not gone ahead with the legislation we already have. The Committee's inquiries do not indicate that the ramshackle arrangement which the Attorney-General has presented, after compromising with everyone under the sun, will work. I believe, as a member of this Parliament and of the Senate, that I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out, as I have in my minority report, not only the defects which are in the Bill, the defects that are still in the report of the Committee and the important and useful things which the Committee does but also the fact that unless we get an effective, strong commission that is prepared to tackle, and has the facilities and the ability to tackle these matters, we would be better not to mislead the public by going ahead with the legislation that is before us. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.55) —It would be quite premature at this stage to purport to give any kind of detailed Government response to this report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Obviously, the Government has not had time to fully absorb it, particularly its detail, nor to have the necessary consultations that are a precondition to a final position. But I can say a little today by way of initial response to the report. I believe that it is appropriate that I should, on behalf of the Government, indicate at least the initial reaction we have to it and how we propose to handle it. Let me begin by saying that the Senate Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Tate, is to be congratulated for a job outstandingly well done. The report is comprehensive and thoughtful, reflecting an excellent understanding of the problems faced by executive governments in responding to the problem of organised crime. At first sight, it would appear that the general thrust of the report is not likely to cause the Government any particular difficulty. There are, however, a number of matters of detail which the Government and the parliamentary party will certainly need to consider closely. A full Government response simply will not be able to be made until, I hope, next week. In particular, it will be necessary for us to consult with State and Territory Attorneys-General and police Ministers. Preliminary arrangements have been made for a conference of relevant Ministers and officials to be held in Canberra this Friday for that purpose. Senator Durack —How do you think they will react to the report? Senator GARETH EVANS —I should think reasonably warmly. Senator Durack —The Committee has done a better job than you can do. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is perfectly possible. I will say some more about that in a moment. It is the Government's hope that necessary amendments to the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 can be drafted and approved in time for introduction into the Senate before Parliament rises next week with a view to the final passage, then, of the legislation through both Houses before the end of the autumn session. Because of the complexity of at least some of the drafting that is likely to be involved at first sight in accommodating some of the-- Senator Chipp —Do we take it that the end of next week will be the end of the autumn session? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, no such luck. I am saying that we will introduce it before the end of next week so that honourable senators may have some notice and an opportunity to chew over the textual details of the proposed amendments and so that we can debate them when we come back in the latter weeks of May. I cannot give any absolute undertaking about that because I have draftsmen in my office at the moment poring over the detail of this legislation in an endeavour to advise the Government as to just what might be involved so far as that timetable is concerned. It may be possible to produce a substantial batch of the proposed amendments-but not all of them-for example, by the time we get up next week. But there is no reason why those of them that are available cannot be made available to the Senate as soon as they are. It would also appear possible on this timetable to allow the Authority to be formally established in accordance with the Government's recently announced intention by around the middle of the year. It remains our intention that an appropriate transition period be provided before the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is formally wound up to enable the new Authority to fully absorb and take over that Commission's ongoing inquiries. On one minor carping note, I do not readily accept that the Bills presented to the Senate had, in the words of Senator Tate's tabling statement, 'grave defects or omissions' or that they require fundamental change. Senator Durack —That is what the Committee recommends, fundamental changes. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the language of its terminology in the tabling statement. But I suggest that, on closer analysis of the matter, which I am sure Senator Durack, with his well known dexterity in these matters has been able to give it this afternoon, it would appear that although there are numerous changes , a number of them of considerable significance, they do not really amount to any fundamental root and branch attack on the concept of the authority as it was originally devised. We readily acknowledge that a number of aspects of the Bill were capable of improvement with the kind of mature reflection the Committee has now given it. I repeat the Government's congratulations to the Committee for a job well done. We will be looking at the matter very closely over the next few days, as will all the participating governments that we have to involve in this process, which, I say to Senator Durack, remains the most fundamental difference between the realistic, real world model that we have adopted and that which appealed to his outfit when in government. We will do our best to complete this process of consultation, both with other governments and internally, to produce the amendments which will be necessary to give effect to the Committee's recommendations to the extent that we can accept them, and I hope that will be to an extremely substantial extent. We look forward to effective and good debate on the Bill when Parliament resumes. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.00) —I must comment on the generosity of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the comments he has just made. The last thing he will hear from me in regard to his concession that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has done a good job will be those hateful words 'I told you so' or my trying to score points. He has been very generous in his praise of the work of the Committee and, I think, generous in conceding that improvements were possible and could well have been made. I, and I am sure other members of the Committee, welcome that conciliatory, consensus seeking attitude that the Government has expressed through the Attorney-General. I find it, without putting too fine a point on it, quite overwhelming that we could have such a generous response so soon afterwards. I pay tribute to the outstanding job done by Senator Michael Tate as Chairman, who was given an extraordinarily difficult task to do in such a short time, with a group of seven other senators who-- Senator Gareth Evans —Not a prima donna among them. Senator CHIPP —I cannot agree with that, because there were six lawyers among them. I must thank those six lawyers for being extremely kind to the only two non-lawyers on the Committee, Senator Crowley and me. In that praise I join the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Senator Robert Hill, for the support and guidance he gave the Chairman and the rest of the Committee, and also the secretariat, headed by Mr Christopher Fogarty. One of the features of the Committee was that at our first meeting I think it would be fair to say that of the eight of us present there were probably six or seven different viewpoints as to how various aspects of the legislation might be addressed. Some of us had strong views in opposite directions. But I found it quite exciting. One of the few exciting things that happen in this profession of ours is the different way that politicians behave and think during committee hearings from the way in which they behave when they are on their feet in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. I was quite proud to be associated with this Committee. In fact, during the service that I have given this Parliament this has been the most successful and rewarding committee work that I have ever done, and I thank my colleagues for that. I was puzzled by the force of Senator Missen's attack on me. To have heard Senator Missen's speech without looking at the report one would have been entitled to conclude that he massively disagreed with the report of the Committee. I think it is fair to say that he agreed with 90 per cent, or maybe 95 per cent, of the recommendations of the Committee. He has some firm ideas on certain things-for example, the formation of the intergovernmental committee, the hearings in private, self-incrimination provisions and vetos. I hope the Government will realise that there was a fairly strong view that the body should be called a commission. We know the natural reluctance, which I share, of members of the Australian Labor Party to call it the NCC, the National Crimes Commission. We are suggesting, and strongly commend, that it be called the ACC, the Australian Crimes Commission. I believe that in balance Senator Missen would agree with 95 per cent of the Committee's recommendations. He quoted me accurately and in context with regard to what I said about the crime problem in Australia, what should be done about it and the inadequacies, as I saw them, of the National Crimes Authority Bill. I do not resile from one thing that I said during the debate on that Bill nor one thing that he quoted from me today. But I challenge him to say how what I said then is inconsistent with my putting my name to this very excellent report. I believe I have been consistent. I believe that the recommendations of the Committee, if implemented by the Government, will work in suppressing crime-not doing away with it, but in suppressing it-whereas the model put forward by the Attorney in regard to the National Crimes Authority, in my view, would not have done so. We received overwhelming evidence to the effect that it would not have done so. While serving on the Committee I learned a lesson as a politician about how careful we should be in granting coercive powers to any body. We heard evidence from all sorts of people-civil liberties organisations and lawyers. I was very impressed with the evidence, particularly that of Mr Justice Nicholson, who said : 'Yes, these sorts of bodies need coercive powers, but for heaven's sake, don't let them roam at large without any checks or balances with coercive powers because there are little people who need protection'. I believe that we have struck a fine, delicate and, if I might say so, clever balance between giving the Commission enough power and authority to go after criminals and protecting the rights of little people. I think it is an ingenious device at the two levels. We recommend that the new Crimes Commission should have authority to roam at large in any area it determines and not have its field of endeavour predetermined by some Attorney- General or vetoed by some State. It can roam at large at the information gathering stage until it is at what could be described as the stage of having established a prima facie case against a target. It will then say: 'We have gone so far in gathering information or intelligence. We now need to go further and hone in on our target. Therefore we now need coercive powers, the powers to be able to go to a bank and say that we want bank records'. Let us remember, while we are on the track of this debate, that every time Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher went to a bank manager-and Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher were deeply conscious of this-and said 'We want to see the bank accounts of Mr Jones' that immediately put Mr Jones in great peril of being bankrupt within a relatively short time. If Mr Jones happened to be an innocent party, that would be a massive injustice. I imagine that after a bank manager hears that a crimes commission is inquiring into a client's affairs he would be less than sanguine about the size of the overdraft of that person the next day and would not be very enthusiastic about granting him or her a business loan. So the granting of coercive powers is a massive step. Mr Justice Nicholson said that it would have a salutary effect on an authority or a commission in asking for them. In other words, it would not ask for them unless it could satisfy somebody else that they were needed. I believe the Committee has struck a magnificent balance on the question of vetoes by the States of the intergovernmental committee. I sympathise with what Senator Missen said about the clumsiness of such a committee. But those of us who advocated an intergovernmental committee wanted a vehicle that could work. I am blessed if I know how a national crimes commission can work without the co- operation of the States, the State instrumentalities and State Ministers. I know Mr Costigan has received remarkable co-operation from the States. But he had a reference from one State, and the co-operation that Mr Costigan received in a one-off operation might not necessarily be repeated with an Australian crimes commission. I can understand Senator Missen's misgivings about private hearings. But would it not be better to err on the side of protecting civil liberties, provided that one is still getting at the truth, as is done in grand jury investigations, than to destroy a person's reputation nationwide forever by having a public hearing and having an allegation or an innuendo on page one of all newspapers? I am very happy about the way in which the suggested amendments of the Committee will do away forever with this hideous exercise of Government departments, both State and Federal, protecting their turfdoms. Explicitly, we recommend that the Commission can demand information and not have other authorities withhold it. I am sure that other members of the Committee would not mind me saying that we are all in a dilemma as to what sort of watchdog we should put on to this new Crimes Commission. Clearly it needs one or should have one. But do we want an ombudsman sort of fiddling around in there, gearing up the works? I do not know. Is it possible to have a judge sit in judgment as to whether the Commission is doing its job? Would that not need a full time judge cloistered in an office of his own somewhere? Perhaps a parliamentary committee? Goodness knows, we have enough other responsibilities. Finally, I have agreed with Senator Missen on the question of a parliamentary committee being a watchdog. That is not to say that I believe that it will be outstandingly successful in preventing any intrusions into civil liberties or whatever; but the mere fact that the Australian Crimes Commission will know that there is someone there looking over its shoulder will have a salutary effect on it. In conclusion, I thank my colleague members on the Committee again for what was to me a most valuable, exciting and rewarding experience. Once again, I extend warm congratulations to the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the staff who served the Committee. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.12) —The Senate is debating a motion to take note of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs concerning the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. Like Senator Chipp, I too would like to acknowledge the fine leadership of that Committee by Senator Tate. I also acknowledge the support that he got from the staff and the other members of the Committee. I am pleased to have been a member of that Committee and to have been associated with the report before the Senate. I will not say, as did Senator Chipp, that I am overwhelmed by the reaction of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), but I must acknowledge his comment that he recognises the work of the Committee in this report as having been outstanding. I could say that it is a pity that he was so obstinate in his objection to the matter going to the Committee in the first instance, but I suppose that in this new spirit of enthusiasm that would be unfair, so I shall not pursue that matter any further. However, his new attitude clearly vindicates the role of Senate committees in matters of importance such as this Bill and the important contribution that the committee system can make to ensure that the best possible legislation passes through this Senate. I hope that the Attorney- General will have learnt something by this experience and that in future circumstances he will not prove so obstinate. In that new spirit of enthusiastically embracing the work of the Committee, it might be said that there is little more that need be stated. However, we have a situation in which one member of the Committee, my friend and colleague Senator Missen, has taken a point of view that is very different from that of all other members of the Committee. In the Senate today, he has strongly questioned the balance at which the Committee has arrived. Therefore, because that debate will obviously be extended after today within the parties, within the community at large, possibly within other governments that will have to consider this report and eventually again within this Senate, it is important that I should look at the basis on which the Committee reached the balance that it has achieved. I can certainly put to the Senate the reasons by which I came to conclude that the balance that the Committee has recommended is the correct balance. In doing that in these few comments, therefore, I want to look at the safeguards that are still afforded to the community by our recommendations; I want to look at the reasons by which I conclude that the Authority, the Commission, or whatever it is to be called-and that does not particularly concern me-will, nevertheless, be effective; and I want briefly to look at some of the problem areas that I consider require further attention in the future. I say at the outset that we have privileges in this country that are very valuable. They include basic civil liberties such as the right of a person not to be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate him, and privileges such as that are founded on sound historical reasons. They also include a privilege of privacy-privacy of our personal affairs, records of our personal affairs, for example, that are kept by government, such as social security records and health records, and some privacy of our business affairs, for example, taxation records. All are subject to reservations, and the trend has been to undermine such liberties, compelling the answering of questions, searches without warrant, and matters of that nature. I simply remind the Senate of the most recent example that comes to my mind, that of the Customs alterations that went through this place a few weeks ago extending the searching power of Customs officers without warrant-powers that I opposed. Furthermore, the trend has been one of continual invasion of personal privacy. I remind the Senate that we have a very significant report on that subject from the Australian Law Reform Commission which we are yet to debate in this place. These protections and privileges are what distinguishes our society from other types of the society that I regard as less desirable. The more they are abandoned or diminished, the more concerned I shall become. However, on the other hand, I also recognise what has been described as the cancerous nature of organised crime. I recognise that unless it is checked, it will just as effectively destroy the type of society that I desire in this country. For example, traffic in heroin, arson for hire, organised exploitation of the weak and the young for sexual gratification, murder for hire-that was brought to the Committee's attention-and the recent video larceny rackets involving invasion of people's homes and risk of personal and mental injury, frauds of trustee and other savings organisations which shatter the dreams of the innocent-these also do not reflect the society in Australia that I wish to see. I acknowledge that traditional police methods, with very little right to compel answers and with limited access to peronal records, have been unable to suppress organised crime. If anything, such crime appears to be growing more sophisticated, more organised and more devastating to the society that we desire . I have, therefore, begrudgingly accepted that a body which has such coercive powers and access to records has the potential to be more effective. That is what this debate is all about. In an effort to combat a cancer in our society, the cancer of organised crime, to what extent should traditional personal liberty safeguards and privacy be sacrificed? I accept that coincidentally by the institution of a commission other shortcomings in our system of law enforcement might be overcome. They have been dealt with in detail on other occasions. They are problems such as that arising from the multitude of jurisdictions that we have in this country, the multitude of criminal codes and law enforcement bodies, the lack of communication and co- ordination, and the limitations of police methodology. For example, it was put to the Committee that if it were possible to cut off the operatives, the petty criminals, organised crime rings would be bled dry. That strategy simply has not proved successful. There is also a lack of intelligence gathering facilities capable of dealing with crime in the days of computers, electronic transfers of funds, satellite communications, et cetera. However, with political will all of these deficiencies can be overcome and to some extent have already been overcome. There are now task forces interstate and interdisciplinary. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence is now computerised and on the move. It is getting a better fund of raw data. To me that is not primarily what this debate is about. This debate concerns the desirability of a new body with new powers which will result in a loss of certain privileges and further invasions of privacy. The fact that it may provide an alternative solution to some of the other deficiencies in our law enforcement system is, as I have mentioned, only incidental. Costigan has shown that with access to information, particularly financial information, one can use sophisticated cross-checking facilities to build a picture of organised crime. This is an intelligence gathering and processing mechanism. It does, however, require invasion of privacy and some coercive powers, for example, to force the production of documents. Costigan and other royal commissioners have found that to test theories or complete a picture some power to compulsorily elicit answers is necessary. The work of these royal commissions, however, although informative, does not appear to have significantly reduced organised crime. They have not often led to successful prosecutions against crime heads and they have not often led to the recovery or illicitly obtained financial gains. Therefore a crimes commission, to fulfil its role of suppressing organised crime, must have power and responsibility not only to gather intelligence but also to provide that intelligence to a prosecuting authority in an evidentiary form. It should not be forgotten that the power to use in subsequent prosecutions and civil litigations the information which an authority gains by the intrusion into privacy and loss of traditional safeguards is therefore also a critical part of the balance that must be reached in this debate. That balance , as I have indicated, is found in this report. I will look briefly at both sides of the scale in my short contribution, commencing with some of the protections that have been retained by the Committees recommendations. Firstly, coercive powers can be exercised only by the Authority when it is acting pursuant to a specific term of reference, in other words, something similar to a royal commission situation. There must be a decision by government that a particular target should be investigated or pursued. In exercising coercive powers the Authority should not be able to roam free and wide. Senator Chipp mentioned the evidence that was put before the Committee by Mr Justice Nicholson . I know some argue to the contrary, as did my colleague Senator Missen today, that this is too restrictive. However, I remind the Senate that whenever the Authority is pursuing identified organised crime, that is, organised crime that has been identified by the police or perhaps by itself and for which a reference has been given, there is no such restriction in the Committees' recommendations. Where the Authority is simply building intelligence at a pre-reference stage it appears that these coercive powers are unnecessary and as my approach is to give coercive powers which breach traditional freedoms only when necessary, I am satisfied that the right balance has been found. Secondly, the Authority will not be able to carry on public inquisitions which have the potential detrimentally to affect reputations on hearsay evidence or less. This is an investigatory body, not a court. If it gathers sufficient evidence a person may be put on trial and the importance of public scrutiny of trials should remain. I know there is some opinion to the contrary-it was put by my colleague Senator Missen-but I would have thought that the public exhibitions of some American crimes commissions would have been adequate warning for this Senate to be very cautious about adopting such a methodology. In the hunt, and it is a hunt-that was the language used by counsel assisting the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union- and when there is insufficient evidence to prosecute but when a crimes commission is sure a party is guilty, and no doubt according to human nature that will be the case on some occasions, there is a temptation to warn the public through public examination of the party which is thought to be guilty. To me, that is totally undesirable. Thirdly, there is protection in that the Authority itself cannot prosecute. It may pursue a matter to the stage of preparing a brief for prosecution or action for recovery but it will be up to the Director of Public Prosecutions, after independent assessment, whether such actions will proceed. Fourthly, there is the protection of the right not to answer incriminatory questions or to provide personal records that will be self-incriminatory. These protections will remain. In fact the Committee's recommendation is that such safeguards as appear in the legislation should be further strengthened. What should be given is a derivative use indemnity so that a person's statement may not only not be used against him but also evidence derived from those statements should not be so used. Fifthly, as a further protection the Committee has advocated streamlined procedure to a judge where it would be claimed that the Authority is acting illegally or beyond its power or is otherwise abusing its responsibility. I believe that this will offer more real protection than the judicial audit which is proposed in the legislation and which is, I think on the evidence before us, an impossible responsibility for a judge to be given. It could amount to considerable obstruction to the work of the Authority and is also more effective than the protection offered in the legislation by the investigations of the Ombudsman. To have the Ombudsman investigating the activities of the National Crime Authority is inappropriate. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative irregularities of the bureaucracy, not the operation of the criminal investigatory system. Additionally, there has been some call for a parliamentary committee to scrutinise this matter but again it appears that such a committee would suffer from the same deficiencies as a judicial audit. The best protection , I contend, is that which we advocate, a streamlined procedure to a judge when a breach is alleged. Sixthly, the Committee calls for a provision in similar terms to that in section 6A (3) of the Royal Commissions Act. If a person is charged with an offence and that offence is not finally disposed of he may refuse to produce a document or answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination. Seventhly, this will be a Commonwealth funded authority created under Commonwealth law with accountability to the Commonwealth Parliament. Thus there will be a clear line of responsibility, the opportunity to debate reports, the opportunity to use the Estimates committees and the other protections that this Parliament offers which should not be underestimated. Eighthly, the Authority retains legal professional privilege although some have advocated its abolition. The Committee believes there has been gross exaggeration in claims that the Authority can shield criminal abuses. Ninthly, in the Bill, part of which we do not oppose, is the existence of a sunset provision so that at least, after a specified period, the operation of the Authority and its effectiveness will have to be debated again in this Parliament . Tenthly, the Committee has made it clear that there must not be interference by Ministers in the operation of particular references and that any general guidelines must be tabled in the Parliament. Therefore, it is submitted that on the one hand the Committee has been particularly conscious of its responsibilities to protect civil liberties and to protect as much as possible privacy. On the other hand, as I have indicated, the Committee believes it has provided on balance an authority which is able to do its job and which has the potential to be effective. I will run through the reasons why I have reached that conclusion because they will be important in the debate which will follow. Senator HILL —Before the suspension of the sitting, I was about to proceed with my balancing exercise to list the powers which the National Crime Authority would be given if our report were to be adopted, powers which I believe would adequately enable it to meet its responsibility of suppressing organised crime in this country. First, it will have access to Government held records and information. It will have the power to gain that information and there will be an obligation on agencies to provide it. Second, it will have access to taxation records to the extent of tax breaches at its ordinary level of operation and other criminal breaches when investigating under a term of reference and it will be able to use those records and information arising therefrom in subsequent prosecutions and civil actions. In passing, I must concede that by preference I would have gone further and not distinguished tax records from other government- held records, but that is just a personal preference and not held sufficiently strongly to dissent on that point. Third, it will have access to all business records on a warrant. To that extent , the right to plead self-incrimination will be abrogated and such information may be used in a prosecution. Fourth, it will be able to compel incriminatory testimony and production of personal records when a use derivative-use indemnity is given. It must be remembered that it is not the principals who are normally called to give evidence, it is a matter of building evidence against the principals and the testimony of the peripheral players becomes vital. Therefore, this point is particularly important. Fifth, it will be able to set up multidisciplinary task forces to assist with its investigations; for example, lawyers, accountants, financiers, computer experts and police officers. Sixth, it will be able to build intelligence and conduct preliminary investigations with task forces without any need for a reference. If a reference is then sought and not given it can report accordingly. Seventh, it will be able to conduct Commonwealth initiated references without the need for the States to consent. When I first debated this subject in this chamber some 18 months ago in relation to the previous Government's Bill, it appeared obvious to me that for the Authority to work to its maximum capacity and effectiveness the co-operation of the States is desirable. The National Crime Authority Bill does contain a formula for participation by the States in joint references and participation should be encouraged. It is worth noting that Royal Commissioner Costigan claims now to be receiving support from all the States. Eighth, a reference cannot be withdrawn without an affirmative resolution of both Houses of the Federal Parliament so there cannot be Government interference in that regard. Ninth, the definition of organised crime or relevant offences is to be expanded so that a form of organised crime not now recognised would not be excluded. For example, arson did not appear in the Bill that was before the Senate. Furthermore, whereas the intergovernmental committee is to take into account whether ordinary police methods might prove effective, that will not now be a final determinant. Of course, duplication remains undesirable. Tenth, we have recommended a simplification of the summons to give evidence. The detail to be provided appears to be a practical hindrance-that is, the detail that was provided for in the Government's Bill-serving little purpose. It was said to be protective, but in our judgment it was really only cumbersome. To give simply the terms of reference to a prospective witness appeared to us to be sufficient. Eleventh, a corporation may be compelled to produce a document so that the common law privilege against self-incrimination which appears to extend to companies would be abrogated. Twelfth, we have simplified the procedures for production of documents. Thirteenth, we have provided that the privilege of self -incrimination is not available for civil remedies; that is, we are extending the provisions that presently exist under the Royal Commissions Act. Fourteenth, we have provided for greater flexibility with regard to search warrants. One can seize material wanted for investigations as well as a prosecution and the Authority is given more time and greater flexibility in the execution of such warrants. Fifteenth, we provide for power to apply to a judicial officer for a warrant to arrest where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is about to leave Australia to avoid giving evidence to the Authority. Finally, we allow the Authority public sittings in order that it might, when necessary, educate the public as to a particular form of organised criminal activity. Therefore, it appears to me and it appears to the majority of the Committee, in fact all but my colleague Senator Missen, that we have found the balance, that we have breached fundamental safeguards and privacy no more than is absolutely necessary . Nevertheless, we have advocated a structure for authority, advocated the establishment of a body that has considerable power and authority and responsibility to match. It appears to us that it will have greater potential to offer a real restraint upon organised crime than anything we have seen hitherto in this country. When I commenced my speech I said that I would make reference to several matters that I think are deserving of further consideration in the future. One is the area of law reform. Law reform is not a major function of the proposed Crimes Authority although it has power under our recommendations to make recommendations itself when it appears desirable to do so. However, it appears to me that there is a need to further assess in that regard the role of the Australian Institute of Criminology which has not been dealt with in our report. There is the need to investigate further the questions of the value of illegality of SP bookmaking. We are advised that this provides the cash flow for much of Australia's organised crime and, to a lesser extent, the criminality of prostitution, marihuana and also our existing pornography laws. I remind the Senate that Mr Justice Kirby, apart from others, has questioned the role played by relatively minor criminality as the feedstock for organised crime. In the report we mention the desirability of investigating new laws, particularly dealing with such matters as interstate trafficking. There are American precedents in this regard that are worth consideration. Laws which permit better recovery of illicit gains should also be considered. We need also to look at ways in which existing legislation facilitates organised crime. I know Mr Ralph Jacobi, the honourable member for Hawker who was listening to the debate in this chamber before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, has gone so far as to advocate a crime impact study with new Bills. These sorts of matters should receive further consideration. On that subject we have been told that recent changes in the foreign exchange regulations, although they may be soundly based in economic policy, will facilitate organised crime; for example, in the moving of funds overseas for the purchase of heroin. The second area which I believe is deserving of further consideration over a period is the role, structure and functioning of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. It has taken some time to get going. It is now getting more support from the States and State police forces and is contributing to breaking down the barriers between the various State law enforcement bodies. It is now getting into gear with the use of more sophisticated equipment. I know it is often said that we should compare what Costigan has achieved with what the ABCI has achieved. But for a fair comparison one could also look at the differences in resources, both financial and in personal expertise, that have been made available. I believe for the time being that both bodies should be encouraged to develop in tandem and that they should be encouraged to develop a close working relationship and trust. An assessment should be made in future years as to the role of both. I must confess that I believe in due course some form of amalgamation of the two bodies will probably prove to be the most desirable course open. I want to mention something which is in the report; that is, for the Authority to work totally effectively there will be need for complementary State legislation regarding coercive powers. I hope that will be given early consideration by the States. I also want to mention one part of the report with which I am not entirely happy; that is, the recommendation in paragraph 6.26 in relation to confidentiality. I know that it caused my colleague Senator Lewis considerable anguish. He has dissented in relation to that provision. I am not sure that I totally agree with his dissent. I tend to the view that evidence given in confidence should be so respected by the commission. If there is to be a proviso to that confidentiality the witness should be so made aware before he answers the questions. If it is desired that he be called to give evidence and to repeat that which he has given in confidence in a subsequent prosecution this should occur only if he is prepared to abrogate that confidence and his statement is made available to the defence. I know that this may be regarded as somewhat restrictive but I believe if the commission is to achieve the stature desirable some sacrifice of efficiency might be necessary. I raise it as a matter which I think is worth further consideration. Finally, in settng up a crimes commission we should not forget the underlying social issues that have enabled organised crime to thrive-for example, problems that lead the young to drug dependence. High unemployment rates come immediately to mind. The breakdowns that have occurred in the codes of ethical behaviour which lead professionals, lawyers, accountants and bankers to facilitate the activities of criminals require further consideration. If we are to commence a new and more effective attack on organised crime a crimes commission should be complementary to a more enthusiastic and effective attack upon the social circumstances which, in many cases, lead otherwise unlikely participants into criminal activity. Without such participants organised crime will not exist. (Quorum formed) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.13) —I am grateful for the fact that so many Government senators have answered the call. I do not wish to speak at length on the report on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 which has just been put down by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. No doubt Government senators will be anxious to hear Senator Crowley, who is to be the next speaker. Everybody taking part in this debate is justifiably very pleased with the results of the exercise which has been conducted by this Committee. Even the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has responded in terms which Senator Chipp described as 'generous' to a report which suggests a very substantial amendment to the Government's Bill. However, I wish to remind the Senate that on 17 November 1983 when the Senate was debating this Bill and the Opposition suggested that the Bill was defective and required committee consideration it received an extremely ungracious reception from the Attorney-General and, indeed, from a number of Government senators. I do not wish to quote from what was a rather unpleasant debate. Senator Chipp will remember, for example, some of the rather unflattering remarks that were made about journalists in the National Times of whom he thinks a great deal. I do not wish to go over a lot of old ground but I want to remind the Senate that, among other things, on 17 November the Attorney-General said, when he was objecting to the Opposition's attempt to send this matter to a committee: There is no excuse whatsoever for the change of attitude that has been demonstrated here other than a willingness at all costs, irresponsibly, to score political points and to obstruct for its own sake. The idea of Senate obstruction is something about which we hear a great deal from the Government when the Opposition, the Australian Democrats or Senator Harradine raise some matters which are not to the Government's liking. When later in that debate we were taken to a vote the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Tate, Senator Crowley, Senator Cook and the Attorney-General himself all voted against the reference to the Senate committee. I believe that they were opposing that because they saw a political point in not having the reference to a Senate committee. They were acting more in accord with the Attorney-General's own criticism than was the Opposition or the Australian Democrats. The important point- Senator Peter Rae —They are bound by Caucus. Senator CHANEY —As Senator Peter Rae has said, they are bound by Caucus. For all I know Senator Tate, Senator Crowley and others may have thought that the reference to a Senate committee was a very good idea. But the key point is that once again the value of parliamentary consideration has been demonstrated. I have joined the debate in part to congratulate the Senate Committee for the fact that, true to the general traditions which have been established in this place, it has been able sensibly to consider the evidence which has been brought forward and, to a very large extent, arrive at a common view as to what the form of the legislation should be. I want to remind the Senate and the public-to the very limited extent that Hansard gets read by those outside this Parliament-that this was a case of what was described as Senate obstruction. What we have here is a Senate committee report which unanimously says that there should be substantial amendments to this legislation to make it workable. The Attorney- General has indicated that he thinks it likely that the Government will accept, or will not find it difficult to accept, many of the Committee's suggestions. Yet the same suggestions, when they were made by the Opposition, were pooh- poohed and abused by the Attorney-General, who claimed that the Senate was acting in an obstructive manner. When the Government plays its Senate obstruction card it will be important for the people of Australia to remember that when the Senate challenges the Government's legislation very often there is a benign result. I believe, for example, that the threat that we made in this Senate-a threat between the Australian Democrats and the Opposition-that we would delay the assets test legislation until February was a threat which has served the people of Australia well. That piece of Senate obstruction resulted in the Government having time to have a second look and second thoughts. In February the rather churlish Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who had been so critical of the Senate, admitted that the Government had got it wrong. That was a classic example of the Senate doing its job and doing it properly. This exercise, which has culminated in this report which was put down this afternoon, is another classic example of the Senate doing the job for which it was established. It has established that legislation brought into this place by the Government is defective and in need of substantial amendment. I agree with Senator Hill, who spoke earlier in the debate, that this report once again vindicates the role of the Senate. The Opposition expects the Senate to continue to exercise its constitutional function in this way. It believes that that is in the interests of Australia. It objects to the categorising of such action as obstruction, which is the usual action of a government when it is faced by this sort of Senate action when in fact the results are so generally benign. In this case we have had the ready admission by the Attorney-General, who was so churlish on 17 November 1983, that this is a report which is valuable and which will be able to improve the legislation. The legislation hung in the balance for some time. Some honourable senators were concerned about the urgency of the need to establish the crimes authority as against the remedying of the defects that many of us thought existed with respect to the legislation. I am pleased that the doubts which many of us felt and expressed have been vindicated by the very careful work of the Committee, which has acted in a splendid bipartisan fashion and in a way which I believe is typical of the best work which is done in this place. Again I thank and congratulate those honourable senators from the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats and the Liberal Party of Australia who have performed such a signal service. I think it is important to note that organised crime has been exposed as a very significant problem in Australia. The ability of this authority to act independently and effectively was very limited. I hope we will now see effective legislation put in place without delay. I hope we will see an effective crimes authority put in place without delay. I believe if that is done all of those honourable senators who have played such an effective role in this committee will have performed a very great service for Australia. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.21) —I find it timely that I should be able to follow Senator Chaney in this debate partly because of the stage he has set. I guess his speech was along the analogous line of, thanks, but no thanks. I will resist the temptation to find some very good analogies in medicine about what is a real obstruction and what is only hot air. Senator Lewis —Ha, ha! Senator CROWLEY —I welcome Senator Lewis's laughter. On the one hand I think the points that Senator Chaney alluded to are important but on the other hand it could be asked at what stage people are said to be churlish and at what stage we require the Senate to reflect seriously on the matters before it. It is certainly true that this Government introduced its own crimes authority Bill because it was not satisfied with the Bill as proposed, but never commissioned, by the previous Government. It is quite clear that on this terribly important issue there has been considerable thought and rethinking. I suppose it could be said that Senator Chaney is able to address the Senate with his remarks tonight with the wisdom of hindsight. Of course, he also has the benefit of the quite splendid report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It might be that he anticipated the remarkable contribution that Senator Chipp and myself are going to make to the Standing Committee. This is a point with which I am sure Senator Chipp will not disagree. In fact, the point is well made-if not nicely laboured at this stage-that people 's views of things do change from time to time. I guess the Senate and, no doubt , the people of Australia, will benefit from that consideration. I suppose I could finally ask Senator Chaney which issues the Senate Committee needs to reflect seriously on, and which not. Again, that is a matter of distinctions drawn from time to time in this place. I guess there is no objective requirement . It could be said that when it is felt that one can win the argument then one puts up the arguments for it. However, I still feel that having been part of the Committee and having seen the report there is no doubt there is consensus and agreement in the Senate that the Committee has produced a splendid document and, I think, made a very fine contribution to the debate in this whole area. Before I proceed with a few comments I too take the opportunity to thank the Chairman of the Committee. I think Senator Tate portrayed a fine grace and tolerance in the chair under considerable time constraints, which were constantly challenged further by the propensity of all Committee members to contribute to the discussion. I also thank the support staff and even draw the attention of the Senate to Senator Tate's thanks to the word processors. I can certainly assure the Senate that the word processors as well as the people operating them have worked overtime in the last few weeks. I thank, too, my Senate colleagues from all sides of this chamber-even the lawyers- for an interesting and effectual committee. Senator Chipp —They never quite patronised us. Senator CROWLEY —We were a very good combination in beating off patronage. The point I wish to raise concerning the debate on the name of the authority has been alluded to by other honourable senators. I certainly raised my opposition to the organisation being called a commission, largely because I think it could carry in the minds of the Australian people some sense of royal commissions and the powers attached to them. I think the Crime Authority needs to be clearly distinguished in its powers and its functions from any sense of the continuation of any royal commission, and in particular in this case the Costigan Royal Commisison on the Activities of the Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Therefore, for the record, I comment that I would be quite happy for the organisation to remain as an authority, so as to make clear that distinction. Another point I wish to remark on concerns the debate around the withdrawal of reference title. I am not unhappy with the amendments and the recommendations that are put in the report in relation to the debate about the withdrawal of reference. It seemed very important, once the Authority had been given a reference and the attached extra special powers that went with such a reference, that any attempt to withdraw that reference from the Authority ought to be done very cautiously. However, I feel that of the two points in the discussion one that has been a little lost in the discussion of this matter in the Committee report should be highlighted. Principally people were concerned that the Authority could in any way be open to parliamentary intrusion and that in any attempt to withdraw a reference it ought to be quite clear that it was not being done by the Government with any intention to interfere in the operations of the Authority. The independence of the Authority was a matter of prime importance. That was agreed to by every member of the Committee. The recommendation requires that for a reference to be withdrawn there needs to be affirmative resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. However, I think another point needs to be noted. Sometimes the Government may wish to withdraw a reference for entirely appropriate reasons. We had before the Committee much evidence that suggested there was sometimes a temptation, in pursuing criminal behaviour, for the hunter to forget restraint in terms of civil liberties and appropriate behaviour when seeking information. We had evidence given to us too of the importance of being able to withdraw a reference ; in other words, that it would be right and responsible for the Government from time to time to judge that the continuing pursuit of information in certain areas was inappropriate. Entirely properly the Government could do that. I am concerned that that dimension of the withdrawal of reference has been lost in the debate. However, on reflection, I think the proposal that the Government justify a withdrawal of terms of reference before the two Houses of Parliament by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which would only follow if the Government was able to convince both Houses of Parliament, seems to be a satisfactory way of dealing with that difficulty. I think the report has proposed a number of points of clarification for the operations of the Authority. I feel that this is probably the most important way in which the Committee has contributed to the discussion and to the prospects of this Bill. It has done so not so much by dramatic change but by clearly defining or suggesting that clear definition in certain areas of powers of responsibilities of other definitions is the greatest contribution I think of the Senate report. I do not suppose that that could be more appropriately and clearly spelt out than it was by Senator Hill in his recent contribution. One further point I wanted to raise was that matter also raised by Senator Hill concerning the law reform function which is limited. It has been proposed that the law reform proposals would be limited to the range of matters arising out of the performance of the Authority and its functions under a reference, or perhaps in its ordinary functions. The Authority is not to be seen as a major law reform organisation. However, I think it is important to highlight the point that has been raised by Mr Jacobi in previous discussions and which was mentioned by Senator Hill. That concerned the prospect of a crime impact study. It may not be an appropriate requirement of the Authority to require crime impact studies. But it may well be that in describing or pointing to the possibilities of law reform in certain areas, particularly where criminal activity has been allowed to range , a crime impact study would bracket well with the proposals for law reform. It may also be that it is a matter that ought to be taken up in other fora because quite clearly under some legislation, if not in the planning at least in its implementation, some white collar crime in particular has been allowed to flourish. So I draw attention to to the need for and the possibility of the crime impact study being something that the Authority might from time to time allude to or make reference to. I contributed to this report in a small dissenting report because I felt very importantly at difference with the majority report about the importance of accountability of the Authority. I admit the proposals for accountability that were in the original Bill and which I support at least in a modified form are only of limited effect. I feel still that with an authority that will be given the powers of such significance that are being given to this Authority under the proposals in the Bill there needs to be clear statements of public accountability. Unlike I think everybody else on the Committee, I do not regard the Commonwealth Ombudsman as someone who comes in and fiddles about, if I might use something approximating a quotation of what Senator Chipp has said. In fact, I feel the Ombudsman has become widely accepted by the community and has become identified as a supporter or campaigner for the ordinary citizen, particularly against bureaucracies, institutions, or the weight of anachronistic regulations. I think that the Ombudsman having a role in the overview of this Authority would be well received by the community at large. I would not necessarily expect the Ombudsman to deal with grievances of individuals in the course of an inquiry, but I think the Ombudsman having a role of overview and the possibility of sometimes taking up action on behalf of a citizen is very important. It is certainly a role which I am happy to support and unashamedly have written so in my dissenting report. I feel that in some ways the Ombudsman is still doing battle to be taken seriously in a world populated by lawyers. For that reason I find it quite interesting that Senator Chipp does not approve of the Ombudsman's role in this Authority. I do not take it that Senator Chipp is opposed to the Ombudsman, but rather that he is opposed to the suggestions of how the Ombudsman could operate under the terms of this Bill. For myself, I still feel the Ombudsman's role is a very important one and is principally one of spokesman for the ordinary person in this community. The other point on accountability refers to the judicial audit. Unlike my colleagues, I have more concern about a judge taking charge or inquiring into any of these matters than I do about the Ombudsman doing so. That may well be due to my non-legal experience or background. But I feel that we cannot establish an authority with such a responsibility as this, with such powers as this, yet not have some dimension of requirement for accountability. Senator Hill highlighted very well the structural proposals that will in fact have an inbuilt accountability throughout the functions of the Authority and I am very much in sympathy with all of that, but I still feel that I would want to support the need for some kind of audit of the Authority external to the Authority itself. There will be the annual report by the Authority, but I feel further to that there should be something approximating an external annual report. I am not suggesting that the terms of the judicial audit clause in the Bill as it now stands are what I necessarily would argue to the wall for; in fact, I am quite happy that the summary applications process for people who have grievances would deal very nicely with clause 47 (2). But I still feel that there should be an overview of the general activities of the Authority by somebody external or more than one body external to the Authority itself. I feel that that would be well managed by the proposals for the Ombudsman and the judicial audit. I do not believe it is necessary for either of those two people or groups of people to so scrabble around or fiddle around within the Authority as to upset its operations . We did receive evidence from a number of people, including Mr Costigan, that such investigation would hamper the actions of the Authority, but that is no more than what I would expect such people to say. In some ways anybody checking on and inquiring into the program of the operations of an authority is likely in some way to interfere. That is, I think, exactly what we would be requiring of somebody who was to make a statement of accountability to the public. Finally, I am happy to say that there is not a proposal to establish a parliamentary or Senate committee to oversee or review the work of the Authority . I am pleased that that was not a recommendation of the Committee and spoke against it. I think that the Parliament in its ordinary operations will be able to examine the Authority's annual report and, if my dissenting report should win out, the Ombudsman's report and the judicial audit report. In that way the Parliament would closely follow the performance of the Authority and at the same time be appropriately distant and therefore independent in its appraisal. I think the people through the Parliament would have more than sufficient channels for checking on an authority with the powers and the importance proposed for this Authority. At this stage, Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.37) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on canned or frozen fruit or vegetables in respect of which an export permit has been granted under the Export Control (General) Regulations. The Government's intent in imposing this charge is to recoup, in accordance with announced policy, 50 per cent of the costs associated with the export inspection of these products. The Bill sets a maximum rate of charge for canned or frozen fruit or vegetables of six-tenths of a cent per kilogram. An operative rate of charge will be set by regulations and, it is intended, will be half this maximum rate, that is, three- tenths of a cent per kilogram. This rate of charge is substantially lower than that indicated to industry as the likely charge level in the Minister's public announcement last December. The reason for the change is that the Department of Primary Industry which has the direct conduct of inspection of these products will be moving as a matter of priority to modify current inspection practices in this field. One result of these modifications will be a considerable reduction in the inspection costs associated with the products. Departmental estimates are that the cost of the revised inspection regime would have been $519,000 if the regime had applied throughout 1983-84 and the operative rate of charge has been devised on the basis that, if the revised regime and the charge had applied throughout 1983-84, half this cost would have been recouped. It is the Government's intention to have the charge in operation from 1 April 1984. On this programming, it is expected that actual collections in 1983-84 will amount to approximately $40,000. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the collection of the charge to be imposed by the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984. The Bill follows the usual pattern of such collection legislation and deals with such matters as the due date for payment, recovery of unpaid charge, penalty for non-payment, offences, access to premises, review of decisions and the making of regulations to establish the collection procedures in greater detail. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill and the associated Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 is to impose and collect a charge for the export inspection of honey. Government policy is to recoup 50 per cent of the cost of providing export inspection of primary produce. Legislation to impose such a charge on honey was introduced by the previous Government in March 1982. The Senate referred those Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which reported in May 1982. The Senate Committee's central recommendation was that the then current honey export inspection procedures be abandoned and replaced by a system of limited random sampling and testing by the Department of Primary Industry. On the basis of the Committee's report and its recommendations the Bills were not proceeded with. In addition the then Government undertook to reassess the question of honey export inspection as part of a broader review of export inspection activities that was then underway. As a result of this review, the export inspection of honey is to change from 1 October 1984. The new regime will be substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee in that it involves a system of limited random sampling and testing of honey prior to export. There is general industry support for continued Commonwealth export inspection of honey. I am aware, however, that some people have reservations on the level of charges that should apply. It is proposed that each honey export establishment should be given an inspection classification according to its performance in meeting export standards, and that the intensity of export inspection effort be related to the inspection classifications. Initially it is proposed that all export establishments should be accorded normal inspection but that this would be subsequently reviewed and the intensity of inspection then related to the quality of the export product. The level of charge will then be based on the inspection effort involved. The criteria used in classifying establishments will be published in a set of Honey Orders under the provisions of the Export Control Act 1982. Pending the full implementation of new inspection arrangements the Government has decided to introduce a uniform charge of $4.70 per tonne with a target date of 1 April 1984. This charge is based on the estimated costs of export inspection under the new regime which are lower than current inspection costs. When the new inspection regime is fully operational, charges are expected to vary from $2 to $12 per tonne of honey depending on the record of performance of individual packers. The Bill provides a maximum rate of $24 per tonne. The charge is to apply to all honey for which an export permit has been issued. Other recommendations contained in the Senate Committee's report have been fully considered in the overall review of export inspection. The question of the need for an export permit has been examined closely by the Department of Primary Industry and has been found to be necessary for the effective administration of the new export inspection system. The requirement for a permit is the only basis on which any form of control over exports can be established and is the means wherby the Customs Service is assured that a particular consignment complies with the regulatory requirements and may be exported. In relation to the issue of a ''Certificate in Respect of Honey'', the feasibility of issuing this at the same time as the export permit and other export documentation is under examination. It is anticipated, however, that in general it will be the responsibility of the exporter to obtain analytical certificates from a National Association of Testing Authorities accredited laboratory to meet importing country requirements for detailed chemical analyses . The Department of Primary Industry will continue to inspect and register premises used for the packing and storage of export honey. Honourable senators will be aware that the Industries Assistance Commission is currently undertaking an inquiry into whether assistance should be granted to the honey industry. It is proposed that a review of the Australian Honey Board be undertaken in the light of the Commission's report. Honey is one of the few commodities that up until now has avoided a charge for export inspection. This Bill and the associated Collection Bill establish the basis for a fair and equitable system for charging for export inspection and will provide a mechanism for implementing the Government's policy of recovering 50 per cent of the cost of providing an export inspection service for honey. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 This Bill is associated with the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 just introduced. It is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. APPLE AND PEAR LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to correct certain anomalies relating to the imposition of the apple and pear levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976. The apple and pear levy is imposed on the production and sale of apples and pears and provides funds for the operation of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. Under the present provisions of the Act, apples and pears distilled to produce beverage products such as pear brandy, are liable for levy at the processing rate rather than the considerable lower juicing rate. This is considered inappropriate as the returns paid to growers by processors for fruit used for distillation purposes are well below those paid for processing quality fruit and are more in line with the lower returns paid for juicing quality fruit. This Bill provides for fruit used for distillation purposes to be levied at the juicing rate. The Bill also provides for fresh pears used for drying to be exempt from the apple and pear levy to take account of amendments proposed as part of the provisions of the concurrent Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Under the provisions of this Bill fresh pears used for drying purposes will now be subject to the dried fruits levy. It is not proposed to exempt fresh apples delivered for drying from the apple and pear levy as dried apples, unlike dried pears, are not defined as a dried tree fruit under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. Commencement of the Bill is on 1 January 1985, prior to the beginning of the next apple and pear season. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to correct certain anomalies relating to the imposition of the dried fruit levies imposed by the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971, to increase the maximum permissible rates and to simplify administration. The levies are imposed on dried fruits of a season received for packing, and provide funds for the operation of the dried fruits research scheme established by the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971. Under the present Levy Act, fresh fruits delivered for drying purposes are in practice not subject to levy. Fresh pears delivered for drying are, however, subject to levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976, even though moneys raised by the latter levy are not applied for the benefit of dried pears. This Bill provides for fresh fruits delivered for drying purposes to be subject to the dried fruits levy through amendment of the definition of ''received for packing''. This change is complemented by the provisions of the concurrent Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984, which propose exemptions of fresh pears delivered for drying from levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976. The Bill provides for an increase in the maximum levy rates for dried vine fruits and dried tree fruits. These increases were recommended by the Australian Dried Fruits Association, which represents 95 per cent of producers, and by the Dried Fruits Research Committee. Doubling the maximum rates of levy is expected to avoid for several years any need for further amendment to the legislation to provide for levy increase. The opportunity provided by the introduction of this Bill is being taken to make other relatively minor amendments of an administrative nature. Commencement of this Bill is to be on the day which it receives Royal Assent. Provision is made for the amendment of the definition of ''received for packing' ' to apply first to dried fruits of the season commencing on 1 January 1985. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.38) -by leave-I address myself to the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, the Honey ( Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Madam Deputy President, I should indicate to you that the Opposition intends to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of four of the Bills and asks that consideration of these Bills be divided, with the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 being considered separately from the other four Bills. I have spoken to the Minister and he has agreed that that would be satisfactory. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Thank you, Senator Scott. Is it the wish of the Senate that the questions be divided and that the question regarding the second reading of the first four Bills be first determined, followed by the question that the remaining two Bills be read a second time? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —The question now is that the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 and the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.40) -I now move: Leave out the words after 'That' and insert: 'the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, Honey ( Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, and the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 be withdrawn until the various Committees enquiring have reported, and the Government has considered these reports and, in consultation with the industry, has come to a final resolution'. Those committees that have been investigating export inspection in these various industries have reached a certain stage. The Industries Assistance Commission report, which refers chiefly to financing and marketing arrangements, has been out in draft form for some time. Of course, the final report is not yet to hand and consequently cannot be acted upon. It is my information that the inquiry by the Department of Primary Industry into quality assurance has been in the hands of the Export Inspection Service and that its views were sent to the industry in the December-January period. I understand that the industry has sent back its comments, that ministerial orders will be sent to industry for its comments within the next two weeks and that its views have to be received back by 1 July. It seemed to me in this circumstance that the Government would allow this amendment to delay the legislation until it had been able to finalise the position with the industry in the export inspection area, which is a very difficult and somewhat confused area at this stage, and had come to that finality having at its fingertips the views of the committee involved and of the industry's representatives. I note that when the Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Kerin) spoke on this matter in the other place on 7 March he said, among other things: Should the IAC recommend in its final report that some form of assistance to the industry is justified, in accordance with normal procedures this will be considered by the Government. That clearly indicates to me at least and to the Opposition that the Minister and the Government will seek to take that responsible line when the results of these investigations are finally to hand. We seek this delay only because of the somewhat significant confusion that there seems to be about so many things referable to inspection in these areas. They include the following questions: To what extent is inspection necessary? Which countries require it and which do not ? Should it therefore be available to some or to all? A whole range of matters seem to be somewhat indecisive and if they are acted upon at this stage of knowledge they might well produce unfortunate, costly and perhaps inefficient results. The legislation seeks to impose an inspection charge on selling for export. But it contains an extraordinary range of costs, from $2 to $3 a tonne for reduced intensity of inspection, to $4 to $5 a tonne for normal inspection and as high as $11 or $12 a tonne for tightened inspections. I understand that at this stage there is to be a single rate of $4.70. But it will be quite as simple as that because I further understand that, if the Government finds that it needs $x from the industry to fulfil its part of the inspection cost, it will be able to rearrange the charges through the packing houses. So the $4.70 may be a somewhat uncertain charge. All this inspection is to happen at this stage. That is to say , these charges are to occur regardless of the quality or efficiency of the job or of the capacity of the industry involved to pay. There is a further anomaly, it seems, in that a flagfall of $10 is to apply. That will apply to the smallest producer as it will apply to the largest. This seems to me to be a not entirely fair arrangement. These are just one or two of the matters that need to be resolved. There are a number of others. The reports which we have not seen but which will be available to the Minister and to the industry may indicate answers in a number of fields. For instance, how widespread is the demand for an inspection service? Indeed, to what extent can an industry become self-regulating? That may well be an excellent method, because any export industry which is not prepared to regulate its product and to identify and define it accurately will succeed in having a market for only a very short time. Should there be a flagfall or an ad valorem charge? Should packing houses, et cetera, be licensed? Would random testing be successful, efficient and the most economical measure? All these matters, including the number of inspectors that might reasonably be expected to be used on the job, have to be resolved. I assume that the inquiries which have been proceeding and which have now moved very close to finality will contain answers to most of these questions. Clearly we have to observe certain standards for health reasons. I guess that there has to be an identification of the water content and sugar content in honey, for instance. But as I said a moment ago, these standards may well be met by self-regulation which may not require the impost of $4.70 a tonne which is proposed at the moment. For canned and frozen vegetables the charge is to be 0. 3c per kilogram. As I understand it, the industry is opposed to this sort of charge, at least at that rate. It is an industry in considerable difficulties at this moment. It has all sorts of market problems. It has been operating a tree pulling exercise-its position is as severe as that-and, of course, overseas prices are low. There is certainly no export incentive. In this field the formation of quality assurance schemes has been a hopeful area of development. Indeed, that area has been observed by the Export Inspection Service. The final result of its propositions regarding quality assurance, and of the Minister's and the industry's consideration of it, as I understand it, are to be available by 1 July. At that time a very clear indication of the type of inspection service that is necessary, of its cost, of the best way to finance it and so on will be available. Presumably and hopefully , both the Government and the industry will be satisfied with the result of all these matters. It could well be that random sampling several times a year may be sufficient. But these are determinations. That sort of thing, as I understand, applies in New Zealand to quite some degree and has obviously been found to be effective. Whatever the case may be, it is to be hoped that these industries, which have very significant fights on their hands, both as a result of seasonal conditions and as a result of difficult overseas market circumstances, will find that they can expand, quite significant overseas demand. The Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 are Bills which the Opposition does not oppose. At present, pears attract, as I understand it, one of three levies payable to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation as well as a levy when they are used for drying. The legislation suggests that the pears for drying attract only one fee, that for drying, and also that apples and pears used for distillation attract a levy for juicing of 90c, instead of the existing $1.80. The Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 makes all the fruit, fresh or dry, attract a levy. As I understand it, the industry supports the measure and the levy involved. These industries certainly need close examination and a real measure of support in this field because, as I said a moment ago, the position of markets and seasons has been further eroded by the entry of Greece into the European Economic Community and is now subject to its Common Agricultural Policy. I hope that the Government will accept the relatively slight delay that would be involved in adopting the amendment that we propose. The delay would enable the Government and the industry to more effectively solve the problems that confront them. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave- When the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 and related Bills first came on for debate I was not in the chamber. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was not aware that a financial impact statement and a couple of other statements were to be incorporated in Hansard. The second reading speeches for the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 and the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 indicated that the target date for the implementation of these charges was to be 1 April 1984. The Bills were expressed to come into operation on a day fixed by proclamation. Since the announced intended day has now passed, the Government's intention is to have the charges in operation from the earliest feasible date. In regard to the Government's policy-indeed, I think a motion has been moved previously in the Senate that financial impact statements are to accompany Bills-the financial impact statement for the canned and frozen vegetables Bills was included in the second reading speech. In regard to the honey export inspection charges Bills, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the financial impact statement, which I believe has already been circulated. I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the financial impact statement for the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984 HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The introduction of the anticipated export inspection charge of $4.70 per tonne for honey would in a full year be expected to bring in a total of $47,000, assuming an export in that year of 10,000 tonnes of honey. 10,000 tonnes is the current estimate by the Department for exports in 1983-84. Exports over the last five years have ranged from 5,487 tonnes to 14,557 tonnes. This has been calculated on the basis of recovering 50 per cent of the anticipated costs of inspecting honey for export under the new export inspection regime which are estimated to be $94,000 per annum, a significant reduction of the estimated cost of over $150,000 per annum identified by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in its report on the Honey ( Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1982 in May 1982. The export inspection charge of $4.70 per tonne is approximately 0.5 per cent of the average minimum export price of honey. DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 As the second reading speech indicated, under the present levy Act fresh fruits delivered for drying are not subject to the levy. The change proposed would make levy payable on the dried vine fruits and dried tree fruits produced in a packing house from such fresh fruits. The main result would be that about 150 tonnes of tunnel dried grapes would now incur levy at $1.00 per tonne. Occasional small quantities of tree fruits dried by a packer would also incur levy-perhaps 4 tonnes of fruit in dried form, with levy at $5.00 per tonne. The provision for increases in the maximum permissible levy rates for dried vine fruits and dried tree fruits will not affect operative rates of levy. These operative rates have been determined each season, and have been set by regulation under the levy Act. Senator WALSH —As to the remaining Bill, the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984, there is no financial impact statement because the levy will be paid directly to the Corporation. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.57) —The Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984, which are before us, have had a chequered history. Indeed, they started out with another couple of Bills which still languish somewhere in the House of Representatives. But the Bills which we have before us have something in common with two Bills, one of which has passed the Senate and one of which has been indeed held over until today. They deal with export charges in relation to meat. The reason that the various Bills before us go together is that they share a similar policy basis in the way that the Government is operating. The policy seeks a 50 per cent recovery of the costs involved in the inspection of exports in the primary industry area. The Australian Democrats have not accepted that as a reasonable policy basis. I think that when one looks at some of the industries that are involved here, for example the dried fruits industry, one can see that it really is not a basis upon which a primary industry is able to operate and that such enormous fluctuations take place in some industries from time to time. For example, the dried fruits industry has had its worst season ever. The outlook for meat is very bad at the moment, and so on. These things change from year to year. It seems to us to be far better to try to marry the recovery rate that one is to set with the current market operation for our exports. So what we are attempting to develop as a matter of policy is a mechanism by which the levy charges can be much more market oriented. In good years we expect that it will be possible to recover possibly more than 50 per cent. But in bad years we believe that in many cases no recovery at all would be an appropriate stance. If one looks at the international market for most of these commodities, one cannot be at all sanguine in regard to Australia's possibilities in the next few years. We are indeed confronted with very aggressive marketers from other countries who, in their own internal policies, are great supporters of their primary producers. I refer, for example, to the European Economic Community which has an extraordinarily elaborate mechanism to support its own primary producers in such a way that when one looks, for example, at the sugar industry, one finds that indeed the stockpiles available there are of such a magnitude that they could, if they wished, entirely destroy our export markets in that commodity. The EEC only a short time ago went from being a net importer of beef to a net exporter. In the expansion of the EEC, particularly in relation to Greece, there is a significant change in structure concerning canned fruits and dried fruits. Each of these factors is beyond the control of the Australian primary producer. They are not able in the export market to pass on the additional charges which may be levied within Australia for our domestic purposes. I believe it is important when we have the opportunity of looking at items such as the ones contained in this legislation, although in many cases the amounts may be relatively small, that it gives the Senate an opportunity of looking at the fundamental policy direction that the Government is taking. I refer, of course, not only to this Government but also to the previous Government. There has been very little change between the policies pursued by the previous Liberal -National Party Government and the Australian Labor Party Government. The Australian Democrats disagree with that particular movement. It is interesting to look at items contained in the canned and frozen vegetables Bills. We have previously circulated some amendments and, presumably, they will be dealt with in the Committee stages. One such amendment seeks to address the problem that arose in relation to the honey export Bill that occurred during the life of the previous Government. I refer to the rationale that might be able to be provided for having a charge for an export licence when the country which is receiving that particular commodity does not require an export licence. There may be other reasons why Australia may wish to have such an export licence. One such reason that would be fairly commonly put forward would be the maintenance of a good name in exporting. That is not an immaterial consideration when one considers the competitive nature of this area. But I believe that unless one can show a direct link between the export licence for which the producer in Australia is paying and the legislative requirement of the county which is receiving that commodity, the cost of that export inspection ought to be borne by Consolidated Revenue. The Australian Democrats do not accept the philosophy that it should still be borne by the producer. The policy reason we advance for that is that we believe it is in the general nature of the maintenance of a good name for Australia and that is not specifically something for which the producer should have to pay. I must admit that we were never a great admirer of the 'user pays' principle that the previous Government seemed to apply hither and yon; nor are we attracted by it when it is applied by the Labor Party. We believe there are some good reasons why there is a differentiation between the area where a country which is receiving the goods requires a particular certificate and other areas where the receiving country does not require the certificate. We believe a policy distinction ought to be made between those areas. When we reach the Committee stage we will seek to argue that aspect at greater length. I turn to the honey Bills. We would apply the same argument in relation to one part of the legislation, but on another part we are again worried that the Government undertook and got past the Senate-although the Democrats opposed it- increasing the amount in the legislation in excess of that which the Government had declared in the second reading speech that it wished to collect. In other words, the Government was intending to increase it at any later stage by regulation rather than by legislation. We do not accept that as a proposition or a way in which to move. Likewise, in relation to the honey Bills we seek to reduce the maximum charge of $24 contained in the legislation to the $4.70 which the Government in its second reading speech says it wants to collect. Indeed, we feel that it may even be seen as inappropriate delegation by the appropriate Senate committee. We will seek to argue that at a later stage. I turn to another item; that is, the financial impact statement for the Dried Fruits Levy Amemdment Bill 1984 that I requested during the first reading debate on these Bills. The financial impact statement, of course, refers only to clause 3 of the Bill; it does not refer to clause 4 which, of course, is the area in which the additional charges are increased. The reason for that is contained within the financial impact statement. It states that the operative rates are set by regulation under the levy Act and technically, therefore, are not set in the legislation, so are not needed as part of the impact statement. So the only change, of course, is in relation to clause 3 of the Bill. The interesting thing , presuming that the figures are correct, is that the statement reads: The main result would be that about 150 tonnes of tunnel dried grapes would now incur levy at $1.00 per tonne. Occasional small quantities of tree fruits dried by a packer would also incur levy-perhaps 4 tonnes of fruit in dried form, with levy at $5.00 per tonne. My calculation is that the amount involved is $170. Quite frankly, I think that when the Senate is reduced to a discussion of $170 perhaps we ought to have a whip round to assist the industry. The absurdity of coming up with that proposition in terms of the time of the Senate is quite extraordinary. The more interesting thing is what will happen when the Government by regulation at a later stage seeks to increase these levy charges. That, of course, will be the subject of debate at another time. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bills in which it seeks a delay; a delay which is almost within the hands of the Government in terms of time, except in relation to the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the honey industry. The final report of the IAC was to be delivered on 1 May. I understand that it has not been delivered. But I presume that it may not be long delayed, since the interim report was fairly well discussed within the industry, and I imagine that there would not be any great problem in having the IAC report on the honey industry fairly rapidly dispatched . The Democrats, however, are concerned by the motion as it stands and would seek to amend it to spell out explicitly those committees which are mentioned in that motion. I will move the amendment now. Senator Walsh —Which amendment is that? Senator MACKLIN —I presume that the amendment has been circulated. I move: Leave out 'the various Committees enquiring have reported and the Government has considered these reports and, in consultation with the industry, has come to a final resolution', insert: '- (1) the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the honey industry; (2) a report by the Department of Primary Industry on changes to the export inspection of honey proposed to operate from 1 October 1984, the proposed levy structure to operate from that date, and the costs of inspection involved; (3) a report by the Department of Primary Industry on the proposed export inspection of canned and frozen fruit and vegetables, the proposed levy structure and the costs of inspection involved; (4) a report by the Interim Inspection Policy Council on honey export inspection; and (5) a report by the Interim Inspection Policy Council on canned and frozen fruit and vegetable export inspection; have been presented to the Government, the Government has considered these reports and consulted with the industry, and has reported its conclusions to the Parliament'. I believe that that spells out in precise terms what at least the Australian Democrats believe would be a reasonable basis upon which then to make a judgment about these Bills. I leave aside the Bill that we do not have before us, the Bill concerning fresh fruits and vegetables which is still in the House of Representatives, to which other factors are attached. I reiterate that this delay is within the Government's hands in terms of its timing and length. I do not think that it would be an onerous task to make such information available to the Senate before it determines its view on these Bills. As to some of the Bills , it is not so much a matter of absolute cost but rather, I repeat, a matter of the principle involved, which is now sought to be extended right across the board in relation to primary products. The amendment I have moved is an amendment to that which has been moved by the Opposition to the second reading motion. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments and that the material for which the Senate will ask, I hope, can be rapidly provided so that we can move on the passage of these Bills at the appropriate stage. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.12) —I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Scott in relation to the various Bills that we are debating. It must be very obvious that the Government is going down the same track as it went down on the Meat Inspection Bill, when it tried to bring before the Senate legislation before a committee report was brought down. In the case of the validation Bill, the Senate told the Government that it was not prepared to accept the legislation unless the report of the committee was taken into consideration. That is exactly what we are going to do tonight. We are asking the Government to wait another two months until it gets the report that the Department of Primary Industry has been asked to prepare and then bring it before the Senate and bring down legislation in line with the report. I ask Senator Walsh why he cannot wait for the two months to elapse. It will not make a great deal of difference. The money involved is not that much, as far as I can work it out. The fact that the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 was not proceeded with in the House of Representatives would indicate to me that the legislation that the Government has brought down on all these Bills should be retracted and that the Government should have another look at the matter. The fact that one piece of the legislation is seen to be faulty and cannot be proceeded with indicates to me that the Government, if it were honest with the horticulture industry, should have said, 'Let us take them all out and look at them again'. I now refer to the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill. This piece of legislation seems to be vague. The Bill sets a maximum charge of $24 per tonne, and yet we are told in the Minister's second reading speech that he intends to charge only $4.70 per tonne. I cannot understand why the Minister would want to bring down a charge of $24 per tonne if he is not going to use that charge. Surely he is asking the Senate for a blank cheque. If the Minister wanted to increase the charge from $4.70 per tonne to $24 per tonne he should come and seek an amendment to the legislation. The Government should also realise that the honey export industry is only very tiny, and it is used mainly to clear excess production of honey on the export market, to reduce gluts and price depressions on the domestic market. I notice in the Honey Board's annual report that the average price of export honey was 87c per kilo. Even a 5c per kilo inspection levy would represent a fairly sizable proportion of the net price. I have worked it out at about 7 per cent of the net amount received by the honey producer. A charge of 24c per kilo would represent a quarter of the honey producers' payment-and I do not mean a quarter of their net profit; I mean a quarter of their net payment. Australia has to meet world competition and already we export honey at under the cost of production. Any extra charge would reduce our sales to overseas countries. I refer now to the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill . There are a number of questions that must be asked. Firstly, is an inspection charge necessary when a number of south-east Asian countries do not require inspection certificates? All canning and freezing plants have their own quality controllers who have very high qualifications and would be probably better able to administer the quality control than most government inspectors. Could some form of licensing be introduced to allow the factories to produce their own certificates? The Government legislation does not tell us how the inspections are to be carried out. I understand that all these things are to be brought down by the Department of Primary Industry in its committee's findings. I ask the Government again to wait for another two months until the findings are brought down, and then it can introduce proper legislation based on committee findings. I have been in touch with a number of exporters in the canned and frozen vegetable industry, and one of the larger frozen vegetable exporters has informed me that the inspection charges would reduce its profit by the equivalent of one per cent on sales. It also informs me that it is making only 3 per cent to 4 per cent profit. The representative pointed out to me that the industry was just about at the stage at which there was not much point in staying in business any longer. With regard to the export of canned fruit and vegetables, and canned fruit in particular, I understand that the Government is propping up by means of loans and guarantees a number of canneries in some of the southern States, and now, with the same canneries that it is propping up- Senator Walsh —Propping up a few sugar mills, too. Senator BOSWELL —We will stick to the canneries. On the same canneries that the Government is propping up with loans and guarantees it is now imposing extra charges, when it has already been indicated that they need government help now. Probably the best form of inspection that the producers can bring down is that of self-protection. Every producer knows that if he puts faulty produce on to the market and has to compete with international producers, he will not be in the market for long. All canneries are fully aware of this. They know that the market is very competitive both in price and quality and it is not in their interests to send faulty products on to the market. This legislation will not take into account the problems and benefits that a healthy export industry can give to Australia. At present Australia is experiencing an inflation rate of between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. Senator Walsh —You wrote that yesterday. Senator BOSWELL —That includes Medicare. However, if the inflation rate were measured fairly across the board it would be up around 9 per cent or 10 per cent . The exchange rate is moving against exporters. Our rural export competitors receive help from their governments in the form of subsidies and extended credit facilities and in a number of other ways. Australia must compete in world markets against all countries that receive help from their governments. Rural industries in particular in these countries have very low costs, low exchange rates and yet our Government keeps on bleeding our rural industries white with the added costs of not only inspection levies but also a number of other imposts . I urge the Senate tonight to accept the Opposition's amendment and withdraw the Bills until the various committees can look at them and then the Government can bring down legislation in line with those findings. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.22) —I too support the amendment moved by Senator Scott. I accept that the Government can tax and has a right to tax as it sees fit. However, the tax should be reasonable and the Opposition has a responsibility to ensure that the costs of that tax should be appropriate to the circumstances. For instance, let us look at the context in which we are dealing with this matter. Only a month ago these industries suffered yet another 4.1 per cent pay rise. There is nothing in any of this legislation that will tell them how they can start to compensate for these sorts of extra costs. We have to remember that in Australia we are price takers on all of these products. We are producers and suppliers on a world market. For items that come on the domestic market one pays a domestic cost and receives a domestic return. To export one pays the domestic cost and gets a world return. Every time we do something to stupefy our own costs it is at the expense of the producer, not the purchaser. If we wish to drive these various industries into extinction this is exactly the way to go about it. We continue to load them with costs that they cannot pass on and costs that are non-comparative with other competing countries. This legislation is the perfect example of that. When one looks at what even a wage rise amounts to one must multiply it a few times to allow for the costs incurred by the time the goods eventually reach the wharf. Can the producers pass them on? No, of course they cannot. It is all at the cost of the producer. As I have said, on the world market we are price takers competing with a group of countries which are cost conscious competitors. We are competing with countries which seek to build exports, which want the development and employment that go with it and which act accordingly. We are involved in world trade and in primary industry areas we are competing with countries such as the European Economic Community, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America. Do they tax their exports? No, of course they do not. We are the silliest country in the world when it comes to this sort of thing. Why would we do a thing like this now? The Australians who are now getting the huge pay rise, which is out of line with that received by people in other countries, neither understand the export tax nor realise what it will do to their own jobs and the national productivity and prosperity that go with it. As we were discussing earlier today, without export income Australia cannot survive. As we know, our coal and iron industries are in trouble as are our beef and dairy producers. Apparently it is necessary that we add honey, fresh, frozen, canned and dried fruits and vegetables as well . What an appalling state of affairs. I do not see why, because we have got most of our industries in trouble, we should ensure that we put the rest of them in that position too. I and I suppose most of the producers of these commodities are terribly impressed with the publicity given to rural booms. I have talked with vegetable processors, onion exporters, honey producers and fruit growers and regrettably they all seem to have missed out on any boom. In the last 12 months costs generally have ballooned. One needs only to consider the rises in fuel, wages and taxes generally to see what has happened to all these price taking industries. I do not know how many times the Government believes that it is possible to keep squeezing the lemon dry. I think the Government is also of the opinion that primary producers are wealthy barons of the soil. That sort of attitude constantly lets them down. The vast knowledge of the productive sector that is so noticeably absent in honourable senators opposite is again upon us and the exporters involved. We do have a system of export incentives under the export market development grants. As such we have apparently decided to give the export market development grant on the one hand and take it back on the other with an export tax. I ask: Is that economical, particularly when one considers the added costs on both sides of such a transaction? Do we want exports? Does our economy depend on exports? Let me look briefly at the products involved in these Bills. At the moment legislation regarding fresh vegetables has been withdrawn. However, I was not impressed when I talked to an onion producer and found that at a time when he was exporting 200 tonnes of onions a day he was charged $1,000 a day for the wages of one man, plus overtime of $5,000 or $6,000 a year into the bargain. I cannot see that that is reasonable in any way, shape or form. I think he is entitled to be charged only what is reasonable. As far as processed vegetables are concerned, either frozen or canned, the vegetable producers whom I know produce only a relatively small quantity of their production for export. However, it is very difficult to go through the processing mechanism and to decide which tins will be exported and which ones will not when one is in a normal production run. They have no option but to pay to have them all inspected for export purposes. A person from one factory to whom I spoke reported that it would cost something like $20,000, to the producer of course, not to the processor. Processors are operating marginally at the moment and their profitability is very doubtful. But this factory will pay another $20,000 for export inspections, yet another producer tax. Another point that was raised was what an absolute farce it was to pay $20,000 a year for an export inspection charge to Department of Primary Industry qualified inspectors when the factories have inspectors and quality controls that are far higher and far more scientific than those required by the Department. Yet these factories have to pay the additional cost from which they stand to receive absolutely nothing in any way, shape or form. I have a telex from the Edgell-Birds Eye division which covers the matter fairly adequately. I seek leave to incorporate a copy of that telex in Hansard at this point. Leave granted. The telex read as follows- The Honourable, R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P., Prime Minister Parliament House, Canberra 2600 Dear Prime Minister, REFERENCE: RECOUPMENT OF EXPORT INSPECTIONS COSTS OF HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS. We write to acknowledge receipt of the media release, emanating from the office of the Minister for Primary Industry, dated 22nd December, 1983, advising of the intention of the Australian Government to introduce a scheme to recoup, allegedly, 50% of the cost of the Department of Primary Industry export inspection costs from the horticultural industry. We lodge a strong protest at the imposition of these charges and have written to the Department in the past giving voice to our disagreement to such a move but to no avail. We have not even received the courtesy of an acknowledgment. We believe the costs of running a government department are the responsibility of that department and the Federal Government at large. All such costs should be shared equitably across the community and those costs, if at all necessary, should be borne by those who legislate the rules and regulations within Australia and should be paid for by the department concerned from taxes gathered to run that department. The levy and inspection charges are in fact another method of ''double taxation ''. In our particular industry, i.e. canned and frozen vegetables etc., we employ our own quality control food technologists in every production centre. The majority of these technologists would have far superior qualifications than any D.P.I. inspector we have ever encountered and would be in a far better position to judge whether raw material and finished product were to the standard required for export. We therefore suggest that, in most instances in our industry, D.P.I. inspectors are an unnecessary luxury. If New Zealand can export similar commodities (as we do from our New Zealand plant) without the encumbrance of D.P.I. inspectors, then there appears no reason why we in Australia could not do likewise. At a time when the Federal Government and politicians are proclaiming the necessity to foster the manufactured goods segment of our export trade we find sections of this trade are being lumbered with additional costs-costs that were previously and should still be borne by the Federal Government. Having carried out costing exercises covering the months of November, December, 1983 and January, 1984 we have assessed that the additional costs work out at a value of 1% of our dollar value sales-a hefty charge in a field where nett profits are minimal. Further, the levy on canned and frozen fruit and vegetables is $10.00 per consignment plus 0.85 cents per kilo of the nett weight. Consider that a can of 440g nett weight has an average drained weight of 285g, this then means we are paying 0.85 cents on the export of 155g of water. The way this imposition on an already bled white industry has been introduced is but a further example of beaurocratic bungling by public servants who are completely out of touch with the realities of the marketplace. Not only is it a further nail in the coffin of exports of manufactured goods but one can no doubt look forward to being charged a subscription to the Department of trade's Publication, 'Overseas Trading' or the introduction of a levy to maintain Department of Trade Posts Overseas. May we suggest the simplest method to cut the costs of the Department of Primary Industry would be to do away with the inspectors and rely on those in the canned and frozen fruits vegetable and juice, and fresh vegetable and fruit industry to use their common sense in ensuring only top quality production is exported. We welcome your reply on this subject and an indication of what the Government intends doing to assist the industry rather than hamper it. Yours faithfully, Edgell-Birds Eye Division of Petersville Industries Limited Senator ARCHER —What has really upset the primary producers in all these areas is the inability of the Department of Primary Industry to come up with a complete analysis of the costs and detailed information as to how these levies are to be spent. A few months ago and after some delays, the Department was able to provide me with details of the export meat inspection service. I certainly hope that by the time we finally deal with this legislation the other costs will be available. The dried fruits producers especially are unable to stand any additional charges of any sort. Recently I was quite impressed to receive a very practical solution from one of my correspondents. The solution was a recipe on how to make an empire Christmas pudding. It appeared in the Daily News newspaper of 6 June 1925. I also seek leave to incorporate this recipe for Christmas pudding in Hansard. Leave granted. The recipe reads as follows- HOW TO MAKE AN EMPIRE XMAS PUDDING (as taken from the Daily News Newspaper of 6.6.1925) Take one cupful of each of the following ingredients: Flour And also add- Raisins 1 cooking apple Sultanas 4-6 eggs Currants 1 teaspoon pudding spice Brown sugar 1 wineglass of rum Chopped mixed peel Sufficient milk to mix Beef suet, or butter Bread crumbs Grated rind & juice of lemon Mix well Place in greased basin Cover with greaseproof paper, and tie on cloth Steam or boil for 6 to 8 hours * Delicious when served with cream or ice cream. Senator ARCHER —If this pudding is made, as is suggested, by every household in Australia every couple of months it would not only be beneficial to the health of Australians but also would solve the dried fruits problem at the same time. I commend that as being a very worthy aim indeed. As has been stated, the honey producers are having considerable difficulty in trying to determine just exactly what sort of range their costs are likely to be. I have had discussions with the producers and they advised me that in the past they just used to wait for an inspector to come in and pick up a jar of honey off the desk and disappear. It now seems as if they are going to be charged something between $4 and $24 a tonne for exactly the same service. Again, these are small industries. They require fostering. They can do with all the help that they can get. To have an open ended charge that they do not understand in any way, shape or form, that nobody can explain to them, is absolutely ridiculous. We are told that the $4.70 is temporary, but we are not told whether it will be more or less and when that is likely to happen. I do believe that an industry that is going to be called upon to pay is entitled to be told just that. I would like to make it clear that exporters generally support and approve of export inspection. However, they object to the totally senseless, expensive and counter productive aspects. I feel exactly the same. If I thought I could understand more of what we are trying to achieve and what the results of these charges will be I would be much happier about it. Do we, as a nation, seek to expand exports? If we do we know that while items like the 4.1 per cent can be added to domestic industries and domestic products for exporters it will be absolutely disastrous. Do we seek to expand or contract? Does the Government want to be remembered only by the primary and export industries it has closed down and put out of business? I ask: Where is it expected that the national income will come from? All the industries we are talking about use local capital, local labour, buy from local shops and are essential to the whole national economy. Profitable operation and policies clearly demonstrating security and future progress are prerequisites for industrial and export expansion. As is so clearly demonstrated in these Bills, policies of higher taxes will achieve only the opposite. I appeal to the Government to rethink the effects and the appropriateness of these charges. The effects on small producers and small exporters in particular has obviously had no thought at all. The other half of the argument is that we increase our costs by levy, taxes, charges or whatever so the threat of imported produce increases. The dearer we make our own goods, the more likely we are to be invaded by imports. Are we trying to import more processed vegetables or honey, or are we not? I support the amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.36) —I will comment briefly on the points that have been raised by several of the Opposition speakers. At the outset I should state that the Government will not support either of the amendments, although I think the amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats is probably a little bit tidier than the other amendment. The Government will not do this for these reasons: There is reference to consultation with the industries concerned. There has already been extensive consultation with the industries. There is reference in the Opposition amendment to the Bills being withdrawn until the various committees inquiring have reported. Only two committees are relevant, one within the Department of Primary Industry and another one, strictly speaking, not relevant to the Bills which we are currently discussing. The IAC draft report has recommended that no assistance be provided. Anyway, it does not canvass this issue at all. Senator Archer has waffled on at some length about the alleged crippling burden that these charges will impose on the industry. I have two comments to make. As a rule of thumb, the charges equal about one half per cent of f.o.b. values, but more importantly perhaps if Senator Archer held those views he kept them silent for a very long time and kept them to himself for a very long time because in fact the policy being pursued through these Bills is to recover 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection services, a policy initially set by the previous Government I think in the late 1970s and continued by the present Government. Senator Archer —I have never supported it. Senator WALSH —I do not think the honourable senator had so much to say about it before. As for the reference in the amendments to detailed operation for the Government to make a statement as to the minutiae of the way in which these levies will be applied and administered, that is not required in any other Bill and I do not see any reason why it should be applied in this one. Senator Macklin did make the point, which he has made before, that it should be practice or a standard rule that whenever charges of this type are altered, additional legislation should go through the Parliament whereas the practice for as long as I can remember anyway under governments of all persuasion has been that when amending legislation or new legislation is put in place a ceiling charge is written into the legislation and some charge at or below that level is actually applied by way of regulation. I suppose that is a point of view, but I would not like to think that every time it was necessary to adjust a charge we had to waste as much time in the Parliament as we have wasted on these Bills tonight and on similar Bills in the past. The other point Senator Macklin made is that where the purpose of applying export inspection procedures is to maintain the good name of Australia as an exporter and a supplier of quality products, he argued that that responsibility should be carried by the taxpayers instead of the industry which is actually exporting the product. That is a point of view, but it is not a point of view with which the Government concurs. Amendment (Senator Macklin's) to Senator Scott's proposed amendment agreed to. Amendment (Senator Macklin's) agreed to. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Scott's amendment), as amended, be left out. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator M. A. Colston) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Messner, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Martin, K. J. Jones, G. N. Collard, S. J. Cook, P. F. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (Senator Scott's), as amended, agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. APPLE AND PEAR LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.51) —I seek leave to move the Australian Democrats amendments to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill and the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill together as they are related. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —In respect of the Dried Fruits Levy Amendent Bill, I move: Page 1, clause 3, before paragraph (1) (a), insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting after 'apricots' in the definition of 'dried tree fruits', the words 'dried apples,'. In respect of the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill, I move: Page 2, clause 4, proposed new sub-section 7 (3A), line 4, after 'in respect of ', insert 'apples or'. In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that the purpose of the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill was to correct certain anomalies relating to the imposition of an apple and pear levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976. The Australian Democrats have supported the second reading of the Bill. I must admit, however, that we are puzzled by the statement of the Minister in his second reading speech when he said: It is not proposed to exempt fresh apples delivered for drying from the apple and pear levy and dried apples, unlike dried pears, are not defined as dried tree fruit under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Government should go to the trouble of actually fixing the levy rates proposed for pears and then presenting this extremely feeble excuse for not fixing up the levy for apples. I think that if we apply a bit of ordinary lateral thinking to this-presumably an exercise that could be undertaken by almost anybody-it can be seen that if we cannot exempt fresh apples delivered for drying because apples are not defined as dried tree fruits under the relevant Act we then define apples as dried tree fruit under the Act. That is precisely what our amendment proposes to do. It so happens that the Government brought an amending Bill in for both Acts at the same time. The amendment I have moved to the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill reads: Page 2, clause 4, proposed new sub-section 7 (3A), line 4, after 'in respect of ', insert 'apples or'. It would then read 'apples or pears'. The amendment to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill reads: Page 1, clause 3, before paragraph (1) (a), insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting after 'apricots' in the definition of 'dried tree fruits', the words 'dried apples,'. The definition would now read: Dried tree fruits means dried apricots, dried pears, dried nectarines, dried plums or dried apples. I would be happy if the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) could explain why in fact dried apples are not dried tree fruits. It may be that apples grow elsewhere than on trees. I am unaware of that. I have asked extensively of experts in this area; they assure me that apples do indeed grow on trees. It seems to the Democrats appropriate that we ought to define them in this way rather than engage in the rather silly excuse that is used in the Minister's second reading speech. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.55) —The Government will not accept the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. I am advised that after substantial consultation with the industry the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the people concerned agreed that the dried tree fruits named in the legislation were the ones on which the research levy ought to be paid. I do not want to pass an opinion on whether there is or is not a case for applying the same levy to apples. That possibility was evidently not canvassed when the Minister discussed the question with the industry. After agreement having been reached between the Government and the industry it does not seem to be appropriate that the Government should accept the Democrats' amendments at this late stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.56) — The reason given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was only that apples were not so defined as dried tree fruits under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. Is the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) now saying that there is a reason other than that which appeared in the second reading speech both in the other place and here when it was incorporated in Hansard? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.56) —I think the reason is complementary. As I understand it, the present Bill has the same scope and coverage as the previous Act. The two pieces of legislation are in fact related. In the discussion the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) held with the industry there was agreement that the product specified in the 1971 Act should remain in the present Bill. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.57) -It appears to me that there is some confusion about the use of the word 'apple' . If, as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) says, the industry is satisfied that the Bills cover all the appropriate areas and the appropriate fruit involved, I think it is satisfactory that it should remain that way. Consequently I see no need to support an amendment which is perhaps in conflict with a view of the industry. We supported the Bills because, as I understand it, the industry supported them. That is how the position remains. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.58) —The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) has said that the industry is happy enough to accept this proposition. Can he give me the reasons why the industry accepted it? What were the propositions put to members of the industry by the Government to lead the Government to accept such an absurd proposition? Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(9.58) —I have had some experience in the Riverland district. Dried apples have never been distributed through the Dried Fruit Board. Dried apples have always been separate. There are other fruits, for example some of the wine grapes, that were dried, which have also not been included. For example, doradellas, which went to the manufacturing trade, were never included. Dried apples were never included. I think that is the reason for the exclusion of dried apples. That is my understanding of the matter. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.59) —I will briefly respond to Senator Macklin. I was not present at the discussion which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had with industry representatives. The position appears to have been that the list of products that were agreed as being appropriate back in 1971 are still agreed to be appropriate now. Nobody raised the question of whether apples should be included . It could be argued that not including dried apples is an arbitrary decision but it is one that is acceptable to all parties. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.00) —I wish to make some comments on clause 4 (1 ), paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and on clause 4 (2). First of all, clause 4 (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), seek to raise the levy rates from $1 to $2 and from $5 to $10 respectively, which would double the current maximum rates for the levy. While admittedly those rates have not been raised since 1975, it seems to be a fairly enormous increase without any commitment from the Government as to how much of that increase will take place in the current season. I believe that if we were looking at the situation from, say, 1 January next year my remarks would be quite different, but when one looks at the situation of the dried fruits industry and the absolute devastation it has gone through in the last season it seems to me to be inappropriate for any rise to take place during the current season. The Bill might be able to provide for a rise at a later stage. There are reasonable prospects at least for the ensuing season. I seek the comments of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on what the intention of the Government is in relation to clause 4 (1), paragraphs (a) and ( b). We believe that it may very well be that the industry will not be capable of bearing an increased levy at this stage. Clause 4 (1), paragraphs (c) and (d), refer to changes in policy in the way in which the levy is specified. Clause 4 (1) (c) reads: 'by omitting from sub- section (2) ''of a specified season'' '. If that is adopted the Government will no longer be required to strike a new levy rate each year. At the moment, even if the Government wants to keep the rate the same as it was for the year before it has to make a positive decision that the rate in fact will remain the same. I must admit that as a general rule of thumb the Australian Democrats believes that the process of not forcing the Government into looking at these rates every year is an acceptable mechanism, particularly if it does not wish to change the rates. However, given the very high volatility of this industry-that is why I am making an exception-I believe that there are grounds for forcing the Government to reassess the situation each year. Therefore, we are unwilling to support the policy change proposed in clause 4 (1) (c). Clause 4(1)(d) reads: 'by omitting from sub-section (3) all the words after '' Committee'' (first occurring)'. That would remove a restriction on the amount by which the levy can be increased. At the moment the Government cannot increase the levy to any amount higher than that which is recommended by the relevant committee. The Democrats feel that this is an extremely important area of the legislation and a legitimate approach given that the funds raised are for the use of the industry itself in terms of its promotion. We believe that it is important as a matter of policy principle that the industry retain control over that money. If the Committee wishes to adopt clause 4 (1) (d) it will hand over to the Government entirely control of those funds which are raised. I think that is inappropriate. I seek from the Minister an indication of whether this policy decision is one which the Government intends to pursue in other relevant Acts. If it does intend to pursue it in other relevant Acts we ought to alert all the other primary industry areas that the Government is about to do this. I think the Government might then very well find that it has a much larger fight on its hands than obviously it would have with a small, relatively weak industry in the throes of very serious economic difficulties. Senator Walsh —What Bill are we talking about? Senator MACKLIN —We are talking about the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. I have gone through clause 4 (1), paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and have indicated basically the problems as we see them. The first couple of paragraphs of that clause involve problems in relation to application in the current season . The problem in relation to paragraphs (c) and (d) is with the change of policy that the Government is pursuing. I seek from the Minister an indication of whether that is a policy decision that is likely to apply to other areas. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.06) —On the first couple of points Senator Macklin raised, I am advised that a levy must be set every season regardless of whether it is to be changed. That is correct. I am advised also that it is highly unlikely to increase this year. I think it is set at $1 now and it is to remain at $1. The other point he made related to the ceiling of $1 which was set in 1975. A ceiling of $2 does not seem to me to be unreasonable for 1984 under those circumstances. I am afraid I did not entirely follow the point Senator Macklin was making with respect to clause 4 (1 ), paragraphs (c) and (d), of, I presume, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.07) —Yes, I was referring to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. The suggestion the Minister just made was that indeed there would still be an obligation actually to specify an amount every year, but if one goes back to the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971 and looks at it in relation to the proposed amendment it would be an extraordinary reading of section 6 of that Act to interpret it the way the Minister has. By leaving out the words 'of a specified season' from the 1971 Act it would then simply provide that one would strike a levy which would remain until in fact the Government chose to change it . Having taken out the words 'of a specified season', as I see it there would be no reason in the Act for the Government to be under any statutory obligation to do anything of the kind he suggested. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.08) —I apologise to Senator Macklin. I confused the advice which I had been given. In fact, what I said should be reversed. The Dried Fruits Levy Act as it stands requires the Government to bring out a regulation every year, regardless of whether the levy is to be changed. Under the proposed amendment that would no longer be required. A regulation would not be required if there was to be no change in the rate of levy. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.08) —That is precisely what I was objecting to. I presume that what the Government now is saying is that that is a policy decision it has taken. I move on then to clause 4 (1) (d) and ask whether it is a general policy commitment on the part of the Government to take over control of the rate as it is struck rather than to act on a recommendation from the relevant committee in the particular industry with which we are concerned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.09) — Senator Macklin probably understands that the only Act which would be affected by the amendment in clause 4 (1) (d) would be the Dried Fruits Levy Act. Senator Macklin —Yes. Senator WALSH —As far as I am aware and as far as the departmental representatives here are aware there is no general policy decision by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to extend that provision to all other Acts. If Senator Macklin likes, I will contact the Minister on that and seek a response from him in writing as to whether it is contemplated that that be extended to other Acts. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.10) —I thank the Minister for that reply. I certainly would be very interested to receive that in writing from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Bills reported without requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.12) —The Opposition does not oppose the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 1983, now under review. The main issues in the Bill are relatively simple and minor. They cover such matters as the licensing of crew members. Crew members need no longer be individually licenced and the master fisherman alone will hold the licences involved. Secondly, the legislation provides for the entry of unlicensed fishing boats for the purposes of mechanical repairs or non-routine procedures. Thirdly, permits for scientific purposes will now be issued and there will be an increased level of control over scientific fishing boats. Fourthly, the amendments provide for the control of Australian fishermen on the high seas and for the utilisation of the Fisheries Act to control Australian fishermen outside the Australian fishing zone. This provision anticipates the need to control Australian fishermen on the high seas where international agreement on the need for additional management of migratory species is secured. Of course, in particular this involves such things as the southern blue fin tuna. Fifthly, the legislation provides for an increased level of management control utilising changes in administrative procedures. In relation to licensing, additional powers will be granted which provide for alterations in licence conditions, cancellation of licence endorsements and exemptions from prohibition by notice. Sixthly, provision is made for increased parliamentary scrutiny whereby either House may disallow certain fisheries notices. Seventhly, there is to be a review of licensing matters. Personal decisions by the Minister for Primary Industry or the Secretary to the Department are to be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This has not been so in the past. Eighthly, the legislation amends the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act. The purpose of this amendment is to increase the level of jurisdiction to include the seabed below the territorial sea of the Coral Sea Islands Territory. This amendment complements existing regulations with the aim of preventing the illegal harvesting of sedentary organisms, particularly the giant clams. That is all that this Bill before us provides. In view of the fact that the second reading speech incorporated by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) mentioned that the main purposes of these amendments were to take up matters raised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce tabled on 10 January 1983, as a Chairman of that Committee and as a member of it from its inception all I would say is that I was disappointed that this was the extent of the amendments produced at this stage. Many other matters raised in that report are far more vital to the fishing industry than the items picked up in this legislation for no more nor less than the convenience of the Government and its Department. I believe that the matters of real issue have been ignored so far. I would make some sort of plea to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that he and his Department either produce an entirely new Act, as was recommended in the report, or at least bring forward some amendments which are meaningful and in line with some of the major recommendations made. It is important that we bear in mind that the fishing industry is no longer a backyard, peasant industry. In 1981-82, the year covered by the latest report, the value of the Australian catch was over $330m and earnings from exports of fish and fish products in their ultimate state were in the order of $306.5m. To compare this with other industries, it is more than double the value of cotton exports, it is $50m more than total mutton exports and it is $100m more than total butter and cheese exports. The fishing industry is a very big industry. There are varying figures on the number of boats, but there are certainly in excess of 10,000 licensed fishing boats in Australian waters worth approximately $400m. It is important to get that as a basis to realise the size of the industry we are dealing with and to see where we are going as far as the development and maintenance of the stock are concerned. Fishermen everywhere at present are very concerned about the state of the fish supply. In recent weeks there have been visits to Canberra and deputations to various State and Federal authorities concerning the management of the resource. For instance, I know that a deputation is coming from Tasmania on Monday next for an interview here concerning proposals for increased fishing in Tasmanian waters. Over the last 10 years we have seen a considerable tightening up of fishing arrangements, but it has been done in a spasmodic way. Although I naturally prefer to see things sort themselves out without the Government intervening, I believe that some regulations are necessary and that, if the right circumstances are provided and the Government does what is necessary, the industry itself can make the necessary recommendations to ensure that the stocks of fish are kept at a reasonable level in perpetuity. Today in Canberra there was a meeting with the trawl advisory committee. At that meeting the biologists and the fishermen had considerable disagreement in some areas. They both believe they have the information, but they are not necessarily dealing with the same information. It is important that there be a concurrent mixture of the various skills that go into the assessment of stocks. We know that there has been considerable difference of opinion as far as the southern blue fin tuna is concerned. The latest recommendation from an inquiry is that the actual taking of southern blue fin tuna should be almost halved in the forthcoming season. Such a program creates a lot of disruption among those who make their living from this type of fishing. I think it is most unfortunate that this has been allowed to expand to the current level and then people are suddenly told that they have to contract. We have seen that same sort of thing with lobster fishing in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. We have seen it with shark fishing in Bass Strait and the southern waters. We have seen it with prawns in the Investigator Strait, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Shark Bay . We are now finding that the problems arising from the southern trawl area have necessitated the formation of the southern trawl committee for investigation into what is going to happen there in the years ahead. Unless we are able to establish a regime in which all people with an interest can participate, I do not think we will make much progress. One of the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce was that there should be provision for the fishermen to be able to be represented at the decision making level, that they should have participation so that when decisions are made that affect them, they should be able to be part of them. I have great faith in the fishermen. I believe that, given a reasonable measure of control, they would exercise it very jealously and wisely. The fishermen that I talk to are very conservation conscious. They are concerned that there are insufficient regulations to stop over-fishing. Only a few days ago, I was talking to a shark fisherman from Bass Strait who said that they are now catching about an eighth to a tenth of the quantity of fish in the same time and with the same gear that they were using only four years ago. Sharks, of course, are a slow growing and slow regenerating fish. They have to be fished very carefully. The prawns in the Gulf of Carpentaria have been fished very badly and very spasmodically over a period. But now the fishermen have taken it upon themselves to engage in some supervision and management. They are making more of a contribution. I believe that that problem has now been overcome. While I am talking about the northern fishing areas, I think it would be appropriate to mention the foreign fishing in the area and the various arrangements that we have made concerning particularly the Taiwanese, and to a lesser extent other countries. I believe that the regulations that we now have covering this type of fishing need considerable overhauling. For instance, on the occasions when errors or misdemeanours are committed by foreign fishermen, I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to confiscate their boats. No one in Australia wants any of those battered old Taiwanese junks which, to dispose of, we then have to pay someone. I find that in the world of trade and commerce only one commodity is universally understood, and that is money. If people commit the sorts of misdemeanours that require penalties, the best penalty is money. The second best penalty is the cancellation of their licences. The removal of their livelihoods in that way is far better than the removal of their livelihoods by taking boats that no one wants. I had hoped that by the time we got around to dealing with some of the amendments-this matter has been going on since we tabled the report on 10 January 1983-we would be tidying up some of these matters such as the one I have just mentioned. In the past we have depended quite considerably on the information we have obtained from various foreign fishermen. The Japanese, with their long line tuna fishing, have had access to our waters for many years. They have given us quite a lot of information and they have taken quite a lot of fish. It is only in the last three, four or five years that various Australian fishermen, particularly those fishing out of Port Lincoln, have taken it upon themselves to fish in a manner that is now probably almost as good, if not as good, as the methods used by the Japanese. If we are to maximise the responsibilities that go with taking the 200 mile zone we will need to further brush up on our methods in these areas . I believe that there is room for more Australian fishing of the southern bluefin tuna. I believe that there is a need for us to further extend the scope of what has been allocated to the Japanese. I believe that by so doing we would be able to relieve the pressure on the fishing for some of the small southern bluefin tuna that are caught further west. I have grave reservations that we should be continuing in the manner in which we are, because I believe that it is rather senseless to be catching the immature fish when by waiting we could have them grow to a better size in easier waters and get a far better price for them. I believe that we should expect to get more assistance from foreign fishermen. I believe that they can make an even greater contribution towards research and development. I believe that the records they have can be extended very greatly to our benefit. I feel that some of the species that they now catch which would be low-priced products on the Australian market may well be able to be processed in Australia and exported in some form. With proper treatment they may also be import replaceable. I think that it would be quite desirable to encourage further trials and research into these matters. I find it is highly desirable every now and then to have an opportunity to discuss matters such as fishing and fishermen. In a chamber such as this and a Parliament such as this we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about freedom of information, social security, Age tapes or the new Parliament House strikes. It is a pleasure to deal with real people who take real risks with their own money and who do something for the development and prosperity of the country. These people who work and who provide jobs make a very substantial contribution to the gross domestic product and help our export markets. They produce foreign capital by way of export income. They help develop our natural resources, both at sea and on land. They invest in the country. I believe that the fishermen deserve considerable encouragement, respect and gratitude for the part they play in adding to the economy as they do. Over a period of years, the Government has done a lot to encourage the building of boats through the ship building bounty. While it was intended as a benefit to the ship building industry, I believe that it became quite wrongly a matter of considerable importance to the fishing industry. We found that fishermen started building boats of a size that fitted in with the bounty and that may not ever have been the most appropriate vessels for use in the types of fishing in which they engaged. This has meant that a lot of fishermen upgraded their boats to a standard that they would not otherwise have done. They then sold the boats they previously owned. We now have an enormous surplus that is a real embarrassment, particularly down the eastern coast of Australia. Debate interrupted. The Deputy Clerk-Pursuant to standing order 36AA, I advise the Senate that Senator Harradine has lodged the following notice of motion: Senator Harradine: To move on the next day of sitting- (1) That the following regulations be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: (a) Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901; (b) Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901; (2) That the Committee advise the Senate whether the aforementioned regulations remove from existing Commonwealth law- (a) the power to prevent the importation of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; (b) the power to prevent the importation of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release from Customs. (3) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 29 May 1984. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.31) —Tonight I want to embark upon an attempt to find out what happened to $1m which was given to the Australian Capital Territory and which now seems to have disappeared or has been taken away. The story started in 1981 when, out of an allocation of $25m in the international standards sports facility fund $1m-not a large amount, but important to the Australian Capital Territory-was given to the Territory. Honourable senators may recall that the $25m was to be matched dollar for dollar by State allocations towards the same fund. We were to receive another $1m which was to have come from the National Capital Development Commission budget. Originally it was suggested that this would be towards an international motor racing circuit in Canberra. Subsequently, Victoria apparently decided that it wanted to use its money for an international motor racing circuit. In any event, it was unlikely that two such circuits would be viable in this country. Without going into all the details of why that was not the outcome, it was clear at the time of the change of government that it was not likely that that proposal would be proceeded with. But I do not think anyone doubted that the money would still be available for the purpose of upgrading certain sporting facilities in the Australian Capital Territory to international standard. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) had from early March of 1983 to get on with the job of dealing with this sum which had not otherwise been used. The matter was certainly raised in June. I wrote to him on 17 June, having not heard from him what he was doing. I reminded him of what had gone on and made some suggestions as to what might be done with the money if he were not minded to pursue the international motor racing circuit. I received a letter from his office which indicated that he had received my letter, was examining the matters and would write to me shortly. At the same time I also spoke to the departmental officers concerned to reassure myself that there was no risk of the money being lost to us. I subsequently received a letter from the Minister for Territories and Local Government in which he said in part: My Department is considering a number of proposals as a matter of urgency. I can assure you that the options suggested in your letter will be fully considered before a decision is made. That letter is dated 19 August. At that stage he still had the $1m and there was no suggestion whatever that the money would not be available in the Australian Capital Territory for the purpose for which it had been allocated similarly to the States. A Press release was put out by the Department dated 12 September 1983 which indirectly dealt with this matter. It referred to some suggestion that moneys being expended at the National Exhibition Centre were these same moneys. The statement from the Department explained what was going on at the National Exhibition Centre. It stated: The Department was, at present, studying a number of possible uses for the money and expects to put a recommendation to the Minister soon. Subsequent to that, I do not know what happened to the proposals being considered by the Department. But what happened next was that the House of Assembly was invited to consider the spending of this money. It was 7 October 1983 before the Minister got around to pursuing that course, so presumably he still had the money on 2 October 1983. He asked the House of Assembly to consider the matter. It did so and it worked particularly hard. I remind the Senate that the House of Assembly members are all people who have other jobs and are not full time politicians. They have to find time to sit on committees. Twenty-nine submissions were received from sporting organisations in the Australian Capital Territory. They, too, of course, are voluntary organisations. I am sure that everybody who has ever been involved in preparing submissions of this nature knows exactly how much work is involved and how much cost is involved in putting together and preparing a submission and speaking with the committee. Notwithstanding the volume of 29 submissions, the committee did report on 13 December 1983. It recommended that five sporting bodies should benefit by means of this money in order to upgrade their facilities to international standard. They are the National Capital Horse Trials Association, the Southern Districts Hill Climb Association, the Australian Capital Territory Water Ski Association, the Australian Capital Territory Softball Association and the Australian Capital Territory Squash Racquets Association. It was not unreasonable to expect that the Minister, having asked the House of Assembly for its recommendations, would accept the recommendations and that very early in this year those sporting bodies would be able to go ahead with the necessary developments which would enable them to have international sporting facilities in this Territory. A report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure was tabled in November 1983 which suggested that this money should not be spent in the Australian Capital Territory. Recommendation No. 25 stated: The ACT should not be eligible for assistance under the present or expanded ISSF program while major construction work at the National Sports Centre is in progress. I could not disagree more with that recommendation. It discriminates against the Australian Capital Territory in favour of the States. No justifiable reason was given for that in the report, but it was a report to the Government which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was bound to notice. However, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, in my opinion, ought to have had some regard for the welfare of the Territory with which he was involved and he should have done something about seeing that this money was not lost to the Territory. That report was tabled in November, only a short time after he had asked the House of Assembly to consider the expenditure of the money. It reported to him in December. To my knowledge nothing has been heard from him. I received a letter from the chairman of the committee involved at the end of November in which he assured me that the $2m was still available. The matter has proceeded into this year, with the sporting bodies concerned not getting any answer and not knowing where they stood. The Australian Capital Territory Water Ski Association will hold the national championships on the Molonglo River early next year. The facilities, as far as the water is concerned, are excellent for water skiing. The facilities on the bank for spectators and in every other respect are very poor. A great deal of money is not needed to improve the facilities to a good standard. What it would have received from this fund would have enabled it to do so-to put in adequate ramps for the boats to go in, to put in a properly pegged jump board, to have electricity connected to the site and to have toilets installed. It is not very much but it would make a great difference to the way it is able to conduct the sport. I sent telegrams to both Ministers on 10 April asking what was to happen to the money. I also put out a Press statement raising the issues that seemed to be relevant at the time. I received a letter from the office of the Minister for Territories and Local Government dated 18 April in which his staff assured me that the Minister had my telegram, that he had noted my comments and would write as soon as possible. I have had no response from the other Minister. However, on 5 April this year, the Minister tabled a statement, from which it was clear that he knew that he had received this other report. He refers to it as covering a diffuse and complex area. He also notes that there are matters relevant to other departments, and that consultation with these Ministers and departments is required, and he, in a sense, is explaining why it is that he was not able to give a government response in early March. I wonder what consultations he had with the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and to what extent that Minister pushed the case of the Australian Capital Territory having these funds and being spent in accordance with the recommendations that had been given to him and not just taken away. But it seems that the money has gone, and I wonder where it has gone, who has got it, and why. That fact emerges from an article in the Canberra Times of 29 April 1984. I had inquiries made today of the office of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism as to what Press statements he had put out about this, and was told that he had not put out a Press statement and that his comments were made to a journalist. I want to refer to some of the remarks as reported. The article starts by saying: The ACT will not receive the $2 million-half from the Federal Government and half from the National Capital Development Commission-for provision of international-standard sporting facilities. Sporting organisations in the ACT will be disappointed-- to say the least- at this announcement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr Brown , especially in light of the involvement by the ACT House of Assembly in considering 29 proposals and making relevant recommendations during October and November and again this month when it brought pressure to bear on the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, to make a decision. Mr Brown said time had run out for the ACT and for that matter-- there is reference to the balance of some funds under this scheme- South Australia and Western Australia . . . He had wound up this fund in order to establish a similar fund in the forthcoming Budget and had advised Mr Uren accordingly. I should like to know what the Minister for Territories and Local Government has done about this during all this time that he has had. Going on, the article states: Mr Brown spoke: Of the ACT's $1 million share of the grant for international-standard sports facilities. 'There is no money. The present scheme has been cut off: it is finished, no longer available. They can apply next year'. It was not anything that we applied for in the first place; it was a grant that was given to the Australian Capital Territory that he, presumably on a whim of his own, has taken back. The article says that Mr Brown said: 'I wrote to Mr Uren telling him what I proposed to do'. I should like to know when that took place and what the date of the letter is. The article states that Mr Brown said: 'I'm trying to get a new one (fund) in the next Budget. There is no way I could get another one in while I had this one hanging around my neck'. I think that those words and expressions will tell honourable senators a little about the way that Mr Brown regards the Australian Capital Territory. According to the article, Mr Brown said that we had not put up a solid proposition. I would wonder why that was so, given the fact that, in November, the Minister had asked the House of Assembly for a proposal which was available in December. There is no reason why there should not have been a proposal and why this money should not have been allocated. The article states that Mr Brown said: 'I'd say Canberra is the best provided city in Australia, the best provided community in Australia, not just for top-class facilities but the average facilities, the hockey fields, football fields, public gardens-just superb'. In the article, Mr Brown deals also with the Australian Institute of Sport. No one is doubting that that is a very fine facility, but it does not belong to the people of Canberra. It is what its title says-an Australian institute of sport. We are certainly proud of it, but there is no way that it is available just to our athletes. In any event, the sporting bodies that were to receive this money were the groups which have no relationship with the Institute of Sport and no similar facilities of an international standard of competition at the Institute of Sport. They are local bodies which would be able then to compete to hold international sporting events in Canberra. Also, bringing tourists to Canberra is one of the most important things for our economy, and big sporting events are very high amongst the things that bring a lot of people to Canberra. To have five more groups which would have brought such large numbers of people here, holding these big events, was very important to our tourist industry. Considering what happened to the tourist budget last year, under the 1983 Budget , when we got not a cent more than we did the previous year for the promotion of tourism, it really makes me wonder whether anyone is caring what happens in the Australian Capital Territory. In the article the Minister went on to say: 'I'm hard-pressed to find a facility we lack here . . . They have been stated and identified by the five groups which were to share in this $2m. What has the Minister done with the money? Why can it not still be available? Why are we being victimised in this way by one or other of two Ministers not giving any care or attention to these matters in regard to the Australian Capital Territory. I should like to know the answers to some of the matters that I have raised this evening. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.45) —I should like to raise a couple of matters on the adjournment this evening. One of the reasons that they have to be raised on the adjournment is that these days it seems fairly difficult to get answered the number of questions that used to be answered. Once upon a time every honourable senator in this chamber used to get a reply to about one question per day, but that seems to have gone by the board over the last few months. That has been to the detriment of the Senate. Senator Walsh —Oh! Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister at the table is one of those who speaks at much too great a length in reply to some questions. Some of his replies are just filibusters, although I must admit that, in his replies, he gives a lot of information that is very forthright and honest, but the fact is that it should be done by way of ministerial statement rather than replying to a question. I think that it was a couple of years ago when Senator Chaney was a Minister in this place representing the then Minister for Communications that he said that my mother had been frightened by a telephone-perhaps whilst I was in gestation. So tonight I shall perhaps add to that rumour by talking once more about phones. This is brought about for two reasons. Recently in Hobart there was a convention at the new convention centre at Wrest Point, which is very important to our tourist industry. As Senator Reid has just said, tourism is very important to Canberra. So tourism is very important to Tasmania. Anything that makes matters more difficult for tourists or gives them the impression that they are not being looked after in the way in which I would want them to be looked after in Tasmania is something against which I take this opportunity to speak out. Although this might seem a fairly simple matter, it is something that must be drawn to the attention of Telecom Australia at this stage. Over the years, I have tried to point out to the members of the Senate and to the public that there are not nearly the number of public telephones in this country that there should be. When one compares Australia with a place such as the United States of America, I would say that we have perhaps one-twentieth of the number of telephones in city areas such as Sydney as does the United States. That may not be an accurate comparison; it is just by my observation. But certainly the number of public telephones, or pay phones as they are called, that seem to be available, and easily available in big cities in the United States, is way in excess of what it is here. There are certainly not enough public phones in this country. We are now seeing Telecom unwittingly embarking upon a course that will make the number of telephones available to a lot of people who rely on pay phones even less than it is now. We are now seeing the introduction of a very good telephone, called the gold phone. There was an advertisement in one of the newspapers this morning. It was inserted by Telecom. At the bottom of it, it says 'Gold phone-no one knows more about phones than we do'. That must have been written by an advertising agent, because it is my belief that some of the Telecom personnel are becoming out of touch with reality with regard to what people want with telephones. I would hesitate to say that they are out of touch because I believe that so many of the top personnel in Telecom who may make decisions about telephones have free phones. They do not realise how important a public telephone is to those people who live in areas where the average income is not as high as it might be in the areas where they live and perhaps where a lot of members of parliament live. As I have said, the gold phone at first sight appears to me to be very good, but it has several weaknesses. They are all weaknesses that I believed can be changed if Telecom thinks about it. It is a good telephone in that it accepts 10c, 20c and 50c pieces. I hope that it can be easily modified to accept the $1 coin when it becomes available. However, the pulses that it receives are based upon 20c pulses. If somebody puts in a 50c coin because it is the only coin that he has he does not get 50c worth of call; he gets only 40c worth of call, which is not all that important. Why should Telecom or the people who are operating that phone get 1c profit, let alone 20 per cent more than they deserve? It would not be very difficult for phones of this type to be pulsed so that they operated not in 20c units but in 10c units. For the benefit of the Senate, what happens is that the period of conversation is determined according to the rate of what is chargeable for local calls, subscriber trunk dialling calls or international subscriber dialling calls. A pulse is sent down the line which switches the phone on or off depending on whether or not there is any money in it. If it is a 20c pulse somebody who thinks he will get 2 1/2 times a 20c call for his 50c will be making an error. I do not think this is robbing the public, but a few years ago 10c was all that a person had to pay for any local telephone call. Even these days, when the value of money has gone down over the years, it is still something to which I do not think the owner or renter of that call box is entitled. In some areas of Australia it is impossible to get through to the exchange on a gold telephone. That was the case recently at a convention centre in Hobart where there were people from virtually all over the world. Many of them had a credit card which I imagine Telecom wants to issue. However, they could not get through to the exchange to make either a reverse charge call or to use the credit card that had been issued. Those of us who are away from our offices and have need occasionally to use public phones will recognise that it is important to be able to get through to the exchange so that the call can be connected. Until recently, except on some of the red phones, that has not been possible either. This is different. We are now moving into an area where I think a lot of the red phones will be replaced by gold ones. I believe the gold phones will become very popular. They are good, as I said a moment ago, in most of their attributes, but as they become more popular the number of green phones or ordinary public phones available will be fewer. Telecom has the attitude that unless a particular telephone would get a certain amount of money, on no account would it be installed. As gold phones on which one can make STD and ISD calls become available in restaurants and places of that kind the number of real public phones that have nearly all of the facilities that should be available in a public phone will be fewer and, I think, that is going the wrong way. In this country we seem to be moving toward a time when the numbers of credit cards of one kind or another are on the increase. To remove from use by credit card holders a huge number of public telephones over the next few years I believe is very much a step in the wrong direction. If a person wants to phone home to get some money sent to him for some reason or another-he may have lost his wallet or something of that nature-he may have very few coins but he cannot even quickly dial his home and say: 'Can you ring me back on this number?'. As I understand it, the number that is printed on any public phone is not the actual number which if dialled will connect the caller. I believe there is a list at the exchange that has a cross-reference to those telephones. However, places such as England do have public phones which, if the number is dialled, connect the caller. I have had the opportunity to speak to people in England who have called me from a public telephone box and asked me to ring that number back. I believe that system should apply here. I can see absolutely no reason why, if we are going to use this system where gold phones will become quite extensive throughout the community, we cannot have that kind of system. Gold phones are good because they have a decent push button system. They do not have a redial; I think they should have. They should certainly have the facilities that I have just mentioned. They should be pulsed so that they operate on 10c pulses; they should accept $1 coins when they become available; they should have the actual phone numbers printed on the outside and they should be made available for reverse charge and credit card calls. As I understand it, at the moment in most cases none of those facilities are available. I have tried dialling 0176 on several of these phones. It is the usual number that one uses in a public phone to get through to make a long distance call. In different States they seem to work, but they certainly do not work at the casino in Tasmania and they do not work in certain other areas where I have tried them. However, it is my belief that any telephone that takes money should have as many services available as is possible. Why are we limiting these services instead of making them as extensive as possible? I know that the difference between a red phone or a gold phone and a green phone is that the red and gold phones are hired by people for use in their premises. However, I think it should be a rule of Telecom that the people who want to install a red or gold phone have to make these other facilities available for the community of Australia. As I said earlier, a lot of people rely on pay phones. As more gold phones become available I believe that the number of green phones will decrease even way below their already low number, and that is something that I believe Telecom should and most probably will look at in the near future. One other matter I would like to deal with this evening relates to something I have mentioned in the Senate on other occasions; that is, the size of the coins that we use. We are just about to see the start of the use of a $1 coin. I am not blaming this Government at all. This is not a political matter. It is a practical matter. It is time that the whole coin system of this country was looked at once again. There seems to be no reason why we cannot get by now with just a 1c coin, a 5c coin, a 10c coin, a 25c coin and a $1 coin. I am sure there are some people here tonight who would say that is a pretty good system of money that is used in other areas of the world. Not only should we get by with those denominations, but we should also reduce the size of the coins that we have at the moment. I am not sure if honourable senators collect as many coins in a day as I do. I tend to put them in one pocket and quite often at the end of the day one side of my suit ends up looking longer than the other side. I believe the size of our coins is outdated. It is a carryover from when we had coins that were a copy of the English size. It is time that they were all made smaller. Perhaps the 1c coin is all right, but all the others are ridiculously large. An inordinate amount of metal is being used. I ask the Government once more to consider this matter of changing the size and the value of some of the coins that are used in this country. We have at last got round to a $1 coin. This is about 10 years after I first started asking for a $1 coin in this place. With inflation it is time we started looking now at a $5 or even a $10 coin. I would like to see a $5 coin if it can be produced soon and a $10 coin from a government of whichever flavour. The Government has already produced the $1 coin and should now move to the next size up. This is obviously what we need in this country. Senate adjourned at 11.03 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Act-Orders 1984-M20/84-Prohibition on Export of Edible Offals to Taiwan. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 8-Higher Duties Allowance and others. No. 10-Special Allowance for Medical Officers and Dental Officers. No. 11-Airconditioning Allowance. No. 12-In Port Allowance and another. No. 13-Payment of Financial Entitlements Consequent Upon the Death of a Member or a Former Member. No. 14-In Port Allowance and another. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. Health Insurance Act- Guidelines formulated under section 17, dated 29 February 1984. Statement of particulars of disqualification under section 19C, dated 30 March 1984. Statements (6) of particulars of Ministerial determinations authorised under section 106AA. Lands Acquisition Act Land, etc., acquired for- Telecommunications services-Belvedere, Genoe, Regentville, Rooty Hill, Springvale, Willotia and Yetman, New South Wales. Statements (5) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub- section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Appointments- Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-L. E. Leon. Department of Social Security-W. R. Tilmouth. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determinations 1984- No. 2-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chairman of the Promotions Appeal Board, Commonwealth Teaching Service, dated 29 February 1984. No. 3-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Electoral Commissioner and others, dated 21 March 1984. No. 4-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Director of Public Prosecutions and others, dated 29 March 1984. Reserve Bank Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 57 Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1984- No. 8-Juries (Amendment). No. 9-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment). No. 10-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 11-Co-operative Societies (Amendment). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 31 March 1984 . Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 43. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment Nos 34, 35. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act- Declaration under section 9, dated 9 April 1984. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 56. Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Act: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following act to come into operation on the date specified: Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982-1 May 1984 ( Gazette No. 137, 13 April 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 397) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) Will STD services be available to remote rural property owners in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth at normal subscriber costs after the positioning in space of the communications satellite. (2) Will rural landowners be required to set up and maintain at their own expense the necessary radio reception dishes; if so, what is the estimated cost of this equipment when the satellite becomes functional. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) and (2) Telecom's rural and remote areas program which has been developed to provide automatic STD telephone services to people in these areas is expected to be largely completed by 1990. Telecom plans to provide these services in the remote areas mainly by utilising the terrestrial digital radio concentrator system (DRCS) commencing in 1984. The connection fees payable under Telecom's rural fees policy would apply for services provided by the use of the DRCS. Telecom has not yet developed customer charges for the provision of telephone services via the satellite. However, because of the very high costs involved it sees the primary market for satellite telephone services in remote areas being for commercial ventures such as mining sites, exploration sites and tourist developments but services may be provided also to smaller communities and landowners. The installed costs of a remote rural station and associated terminal equipment required to provide service begin at an amount of $60,000. To this must be added annual costs for the use of the satellite transponder, the main rural station and special exchange equipment. Telecom has advised that the charges for services provided by the satellite system, including contributions to the connection costs will take into account the much higher costs of the satellite system. (Question No. 508) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What tax benefits are available to religions, in view of the High Court decision which proclaimed that the Church of Scientology was a religion and was therefore entitled to exemption from payroll tax. (2) Which religions are currently eligible for tax benefits. (3) What is the estimated amount of revenue forgone from tax benefits available to these religions. (4) What proportion of these tax benefits are related to the charitable activities as opposed to the religious activities in each religion. (5) Would it be practicable to separate, for tax concession purposes, the charitable activities of a religious body from its other activities. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Income Tax Assessment Act exempts from income tax income derived by a religious institution. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act exempts from sales tax equipment for use in churches and church services and articles for use in religious devotion. The Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act exempts from pay-roll tax wages paid by religious institutions. The Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Act exempts from stamp duty documents signed by religious institutions. The Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act exempts religious institutions from bank account debits tax. (2) All institutions or bodies which meet the legally accepted tests for a religion and, where applicable, fulfil other legislative criteria would be eligible for the tax benefits above. (3) and (4) Because, for example, income tax returns are not lodged by tax- exempt religious institutions, information which would enable a reliable estimate to be made of the revenue forgone by the exemptions is not available. (5) I believe there would be considerable practical difficulty in separating the charitable activities of a religious body from its other activities. Legally , the advancement of religion is a charitable activity. (Question No. 517) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) Have been established; or (b) are proposed by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) Have been or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited as a result. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) 1. Economic Planning Advisory Council 2. Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council 3. Queensland Women's Information Service 4. Task Force on Public Service Reform (disbanded in December 1983) 5. Support Group on Public Service Matters Industrial Democracy Unit within the Public Service Board (b) The Government has proposed the establishment of an independent statutory Public Service grievance body. (2) (a) 1. Economic Planning Advisory Council-nil 2. Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council-4 (the Director has been appointed and at 20 Feburary three other appointments were in process). It is envisaged that a total of about 50 staff may ultimately be recruited. 3. Queensland Women's Information Service-no additional staff appointed or recruited. 4. Task Force on Public Service Reform-nil 5. Support Group on Public Service Matters-no additional staff appointed or recruited. 6. Industrial Democracy Unit-two positions created and filled. Future size of the unit is under consideration. (b) The number of staff required to service the proposed independent statutory Public Service grievance authority has yet to be determined. (Question No. 551) Senator Georges asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Is the obligation of the Director-General of Security under section 14 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to destroy records being efficiently carried out. (2) Are adequate security and other methods being instituted to prevent any unlawful communication of information gathered under section 20 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. (3) Are all facilities provided and adequate methods instituted to ensure that the Commissioner of Police can carry out without delay the obligation under section 24 of the Act to destroy records and copies so that there will be no neglect in ascertaining and destroying all records or copies which are not required and not likely to be required for the purposes stated in the Act. Senator Gareth Evans —I am advised that the answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) Yes I add that the matters raised insofar as they relate to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation are within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Australia's Intelligence and Security Agencies. (Question No. 557) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) What was the total value of advertising, promotional and public relations expenditures, claimed by business as deductions against company tax in 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. (2) What was the total cost to revenue of claims against company tax for advertising, promotional and public relations expenditure in each of the above years. (3) How many businesses made claims for these items in 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) Information relating to advertising, promotional and public relations expenditure claimed as deductions in income tax returns of companies is not recorded separately. (Question No. 592) Senator Colston asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) What are the details on a State by State and Territory basis of those prisoners who were released on licence during 1981, 1982 and 1983, including in each case, the name of the prisoner, the prisoner's total sentence and the duration of the sentence which had expired at the time of release, in relation to prisoners who were serving sentences for offences against Federal legislation . (2) What was the average percentage of time of total sentence which had been served before the release of the prisoners mentioned in (1) for each State and Territory and for Australia as a whole, over the period 1981 to 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Information in the form sought in the honourable member's question is not readily available. Administratively it would not be practical to undertake the research necessary to provide the information sought. Furthermore, even if the information was available, on the grounds of privacy, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to provide the information sought in the form requested. However, the following general information is provided: (a) A Federal offender may be conditionally released, either on parole under section 5 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 or, on licence under section 19A of the Crimes Act 1914. Section 4 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act provides that where a court sentences a Federal offender to a term of imprisonment and the law of the State where the offender is convicted requires a court of the State when sentencing a State offender to a like term of imprisonment, to fix a non-parole period, the court is required to fix a non-parole period in the case of a Federal offender. Where such an order is made by the court a prisoner may be released on parole under section 5 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 at the expiration of his non-parole period by the Governor-General acting on my advice. (b) In the case of Federal offenders sentenced in Queensland, for example, section 4 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act does not apply as non-parole periods are automatically determined by legislation rather than by the court order. Under the relevant Queensland law a State offender, who is serving a sentence greater than 6 months is considered for release on parole at the expiration of half the head sentence without remission. While Federal offenders in Queensland cannot therefore be released on parole, as the Court has not determined the non- parole period, Federal offenders are considered for release on licence under section 19A of the Crimes Act 1914 at the same time that a State offender serving a similar sentence would be considered for release on State parole. In addition in Queensland a court may make a recommendation as to the period a prisoner should serve before being eligible for consideration for release and where such a recommendation is made I am guided by it. Thus a Federal offender in Queensland is treated in a similar way to his State counterpart. (c) Federal prisoners in other jurisdictions are only released on licence in limited circumstances for example where they are deportees, where the court, because of technical legal requirements of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act, has failed to validly specify a non-parole period or where a prisoner has established exceptional circumstances and is being released prior to the expiration of his non-parole period. Only on rare occasions are prisoners released prior to the expiration of their non-parole periods. Prisoners released on parole or licence are required to comply with similar conditions. (Question No. 594) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 December 1983: (1) Is there a procedure for selection of accommodation for Australian officials, including parliamentarians, visiting overseas countries. (2) Who is responsible for such selection. (3) How is such selection made. (4) Do officers have to visit overseas posts in order to develop the selection process. (5) What is the salary and status of persons involved in this selection process . (6) What has been the cost to revenue for overseas trips of these persons whilst they are conducting this accommodation selection process in each of the last four years. (7) Will the Government review this selection process in view of the costs involved and in view of the fact that persons going overseas would often appreciate being accommodated in hotels that are more accessible to local communities and are more reflective of the communities and their cultural backgrounds. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1, 2 and 3) Accommodation for Australian officials, including parliamentarians , visiting overseas countries is normally selected by the appropriate Australian Government overseas post in accordance with the accommodation requirements and itinerary of the traveller in question. In those cases where the traveller expresses no preference regarding accommodation, the post would make a selection based on local knowledge, and take into consideration the travel allowance of the visitor, the standards of facilities available, their cost, their proximity to venues to be visited and security aspects. Many posts have negotiated favourable tariff agreements with local hotels and it is to these hotels that the majority of official travellers would be directed. (4, 5 and 6) No overseas visits are made by officials specifically to develop this selection process. However information on costs and standard of hotels in overseas countries is forwarded to Australia by posts to facilitate regular reviews of travelling allowance rates for public servants. In addition, all posts are visited by inspectors of the Public Service Board during the course of a cyclical inspection program. During these visits, which involve a wide ranging review of allowances and other conditions of service, the opportunity is taken to review the appropriateness of the standard of hotels used for travelling allowance purposes. The Board's inspectors who undertake this work are classified at Class 8, Class 9 and Class 11 in the clerical/administrative pay group. (7) The Government does not plan to alter the existing procedure for the making of accommodation arrangements. Under the present system it is, of course, open to parliamentarians travelling overseas to inform the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, or the relevant post, of the type and location of the accommodation they wish to use. (Question No. 601) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 14 December 1983: (1) Have allegations concerning the handling of repatriation claims from Mr M. Boland been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister; if so, what investigations have been undertaken in relation to these allegations. (2) Has the Repatriation Commission investigated a medical report on this case which is claimed to contravene section 53 of the Repatriation Act. (3) Has the Department of Veterans' Affairs fulfilled its statutory obligations under the provisions of sub-section 24AB (1) of the Repatriation Act with regard to this case. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The allegations were referred to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. (2) The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has advised me as follows: A challenge to the veracity of a medical report in Mr Boland's case has been investigated by the Repatriation Commission and by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The report was received by the Department from a psychiatrist in private practice who expressed his professional opinion following treatment of Mr Boland. The Ombudsman has declined to investigate this matter further, indicating that it would serve no useful purpose. No breach of section 53 of the Repatriation Act, which relates to the making and furnishing of false statements, has been established. At Mr Boland's request, a copy of the report on Mr Boland's file has been noted to indicate the complaints which Mr Boland has lodged in respect of it. No further action is warranted. (3) The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has advised me as follows: Section 24AB of the Repatriation Act requires the Secretary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to investigate matters to which a claim relates, although it does not specify the manner or extent of those investigations. The Ombudsman's recent investigations did not establish that a breach of section 24AB had occurred. (Question No. 617) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: Has any amount been spent under Division 312 Special Fund for Expenditure in relation to Government programs at the direction of the Minister for Finance by the Department of Veterans' Affairs; if so, how much and what are the details of those expenditures. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: To date, no funds have been issued to my Department by the Minister for Finance from Division 312 and thus no actual expenditure of such funds has been incurred . However, the Department of Finance has advised that, pursuant to Section 7 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84, any funds issued from Division 312 will be charged to normal departmental appropriations, the effect being to augment those appropriations. As the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has approved additional staffing for my Department in respect of the income/assets test, the Department of Finance has approved additional levels of obligation of $1.8m up to which my Department can commit additional expenditure against the normal appropriations. Allocations for proposed asset testing are now under review. Expenditure incurred to date in respect of the proposed assets test has been met from the Department's normal appropriations. As at 23 February 1984 expenditure recorded against normal departmental appropriations items was approximately $0.94m, comprising $0.74m for salaries and $0.2m for administrative expenses. (Question No. 670) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 February 1984: (1) Does the Department of Defence involve itself in security clearances of civilians in State administrations involved in key installations or otherwise; if so, what is the degree of such interest. (2) Will the Minister for Defence revise his answer to my Question on Notice No . 577 in view of the answer to the above. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) State authorities are responsible for ensuring that Commonwealth classified information in their own organisations is safeguarded, and for arranging security measures, as necessary. The Department of Defence has in the past acted as a channel for arranging clearance of people nominated by State authorities in respect of installations of importance to defence, but on those occasions did not itself determine whether or not there should be access to classified material. The Department of Defence currently has an industrial security program, which allows for employees of State instrumentalities to be cleared for access to security classified information if necessary. For example, in 1980 20 employees of the State Dockyard Newcastle-a New South Wales State Government instrumentality-were cleared so that they could work on naval vessels. (2) Question No. 577 sought information in respect of the Defence Force. The activities mentioned in (1) above are or were carried out by Department of Defence civilians. (Question No. 702) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the state of the uranium industry, reported in the Australian Financial Review on 28 February 1984. (2) Does the report state that a continued fall in production combined with existing huge stockpiles of uranium mean that new supplies are unlikely to be needed at least until the turn of the century. (3) Does the report cast doubt on the viability of the planned Olympic Dam project. (4) Has the Federal Government made an economic assessment of the proposed uranium mine at Roxby Downs in South Australia; if so, can the Minister provide information indicating the viability or otherwise of the Olympic Dam project in South Australia; if not, will the Government initiate an assessment of the economic viability of the project in view of this recent report. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) If Senator Bolkus is referring to the joint publication by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency titled 'Uranium-Resources, Production and Demand', yes. (2) No. The joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency states that: 'A comparison between short term production capability and reactor requirements indicates that the production from existing and committed facilities could continue to cover reactor requirements until the end of this decade.' The report also examines the level of stockpiles held by utilities and states that: 'the need for new production facilities could be delayed if utilities draw down their stocks, or even slightly advanced if a high forward coverage is maintained.' (3) No. (4) No. The question of the commercial feasibility of development of the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs is one for the joint venturers. It will depend on their assessment of the future market for copper, as well as uranium. The Government has decided that if a commercial decision to proceed with the development of the Olympic Dam project were to be made by the joint venturers, the Government would permit the export of uranium produced from that mine, subject to the safeguards arrangements applied generally to uranium exports at the time of export. Senator Walsh —On 18 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1643) Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the public has been deceived as a result of the Budget undertaking that broadcast teletext decoding devices and similar equipment for the deaf would be exempt from sales tax? Does the Minister appreciate that 10 per cent of the Australian community has a hearing loss? Did the Government realise, when the decision was made to back down on the Budget promise and restrict this sales tax exemption to the estimated one per cent of the community that is regarded as profoundly deaf, that a majority of these people would be disadvantaged? It would be interesting also to know what criteria are laid down to define the term 'profoundly deaf'. In view of yet another broken promise and the fact that this represents a relatively small cost to revenue, will the Minister ask his colleague to review the decision in order to assist 10 per cent of Australians who have a significant hearing loss and would wish to take advantage of such devices? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I completely reject the claim that the public has been deceived in relation to the sales tax exemption announced in the 1983 Budget for broadcast teletext decoding equipment and similar equipment for use by deaf persons. The Government undertook in the Budget to provide exemption for videotext, teletext and other comparable equipment of a kind used in or in connexion with television receivers where the system or device is for use and not for sale by profoundly deaf persons. There has been no backing down by the Government on its Budget undertaking. Item 123A has been inserted in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to exempt relevant equipment where it is for use and not for sale by a person whose hearing has been certified by the Director- General of Health, or by one of his officers, to be impaired to such an extent that the person is, or is to be taken to be, profoundly deaf. It may be noted that the exemption is not confined to persons who are ' profoundly deaf' but also extends to persons who are relevantly certified 'to be taken to be' profoundly deaf' for the purpose of the exemption item. The criteria to be used by the Director-General of Health in certifying the classes of persons who are 'to be taken to be profoundly deaf' is a matter for determination by the Director-General and is still under consideration by him. However, the Director-General has indicated that the criteria will be wide enough to embrace persons whose hearing is impaired to such an extent that they have a genuine difficulty in understanding television sound at volumes tolerable to people whose hearing is not impaired. It was never intended by the Government that the exemption would be available to persons with only slight hearing disabilities. (Question No. 117) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (a) What is the estimate of tax revenue forgone from occupational superannuation, for each financial year from 1971-72 to 1981-82. (2) How are the above estimates determined. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The information required to enable estimates to be made of the tax revenue forgone that is attributable to occupational superannuation for each of these years is not available. However, the 1983-84 Budget statements contained an estimate for 1983-84 of the net revenue forgone through retirement and other employment termination tax concessions. The net revenue forgone was estimated at $2,480m. The estimate related to the effect on income tax revenue of the tax-free treatment of employer contributions to superannuation funds, the deduction allowed for self-employed and unsupported employees' contributions, the income tax rebate on other contributions, the exemption from tax of fund earnings and the tax treatment of 'unfunded' benefits. The net revenue forgone was arrived at after allowing for offsets for tax payable on funded pensions and on funded lump sums. In arriving at the estimate it was assumed that the tax-free employer contributions and fund earnings would otherwise have been taxed in the hands of employees at an overall marginal rate of 40 per cent. (Question No. 458) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Will single people on an annual income of $6,699 and married couples on an annual income of $11,142 be exempt from paying the Medicare levy. (2) Will postgraduate students who receive a Commonwealth postgraduate award ( CPA) be subject to the Medicare levy, whereas those who receive a university scholarship or CPA allowances for dependants will be exempt; if so, is the Minister for Health aware that postgraduates who receive an award or a scholarship are not regarded as members of the workforce for the purpose of assessing eligibility for sickness benefits. (3) Will the Minister give an assurance that all postgraduate students who receive awards or scholarships will be exempt from the Medicare levy so as to avoid unnecessary hardship for those students. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A single person whose taxable income in 1983-84 does not exceed $6,698 and a married couple whose combined taxable incomes in 1983-84 do not exceed $11,141 will be exempt from paying the Medicare levy. The family income threshold for a couple increases by $1,100 for each dependent child or student. Where the combined taxable incomes of a couple exceed the income threshold by a marginal amount a 'shading-in' formula applies and the amount of levy payable is determined according to this formula. (2) The Medicare levy is imposed on the taxable incomes of persons who are residents of Australia for income tax purposes. Taxable income means gross income from all sources (other than amounts which are exempted from tax), less allowable deductions such as expenses of earning income, union dues and gifts to public institutions. Among items of income expressly exempt from tax and, it follows, from levy, are amounts received under university scholarships. Amounts received under the Commonwealth postgraduate award scheme, however, are not exempt from income tax and are subject to the levy. As I understand the position, the 1984 annual allowance paid under the CPA scheme is $7,330 gross for a single postgraduate. At that level of taxable income a single postgraduate would pay a levy of 1 per cent in a full year. For 1983-84, levy is imposed at the rate of 0.416 per cent, reflecting the commencement of Medicare from 1 February 1984. I also understand that additional allowances are paid under the CPA scheme in respect of a dependent spouse ($2,220) and dependent children ($520 for each child). If this constituted the only taxable income of the couple, then neither of them would have to pay the levy as their family income would not exceed their relevant family income threshold. In regard to the eligibility of postgraduate students for sickness benefits, following representations made to the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, new arrangements have been introduced for the payment of benefits to students holding awards or scholarships, who through illness are temporarily unable to continue their studies. Broadly speaking, these new arrangements allow students to continue to receive their awards or scholarships provided they remain enrolled in their course and meet certain other conditions, including the provision of a medical certificate and a statement from the tertiary institution. Where the student discontinues his or her enrolment through illness, they may be eligible for sickness benefits if they intend seeking employment on recovery, regardless of their intention to resume study in a subsequent academic year or semester. In some situations where neither the award, scholarship or sickness benefits are payable, the student may be paid a special benefit by the Department of Social Security if he or she is experiencing hardship. (3) The question of whether recipients of a CPA can be exempted from the levy is a matter for my colleague the Treasurer. The honourable senator may care to refer this matter to him for consideration when dealing with proposals for concessional income tax treatment in the context of the annual Budget. (Question No. 483) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Communications been approached by the Eidsvold and District Telephone Committee in relation to what it refers to as the discriminatory charges of Telecom's Countrywide Calling; if so, are the claims made by this Committee correct, namely that most country people will face the burden of greatly increased telephone accounts, will not benefit from Countrywide Calling and will have their quality of life affected. (2) Is this Committee's contention correct when it states that the retention of local untimed calls under the Countrywide Calling system is vitally important and essential. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) and (2) Yes, correspondence has been received from the Eidsvold and District Telephone Committee. The Countrywide Calling scheme was introduced to help overcome the problems associated with provision of service in sparsely settled areas. The main factors involved in this development are the need- for Telecom to proceed with its rural and remote area automatic conversion program in a timely manner; for larger zones (to limit expenditure on zone identification equipment) which in turn will provide customers with access to a reasonable number of people at lower call charges than would have been applicable if the previous zoning principles had been applied; to keep community access arrangements intact. Apart from local call arrangements, the community call rate (15 cents for 3 minutes) will apply to all calls within an extended zone, many of which exceed 10,000 square kilometres. This is the lowest rate which could reasonably apply throughout such huge areas. The honourable senator may be aware that Telecom has made a number of modifications to the scheme since its introduction on 1 October 1983. For example, those subscribers still on manual exchanges in extended zones will retain local call access to their service town until the automatic conversion takes place and calls between extended zones, where the radial distance is within 25-50 km, will now be charged at the community call rate of 15 cents for 3 minutes. This was previously 30 cents for 3 minutes under Countrywide Calling. In addition, Telecom has made many changes to extended zone boundaries so that customers are given the most favourable calling conditions practicable. In the Eidsvold area it has been practicable to restore some standard zones with the effect that untimed local calling has been retained in most instances. Overall, the benefits of the Countrywide Calling scheme to many thousands of country subscribers, existing and potential, by way of earlier provision of improved facilities, and in some cases substantially reduced charges, are of great significance to country areas. (Question No. 484) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) How does Telecom's Countrywide Calling system operate and what is the reason for its introduction. (2) Is the Minister for Communications aware of problems that have arisen with the zoning of the Burnett River region and other areas in Queensland and claims by many country people that the system is 'discriminatory and unfair'. (3) Will local calls in areas affected by this system become 'timed' calls; if so, why. (4) Will the Minister investigate these claims to ensure that the apparent anomalies are rectified and that many country people will not be disadvantaged by the introduction of Countrywide Calling. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Countrywide Calling is a telephone zoning and call charging system which applies to the more sparsely settled areas. The scheme involves extended (or enlarged) charging zones instead of the smaller standard zones generally used throughout Australia. Apart from calls between subscribers located within 32 kilometres of their local automatic exchange (charged at the local fee rate), all calls within extended zones are charged at the community call rate (15 cents per 3 minutes day rate). Calls to adjoining zones are charged at a rate not more than the 'F' rate (60 cents per 3 minutes day rate). The Countrywide Calling scheme was introduced to help overcome the problems associated with provision of service in sparsely settled areas. The main factors involved in this development are the need- for Telecom to proceed with its rural and remote area automatic conversion program in a timely manner; for larger zones (to limit expenditure on zone identification equipment) which in turn will provide customers with access to a reasonable number of people at lower call charges than would have been applicable if the previous zoning principles had been applied; to keep community access arrangements intact. Apart from local call arrangements, the community call rate will apply to all calls within an extended zone, many of which are 10,000 square kilometres. This is the lowest rate which could reasonably apply throughout such huge areas. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. The overall concept of Countrywide Calling requires some standard zones to be absorbed into extended zones. In addition, the generally accepted limit for the economic provision of local call access in Australia is 32 kilometres and this principle has been introduced into automatic exchanges in extended zones. Accordingly, local call access has been affected in some areas and the charging arrangements outlined in 1 above apply. (4) All claims concerning Countrywide Calling are thoroughly examined and the honourable senator may be aware that Telecom has made a number of modifications to the scheme since its introduction. In the Burnett River region, and indeed in a number of other areas, local call access has been restored to many customers who lost the facility. (Question No. 546) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) Does the Government intend to conduct an environmental impact study on any new export licence for woodchips. (2) Has the Tasmanian Government approached the Minister for Primary Industry to extend licences for two woodchip exporters, APPM and Forest Resources until 1988; if so, would such extensions amount to a three and two year respectively, extra licence being granted without consideration of environment impact. (3) Has any decision been made on this request; if so, what was the decision; if not, when will a decision be made. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Any new proposal for the export of woodchips will be referred to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his views on the need for an environmental impact statement before a decision on an export licence is taken. (2) The Tasmanian Government supported applications by Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and H.C. Sleigh Ltd for short term extensions to 1988 (from December 1985 and June 1985/December 1986 respectively) of their existing woodchip export licences. The Tasmanian Government believed that for the period 1984-1988 individual company-by-company environmental impact statements may be limited in value by Tasmanian Government proposals in respect of a new pulpmill development project. It was therefore proposed that a State-wide environmental impact statement be prepared in 1985 in conjunction with the resource assessment to be carried out for the pulpmill feasibility study and that the existing licences be extended to 1988. This would both enable the companies to maintain their commercial relationships with overseas buyers and facilitate a decision on any resource reallocation that would accompany a possible pulpmill project. The matter was referred to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for advice on the need for environmental assessment. (3) Yes. Following detailed consultations with interested parties it was decided to approve the licence extensions. The Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments have agreed to jointly commission a comprehensive environmental review of Tasmanian woodchipping and associated forestry operations beyond 31 December 1988. The review will allow a more detailed and comprehensive assessment across forestry operations than would have been possible if the assessment were to concentrate solely on woodchipping operations. In view of the sensitivity of forestry operations in a number of areas, it has been agreed that it will be appropriate for the impact statement to provide comment on management practices over the period 1984-1988 and any recommendations made will be taken into account by the Governments and the companies during this period. In broad terms the EIS will consider the long term sustainable yield of Tasmania's forests taking account of sawlog and pulpwood production from both private and Crown land. It will also consider timing of harvesting and proposed management practices by specific areas. Following lengthy and detailed consultation with my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the Tasmanian Minister for Forests, industry representatives, relevant Departmental officers (Federal and State), representatives of the Conservation Foundation, the Australian Heritage Commission and the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, I concluded that the licences covering APPM's and H.C. Sleigh's existing operations should be extended to December 1988 subject to a number of conditions concerning pulpwood logging in areas of environmental concern, particularly those listed on the Register of the National Estate. Pulpwood operations in the Lemonthyme State Forest in the north of Tasmania will be delayed until such time as consideration can be given to recommendations of the final impact statement. In addition the Tasmanian Government and the companies have agreed that export pulpwood operations in sensitive areas of the southern forests will be restricted to those areas that are necessary for sawlog removal. This will enable regeneration of these areas to continue and ensure sawlog is available during the period to the sawmilling companies dependent upon this resource. (Question No. 595) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) What is the estimated total cost, including this financial year and future financial years, of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam (see answer to Question No. 259, Hansard, 20 September 1983, p. 820). (2) When is the Royal Commissioner now expected to report. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The revised cost estimate for 1983-84 financial year is $2,228,700. Cost estimates for future financial years are not finalised. (2) The Royal Commissioner has proposed to the Government an extension of his reporting date. The final reporting date is contingent upon whether or not a morbidity study is conducted and that question is under consideration by the Government. (Question No. 628) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Which States and Territory governments have formal arrangements with the Federal Government for the movement of permanent officers from one public service to another while allowing those officers to have general portability of superannuation, long service leave, accruing holidays and other benefits. (2) Will the Prime Minister ask his officers to identify which State and Territory governments have general portability arrangements with other State and Territory governments, to assist in community understanding of the matter. (3) Are the arrangements in each case based on legislation, intergovernmental administrative action or some other form and is there a one way flow or a two way flow in each case. (4) What are the general provisions of each set of arrangements. (5) Is there a portability arrangement between the public services of the Federal and Queensland governments. (6) What would prevent the exercise of portability by an officer with a good performance record, transferring to a permanent position in the Queensland Public Service from the Commonwealth Public Service after 20 years excellent service in the latter. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are not formal arrangements between the Commonwealth Government and State and Territory governments for the general portability of benefits of permanent officers who move from one public service to another. However, there is provision in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme for the preservation of portability of superannuation rights, in certain circumstances, of persons moving between Commonwealth employment and other employment, including employment with a State or Territory. On entry to the Commonwealth scheme, a new contributor may pay into the scheme a lump sum received from the superannuation scheme of a previous employer. The employer-financed component of the lump sum is used to 'purchase' a period of contributory service that is added to the employee's actual period of contributory service under the Commonwealth scheme. Employer-financed benefits under the Commonwealth scheme are determined on the basis of length of contributory service, salary and age at retirement. The employee-financed component of a lump sum, or a lump sum that comprises only employee contributions, is paid into the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and treated as contributions by the employee. Where a person leaves the Commonwealth scheme, preservation may be effected by means of: (a) the payment of a transfer value-a lump sum that includes an employer component-to an approved superannuation scheme; or (b) where the person does not become a member of an approved scheme, a deferred benefit-generally a pension payable on age retirement, invalidity or death. An approved scheme is one where the new employer has agreed to a reciprocal arrangement with the Commonwealth involving the payment of transfer values between schemes. There are reciprocal preservation arrangements between the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and 22 other public sector schemes-including 16 State university schemes-that enable the payment of transfer values between the Commonwealth scheme and those other schemes. As no State government has so far been willing to enter into such arrangements, a transfer value is not payable in respect of contributors who elect to preserve their Commonwealth superannuation rights on transfer to State employment. However, negotiations are currently proceeding with Queensland on the introduction of reciprocal portability arrangements between the Commonwealth scheme and the principle Queensland public service scheme and certain other Queensland schemes. The position of individual transferring between Commonwealth and Northern Territory government employment is different, however. Employees of the Northern Territory Government currently contribute to the Commonwealth scheme and individuals transferring between Commonwealth and Northern Territory employment remain members of that scheme. Their accrued superannuation rights are, therefore, fully preserved. In regard to other benefits, when officers of a State or the Northern Territory Public Service join the Australian Public Service (APS), their prior service with those Public Services is counted as if it had been service with the Commonwealth for the purposes of sick leave and long service leave, subject to continuity being maintained-that is a break in service not exceeding two months in the case of sick leave; 12 months in the case of long service leave. Prior service is not recognised for any other purpose. Provisions applicable to officers of the APS when they join the Northern Territory or State public services are the responsibility of each of those public services. The Australian Public Service Board does not hold information on these provisions. (2) The Australian Public Service Board does not hold information on portability arrangements between State and Territory governments. (3) The preservation arrangements applicable under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme are provided for in the Superannuation Act 1976. The recognition of prior service with the Northern Territory or State public services for the purposes of sick leave and long service leave in the APS is provided for in the Public Service Act 1922 and the Long Service Leave ( Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, respectively. (4) See (1) above. (5) No. The provisions outlined in (1) apply to officers of the Queensland Government who are appointed to the APS. The Australian Public Service Board does not hold information on portability of benefits for officers of the APS who are appointed to the Queensland Public Service. (6) See (5) above. (Question No. 641) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that a Postillion Landau identical to the Edward VII 1902 Postillion Landau has been constructed in Australia by Mr Jim Frecklington. (2) Will the Minister look into the possibility of this work of art being acquired by an appropriate institution so as to retain it in Australia for the benefit of all Australians as a national work of art. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. I am advised however that, although Mr Frecklington's Landau may be identical in appearance to the Edward VII 1902 Postillion Landau, different materials have been used in its construction. (2) The Landau is not an appropriate acquisition for the relevant national collecting institutions for which I have responsibility. As the Landau represents an era that is not part of Australia's history, it is inappropriate for inclusion in the Museum of Australia's collection. The Landau does not come within the collections policy of the Australian National Gallery. (Question No. 647) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: Why did the Mount Alvernia Hospital, Bendigo, receive a B classification instead of an A classification under the Medicare program. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Mount Alvernia Hospital, Bendigo was initially classified as a Category 2 hospital under Medicare because Commonwealth Department of Health claims data for the year ended 30 June 1983 indicated that the hospital did not fulfil all of the Category 1 criteria. Specifically, the hospital had fewer than the required average number of daily inpatients. Mount Alvernia submitted that if figures for compensable patients, of which the Department had no record, were taken into account, it would fulfil all the criteria for Category 1. Once this position was confirmed, I reclassified the hospital to Category 1 with effect from 1 February 1984. (Question No. 648) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) What are the official positions of the staff members of the Media Unit in the office of the Prime Minister. (2) Who holds those positions at present. (3) What is the salary of each officer at present. (4) What is the estimated total cost of the unit per annum. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The Media Unit (or Press Office) in the Prime Minister's office has two journalists and three support positions compared with three journalists and three support positions under the Fraser Government. Salary costs as at 30 March 1984 are: Classification Occupant Salary ($ p.a.) Press Secretary Mr G. D. H. Walsh 36,140* Journalist Grade A2 Mr C. M. Parks 31,926* Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. T. Willis 21,382 Secretary/Typist Miss J. J. Nicholson 16,667 Secretary/Typist Miss R. Forster 15,050 * Ministerial staff allowance of $14,694 per annum is payable to the occupants of the Press Secretary and Journalist Grade A2 positions by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the job. (4) The estimated salary and allowance cost of the present unit is $150,553 per annum. Similar costs for the former Prime Minister's Press Office were $191,173 per annum. It is not possible to extract service and other operating costs. (Question No. 654) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Will the Attorney-General consider the collation into one document of all recommendations for changes to existing laws and procedures of all recent inquiries, commissions and the like into organised crime, (2) Could such a document include such recommendations from both State and Federal inquiries. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The following reports of royal commissions, task forces and like investigative bodies dealt either primarily or incidentally with organised crime in Australia: Report by Mr J. T. Cusack, a senior United States Police Officer, to the Victorian Government on a series of murders and attempted murders in the Queen Victoria Produce Market, Melbourne (1964); Report of the Moffit Royal Commission into Organised Crime in Clubs (New South Wales) (1974); Report of the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking (New South Wales) (1979); Report of the Williams Australian Royal Commission into Drugs (Commonwealth, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania) (1979); Commonwealth and New South Wales Police Task Force Reports (1982-83); Companies Act investigation reports; The Reports of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union (Commonwealth and Victoria) (1981-83); The Reports of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking ( Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland) (1981-83); and The Report of the Connor Board of Inquiry into Casinos (Victoria) (1983). A similar list of these reports appeared in page 3 of the Government's Green Paper on a National Crime Commission issued in June 1983 and particularly relevant extracts of the reports were quoted in pages 4 and 5 of the Green Paper . These inquiry bodies were not concerned exclusively with organised crime and the recommendations contained in the various reports dealt with many matters as well as organised crime. Because of this, the expense of reprinting the total body of the recommendations to facilitate reference to those dealing with organised crime could not be justified. However, to facilitate the honourable senator's access to relevant recommendations, the following table is appended giving information as to recommendations made by those inquiry bodies out of the above list that were established by the Commonwealth. Reports of Commonwealth/State task forces are not included in this table because these reports, by reason of their special nature, have not been tabled in Parliament or otherwise published. If the honourable senator has difficulty in obtaining access from the Library to any of the reports mentioned above that have been published, my office will be glad to assist in providing a copy. Report Date Table Date of Government Response Report of the Australian Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking (Mr Justice Williams) (1979) 18 March 1980. House of Representatives Hansard p. 865 18 March 1980. House of Representatives Hansard pp. 965-873: Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Health Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union (Mr F. X. Costigan QC) Interim Report No. 1 Not tabled Not Applicable Interim Report No. 2 Not tabled Not Applicable Interim Report No. 3 25 February 1982. House of Representatives Hansard p. 667 25 February 1982. House of Representatives Hansard pp. 667-668: Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Administrative Services Interim Report No. 4 Volume 1 (with 2 paragraphs excluded) 24 August 1982. House of Representatives Hansard p. 836 24 August 1982. House of Representatives Hansard pp. 836-839: Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Communications Volume 2 (Edited version of Chapter 10 only) 7 September 1982. House of Representatives Hansard p. 1092-1094 Interim Report No. 5 12 October 1983. Senate Hansard p. 1469 12 October 1983. Senate Hansard p. 1470: Ministerial Statement by the Attorney- General incorporated in Hansard Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking (Mr Justice Stewart) Interim Report (on Passports) 27 May 1982. Senate Hansard pp. 2503-2504 8 December 1982. House of Representatives Hansard pp. 3080-3083: Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs Report on Terrence Clark activities February 1983 31 May 1983. Senate Hansard p. 1007 31 May 1983. Senate Hansard pp. 1007-1008: Ministerial Statement by the Attorney -General 15 December 1983. Senate Hansard pp. 3846-3848: Government response to Report incorporated in Hansard by the Attorney-General (Question No. 655) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Did the magistrate presiding over the Greek social security conspiracy case announce he was going to bring the circumstances of actions by a senior police officer to the notice of the Attorney-General with a view to proceedings being taken. (2) Has advice been forwarded to the Attorney-General by the magistrate. (3) What action has the Attorney-General taken as a consequence thereof; if the decision has not been taken, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I have not received formal advice but have treated the magistrate's public announcement as advice to me. (3) The evidence given before the magistrate has been closely examined and the advice of counsel has been obtained on a number of questions which arose. On 31 January 1984 the Minister for Social Security and I issued a statement which contained the following paragraphs: 'The Attorney-General has had regard to the comments made by the Magistrate, Mr B. Brown, S.M., on 7 June 1982 concerning former Detective Chief Inspector Thomas, and has decided that no charges should be laid.' 'In the view of the Attorney-General, the evidence currently available to support the charges suggested by the Magistrate is not sufficient to establish the mental element of those offences to the requisite standard of proof and, in all the circumstances of the case, he has decided that the interests of justice would not be served by now instituting criminal proceedings against Mr Thomas.' 'This decision would of course be reviewed if additional relevant material was to become available.' (Question No. 672) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Why were the promises not fulfilled that time would be put aside to consult with those persons or organisations such as the Northern Territory Government, who forwarded submissions particularly in regard to the proposed new rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin to the Hill Report on the Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory (NT). (2) When will the Government indicate its attitude to the defence aspect of the rail project, which was excluded from the inquiry. (3) Does the Government agree with the report when it is suggested that the upgrading of the Stuart Highway in the NT does not require accelerated funding to bring it to national highway standards by 1987. (4) If the Minister for Transport does not have this information at hand will he expedite the answers for the Senate. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, conducted by Mr David Hill, held public hearings at Darwin, Alice Springs and Adelaide, at which parties were invited to elaborate on and discuss their written submissions. Officials of the Northern Territory and South Australian Governments provided the inquiry with clarifications and additional information on their respective governments' submissions. (2) The inquiry was not required to evaluate the defence implications of proposed transport services to the Northern Territory. The Government has undertaken a separate assessment of the defence implications. It is of the view that a decision now to divert defence expenditure from projects having priority in terms of endorsed planning criteria to the proposed infrastructure work on the railway, would, other factors remaining constant, reduce the level of defence preparedness we could otherwise achieve. This was advised to the Northern Territory Chief Minister and South Australian Premier when they met with the Prime Minister on 15 March 1984 to discuss the Hill inquiry report and to determine the best way of meeting the Territory's future transport needs. (3) The Hill report does not suggest that the Stuart Highway can be brought up to national highway standard by 1987 without accelerated funding. The report indicates that the present program of upgrading will bring the Highway to a minimum national highway standard by 1992 at a cost of $72.8m. To bring the Highway to this standard by 1987 would require additional expenditure of $25.3m over the four years to 1987 and an equivalent reduction in planned expenditure over the following six years. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 675) Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: Will the Minister for Aviation table a transcript of the communications and attempted communications between aircraft VH-WJC and all other stations from 1450 hours on 17 July 1983 until it was known the aircraft had ditched in Bass Strait. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A transcript of the communications and attempted communications between aircraft VH-WJC and all other stations from 1450 hours on 17 July 1983 until it was known the aircraft had ditched in Bass Strait was tabled in the Senate by Senator Button on 28 March 1984. This transcript commences at 1505 hours; there were no communications recorded from the aircraft between 1450 hours and 1505 hours. (Question No. 676) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) Has there been an increase in the number of arrests of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory since the introduction of the Criminal Code; if so, are figures available and what do they indicate. (2) Does the Northern Territory Criminal Code infringe obligations under international treaties; if so, which treaties and in what way. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The code became law on 1 January 1984. At this stage there is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the Criminal Code has affected the number of arrests of Aboriginal persons in the Northern Territory. (2) The Government believes that the code, as it currently stands, has serious implications for a number of civil and political rights guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, as a result of an exchange of correspondence culminating in a meeting held on 15 March 1984-attended by the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister, the Northern Territory Attorney-General and myself-I was advised on 28 March 1984 that the Northern Territory Government had agreed to amend those provisions at the earliest opportunity. The subject provisions of the code, as they currently stand, and the civil and political rights in respect of which they have ramifications are as follows: Section 7Pursuant to this section a person who was intoxicated at the time he committed the conduct the subject of the charge is presumed, inter alia, to have foreseen the natural and probable consequences of his act and to have intended them. He bears a persuasive onus to rebut this presumption so that he has to convince the jury that he did not so foresee and intend. If he is unable to convince the jury, the Crown can succeed in obtaining a conviction by proving only that the accused did the act without having to prove the existence of the traditional and necessary mental element. The provision has implications for the concepts of a fair trial and for the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14 of the Covenant. Section 51This section enables the Administrator to make regulations proscribing any organisation which either: (a) in the opinion of the Executive Council has as its objects the use of violence to achieve its ends, or (b) the members of which, in the opinion of the Executive Council, have, in the Territory or elsewhere, demonstrated a propensity to use violence to achive the organisation's ends. I emphasise that the making of the regulations proscribing the organisation are dependent on the opinion of the Executive Council as to the matters set out in the section. The regulations may be approved by the Legislative Assembly by simple majority and there is no provision permitting an organisation either to show cause why it should not be proscribed or to have proscription judicially reviewed on the merits. The section is in very wide terms as can be seen from the exception provided in relation to registered trade unions. Drastic consequences flow from proscription in that belonging to a proscribed organisation, soliciting financial or other support for it, knowingly making or receiving contributions to it or arranging or addressing certain meetings of it are all crimes carrying two years imprisonment. The mere displaying of support for a proscribed organisation by means of dress or any other item is an offence carrying six months imprisonment. In the absence of any requirements of natural justice and in the absence of the availability of judicial review this section has implications for the following civil and political rights: the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Covenant, the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 21, the right to freedom of association guaranteed by Article 22. Section 383This section permits a court to impose by way of fine the costs of bringing a charge, including the costs of police investigations, and the costs of the committal proceedings on a defendant who has been found not guilty in circumstances where the jury has given voluntary intoxication as the reason for the acquittal. Pending the assessment of the amount of the fine the court can order that the acquitted person be either imprisoned or admitted to bail. Bearing in mind the high incidence of alcohol related crime in the Northern Territory, the Government can understand the policy considerations underlying this provision. However the term 'fine' is recognised both nationally and internationally as a form of post-conviction punishment and the concept of an acquitted person being imposed or admitted to bail, in the absence of further charges outstanding against him, is alien to our legal heritage. This section in its present form has implications in relation to Article 10 of the Covenant which recognises that deprivation of liberty should arise only in respect of persons accused or convicted of criminal activity and Article 5 which preserves pre-existing fundamental human rights existing in Australia. The infliction of punishment after acquittal also has implications in relation to Article 15 of the Covenant which permits the imposition of a penalty only after a due finding of guilt of an offence. (Question No. 688) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) When is it expected: (a) tenders for a consultant to assist in the preliminary investigation and specification work on the proposed Australian Antarctic research vessel will close; (b) that the investigation work will be completed; (c) that the specifications will be completed; and (d) that work will begin on construction of the vessel. (2) Will work on the vessel be carried out (a) in Australia; (b) by an Australian company; (c) overseas; or (d) by an overseas company. (3) When is it expected that: (a) construction of the vessel will be completed; and (b) the vessel will begin operation. (4) Will one of the duties of the vessel be to supply Australian bases in the Antarctic; if not, what is being done to replace the current supply of vessels which are now expensive to charter and limited in their availability. (5) Is Australia's ability to support its bases in the Antarctic hampered by the lack of a suitable supply vessel. (6) Was Australia's participation in Sibex-1 cancelled because of the unavailability of a suitable vessel. (7) Is it the intention of the Government to make a genuine attempt to overcome the problem of supplying its Antarctic bases or is Australia's effort in this area to continue to recede. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a-d) and (2) (a-d) The Government is currently reviewing proposals for future Antarctic transport arrangements. Antarctic replacement shipping options will be reappraised in the 1984-85 Budget. No action on vessel acquisition will be taken until the proposals have been considered. (3) (a-b) The vessel currently used for marine science research, the Nella Dan, will be withdrawn in 1987-88. Ideally, replacement shipping would be ready to commence service by mid 1988. (4) The research vessel previously proposed as part of a system which included air transport of personnel and continued charter of cargo shipping was not intended to resupply stations. Future station resupply is most likely to be affected by ice-strengthened pure cargo ships which are readily available for long-term charter at reasonable rates. The option of air transport of personnel is still being evaluated. (5) The resupply of bases with cargo is adequate. There is, however, a shortage of passenger berths on the present vessels and decisions must be taken annually as to the numbers of each category of station personnel to be transported (for example rebuilding staff, scientists, station support staff). Because of the combination of resupply and marine science functions, marine research must be scheduled to accommodate station resupply. (6) Australia's participation in Sibex-1 was cancelled because resupply scheduling demands meant that sufficient sea time for marine science was not available. (7) The Government's stated policy in Antarctica is to upgrade existing transport facilities, and to provide financial support for new research projects . (Question No. 693) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Has the Department of Industry and Commerce finalised its restructuring; if not, when will this be done. (2) What part has the Minister for Industry and Commerce played in the restructuring or has this just happened by bureaucratic initiative. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. Most elements of the second division aspects of the proposal put to the Public Service Board have been agreed. The remaining elements are expected to be finalised by the end of April. The Board also has under consideration associated changes in the third and fourth division structures. (2) The second division proposals were discussed with, and endorsed by me before they were put to the Board for consideration. (Question No. 696) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) On what dates was the Bluff Hill Point lighthouse in Tasmania out of action . (2) What were the causes of the outages. (3) Would the period of outage have been reduced if the lightstation had been manned. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The new light at Bluff Hill Point commenced operation on 8 December 1982. It was reported to be operating irregularly on 24 December 1982 and the fault was finally rectified on 9 January 1983. This has been the only outage of this aid. (2) The fault was caused by false triggering of the daylight sensing switch. (3) It is not possible to draw a meaningful comparison as this light was planned, designed and installed to operate as an automatic light. All Commonwealth marine navigational aid lights installed over the past 40 years have been automatic unattended lights. (Question No. 698) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) What effect will the reported savings of $24m on the FA18 program as a result of redesigned electrical equipment racks for the strike fighter's radar have on the total project cost of Australia's order of these aircraft. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The reported savings of $US24m on the FA18 program relate to the United States Navy program and are based on 1117 radars. The redesigned radar rack is planned to be available for incorporation in 55 of our FA18s and on that basis we will save about $A1.3m at the current exchange rate. This saving will be accounted for in the next project cost update later this financial year. (Question No. 705) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Have any Australian Service personnel been seconded to other countries since 1960, where they would be in control of, or working with, nuclear weapons: if so, (a) how many personnel have been involved; (b) which countries were they assigned to; and (c) what periods of time were involved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Personnel records readily available to Army, Navy and Air Force do not indicate that any Australian Service person seconded to another country since 1960 has been placed in a position of controlling, or working with nuclear weapons. (Question No. 711) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Are there contingency plans to use Australian air bases to launch B52 bombers with nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if war occurs between the United States and the Soviet Union. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has no such plans. (Question No. 712) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Do President Reagan's stated plans to use nuclear waste for making nuclear weapons contravene the Australia-United States Bilateral Agreement. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The 1979 agreement between Australia and the United States concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy provides that Australian origin nuclear material shall be used for peaceful and non-explosive purposes only and that it shall remain subject to IAEA safeguards until it is no longer usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards. I am not aware of any reports of plans formulated by President Reagan or his Administration which would breach the United States' firm international legal undertaking to Australia in this regard. If the honourable senator could provide the source which prompted her question I will have it investigated. (Question No. 719) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) How far has the charting progressed relating to Australian coastal waters. (2) Is the charting being done entirely by the Navy. If not, what other organisations, companies or groups are involved. (3) Has any consideration been given to the involvement of private industry in this charting work. (4) Is the equipment being used in the charting the property of the armed forces or are some resources of private industry being utilised. (5) Have there been any purchases of equipment which have been specifically brought about due to this survey work, if the equipment being used is the property of the armed forces. (6) How many service personnel are involved in this duty and what ships and aircraft are being used. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Twenty per cent of Australia's continental shelf has been surveyed to standards which allow modern ships to navigate with complete safety. A further 16 per cent has been surveyed with some shortcomings which will require updating at a later date. The remaining 64 per cent is incompletely surveyed and charting for these areas is based on small scale reconnaissance surveys, early lead line surveys or no data at all. Some 620 charts are required to cover the Australian charting area fully. Of this number, 390 exist but 250 of these are still published in imperial units. Essentially then, about 480 charts have yet to be compiled from original data or converted to metric units. (2) Publication of the Australian chart series is the responsibility of the RAN Hydrographic Service. However, the data is also obtained from Federal and State mapping authorities, State and commercial marine and port authorities an private mariners and individuals with an interest in the sea. (3) Yes. However there are practical difficulties associated with the centralised computer data base. (4) Equipment used in the production of the charts is the property of the Commonwealth. (5) Yes. The types of equipment purchased are wide ranging and specialist to the task. (6) Currently about 100 officers and sailors are employed on hydrographic duties in HMAS Moresby and HMAS Flinders, other RAN ships and establishments and the Hydrographic Office. About 85 civilians are also employed in the Hydrographic Office on chart compilation production and distribution. One Bell 206-B helicopter is deployed on HMAS Moresby for survey support tasks. (Question No. 733) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 26 February 1984: (1) Has the fighting between East Timorese guerillas and Indonesian troops flared because of food shortages in East Timor. (2) Have Indonesian authorities continually denied both the presence and the prospect of such food shortages. (3) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a position to indicate the true position on food supplies in East Timor. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The Indonesian authorities are monitoring the food situation closely and have sent additional food stocks to a number of areas. Indonesian officials have indicated on a number of occasions that they are able to handle any shortages which may arise. (3) Our assessment, and that of a number of other observers in Jakarta, is that the food situation in the province is stable. However, localised shortages may arise from time to time due to the vagaries of weather and the problem of transporting food to isolated areas. (Question No. 746) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the difficulties being experienced by adult Aboriginal students in the Northern Territory who are receiving Aboriginal study grants and child allowances from the Commonwealth Department of Education, but are precluded from receiving the family income supplement even though their income is below the income limit set for this supplement. (2) Is this situation unfair on those students. (3) Will the Minister take action to ensure that adult Aboriginal students who receive less than the income limit for the family income supplement, and are therefore eligible for this supplement, receive the payable allowances. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3): The Commonwealth provides income support to eligible people through the social security program and through various other measures which include the Aboriginal study grants scheme. Where such people have children, they are entitled to an additional payment of up to $12 per week for each child, an amount equivalent to the maximum rate of assistance under the family income supplement scheme. The relevant legislation does not permit family income supplement to be paid for any child for whom the Commonwealth is already providing income support, thus avoiding situations of dual entitlement. There is no current intention to change this situation. (Question No. 750) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Could the low cost uranium producers in the Northern Territory threaten the economic viability of the Roxby Downs project. (2) Does the Minister for Resources and Energy consider that the Commonwealth Government decision to restrict Territory producers is intended in part to protect a less efficient operation at Roxby Downs. (3) How does this attitude accord with statements by the Prime Minister regarding the need for structural change to promote efficiency. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government believes that in the short to medium term the market for uranium is likely to remain depressed, and thus the two existing mines, plus the Olympic Dam project will be able to fill the space which is likely to be available in the world market for Australian uranium. The total value of mine production, the total employment generated, and the overall boost to the nation' s economic activity arising from the Olympic Dam project would be very much greater than these would be from any alternative mine producing a similar amount of uranium. (2) No. The reasons why the Olympic Dam project was granted approval were explained in (1). (3) See (1). (Question No. 757) Senator Hearn asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What is the total cost of social security information leaflets. (2) What is the cost in each category. (3) What is the cost of social security information shown on multicultural television. (4) What assessment of the effectiveness of these two methods of disseminating social security information has been done; if so, what community input went into the assessment and from which sectors. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The following table shows leaflets printed and being printed, at 3 April, during the financial year 1983-84: Title Quantity Amount (November 1983) $ Rates Card 64,800 1,150.00 Health Rates Card 57,700 1,366.00 Widows Pension Leaflet 391,500 10,290.00 Age Pension 631,450 26,493.00 Invalid Pension 385, 850 10,154.00 Sickness Benefit 385,350 10,049.42 Unemployment Benefit 879,350 23,042.00 Special Benefit 308,250 6,287.25 Supporting Parents Benefit 403,650 10,602.00 Handicapped Child's Allowance 265,750 4,331.62 Help for Families 409 ,250 10,918.00 Rates-Benefit 384,050 10,145.00 Rates-Pension 435,850 11,454.10 Mobility Allowance Leaflet 52,000 990.50 Help for Homeless People 29,200 1,025 .50 Review & Appeals Leaflet 211,500 4,298.40 UB Rights & Obligations 404,100 11,970.58 Social Security & You 50,000 7,915.92 (March 1984) Widows Pension 250,000 6,598.00 Age Pension 264,000 11,810.36 Invalid Pension 250,000 6,662.00 Sickness Benefit 250,000 6,598.00 Unemployment Benefit 261,000 7,030.50 Special Benefit 229,000 4,678.75 Supporting Parents Benefit 250,000 6, 598.00 Handicapped Child's Allowance 162,000 3,651.96 Help for Families 250, 000 6,598.00 Rates-Benefit 190,000 5,727.00 Rates-Pension 204,000 6,140.40 (May 1984) Widows Pension 443,300 11,642.00 Age Pension 690,800 27,557.50 Invalid Pension 448,650 11,935.00 Sickness Benefit 438,350 11,512.00 Unemployment Benefit 818 ,600 21,456.00 Special Benefit 335,250 6,737.25 Supporting Parents Benefit 437 ,200 11,486.00 Handicapped Child's Allowance 226,750 3,770.50 Help for Families 433,750 11,382.00 Rates-Benefit 393,750 10,425.00 Rates-Pension 393,750 10,425 .00 Spouse Career's Leaflet 171,750 5,250.00 Pocket Rates Card 64,400 1,371.00 Total amount $379,525.51 In addition, the general leaflet 'Social Security and You' is to be produced in 27 ethnic languages. Some languages are being typeset and others are at the translation stage. (3) This financial year the Department has spent $4,912 on production costs for material being shown on Channel 0/28. This was the final payment in a $36,078 project for which some $31,166 was paid out towards the end of the previous financial year. This project involves the showing of two Social Security announcements in 15 languages. One announcement deals with Social Security pensions and benefits in general and the other with assistance for disabled people. The Department does not pay for air-time which is provided free-of- charge by Channel 0/28. (4) The Department is currently undertaking a migrant information needs survey in the area covered by the Social Security regional office at Marrickville. This survey is aimed, in part, at assessing the effectiveness of a range of information dissemination systems. Three groups are being covered by the survey- ethnic clients in the region; community agencies servicing the region and, ethnic media. Clients are being interviewed by departmental staff who are either bi- or multi-lingual. Some 38 community agencies and a dozen ethnic media organisations are being surveyed. (Question No. 769) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: What information is available in addition to that provided in reply to a question without notice in the House of Representatives on 1 March 1984, about the Melbourne-Adelaide railway line, specifically: (a) proposals for upgrading or standardising the existing broad gauge line between Tailem Bend and Adelaide; (b) whether the Tailem Bend to Adelaide railway is to be converted to a three rail operation or is to be replaced by a new standard gauge line; (c) the costs of the options in (b); (d) the proposed commencement date if any for operation of standard gauge trains between Adelaide and Tailem Bend and Adelaide and Melbourne; and (e) any proposals for a completely new railway route around the Adelaide Hills to the border of South Australia and Victoria. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) and (b) An evaluation of standardising the Melbourne-Adelaide railway line is still being conducted by officers of the Victorian State Transport Authority and Australian National Railways Commission (AN). The present proposal is for a three rail operation between Tailem Bend and the Adelaide metropolitan area. Construction of a new standard gauge line parallel to the existing line or major upgrading or realignment have not been considered. (c) An indicative cost of a third rail option between Adelaide and Tailem Bend is $17m. (d) At this stage no firm commitment has been entered into to provide a standard gauge link between Melbourne and Adelaide. This will depend on the outcome of the study being currently undertaken and other budgetary considerations. If the project were to proceed standard gauge trains could be operational within 3 years of commencement of construction. (e) Initial consideration was given to a number of alternative routes but the proposal for three rail operation between Adelaide and Tailem Bend and direct conversion from Tailem Bend to the Victorian border was considered the most cost effective option. (Question No. 785) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: How many women hold senior positions in the Department of Defence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The term 'senior positions' has been taken to mean those of Class 10 and above in the clerical/administrative field and their professional equivalents. There are eleven women in the Department of Defence holding such positions. (Question No. 807) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) What steps are being taken by the Government to review subsidies for charities like Meals on Wheels, which provide valuable support to the sick and elderly, thus saving millions of dollars in government support for hospitals and nursing homes. (2) Can the Government, in view of increasing petrol costs, investigate the feasibility of providing petrol vouchers to further assist these important charities, which are often dependent on pensioner volunteers. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am well aware of the problems which some delivered meals services are encountering in providing adequate services to aged or disabled people who require them. The Government has clearly stated its commitment to the further development of home care as an alternative to institutional care. We believe it is important to give priority to community care programs for the aged and disabled which assist people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. The Treasurer, in his speech announcing the last Budget, referred to 'the development during 1983/84 of detailed proposals on community care'. My Department is currently reviewing its policy and funding arrangements for all domiciliary and support services including delivered meals services. I wrote to all State Ministers last year seeking their views on ways to improve community care programs generally. Many delivered meals organisations have written to the Department outlining their difficulties. It should be noted that in the past government subsidy has been provided as a contribution to service costs rather than to cover total costs. Some organisations cope extremely well with the subsidy provided while others suffer financial difficulties. The points made by organisations, such as the consideration of a petrol voucher system, are being taken into account in the present review. Senator Walsh —On 21 September 1983 (Hansard, page 855) Senator Reynolds asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the expense of caption television decoding equipment is out of the economic reach of many deaf people? At present the commercial television networks are supporting the captioning venture but, if the deaf and hard of hearing are prevented from having access to this service for economic reasons, television stations could be in a position to use poor decoder sales as an excuse to withdraw from sponsorship of the sub- titling service. Therefore, can the Minister have investigated sales tax exemption on decoding equipment, which would help to alleviate the present situation? Furthermore, can the Minister undertake to investigate a complete review of sales tax on all technical aids used by handicapped persons in their homes? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In the deliberations preceding the 1983 Budget the Government saw the obvious benefits to the deaf of videotex equipment which enables speech and information to be reproduced in visual form on screens of television receivers or monitors designed for use with such equipment. For this reason a new exemption item (123A) was inserted into the First Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act for such equipment where it is for use and not for sale by a person certified by the Director-General of Health to be profoundly deaf or to be taken to be profoundly deaf. Caption television decoding equipment is therefore currently exempt from sales tax where it is purchased for use by a person who has been certified by the Director-General of Health to have an appropriate hearing disability. Broadly, the exemption will embrace persons whose hearing is impaired to such an extent that they have a genuine difficulty in understanding television sound at volumes tolerable to people whose hearing is not impaired. In addition to item 123A there are several items in the First Schedule to the abovementioned Act which provide exemption for a wide range of goods used by disabled persons. These exemption items include- (i) item 42 which exempts surgical appliances such as artificial limbs, crutches, bath seats of a kind used by invalids, surgical boots, braces and irons and invalid wheel chairs including motorised invalid wheel chairs, invalid tricycles and spinal carriages; (ii) item 42A which exempts battery-charges for use exclusively or principally in recharging batteries used in invalid wheel chairs; (iii) item 42B which exempts medical or surgical appliances of a kind used exclusively or principally by persons suffering from sickness, disease or physical impairment for the purpose of alleviating or treating that sickness, disease or physical impairment or their effects, for example, artificial ears, hearing aids. et cetera; (iv) item 42C which exempts goods to be used in the modification of a motor vehicle solely for the purpose of adapting it for driving by a person who is suffering from a physical impairment; and (v) item 123 which exempts goods designed and manufactured expressly for use by persons suffering from sickness, disease or disablement being goods of a kind not ordinarily used by persons who are not suffering from sickness, disease or disablement, for example, braille machines, optacons, wheelchair transporters for carrying disabled persons up and down stairs, et cetera. Item 123 is, in effect, a catch-all provision which provides exemption for all technical aids used by handicapped persons that the aids are designed and manufactured expressly for use by handicapped persons. Item 123, however, does not exempt general purpose goods such as typewriters, computers, sound recorders and dictation machines. Where such goods are purchased for use by handicapped persons they are taxable. Senator Walsh —On 21 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1945) Senator Watson asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is he aware that required art materials for tertiary fine arts students can cost between $1,500 and $2,000 per year and that this expense causes great hardship for students on tertiary education assistance scheme allowances? Can consideration be given to exempting art supplies required by full time arts students from sales tax as occurs for essential equipment needed in other tertiary courses? The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that most art supplies are subject to sales tax at the rate of 20 per cent as are the majority of materials purchased by tertiary and other students for use in their studies. Equipment for use in tertiary courses other than fine arts is not specifically exempted from sales tax. Goods for use and not for sale by non-profit schools and universities are conditionally exempt as are scientific instruments and scientific apparatus for use in universities and schools. Text books are exempt from sales tax. An exemption for art supplies required by full time fine art students would entail significant administrative difficulties and the request for such an exemption is one that is appropriately considered in a Budget context. I have arranged that it be noted for such consideration. Senator Grimes —On 6 March 1984 (Hansard, page 447) Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the issue of receipts to patients who are claiming reimbursement from Medicare. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The reasons for the decision not to return account documents have been outlined in answers to previous questions on this matter. Although the Health Insurance Commission had introduced a number of measures to compensate claimants for the surrender of their account documents, there was still some concern about the procedures where the patient was making a claim for cash benefits. It is not correct that the matter was reviewed as a result of complaints from Medicare staff. The details of the procedures for cash claims were announced in the House of Representatives on 7 March and appeared in most major newspapers throughout the country. The procedure is that an assessment advice will be issued on request to patients seeking cash reimbursement. The procedure was implemented in all Medicare offices by the middle of March. It is believed that these arrangements will remove any further difficulty that people may have in surrendering their account documents to Medicare. There may be some people in the community for whom these arrangements may still be unsatisfactory and in these circumstances provision has been made for the accounts to be returned. Senator Grimes —On 28 March 1984 (Hansard, page 789) Senator Teague asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice relating to the retention of account documents by Medicare. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Regulations under Section 19 of the Health Insurance Act detail the information that must be shown on accounts to determine whether Medicare benefit is payable. The account documents play a formal part in the establishment of whether benefit is payable and few would dispute the necessity for their being surrendered to Medicare staff so that benefit can be assessed. The signed Medicare claim form quite clearly is not sufficient for administrative and audit purposes. Medicare seeks to retain account documents in order to avoid the opportunities for account manipulation and fraud that have existed in the health insurance industry. Cases of fraudulent practices cannot be pursued without the documents that support the claim. In addition, the auditability of reimbursement to health funds where account documents have been returned was questioned by the Auditor-General in his report to Parliament in May 1983. The Health Insurance Commission has taken a number of steps to provide claimants with information on benefits paid for tax purposes and this has now been extended by providing an assessment advice for cash payments where requested by the claimant. This form of advice was announced to Parliament on 7 March and the assessment advice forms became available, on request, in Medicare offices from about mid-March. The Commission recognises that there may be persons in the community for whom these arrangements are unsatisfactory, and in these circumstances provision has been made for the accounts to be returned. Where this is done the benefit must be paid by cheque rather than cash so that the Commission can secure a record of claim documents before their return. Advice available to the Commission indicates that there is no legal impediment to the Commission retaining account documents.