Wednesday, 2 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and senators of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, undersigned, shows that we strongly oppose the amending of Customs Regulations to allow the importation of video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from a visual image which can be produced, which portrays scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality, or the use and effect of illicit drug taking, and our opposition is emphatically given because such material: Will be viewed by 20 per cent of all Australian children during their parents' absence, or at other homes. Will introduce children during their formative years to sexuality in the context of violence and deviance. Will become a powerful teaching medium which will establish violence as a behavioural norm for coming generations. Will degrade women to an exploitable sexual commodity. Will change the attitudes of men to their partners and all women. Will give rise to a substantial increase in serious crime, crimes against the person, sexual offences, rape and incest. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. The Hawke Labor 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 Collard (from 110 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes 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 hard core pornography based on the physical and sexual exploitation and degradation of women; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 18 citizens), Harradine (from 573 citizens), Reid (from 59 citizens) and Walters (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore recent moves by the Government to grant equal travelling allowances to the de facto partners of Parliamentarians as are currently enjoyed by spouses. 2. We further believe that such action belittles the institution of marriage and harms the status of the family unit in Australia. 3. We believe Parliamentarians should offer leadership in moral as well as political affairs, and that the above recent action of the Government has contributed to the undermining of this principle. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 162 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. Certain sexual crimes including rape and murder have been linked by the courts to the viewing of 'pornographic' Printed Material, Films and Video Tapes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that these types of material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the 'X' Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to 'R' rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 101 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 83 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that- (a) the important work required to develop and implement multicultural policies requires a national organisation of ethnic communities councils; (b) the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia provides such a national organisation and has to date achieved remarkable results with meagre resources; (c) the administrative funding should be supplied by the Federal Government to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia; (d) the Hawke Government has maintained the Fraser Government's level of administrative funding, being $50,000; and (e) the Government should provide at least $90,000 to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia in the 1984-85 Budget. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that- (a) in the vital movement towards a truly multicultural Australia, cultural identity depends on language retention; (b) while it is essential that migrants and their descendants acquire the best possible proficiency in written and spoken English, multilingualism must be encouraged; and (c) towards this end it is imperative for the Federal Government to initiate and establish a national language policy. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —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 Australian Democrats moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the President. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses awareness and condemnation of the atrocities committed on the Filipino people by the Filipino military and the Marcos Government's poor human rights record; (b) notes the contribution made by the United States and Australian Governments in military aid to the Philippines and the contribution this money makes to the regime's militarisation program and the further deterioration of human rights; (c) requests the Government immediately ceases all military aid to the Philippines and makes representations to the United States Government to do the same. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea with particular regard to: (1) Australia's contribution to the economic development of Papua New Guinea; and (2) the significance of Papua New Guinea within Australia's regional defence responsibilities. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses concern and regret at the threatened introduction by the Queensland Government of industrial relations legislation specifically designed to create divisions in the Queensland community by deliberately attempting to provoke and intimidate the trade union movement during a period of exceptional industrial peace; and (b) urge, the Queensland Government to consider the damage such legislation will inflict on that State's already ailing economy and the needless confrontation it will generate in the community and abandon it forthwith. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.07) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-Annual Report 1982-83. 2. Central Land Council-Annual Report 1982-83. 3. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to Section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964-together with text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 4. Budget Reform-A paper on reforming Australian Government financial administration. 5. Institute of Family Studies-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 5 (2) of the Family Law Institute of Family Studies Regulations. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Walsh) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to income tax. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.09) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is designed to include in assessable income, the value of certain benefits received from or in connection with, certain 23F superannuation funds. It will insert a new section 26A which will operate where benefits were received or obtained in circumstances where the taxpayer had no right under the fund rules to receive the benefits, or where the benefits paid were excessive for the purpose of paragraph 23F (2) (h). This Bill will prevent further abuses of the kind outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his second reading speech when introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Section 23F funds have been used by some for the purposes of tax avoidance. I deplore the fact that in its extreme form, this has been done at the expense of employees who are essentially deceived by their employers, who have only their own selfish interests at heart. This Bill is, therefore, substantially the same as the Treasurer's Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2). It differs, however, in one important respect . The Government has backdated its legislation to 1 July, 1977. My Bill will start operating from 7 December, 1983, the day the Treasurer first introduced this legislation into the Parliament. Despite this neglect by former governments, the Fraser Government was supported by Australian Democrat Senators Mason and Siddons to retrieve some of the taxes which had been evaded. Subsequently I joined with my fellow Australian Democrat Senator Colin Mason to support further legislation to retrieve further revenue from the tax evaders of the past. We then supported the Government to retrieve taxes lost through the distortion of the section 23F tax provisions for superannuation benefits, known as cherry- picking. We have been consistent in our fight against tax evaders and in our support for legislation against tax evaders. My fellow Democrats, Senators Chipp, Haines and Macklin, have been equally consistent in their stand on principle against any form of retrospective tax legislation. I can understand that point of view and it is to accommodate that principle that I have introduced this Bill to ensure that the 23F loophole for tax evaders is closed immediately. I ask all senators, now, to vote in a demonstration of genuine concern over tax avoidance. This Bill will give Parliament the opportunity to close off some avenues of future tax avoidance without being impeded by concern over retrospectivity. The choice for Government members is clear. Will they continue to play politics in order to arouse public anger at what Governments have allowed tax avoiders to do in the past, or will they support this Bill which will prevent further abuses of this type in the future? Are they serious about tax avoidance or are they using tax avoidance to play politics? Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill-unlike many Bills to amend the income tax law-covers but one subject. Its need arises because of the decision taken by the Opposition parties in this place and some other senators to reject outright measures contained in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. The measures would counter some tax avoidance practices associated with employee superannuation funds which are, by any test, blatant and contrived. As explained in the second reading speech on the introduction of the earlier Bill, some proprietors of businesses, after establishing superannuation funds purportedly to provide superannuation benefits for their employees, wind-up the funds in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors themselves. This happens after advantage has been taken of the considerable tax concessions provided for superannuation contributions and the income of the funds. One technique adopted is to terminate the employees' employment under some pretence shortly before they would otherwise become entitled to substantial superannuation benefits from the funds. Another is to make tax deductible contributions for workers who, in the ordinary course of events, do not stay long with their employer. The benefits that are 'forfeited' are then allocated to the proprietors who, technically as the sole remaining employees, take the whole of the accumulated assets. The funds, having been wound-up in this way, are not then able to meet any tax liability which, under the existing law, may fall to be met by them. Not only does the revenue, and therefore the Australian taxpayer, suffer by these particularly distasteful practices, but the unsuspecting ordinary employees of companies are deprived of superannuation benefits accumulated in their name and ostensibly for their benefit. It is difficult to imagine a more brazen abuse of the taxation law. Ingeniously planned to give the appearance of bona fide superannuation arrangements, these practices involve clear raids against the revenue and the unsuspecting employees, who are used as mere pawns in this particular unsavoury practice. It is one where the losers are the taxpayers of Australia and the winners are those who seek to enjoy the benefits and privileges of living in this country without meeting their rightful share of the tax burden. A policy of retrospective application of anti-avoidance legislation was one which we put before the people of Australia on 5 March last year and on which we were elected to government. That policy was confirmed by my colleague, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), in a statement he made shortly after we came to office. In the Government's view these tax avoidance practices are clearly in that category of schemes which we intended would be covered by our retrospectivity policy. Not only are they of a most blatant kind, but they contain elements of fraud against employees, many of whom stood to benefit from many years' membership of a superannuation scheme which has been afforded substantial taxation benefits. A technical explanation of the proposed section 26AFA is contained in the memorandum that was circulated to honourable senators at the time of introduction of the Bill containing the original measure. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate asking that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and nominating Senator Townley to be a member of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and that Senator Townley, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.13) —I move: (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. I gave notice of this motion last night. Senator Missen —Not to the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —Nobody gave me any notice of the fact that these matters were to be adjourned today, and it was in response to the whispers around Parliament House that they were to be adjourned that last night I hurriedly prepared this motion and put it into the Clerk. I then sent a copy to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and to the mover of the motion, Senator Mason, who did not have the courtesy to advise me and who has other motions afoot, that he was going to move for their adjournment today. I am doing this in response to that action. I apologise if the Committee has its nose in a knot about this matter, but if one looks at the motion one can see that the Committee could say yes in five minutes. Senator Jack Evans —As long as the Committee agrees with you. Senator HARRADINE —Not as long as it agrees with me, because people do not realise what these amendments contain. Senator Mason certainly does not realise what they mean, judging from what he said in this chamber on 5 April, the last sitting day on which we discussed this matter. This is a very serious matter and it is important that everybody knows what they are doing if we do not disallow these regulations. I assert that if we do not disallow these regulations we will be removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of hard core pornography. They are not my words. They are the words of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). If one looks at the new Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publications, issued by the authority of the Attorney-General, one sees that the words in the second paragraph say: Officers of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department will be employed to classify publications under the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983. These classifications will apply in the ACT and some States. Here is the nub of it: Barriers to the importation of hard core pornography, other than child pornography, publications which incite terrorism and publications containing violence and/or sexual violence, have been lifted. 'Barriers to the importation of hard core pornography . . . have been lifted'- those are the words of the Attorney-General. It is a half minute job for the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Furthermore, if we do not disallow these regulations we will be removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. Nobody has ever raised that previously. But that is what the Attorney-General has deliberately done in these regulations, with or without consultation with the appropriate Minister, which is the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button. I will come to that in a minute. Let me make the suggestion to the Committee that its members cast their eyes on some of the available material. I ask honourable senators to turn to item 18A of the Second Schedule of the original Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Under item 18A these goods can be prohibited from importation: Goods that are of their own nature or having regard to any advertising or other matter with which the goods are packaged encourage or tend to encourage the taking of a drug being a drug specified in the Fourth Schedule. I invite the Committee to look at the definition of 'goods' under the Customs Act. It will come to the conclusion that 'goods' can be interpreted to include publications. What are we asked to do in these new regulations? Again I invite honourable senators to turn to the new regulations. The new regulations state under the Second Schedule, item 4: The Second Schedule to the Principal Regulations is amended by omitting items 18A, 20 and 21. Items 20 and 21 deal with terrorism, which is deliberately reinserted in new regulation 4A. But the item dealing with drugs is not. For the first time the Attorney-General is deliberately removing the power under Commonwealth law to prevent the importation of publications encouraging hard drugs. He has done that quite deliberately. Senator Elstob —That is not right. Senator HARRADINE —If it is not right, let me quote what he has said. Does the honourable senator mean to say that it should not have been done? Senator Gareth Evans —Where is the regulation that does that? Senator HARRADINE —He does not know. Good grief! Senator Gareth Evans —Where is the reference to drugs in the existing 4A (1)? Senator HARRADINE —Minister, please look at the Second Schedule, 18A, of the original Regulations. Look at the Schedule you are removing. That Schedule enables not the Attorney but the Minister for Industry and Commerce to prevent the importation of publications which incite the use of hard drugs. You have done it deliberately, or somebody in your Department has done it deliberately, even though you may not know. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks through the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —Through you, Mr President, I again ask honourable senators to turn to the document issued under the authority of the Attorney-General's Department entitled 'Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983-Standards for Classification of Printed Materials'. Those printed materials can now be sold in the Australian Capital Territory and can therefore be imported under category 2, which states inter alia: Publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. We have a very interesting situation indeed in this country. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking down those people who are importing hard drugs into this country. Police and Customs officers wage unremitting war with public support against the importation of drugs. I bet the public does not realise that the Federal Government has removed from Customs regulations the power to prevent the importation of publications which encourage the use of hard drugs. It is something that one would not read about, but it is true. As I have stated, the Attorney-General's classification standards issued in February, from which I quoted, specifically enable-and I quote again-'publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs to be sold in category 2'. That is nothing short of a scandal, and we were about to allow it to go through and not disallow it. Senator Mason —It has been adjourned, Senator. Do you know that? Senator HARRADINE —Did the honourable senator intend to agree to that? Of course he did. Senator Mason —I am saying that we adjourn it for nine days. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, it would be adjourned for nine days in order to do another back door deal. That is another reason, while I think of it, why it is important to have the matter dealt with by a committee. I can prove logically, backed up by documentation, the facts that I am asserting. I do not ask honourable senators to agree with what I am saying, but I do ask that a group of us have a look at the matter to see whether the assertions, which are quite devastating, are true. The other problem that we have in considering these matters is that they are not like legislation. The Minister has not explained in detail the measures and provisions in the regulations. There is an explanatory note in the regulations, but that is all, and then it is open for us to disallow or otherwise. That is another reason why they ought to be further considered. I will come back to that point in a moment. So the first reference in (2) (a) of my motion reads: . . . whether the aforementioned regulations remove from existing Commonwealth law-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; I ask the Committee not to be too pedantic about the wording of my reference because it was done rather hurriedly last night. I mentioned X-rated videos. The Committee could say no to that point, because obviously they are not X-rated until a classification has been applied. But I ask the Committee to bear in mind that that point refers to videos which are likely, having regard to the film censorship classification track record, to be classified as X-rated. The second thing that I would like the Committee to look at is whether the aforementioned regulations remove from existing Commonwealth law: (b) the power to prevent the importation of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy. It has been put to me very seriously by a number of people, including a letter that I received only today-the Chairman of the Committee may be interested in this-from a person in Huonville, that films have been made which are highly ' blasphemous' in the technical sense of that word, and I have read the legal history of that particular word. They relate to such topics as the sex life of Jesus and Mary Magdalen. These are awaiting importation into this country. If we do not disallow this regulation, we shall have removed the power to prevent the importation of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy. I am also asking the Committee to look at the question whether or not the regulations remove from existing Commonwealth law the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release to Customs. That is a very important point. Quite obviously, the answer is yes. One has only to go to the explanatory memorandum to the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment) and one will see it there. I suggest that the Committee look at the letter which the Chief Censor, Mrs Janet Strickland, sent to the Mahoney inquiry and see what she had to say about what had been going on in the Customs Service. Her concern is expressed there. As I indicated initially, I raised these points at the last minute last night because I had considered that we were going to debate the issue to its extent today, but I heard on the grapevine that Senator Mason would be adjourning it yet again. Why will he be adjourning it again? Senator Mason —So that we can negotiate. Senator Gareth Evans —Because we are still drafting the regulation. Senator HARRADINE —So that the honourable senators can negotiate? They did not know what it was about. This is one of the very reasons-- Senator Gareth Evans —So that you could have new draft regulations before the debate recommences. So that you are not just blustering on in the abstract. Senator HARRADINE —No, the Attorney-General is going to do another back-door deal with the Australian Democrats. Senator Giles is laughing. Senator Gareth Evans —Stop trailing your obsessions through this Parliament. Senator Peter Baume —Did not the Attorney-General say 'buying their lousy votes' ? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Harradine has the floor, and I ask him not to respond to the interjections but to get on with his address. Senator HARRADINE —I think that the words used by Senator Gareth Evans on the last occasion were to the effect: 'If taking out the word ''extreme'' can buy your lousy vote, we will chop it out'. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not correct. Senator HARRADINE —The Attorney-General should look at the words. This is one of the problems that we have in regard to this type of measure coming before us in the shape of regulations and ordinances. I thought seriously of having it referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. I am sorry that I did not consult Senator Missen last night. Senator Missen —I am not the person to be consulted; it is the Chairman of that Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I did not have time. I had the period between 10.10 p.m. and 10.29 p.m. to get it in. Senator Missen —That is your problem. Senator HARRADINE —It is not my problem, because I did not know that the issue was going to be adjourned. I have some rights in regard to that. Honourable senators should bear in mind that initially I was going to move for the disallowance of the regulations, and Senator Mason said that he would do so. I said: 'In those circumstances, go ahead', but now he is prepared to pull them out. Senator Durack —He has sold out. Senator HARRADINE —Of course he has. I come to the point that it is necessary for these matters to be very clearly before the Senate so that every honourable senator, in his or her own conscience, knows precisely what is involved. The Attorney-General has stated categorically in response to an interjection that he would not allow a conscience or free vote by any Australian Labor Party senator on this issue. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not a matter of me; it is my Party. You know the way this place works. Senator HARRADINE —So the Labor Party does not allow a conscience vote on this issue. Senator Gareth Evans —On your obsessions, no. Senator HARRADINE —My obsessions? What the Attorney-General is doing is removing from Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of hard core pornography and removing from Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of publications which incite hard drugs. Is that what the Attorney- General is on about? He wants to remove from Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of grossly obscene material including that associated with blasphemy. If that is what the Attorney-General is on about and if those are the issues on which he and his Party will not allow a conscience vote for any individual ALP senator it is about time that those senators stood up and were counted. It is the same sort of tack that Party President Wran in New South Wales has threatened. He said that he would go to the State conference and remove the conscience vote on homosexuality. If that is the way the Party is proceeding then that is almost more devastating than the matters we are discussing at this point of time. What an irony to impose that sort of censorship. How is that for censorship when we are dealing with such questions as we are today. I invite the Senate either to accept the assertions that I am making, backed up as they are by factual reference, or, if it has any doubts, to send the matter to a committee, either the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs or some other committee, in order to ascertain from such committee the aspects that I have raised and request it to report as soon as possible. I have put down 29 May. I do not know whether that coincides with the date Senator Mason has for the seven sitting days hence but no doubt the committee will want to bring a brief report in to the Senate on whether or not these issues are as stated. I hope it would do that. There are a number of other matters that I would like to have included in the reference but because I did it in a hurry last night I was not able to give it the thought that has been suggested was required. For example, I would have liked to include the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance for reference to the committee to confirm that it removed certain powers. I would also have liked to include in the reference relating to the Customs regulations a question of whether they removed the ultimate powers that the courts now have at a particular stage. However, I did not have time between 10.10 p.m. and 10.29 p.m. to do that. Senator Lewis —Did you explain why this did not go to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee? Senator HARRADINE —I did question that matter. One of the problems there, as I understand it, is that if I were to refer the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I would not, under Standing Orders, have the priority that I have today in referring it to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee. Senator Durack —It may not come within the charter of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Senator HARRADINE —There is the other aspect of the charter of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee as well, but I am not competent to comment on that. Perhaps Senator Missen or some other-- Senator Missen —The Senate can send what it likes to that Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I am easy as to what committee it goes to. One thing is certain: What we do want to have are the facts before we make a judgment in conscience on these matters which are of very grave concern to the people of Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.41) —Were it appropriate now to debate the substance of Senator Harradine's motion, it would be possible, I assure the Senate, to give very short answers to the contentions which have been advanced here today. The essence of such answers would be that the provisions in the existing Customs regulations, including even the item 18A to which he refers relating to hard drugs, are not precise and explicit prohibitions; they are notoriously vague to the point of being unenforceable. For example, the 18A provision about hard drugs does not talk about inciting the taking of hard drugs ; it talks rather about encouraging, or tending to encourage the taking of hard drugs. That immediately raises all the familiar and traditional questions about literature such as Swinburne, Aldous Huxley and William Burrourghs and all the rest of that familiar body of literature that bears on this particular question. The point that has been adopted in all of this is that, similarly with the other provisions in 4A about undue emphasis on matters of sex-reference is there to the prohibition of goods which are blasphemous without any further description-the reality of the matter has been that these provisions have been notoriously unenforceable and have been the subject of executive directions for the last 10 years requiring Customs officers not in fact to apply them. The whole exercise that we are embarked upon at the moment is simply to recognise that situation and to bring the law into line with what is the practical reality in order to avoid the continuing hypocrisy of laws being on the books which are unenforced because they are unenforceable. The objective in the drafting of the cinematographic regulations and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations re- draft has been simply to reflect that reality and to proscribe only a very narrow core of material which is readily identifiable and easily acknowledgeable as entirely beyond the pale; that is, child pornography-- Senator Harradine —You can do that by ministerial direction now. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I did so I would be entirely in breach of the recommendations of the report of the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures in New South Wales which have made it perfectly clear that it is long overdue that the law be brought into practice. The difficulty with conducting a debate with Senator Harradine on these matters on which he feels deep emotion is notorious, but let the record at least disclose without my going into further detail about it that there are easily giveable answers to these particular questions. The reason why it was proposed that the debate on the regulations themselves be further postponed was to enable the process which was set in train a few weeks ago of re-examining these regulations to introduce a system of compulsory classification of videos rather than the voluntary ones and to re- examine the provisions of the Customs regulations. That process has not yet been completed. It will be complete in a few days time and I will be circulating copies of the redrafted regulations, taking into account some of the points that have been made by Senator Harradine today, of which I was well aware before he got to his feet, so that when we do resume this debate before the time for the disallowance of these regulations expires it will be possible for all senators to be informed about what precisely the Government's intentions are and to have before honourable senators the actual text of the proposed further amendments to the regulations. So rather than having an emotional rhetorical diatribe of the kind to which Senator Harradine for understandable reasons has once again treated us today we can have a more sensible debate at an occasion when the material will be before honourable senators. Against that background-I realise that I have trespassed just a little perhaps on the tolerance of Standing Orders-and by agreement with the Opposition which, I understand, wants some further time, which it has not had given the lateness of the hour of Senator Harradine's notice of motion, I move: That this debate be now adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think the Attorney-General has done more than trespass on Standing Orders. He will have to seek leave to continue his remarks later. That is the only way in which he can adjourn the debate at this point. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.46) —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. In so moving, I am conscious of the fact that I have the date of 29 May in the reference. I think it would be safer to have the resumption of the debate on the next day of sitting which would enable the debate to be brought on at a particular stage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator cannot speak to the motion. Does he want to speak to the reasons for that date? Senator HARRADINE —I wish to speak to that. I am concerned about the fact that the regulations, which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) agrees are inadequate, are in force in the Australian Capital Territory and have been since 1 February. I think it would be most appropriate for the Attorney-General to warn the public that the regulations currently in force are under challenge. I reiterate: All the Attorney-General needed to do, despite his emotional rhetoric -- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, you are ranging very wide in debating the motion for resumption of the debate. Senator HARRADINE —It is relevant to the question as to when this ought to apply . The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Your motion is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I ask you to confine your remarks to that point. Senator HARRADINE —I am proposing that by reason of the fact that the sooner these regulations are disallowed and the old regulations are revived the Attorney-General can do what he seeks to do as a minimum by issuing the appropriate directions to the Bureau of Customs. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that. What I have said is quite factual. In doing what he has done he has removed the safeguards which were in the old regulations. I want to see occur as soon as possible-that is why I want the resumption of the debate to take place on the next day of sitting-a situation where these regulations are disallowed, where we have the information, where we can then apply our minds to it in a full and open debate without deals behind doors. I also want an undertaking from the Attorney-General that, if discussions are taking place with one honourable senator-- Senator Childs —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Harradine is canvassing your ruling. He is going on to debate further the issues themselves. He is not confining himself to the simple question of the resumption motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The point of order is sustained. Senator Harradine must confine himself to the remarks to the reasons for the date of the resumption of the debate. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you. If, within the next period the Attorney-General is discussing matters with an honourable senator, such as Senator Mason, he should have the courtesy of discussing matters with other honourable senators who have expressed interest and who represent people who have expressed grave concern about the actions of the Attorney-General. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MASON —In the debate which has just passed Senator Harradine made a number of wild assertions about my part in this whole question of whether we disallow these regulations. I feel it is necessary for me to reply to a number of those points. Firstly, I think it should be clearly stated that all that has happened is that we have merely adjourned this debate on disallowance or otherwise of the regulations. There has been no question of any deals being done . The question of whether the regulations will be disallowed is not a factor to be taken into account. All we have done is adjourn this matter in order to get some sensible and coherent input into the situation instead of the disorganised chattering that is coming from honourable senators on my right at the moment. I suggest to Opposition senators that this is the time to do it. They have nine sitting days within which to make some sensible, carefully thought out input into this situation. Of course they have exactly the same right to do that as I have. The first point I make is that the debate has been merely adjourned. I think Senator Harradine's impressions have to be corrected there. Secondly, it has been adjourned for a good reason. Already a great deal of progress has been made on this matter. We adjourned it previously and allowed time for a renewed meeting of State and Federal Attorneys-General; an event of some consequence, I might say, in this matter. Senior officers of all governments in Australia have met and have come to certain conclusions about how this could be straightened out. In view of the comments made by Senator Durack when we last debated this matter that State Attorneys-General should have that material available to them, I gather material was made available to them. They are aware of the thinking of the Senate, and that is a right and proper situation. The rabble on my right who sought to pre-empt and to muzzle that sort of discussion and prevent State Attorneys-General from making an input, as they have done, is to be utterly regretted. That meeting was held. What did it achieve? During brief moments of lucidity by the rabble on my right let me inform the Senate that the meeting decided that there should be compulsory classification, that is, censorship of X-rated material. That, in effect, has been achieved. The Australian Democrats played a principal part in achieving that because we attempted to negotiate it rationally . I suggest to other honourable senators that they do the same thing. That question of compulsory classification I think will probably come good. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is making a personal explanation. He should confine himself to that and not debate the issue otherwise he will provoke further personal explanations. Senator MASON —If I could go back over my line of argument, which was that Senator Harradine had objected to the adjournment- Senator Durack —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. A personal explanation does not permit, I do not think, a line of argument which Senator Mason now wants to embark upon. I really think his speech should be brought to an end. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have already warned Senator Mason that he must confine himself to a personal explanation and not debate an issue. Nevertheless, he has been given leave to make a personal explanation and, within reason, he can make it in the form he chooses. I ask him not to provoke a debate. Senator MASON —Basically, Senator Harradine made the point that there was something wrong with the fact that we wanted to adjourn this matter for a further nine days. I wish to reply to that point because I think it is important that the impression he is under should be adjusted. One of the achievements was a total ban on the import of cruel and violent material. That is what the standing regulation does. If that is not an achievement I would like to know what Senator Harradine thinks is. It is certainly far more than he has ever achieved in this regard. Thirdly, Senator Harradine mentioned this question of the Government buying our vote. He said that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had made some reference to having bought our lousy vote. Those were the words of the Attorney- General. I suppose that he is entitled to refer to the Democrats in terms which he thinks are desirable. We merely regarded it as our vote. On that occasion I felt that Senator Harradine tended to indicate that our vote against the disallowance of these regulations had been bought. Again, on that occasion, we voted merely to adjourn the issue so that these other constructive and useful matters which I described earlier could be dealt with. I think Senator Harradine has deliberately sought to misinform the Senate and, through this place on a broadcast day, the broadcast audience. That is utterly to be regretted. Senator Harradine made a fourth point, concerning a deal. This point has been made by other honourable senators. They say that the Australian Democrats have done a deal. What do they mean by doing a deal? If in fact we have done something of advantage to the Australian community and indeed, in the interests of the Australian community, what complaint have these honourable senators got? Again I say that I had discussions on this matter with the Attorney-General as recently as yesterday. I put to the Attorney-General points of value that Senator Harradine had raised. I think he should remember that. It bears on his remarks that indeed his comments, his own points in the debate, were being put to the Attorney-General by me. Senator Harradine —Thank you very much. Senator MASON —I appreciate Senator Harradine's thanks. They are overdue. I refer again to this matter of doing a deal. Any senator has exactly the same access to the Attorney-General and to the Government as I have. There is no reason in the world why Senator Harradine should not have an input. He has exactly the same opportunities as I have. I have no rights beyond his. If he wants an input into the matter I suggest he do so. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, are you seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Senator WALTERS —Yes, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you cannot claim that. You have leave to make a personal explanation. You can claim to have been misrepresented only if you have taken part in the debate, which you have not yet done. You may make a personal explanation by leave, which you already have. You may proceed. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Senator Mason referred to us generally-I was certainly part of that-as the rabble on his right. He claimed that we were a rabble because we had said a deal had been done. A deal certainly had been done between the Australian Democrats and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Even though the Attorney-General today claimed that what Senator Harradine quoted about his comments in relation to the deal he did with the Australian Democrats was not true, I will quote from Hansard to prove that indeed the deal was done. I leave it to the listening public to decide whether the rabble-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, you are making a personal explanation. You must not enter into debate on matters concerning Senator Harradine except insofar as they refer to you directly. Senator WALTERS —The Hansard extract I will read out concerns an exchange between Senator Evans and Senator Mason when they were trying to make sure that the decisions would be taken immediately rather than put off. Senator Mason said : Can you get that up today or tomorrow? Senator Evans replied: I think that is possible. Senator Evans continued: I am certainly prepared to do it by tomorrow . . . Mr Deputy President, I leave it to you to decide whether the rabble on Senator Mason's right-of which I am a part-can consider it a deal when the Attorney- General said: . . . if that is the price of buying the honourable senator's lousy vote . . . I leave it to the Senate and to the people of Australia to judge whether, if the Attorney-General says to the Australian Democrats that he will do that 'if that is the price of buying the honourable senator's lousy vote', a deal has been done between the Attorney-General and the Australian Democrats. I believe that I am entitled to defend myself when we have been called a rabble because we claimed that a deal had been done. Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Motion (by Senator Durack) put: That the debate be now adjourned. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S.Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E.Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R.Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J.Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N.Coates, J. McCelland, DouglasColeman, R. M. McIntosh, G. D.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G.Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M.Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A.Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Messner, A. J. Cook, P. F. S.Reid, M. E. Richardson, G. F.Scott, D. B. Bolkus, N.Martin, K. J. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.06) —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Given the outcome of the vote that has just gone to a division, I am of course philosophical about the chances of that motion succeeding, but I move it to make the point that there is simply no justification whatsoever for the debate on the Insurance Contracts Bill being adjourned in the way it has now been adjourned by a combination of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. The Bill has been before the Parliament for some months. It was introduced in the latter part of last year. It is true that there is a substantial number of amendments which have only recently come to fruition and have only recently been made available to the Opposition party spokesmen. I fully appreciate that more time for consideration of those amendments might have been required before the Committee stage of this debate was brought to finality, but there would appear to be no justification for delaying at least the completion of the second reading debate in order to enable honourable senators to consider the general principles of this very important reform legislation. I simply make the point that we have been treated to another example of obstruction by the Opposition and the Democrats of the legitimate course of the Government's parliamentary business in this place. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.07) —I move, an amendment to that frivolous motion moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans): Leave out the words 'a later hour this day' and insert 'the next day of sitting '. It really is quite amazing that the Attorney-General should move a motion in the terms he has, for a resumption of debate on the Insurance Contracts Bill at a later hour this day, when he knows that the will of the Senate is to adjourn the debate. He says that this is an important, and presumably urgent, piece of legislation which must be dealt with today. That is a heap of absolute nonsence and he knows it is. It is an insult to the Senate that he should move the motion in the terms he has. The fact is that this Bill was introduced by the Attorney-General some months ago-I think it was in December. Its object is to implement a report of the Law Reform Commission on insurance contracts. It is a fairly technical matter and one of enormous importance to the insurance industry and its customers. The Bill was to lie on the table while comments from those concerned with it were obtained. Those comments were received only fairly recently and as a result we were told yesterday that 59 amendments-I stress, 59 amendments-to this legislation are to be moved by the Government. Only today is the Senate in fact in possession of the detail of those amendments. Admittedly, before the Attorney-General interjects, I received details of the amendments on Monday afternoon, but on a confidential basis. The actual amendments were placed in the public arena only today, and there are 59 of them. Yet we are being asked today to debate the matter. The insurance industry itself has not had sufficient time to consider the amendments. Certainly the Opposition has not had sufficient time to consider them; nor have the Australian Democrats. We have said that we will be prepared to debate this matter next week. I believe that it is a perfectly reasonable proposition. To try to argue that the Senate is obstructing the Government is sheer and utter nonsense. It is an insult to the Senate, and the Attorney-General knows that. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.10) —I was disappointed to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) accuse the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats of obstruction. That statement is absolutely misleading. It is untrue, uncalled for and mischievous. Therefore, we will support the Liberal Party amendment. Virtually yesterday-or, as Senator Durack said, today-the Senate was appraised of 59 amendments to important legislation, the Insurance Contracts Bill. My colleague, Senator Jack Evans, who has control of this Bill for us, informs me that some of those amendments are quite significant. They are not just machinery or frivolous amendments. What for some extraordinary reason the Attorney is proposing is that we go through the second reading stage of this Bill today. What he is saying is: 'Look, you don't have to read the amendments to make your speech on the motion for the second reading'. He is saying that notwithstanding the fact that among those 59 amendments are amendments which would make highly significant changes to the original legislation. If the Liberal Party or the Democrats or both are being obstructionist, the Attorney-General has a right to accuse us of that, but the record palpably flies in the face of that accusation. In fact, only yesterday he was complimenting the Liberals and the Democrats for constructive work on the National Crime Authority Bill. I believe that any fair watcher of the system here would never accuse the Opposition parties of, so far in this Parliament, being obstructionist. The figures escape me at the moment, but something like 175 Bills have been put before this chamber since this Government was elected. Only something like four or five Bills have met with opposition from this side of the chamber. In other words, already the Government has achieved something like 96 per cent of its legislative program. I do not think any Minister can deny that. That is hardly a record of obstructionism on the part of the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia or the Democrats. Senator Gareth Evans —There has been a bit of a problem with our tax Bills, though-$270m worth. Senator CHIPP —That is part of what I mentioned when I said Bills had been rejected. If Senator Evans wants, as a civil libertarian, to debate retrospective taxation with me at any time I will accommodate him. As a self- confessed- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, do not digress and debate that matter now; concentrate on the resumption of debate on the Bill. Senator CHIPP —I do not mind. We are in a political sphere and if Senator Evans wants to intrude a bit of good, strong-arm politics that is all right. He has to do it now because the fact is that the Government has no business to produce to the Parliament. The House of Representatives has run out of business. The only reason the Government wants this Insurance Contracts Bill to pass through the Senate quickly is so it can get it to the House of Representatives. The convulsions the Attorney-General is going through at the moment confirm the truth of what I am saying. That is all right. I do not mind his grandstanding or putting some sort of smokescreen across if that is his purpose. That is fair politics. But I plead with him: Do not tell untruths to the Senate about the Democrats or the Liberals being obstructionist because the record palpably shows that we have not been obstructionist. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.15) —I will continue from where we were at stumps last night. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation but it is disappointed that it does not go further than in currently does. I am reminded by a colleague that this is another demonstration that we are not obstructing the program of the Government. I also commend the Government for setting up the interim fishing industry consultative panel which already has gone quite a long way to enabling those in the various facets of the industry to discuss the future and to see what is to happen. I look forward to getting quite a lot of progress from this committee. I understand that it is shortly to meet, probably for the last time, and that as a result it will be making re- commendations. I believe the appropriate course of events was outlined in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce: There should be a national conference which should go a long way to establishing national policy. The main difficulty faced by the industry in the last ten years has been that it has not had a sufficiently strong organisation of its own. At one stage it looked as though the Australian Fishing Industry Council would be able to fulfil this function, but regrettably it has not turned out that way and has got weaker and weaker. It is absolutely essential that the fishing industry be adequately represented, and regrettably it would appear that the only way in which this can be achieved is by the formation of a statutory authority with certain power to raise money from the industry to spend on administering the interests of the industry as a whole. Of course, there needs to be greater industry participation . In the past those who have been involved with and those who have invested in fish have been held at arm's length while a group referring to itself as the industry managers took over. I think it is quite wrong that they should be referred to as the industry managers and I object to that, as do the fishermen. The fishermen are very competent people. They are big business men. They are not small business men. Of late there has been a lot more discussion between the fishermen and the scientists. This is encouraging, and more understanding is starting to develop than there has ever been in the past. It is absolutely essential that we remove this 'us and them' situation that has always obtained between the administration and the fishermen. I do not believe the fishermen should have or would want a dominant position on any authority, but it is certainly essential that they should be represented and should have a direct voice where the decisions are made. The problems that still befall the industry can be largely settled if we can instigate proper discussions at Federal, State and industry levels. I do not think it is reasonable to try to settle the difficulties one at a time. The whole thing needs to be opened up and the whole discussion dealt with at once. There are questions of boundaries, of crossovers of licences, of changes of vessels and of changes of restrictions. All these things need to be dealt with at once, because I do not think it is possible to deal with them one at a time and achieve any sort of conclusion. At present there is a variety of difficulties. Even in the Tasmanian waters that I know reasonably well there are major difficulties in the scallop industry , in the trawl industry and in the shark fishing industry. Beyond that, we have only to think of the southern blue fin tuna industry and Investigator Strait prawn fishery, of the difficulties at Shark Bay, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, with the New South Wales trawl fleet and with the Queensland boat population. I do not think enough consideration has been given to the enormous effect of amateur fishermen on the resource and the effect on national statistics of the total loss of statistics from amateur fishermen. Without due recourse to statistics on how many fish are taken and where they are fished, it is very difficult for future planning to be done adequately. Relationships all round have to be improved. There has to be greater level of understanding and a greater appreciation of the part that fishing plays in the overall economy of the country. I believe the industry by and large and certainly the Parliament would welcome a ministerial statement as soon as possible on the position of the fishing industry and plans for its future. In the meantime we are not opposing the Bill. We see it very much as a stop-gap arrangement mainly to assist the convenience of the Government and its officers. We look forward to a Bill of considerable substance in the very near future. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.22) —The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 is to amend the Fisheries Act 1952, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 and the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. It has been indicated that the purpose of the amendments to the Fisheries Act is to simplify licensing requirements, overcome a number of administrative difficulties and include review provisions in relation to licensing functions and fisheries notices made by the Minister. The proposed amendments to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 will remove the hiatus which has led to enforcement difficulties. The proposed amendment to the Fishing Industry Research Act will overcome a technical problem in respect of the Northern Territory. I noted with interest the remarks of Senator Archer from Tasmania. The Parliament and the industry recognise Senator Archer as one of the experts in the fisheries field. During his period in the Senate he has contributed substantially to discussions and debates related to this industry. It has to be noted that the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Mr McVeigh, when speaking on the Bill in the other place, said that the Government had implemented virtually none of its election promises for the fishing industry and had also failed to recognise the importance of the industry's contribution to the economy and that there was now serious doubt and concern within the Australian fishing industry about the Labor Government's intention of treating fisheries as a primary industry. He went on to say that the Government had not implemented a national fishing policy, had not restructured the Department of Primary Industry 's Fisheries Division and had not set up management plans for the south-east trawl, as Senator Archer indicated. As this matter has considerable significance for our northern coast and for the Northern Territory I have taken the opportunity of receiving some advice from the Northern Territory regarding this legislation. The responsible Minister in the Northern Territory, Mr Ian Tuxworth, has given me some advice on the matter. The Territory Government says that, while the Northern Territory does not object to the proposed changes, it believes that in some cases they do not go far enough. In effect, all this legislation will really do is amend outmoded provisions. There is some slight conflict between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory legislation. The first point of conflict concerns the removal of the requirement of crew members of fishing boats to hold individual licences. The Northern Territory sees no problem with that in principle. Its net effect will be that fishing boats holding both Northern Territory and Commonwealth licences will be required by the Northern Territory Fish and Fisheries Act to have crew members licensed, while this will not be the case under Commonwealth legislation. Some concern, I think, is felt by Queensland and the Northern Territory that if crew members are not licensed they may provide an opening for the unionisation of fishing operations, resulting in increases in the operational costs and decreases in the profitability of fishing. The Northern Territory branch of the Australian Fishing Industry Council has indicated that unionisation problems are minimal, but that it is a point worth noting. The second point of conflict concerns the removal of all references to traditional fishing from the Fisheries Act. As the references to traditional fishing in the Fisheries Act apply to the indigenous inhabitants of Australia's external territories, with particular application to Papua New Guinea, the Northern Territory has no objection to this amendment. However, it should be pointed out that the Northern Territory is currently examining the situation in regard to traditional fishing by Aboriginal communities and changes in the Northern Territory's fish and fisheries regulations to allow for the issuing of special licences to coastal Aboriginal communities. The third point of conflict, to which Senator Archer has also referred, concerns the review of decisions by a joint fisheries authority. The Northern Territory agrees that, as a policy making body comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers, it would not be appropriate to subject a joint authority to Commonwealth administrative review. Although decisions of delegates from the joint authority may be reviewed by the joint authority itself, the Northern Territory is concerned about the provisions to allow a delegated Commonwealth official to reconsider a joint authority decision. This would appear to be putting control into the hands of Federal bureaucrats, which would be highly undesirable. The decision of that official would then be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Northern Territory Government's worry is that this may be construed as a means of eroding the States' powers on a joint authority. The Federal Government will be aware, too, that since the Northern Territory attained responsible self-government it has been pressing for changes to the Fishing Industry Research Act to allow the Northern Territory Fishing Industry Research and Development Trust to be recognised for the purposes of Commonwealth funding under the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account. Over $1m has been paid into the Northern Territory fund since its inception in 1980. But due to the lack of the amendment an equivalent amount has not been allocated from the Commonwealth organisation. I think that the Commonwealth should review the Fishing Industry Research Act with a view to introducing a suitable amendment. It is most interesting to see the state of the fishing industry in the north at present. Of course, that industry has had its ups and downs over the years, particularly with prawns. Very many areas in the industry are now uneconomic. It is interesting to note that the Government has appointed a world consultant in fisheries, Mr Eric Norgard, to a two-year consultancy in regard to the development of fisheries. His proposals will go to government and to industry. It appears that this consultant of world note believes that within the first three years fisheries turnover could increase from $21m a year to $65m. I say that an industry which experienced an increase of 300 per cent over three years is well worth supporting. As well as bringing about this increased annual turnover, three jobs should be created within the shore infrastructure for every job that is created at sea. I understand that the first interim report from Mr Eric Norgard recommends that development of the shore infrastructure be brought about to enable fleets to be serviced, the catch to be processed and the marketing to take place. Naturally, considering the potential turnover, there should be more involvement in international fishing agreements concerning the harvesting and, later, marketing of the fish. In the last few months there has been considerable media reporting on the potential of shark fishing. Shark fishing in Northern Territory waters is reported to be negligible. I wonder about that sometimes because at one period I had the opportunity of going to the fishing port at Taiwan and seeing the luggers arriving home from the Australian north coast with their immense shark catch. Apparently it is felt that at present, as far as Australian content is concerned, shark fishing in Northern Territory waters is negligible. But obviously there is vast potential. Mr Norgard also suggests that shark in the northern waters should be harvested commercially. In other parts of the world it has been proved that the catching of shark assists the development of fisheries. I suppose the reasoning is that the presence of a number of sharks in a particular area depletes the commercial fish catch. On 21 October 1983 an agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd for a joint fishing venture off northern Australia. I note that in this comprehensive agreement one of the clauses states: . . . the Commonwealth is desirous of promoting the marketing of the catch of Australian fishermen from the northern waters of the Australian fishing zone. . . . the Commonwealth is desirous of maximising the utilisation of shore facilities in Australia adjacent to the fisheries in the northern waters of the Australian fishing zone, including cold storage, transport and repair facilities . Referring to the fishing method and species of fish, the agreement states: The foreign vessels named in the licences issued shall take only pelagic species of fish, including shark, tunas and mackerel, using the gillnet method. As I say, there has been considerable media reporting. One should also take note of the Four Corners program of 28 May last year, the topic of which was 'Learn to Eat Shark'. The program was based on the falling fish numbers around the world and pointed to the need for a conservation policy. As I took it, the program also pointed to the necessity for encouraging the catching of shark so that other species of fish could be developed and promoted. All in all, as Senator Archer has indicated, we support the legislation. But there is much more to be done, as the Government indicated in its election promises. The Government also has responsibilities to the fishing industry. I believe that much is yet to be done by government to ensure that the full potential of fishing, particularly in our northern waters, is developed. (Quorum formed) Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.38) —in reply-I was not here for the entire debate, but I understand that the legislation is not opposed by the Opposition, although there was some criticism by Senator Archer. I thank the Opposition for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.40) — The Opposition does not oppose the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984, which is basically a procedural Bill, following a large number of decisions made by the Government on reports of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. Most of the matters were referred during the period of the previous Government. They are matters which we do not wish to discuss in detail. The reasons for the decisions are set out in the reports and, for the sake of clarity, I will refer to some of the subject matter. There are government decisions on copper and certain copper products; fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters; and lawn mowers, certain engines and parts. Those matters all involved some reappraisal which was made in a report of the Industries Assistance Commission dated 17 June 1983, which related also to the curious product of tall oil. One of the features of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission of 17 June 1983 appears at page 30 and the following pages and relates to developing country preferences. It appears that this is a matter where there is considerable public concern and interest on the part of a wide cross section of industries and employees of those industries. It involves the sort of concerns which are being shown outside Parliament House at this moment by Cockatoo Dockyard workers who are expressing their great disgust with the present Government, and who are causing a considerable degree of disruption, as part of what is supposed to be this wonderful industrial peace which we are enjoying as a result of the fabulous accord which the Government has been able to prepare. Yesterday I referred to some of the industrial disputation that has taken place . Senator Archer referred to the current publication of the list of disputes in Australia. We find, in the country in which the magic of the consensus approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has meant that industrial disputation has become a thing of the past, according to the rhetoric of the Government, a 19- page list which, line by line, shows the industrial disputes. We have a demonstration taking place outside at the moment and a horde of decisions being delayed by the present Government because it does not want to take decisions which might upset its prospects in the forthcoming election. Senator Button —There is no worry about that. Senator PETER RAE —I notice that the figures are starting to worry members of the Government. The 6 per cent swing to the Liberal-National parties will no doubt cause quite a lot of concern, and that is only the start of the swing. It is starting to reflect what happened in the six by-elections that have been held since the change of government. But let me return to developing country preferences and industrial concern. There has been a very substantial delay in taking decisions in relation to the matters set out. We could hope, perhaps, to have some indication from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button ) as to when we can expect some further decisions to be taken. With regard to the other aspects, Government decisions have followed the development of closer economic relations which, again, were an initiative of the former Government. We have some provisions relating to the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement, which is known as SPARTECA, with regard to the import of goods from Forum Island, I believe, and the May 1983 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee and the implementation of the recommendations of that report-again, something which was set up under the former Government-and certain consequential arrangements arising from the steel industry plan. But, of course, the Minister is still not in a position to give details of one further important part of the steel industry plan, which is when the State governments, particularly the governments of New South Wales and South Australia, will indicate whether they are prepared to co-operate in the steel industry plan by giving some sorts of guarantees about State charges. These charges have been shown by publication in various newspapers today to have such a dramatic impact on the coal and steel industries . International comparisons have been made showing the extent to which certain of the State governments are gaining a very significantly higher revenue from the transport of coal than is the case in other countries-up to three times as much. One does not have to look very far to find one of the reasons for some of the trouble in the coal industry and why this Government should do more than it has done to try to get agreements from the governments of South Australia and New South Wales about their proposed co-operation in the steel industry plan. That plan was announced some nine months ago and those States have not as yet been able to confirm it. The proposed change will result in a reduction of protection in some areas, although there are some exceptions to this. There are quantitative controls on developing countries' steel imports as provided for under the steel industry plan. There are some retrospective elements in the legislation, but I make the point that there is no objection to the retrospectivity because they are retrospective to the date of the announcement of the proposal. A two-phase system operates in this area. One is the announcement of the Government's proposals and the other is the introduction of the legislation. The legislation is dated back, quite reasonably and properly, to the date of the proposals. For that reason, no objection is taken to the retrospectivity. In fact, it is a common practice and has been for a very long time. In summary, we hope that the Government will get on with making some of the further decisions and doing something that goes a bit further than just implementing some of the action which had already been set under way by the previous Government. I hope that the present Government will also do something about overcoming the industrial unrest which is taking place and is causing such disruption to a number of the industries that are referred to in the Bill as well as in other areas of activity. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.49) —I thank the Opposition for supporting this Bill. As Senator Rae pointed out, it is a statutory requirement and a recognition of customs tariff proposals which have been before the Parliament on previous occasions. I do not think there is anything I can add other than to stress the importance of this legislation in part of that process. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.51) — The Opposition does not oppose the general nature of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984, but at the Committee stage will be proposing certain amendments to them. The Bills have been debated in detail in the House of Representatives. Their purpose has been outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). Therefore, I do not see that it is necessary to take up the time of the Senate by going through the Bills again, other than to say that they are basically amendments and some alterations to government programs-programs introduced by the former Government, including in particular the extremely beneficial and widely acclaimed Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. That Act brought about a major project for the development of roads in Australia in the period leading up to the bicentenary in 1988 by the addition of an extra excise on fuel, which was to be applied for the purpose of this program. The concern, to which reference will be made during the Committee stage, is that that excise has now been increased by the automatic increases introduced by the Government which will take place in February and August each year. The increases under the automatic indexation of the excise raised under the Act are not being passed on for the purposes of the Act. That is a matter of considerable concern to the Opposition. We believe that fairness requires that the purpose of the raising of the levy be recognised and that any increase in the amount of the levy be used for the same purpose as that for which the levy was designed. To use it in any other way is just a sneaky roundabout method of increasing government revenue by misusing the increased revenue in a way other than for the purposes for which it was designed in the original legislation by the previous Government, which was supported by the whole of the Parliament. The other area of concern is the changes made to the form of tendering. Again, during the Committee stage, I shall be referring to that matter in more detail. I do not wish to take up the Senate's time by going through matters which are not disputed. I indicate that we shall support the second reading of the Bill but in Committee I shall propose two amendments. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(11.54) —Today, we are debating cognately the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of these Bills is to amend three areas of the original Acts to allow for smoother running of the Australian bicentennial road development program. These areas deal with tendering and State expenditure on roads and urban public transport systems. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) pointed out in his second reading speech, although we supported the general thrust and objectives of the bicentennial road program when it was introduced by the former Government, we expressed concern about certain aspects of the legislation, in particular, the provision which required that all construction work on national urban arterial and rural arterial roads must go to tender. I will come to that in a moment. Nobody could disagree with the fact that when we came to government Australia's road system was amongst the worst in the world. Years of neglect by successive Liberal governments had reduced many of our national highways to potholes, gravel tracks, et cetera. It was certainly no coincidence that the Fraser Government finally decided to act positively in this area in an election year. It finally realised that our roads were the laughing stock of the developed world. In recognition of the worthiness and importance of the Australian bicentennial road development program, on coming to government we decided to continue the program and will be providing an estimated $2,500m for roads between now and 1988-89. In fact in our first Budget we provided for a 45 per cent increase in total road grants which included, of course, the jobs on local roads scheme. As I mentioned earlier when the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act was introduced by the former Government the Australian Labor Party supported the general objectives of the program. However, it was concerned about some of the provisions in the legislation and undertook to review them when coming to Government. Accordingly, discussions were held with various parties, including State and local governments, industry spokesmen and relevant unions. It was out of this process of consultation that three areas requiring change were identified. The amendments contained in this Bill will go a long way to improving the operation of the ABRD program. The Bill introduces some flexibility into the requirement that tender must be called by the States for all works associated with national and arterial projects. The Bill allows the Minister to agree, upon request by a State, to an exemption from the requirement to call tenders for particular works where the Minister is satisfied that specific circumstances apply. As the Minister said in his second reading speech the Government is satisfied with the general principle of calling tenders for road construction. However, we recognise that there needs to be greater flexibility to cover situations where the process of calling tenders is either impracticable or simply not cost effective. Therefore an exemption to tendering will be granted when a State can demonstrate that there is an emergency requirement for the works to be performed , or when the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional cost, or when it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications for the works, or when the works are of such a kind that competitive tenders are unlikely to be received, or when 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 when the performance of the work under contract would cause unavoidable retrenchments or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. I now turn briefly to the other two amendments contained in this Bill. The second aspect of this Bill relates to the existing requirement that States must maintain expenditure in real terms during the life of the ABRD program. The amended legislation will allow States to carry over excess expenditure to the following year in a way which will ease the strain and assist the States in maintaining the levels of real spending agreed to. The present legislation penalises States which do not reach the required level of expenditure in a given year by forcing them to make up the deficit in the following year but it does not allow them to carry over any excesses. This amendment merely allows the States to gain any benefits accrued from exceeding this expenditure requirement in any one year. This new flexibility is sensible and practicable and will allow the States to plan ahead in a way that suits their available resources and priorities. The final area of amendment relates to the existing 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 public transport. Again this penalises those States which have made the decision to use a portion of their funds to upgrade their public transport systems. This Bill removes the requirement that the real level of expenditure on public transport be maintained where this option is taken up. As a result of this amendment the States will now be able to elect to upgrade their public transport systems without the fear of receiving a penalty for doing so. In other words the States will no longer be disadvantaged by the reasonable use of those funds. The amendments being introduced by the Government will ensure maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness of the ABRD program. Unlike previous administrations this Government is committed to improving and upgrading Australia's road networks. As I have stated, the total allocation of Commonwealth funds for road works in 1983-84 is 45 per cent above that expended in 1982-83, which is a far cry from the Fraser years when we saw a reduction in real terms of 23 per cent between 1975-76 and 1981-82. In fact the Hawke Labor Government has done more to improve Australia's roads in just 12 months than the Fraser Government did in seven years in office. As a South Australian senator I am particularly pleased to see substantial progress being made on the sealing of the Port Augusta-Alice Springs road and the upgrading of the Duke's Highway in South Australia, the main road link between Adelaide and Melbourne. Wherever one drives in South Australia at the moment, whether it be in the country or in the Adelaide metropolitan area, one can see progress being made. These improvements will do much to save vehicle running costs, cut travelling time and above all save many lives. Quite a lot has been said recently about the dangers of drink driving but it is a fact that over the Easter break most road deaths occurred in the country and I am sure the state of our country roads and interstate highways had something to do with that tragic loss of life. If we can save even just a handful of lives by providing safe roads we will have achieved something worth while. These Bills are another fine example of consensus and consultation at work in the Australian community under the present Government. They were drafted after discussions and agreement between the various interested parties and they will provide for the smoother running of a very important Government program. This Government has achieved a considerable amount in a short time. We have the housing industry going again, employment levels are rising, the rate of inflation is falling, the level of industrial disputation is at an all time low, tourism is starting to flourish and through our transport policies we are reconstructing Australia's roadways. I am pleased to commend these Bills to all honourable senators. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.06) —The Australian Democrats first pay a tribute to the Fraser Government for its initiative in the introduction of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. This initiative is to be applauded and will benefit Australians right across this nation for many years to come. It is a very worthy activity which has been undertaken under the auspices of the bicentennial objectives. One of the things that has been very good in this debate and in the introduction of the fund has been the bipartisan approach by the Government and the Opposition, first of all to the necessity for such a fund in this vast nation of ours and, secondly, to the broad modus operandi of the fund. I believe that the Bill before us today will continue with that broad consensus although there are a couple of areas where there may be minor disagreement. The overall program is therefore strongly supported by the Australian Democrats. We need to have a close look at this legislation in that amendments are proposed to the original Act which change the thrust of the funding and the system of getting the work done. This could disadvantage not just contractors but employment in certain parts of the Australian economy. The proposal in the Bill to change the system of tendering is a retrograde step. I believe that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) already has enough powers to enable him and the State governments virtually to ignore any tenderer's submission. That means that if he wished he could use the facilities of a statutory body, whether it be State or local government, to carry out the relevant road works and leave the private contractors on the side-line. That has always been the case. In fact , I am aware of situations where contractors around Australia have felt disadvantaged by that system. Despite that, they have learned to live with it and there is a degree of compliance by all parties, including the statutory bodies, with the system as it exists. I believe that the changes that are proposed in this legislation to enable a State government to make recommendations to the Federal Minister for the tendering system to be put aside will create uncertainty in the contracting industry, cause dissension between private and statutory bodies and will give the appearance, if not the fact, of statutory bodies having a distinct advantage over and above the advantages they already have. It needs to be remembered that statutory bodies already have advantages over private contractors: They are not taxed and they do not need to provide a profit. Those are quite substantial advantages. I believe in this free economy it is important that we recognise that a free enterprise system needs to have opportunities right across the board for private enterprise to get into the substantial, significant contract work that is being done, whether it be funded by government or by private enterprise. So the Australian Democrats are not inclined to support that aspect of the legislation as it stands at the moment. I just remind the Senate that, if the Government were willing to live with the existing provisions, the Minister virtually has the same powers in any case. He can still choose a tender on grounds other than cost. In essence, the six criteria that are set out in the Bill can be used right at this moment. But under the existing system before giving work to a statutory body-a State or local government body-the Minister must receive and must be aware of all of the options. If he refuses to call for tenders under certain circumstances he will not have all the options in front of him. As I see it, that really is a critical element because it means that the State Government may have a preconception and the Federal Minister would be unaware of some of the alternatives that could have been available. The whole principle of tendering gives us the advantage of a meaningful measure of performance and accountability at the end of a job. I believe that is a very vital ingredient in a process such as this where the work not only has to be done to the satisfaction of the person doing the job but also has to be done to the satisfaction of those who are setting down the criteria and who have to measure against those criteria at the end of the contract. I believe under a tendering system the Government can achieve the greatest output for the dollar spent. I think that that is a vital principle that this Government-and any government-needs to take on board. The whole principle of tendering is aimed at achieving the objective. The other aspect, which I am sure the Government is aware of but which perhaps it needs to be reminded about, is that the tendering system allows the Government to draw on a larger pool of resources. Some of these resources may be more easily mobilised than those of the statutory bodies, may give better utilisation of resources that are available in a particular area or for a particular job. That will not always be the situation if one gives some priority or preference to the State or local government bodies. If the government of that particular State or Territory and the Government of Australia decided in their wisdom that they want to ignore certain advantages that are available by accepting the tender of a private contractor, it is still within their power under the existing legislation to ignore those advantages. What we are saying is that it is important for the sake of the Australian economy and the industry to keep the tender system going. I think that the effect on the industry could be quite salutary if this Bill is passed in its present form. I think that there would be an increasing degree of uncertainty in the industry. At the moment the industry has blossomed, comparatively, since the original introduction of the bicentennial road development trust and all that goes with it. I believe it would be a very sad day for that industry and for Australia if uncertainty came about as a result of a change in the tendering system. In this area we are not talking about big business. In the majority of cases we are talking about relatively small private enterprises-small when compared with multinationals which seem to get favoured treatment from governments of all political colours. In this area we are talking about ensuring that there is a degree of competitiveness and a degree of entree, of continuing access, to this growth area. Private contractors around Australia are looking to this Parliament to protect their interests as this legislation goes through. It ensures the continuing stimulation of those small businesses. I believe that the Opposition, in general-that certainly includes the Australian Democrats-is solidly in support of the continuing thrust of the ABRD Trust Fund and all that goes with it. I will speak a little later to an amendment which I understand is being moved by the Opposition. Suffice to say at this stage that the Democrats are delighted that the Government is continuing the impetus which was established by the previous Government in this road development drive for Australia; one of Australia's great areas of need simply because of the size of the continent and the desperate need for improved communications and transport facilities. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.17) —I join in the debate on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984. This legislation deals principally with three matters: Firstly, changes to the tendering arrangements in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act and the Roads Grants Act; secondly, the effort required by State governments on their road programs; and, thirdly, the efforts required of State governments to maintain their public transport programs. A fourth matter is very much involved in the overall situation and that is the Government's intention to index the fuel levy. Honourable senators and people in Australia will realise that this levy was established in 1982 after a good deal of discussion between the Government, industry and motorists' organisations. A one cent levy and then a two cent levy on motor spirit and automotive distillate was agreed upon, on the condition that all funds raised through the levy would be used on the roads program. This bicentennial road development program goes back several years. It was first proposed by the Hon. Ralph Hunt. I believe that this is one of the most important projects that has been introduced into parliament for years. Mr Hunt is to be commended for introducing this scheme a few years ago. Senator Jack Evans spoke about this program to some extent when he commended the Fraser Government for having brought it forward. The Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund was to give some impetus to the construction of roads throughout Australia, not only along the eastern coast which, over the years, has been relatively well looked after, but also through the outback. Over the years only some funds have been given to these most important projects. People of the outback believe that this program is very important to them. I commend the previous Government for having brought about the beef road program some years ago. The beef road program developed arterial roads throughout the outback that could be looked upon not only as beef roads but also developmental roads. These roads in the Northern Territory, in other parts of the outback and in various States have proved most important not just in the development of the pastoral industry. Certainly we see that they have played a major part in the development of the mining industry at Jabiru and places. They have also given a tremendous boost to the tourist industry in the Northern Territory and the whole of Australia. This has allowed Australians really to go outback in some reasonable comfort to see the attractions of this country. I think the beef road program was a most successful project. It has meant much to Australia and very much to the people who live in the outback. Road development is now to be continued with this bicentennial road program. The purpose of this program is to improve roads throughout the nation, to bring them up to a national level. Some people have said that it will bring about a black ribbon of bitumen not only around the perimeter of Australia but also through the outback. Many projects have been planned-others are on the drafting board-for roads to be brought up to a national standard by 1988. It was felt that, because of the financial demands that would be made on the Government, extra funds would have to be raised to finance this bicentennial program. Motorists in Australia were called on to participate. As I have indicated, they were called on to participate by paying a one cent levy and then a two cent levy for every litre of petrol that they purchased. The two cents levy was to go into this fund to upgrade national roads. This has come about. The point that concerns not only honourable senators on this side of the House but also motorists in Australia-every person who has been interested in this project and the raising of the levy to fund this project has been concerned-is that the indexation of this fuel levy, which has been introduced by this Government, brings about an increase in funds raised from Australian motorists of something like $491m this financial year. In anyone's lot that is a considerable amount of money. Yet the most incredible thing about this situation is that while the two cents levy is being raised for the singular purpose of upgrading national roads the Australian motorist has to pay one decimal point more through indexation. This will raise some $491 a year. As I understand it- this has not been contradicted by the Government-that money is not going into the national road scheme even though that was its purpose and that is what it was all about. It means that this extra tax of $491m that is being raised by the Federal Government is not going into the national road scheme as it should be under the arrangements for the project. Instead it will go into Consolidated Revenue for the Government to use for some other purpose. I ask: Is this action correct? Senator Peter Rae —What is the difference between that and misappropriation? Senator KILGARIFF —That was a very fine point made by Senator Rae. Perhaps it is legal, and that is okay. Regardless of whether it is legal, morally it is a misappropriation of funds from the Australian motorist. Those funds are going into some other quarter. I wonder where the funds are going. I note that the Federal Government is now endeavouring to bring about taxation allowances in the next Budget. Is this the way the Federal Government will raise the money? Is the Federal Government going to raise it by taxing the Australian motorist and then giving it back in a minor degree through taxation allowances? As Senator Rae said, in anyone's view this is a misappropriation of funds. In our view it certainly is. I will return now briefly to the Northern Territory situation and the levy. There are long distances, not only in the Territory but in the outback generally , to be travelled by people. Therefore, the people of the outback have to travel more than the city dwellers. When one looks at the situation in that manner it can be seen that the people in the outback really contribute more to the levy than do city dwellers. Again, I say outback people are being touched by this indexation. Another matter concerns me too. I refer to the money allocated last year by the Federal Government for Northern Territory contracts but which has been withheld by the Federal Government until now. I refer to a letter of 27 April which I received from the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, in which he said: I have pleasure in advising you that I have approved further road projects for the Northern Territory for funding under the Roads Grants Act 1981 and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program. The Minister continued: The projects, two of which will be funded under the Road Grants Act 1981 and three under the ABRD Program, provide for reconstruction and general upgrading of the Stuart Highway. The Minister then gave various details of the program worth some $17,097,000 covering five contracts. In the Minister's letter he referred to the $16.8m project approval for the Stuart Highway. In the Press release attached to the letter it is stated that the project approval follows his undertaking in Parliament earlier this month to have an officer from the Department of Transport evaluate the works proposed by the Northern Territory Government. The Minister is quoted as saying: In view of earlier assertions by the NT Government, I needed to satisfy myself that the projects were necessary. That is an unusual statement for a Federal Minister to make regarding another government, even though it is one of different political views. I think that when one considers the situation it can be seen as an unnecessary slur on a Territory government well recognised for its efforts to upgrade the quality of life of the people of the outback. That can be proved quite conclusively. When I talk about the quality of life, one of those qualities of course concerns reasonable roads so that people in the outback can travel in reasonable comfort. To assert that it is necessary to send an officer to check on that Government I think is more than a slur, it is an insult, particularly when one considers the work that has been carried out by the Northern Territory Government. If it were the case that the Northern Territory Government was not doing its job for the people of the outback in developing road programs what would we expect? We would expect that in an election such a government would be removed from the scene. Has that Government been removed? It has not. In the last election the people of the Northern Territory voted the Government in with 19 seats compared with six seats for the Opposition. This is the judgment of the people who have to use such facilities. The Northern Territory Government is doing the right thing by the people of the outback. However the Federal Minister for Transport has the audacity to send a person to the Northern Territory to see whether he is satisfied with what the Northern Territory Government is doing. I notice too that a Minister in this chamber yesterday made some very derogatory remarks about the upgrading of the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory. The remarks were to the effect that there seemed to be some move within the Northern Territory by the Chief Minister to go back on his word and change his ideas. I find that very difficult to understand, especially when one peruses the correspondence and messages and sees the actions that have taken place over the last few months. I refer to a letter of 21 March to the Federal Minister for Transport, Peter Morris, from the Minister for Transport and Works in the Northern Territory who has had a most difficult job because funds have been withheld for months. Why were they withheld? The funds were withhold as a result of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory report. That report was presented to the Federal Government. Honourable senators might remember that this Mr Hill was the Executive Director of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales. It was his job to review the transport requirements relating to the building of the rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin. Funds for this project have been refused by the Federal Government even though it was an election promise. The report also looked at the necessity for road upgrading. I have referred to the rail link previously and I am not going along that track now because we are talking about the motorist. It was said in the Hill report that the upgrading of the Stuart Highway was not particularly necessary. Prior to that report it was said that if the Northern Territory Government and people wanted the rail link perhaps they would agree to moneys allocated to upgrading the Stuart Highway being applied to the construction of the railway. Of course, that never came about. It was said then that there was a real case for both the road and rail link and that the funding of the road should not be interrupted. Several contracts were going to tender at that time and, to this week, money for tenders that had been called for and let in good faith has been withheld. The contractor now finds that he cannot start work because there are no funds. The Hon. Jim Robertson, the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works, said in one letter: You will recall that I telexed you on 25 February expressing my concern over deferral of approval for new works on the Stuart Highway. Deferral of the five projects worth approximately $10m has caused considerable disruption to the construction industry in the Northern Territory and has created significant loss of job opportunities. Of these five projects, tenders have closed on two and the others are scheduled to close this month. The letter goes on to indicate what those contracts were. They have been mentioned before so I will not take up the time of the Senate going through that information now. He said also in a telex: The lowest tenderers . . . are both ready to proceed with the respective works immediately approval is granted. The deferral of these new projects has resulted in an untenable situation where we can no longer achieve the 83/84 expenditure requirements of the national highway programs with the major effect being reflected on the Australian bicentennial road development program. It is imperative that the construction of the Stuart Highway proceeds if the objectives of the ABRD program are to be met. As you know the primary objective is to upgrade the nation's road system to a high standard by, or soon after, 1988. Important factors in this aim are the meeting of the growing transportation needs of Australia; the enhancement of safety on our roads; the construction of developmental roads, including those of importance for national tourism. Tourism is of the utmost importance. He continues: I would very much appreciate your urgent consideration in expediting approval to these outstanding projects in order that these aims be achieved. Continuity of work and much needed job opportunities in the Territory will also result once these works get under way. At the very least and as an interim measure I request that the two projects for which acceptable tenders are held be allowed to commence immediately. After all that-this has been going on for quite some time now-the Minister, as if there is something new about it, as if it is completely off his own bat, having held up funds for most necessary road projects for several months, comes out with a slur on the Northern Territory Government, suggesting that it is not doing its job. It was a most remarkable statement. This is in keeping with the point I made previously on another matter; that is, that the Federal Government is misappropriating funds from the bicentennial road development program. There are other matters but I will touch on them only very quickly because they have been covered by others. Very briefly, on the matter of tendering, it is my understanding that an amendment is to be moved in an endeavour to have the present situation rectified so that private enterprise, which employs so many people in the field and which means so much to employment, will be responsible for road construction. Surely when one is on a good thing one should stick to it . Why take away something when it is working well and put in its place a scheme that has not been proved? I am not saying that it will not work. I am asking: Why tamper with the existing situation which has proved very conclusively that private enterprise, be it in the cities, along the seaboard or along the highways in the outback, has the ability to carry out what is required? Surely it is in keeping with the character of the bicentennial road development program , which is to be completed by 1988-at least until the Federal Government tampers with it-a program in which all Australian motorists are participating, that private enterprise plays its part. In conclusion, I find it very disappointing to see an Australian Federal government behaving in such a shoddy manner. The approach adopted in this legislation and in what the Minister for Transport has said is typical of the behaviour of a group of politicians who are in opposition, not in government. I expect much more of a Federal government. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2 p.m. Senator PETER RAE —Is it a fact that last night the Minister for Industry and Commerce presented to the Caucus industry committee a report on the car industry and certain proposals in relation thereto? Did this report give any firm indication of the Government's long-awaited decision on the car industry? Will the Minister inform the Senate and the Australian people of the Government's plans, given that members of the Caucus committee presumably have been told? Further, will Japanese car makers be briefed during the Minister's coming visit to Japan and other parts of Asia? Senator BUTTON —As the Senate well knows, the deliberations of party committees and of the Labor Party Caucus are secret. It is true that last night at the Caucus industry committee I gave a general outline of the Government's intentions in relation to the motor vehicle industry and gave some timetabling in respect of the proposal which the Government has for that industry. They were very general comments and I have not made anywhere and will not be making any detailed prescription of the Government's intentions until the Government's plans are announced. Insofar as the Japanese car industry is concerned, as Senator Rae knows I will be in Japan next week. Amongst others I will be talking to representatives of the parent companies of Japanese car manufacturers in Australia. It would be vacuous if I discussed with the Japanese companies the general situation in the world motor vehicle industry without reference to what has been happening in Australia and what is intended. But again that will be in broad terms. I do not propose to make any further announcements in relation to this matter until the Government has made a decision and an announcement at the appropriate time. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. May we anticipate that, unlike the Prime Minister, the Minister will make his statements in Australia and in the Parliament, and not from the safe distance of Tokyo when the decisions are taken or not taken? Senator BUTTON —I will decide the appropriateness of what I say at all times. Senator Rae asked whether I will not make any statement from the safety of Tokyo . I have never been to Tokyo. I do not know how safe it is. Senator Peter Rae —It is further away from those protesters outside Parliament House. Senator BUTTON —The protesters outside Parliament House have nothing to do with the motor vehicle industry. As in everything that this Government does, there has been a lengthy and detailed process of consultation with the motor vehicle industry and with the unions involved in relation to the development of the Government's motor industry proposals. That does not mean that the Government has informed those interests of our intentions in any detail, but we have sought their views in determining what action the Government will take. I will be doing the same thing in Japan. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the changes announced by the Government last year to both the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Bank. Have these changes had any effect on the performance of these institutions as yet? Secondly , how do the Government and the Minister expect that these changes will alter the role of both of these institutions in the proposed revitalisation of Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Bolkus for his question, which came as something of a surprise to me. But it provides me with an opportunity to say something about the importance which the Government attaches to these two instrumentalities. Senator Lewis —Why are you putting your glasses on? Senator BUTTON —I put my glasses on because they help me not to see Senator Lewis when I am answering a question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer Senator Bolkus's question. Senator BUTTON —Both the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Bank occupy very important places in the Government's industry policy. The changes announced by me last year in relation to both those institutions, particularly the AIDC, have dramatically improved the capacity of those institutions to play an effective part in industrial recovery. In 1983-84 the AIDC's financial performance has been extraordinary. The return on capital and reserves was a record 14 per cent. Net profit was a record $15.3m, up 45 per cent on the previous year. The AIDC was ranked first in profit per employee amongst the top 500 companies in Australia. I was also asked about the Commonwealth Development Bank, which continues to perform a vital role as an important source of finance for business in Australia , particularly small business. In the eight-month period from July 1983 to March 1984 the Bank's lending to business increased by 114 per cent from $22m to $47m over the corresponding period in 1982-83. In the light of that performance record of both institutions it is quite extraordinary that the Opposition of this country proposes to sell these institutions because of some ideological commitment to the sale of the best and brightest examples of Australian public sector initiatives. That quite extraordinary announcement was made by the Opposition a week or so ago. It is the same old, tired, razor gang revisited philosophy which characterised this Opposition when in government. I would have thought it was an extraordinary announcement. In making that announcement about the AIDC and the Commonwealth Development Bank the Opposition said that it would look at a number of other government instrumentalities-with all the charm of a cobra. Over many years the Fraser Government looked at a number of other government instrumentalities and did nothing about them. The important point is that the Opposition in this country has to face the fact that there are important decisions to be made about the shape and structure of Australian industry now and in the future, that rapid changes are taking place and that those changes must be guided if we are to ensure the best development for Australian industry. Sir Gordon Jackson, Chairman of the AIDC, one of the institutions specifically referred to, in a recent speech said: Australia is desperately in need of better institutions and processes to facilitate adaptation to change. We are fortunate that the AIDC is over its establishment years and is in good vigorous condition to serve Australia. If it had not been created it would certainly have had to have been invented. If the Opposition is to make a sensible contribution to the debate on these issues and on the future shape of Australian industry it would be better advised , in the Government's view, not to adopt its current proposals in relation to these two fine institutions. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the papers from which he has quoted. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled those papers. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, follows somewhat his answer to the last question. Is it a fact that the Minister presented a report on industry restructuring to last night's meeting of the Caucus industry committee? Was this rejected in part or in whole by that committee? Was that rejection because of concern about protection of employment opportunities? Will the Minister indicate to the Senate the current position of the Government's plans on industry restructuring? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is yes, I did present a report on industry restructuring to the Caucus industry committee last night. The answer to the second part of the question, as to whether that was rejected in whole or in part, is no, it was not. The third part of the question asked whether I would announce the priorities which the Government has in relation to industry restructuring matters. As Senator Sir John Carrick, a member of the discredited former Government, would well know, these things take time and necessitate a number of planned yet pragmatic decisions in response to particular situations. The Government will be making an appropriate announcement when it sees fit. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of any proposals by the Government to sell or dispose of its interests in government enterprises such as the Overseas Telecommunication Commission, Aussat Pty Ltd, Telecom Australia, et cetera? What are the Minister's views on any such proposals? Senator BUTTON —This Opposition, Mr President, is delighting in its new found literacy. It is seriously concerned that the Clerk might have a bit of paper which is in some way relevant to this matter. The answer to the honourable senator's question is simply this: No, the Government has no plans at all to sell or dispose of the instrumentalities mentioned in the honourable senator's question. If one looks at the history of this matter and at the performance of this Government when it was in opposition, one finds that the views which we espouse today about this matter are consistent with those which we espoused when we were in opposition. This question arises, I suspect, because of the rather nitwitted statements that have been emanating from Opposition circles about looking at Commonwealth Government instrumentalities with a view to doing something about them. I am sure that they will all be delighted to know that the Opposition is looking at them. Whether they will regard its glances as relevant to their futures, I do not know. They will have to make a political judgment about that. But insofar as the Government is concerned, there are no proposals to dispose of the Commonwealth instrumentalities referred to in the question. Might I illustrate that in connection with a particular instrumentality such as Telecom. There has been a long-standing debate in this Senate and in the community at large about the future of Telecom. Our view in regard to the future of Telecom was quite implicit in announcements made by the Government over many years both when we were in opposition and during the time we have been in government. That view has been reflected in legislation in connection with Telecom which was passed in the Senate, I think, about three weeks ago. One of the things we have been concerned to do is not only to involve Telecom as the major common carrier in Australia in the Board and structure of the company Aussat, which will control the satellite development, but also in that same legislation we have made available the capacity for Telecom to establish subsidiary companies with a view to its being involved with private enterprise in the development of new telecommunications technologies in Australia. Whether Telecom takes up that opportunity which is available to it is a matter for Telecom ultimately to determine. What this Government has done has been to give it the oppportunity. Those sorts of initiatives, which have been taken in a number of areas in relation to Commonwealth instrumentalities, of course, reflect the Government's view and, with respect, I deny any suggestion that this Government entertains any proposals which might involve disposing of any of those instrumentalities. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. On 7 January 1983, Senator Durack, when he was a Minister in the previous Government, announced a new scheme entitled the 'war service, repatriation, rehabilitation and general scheme'. I ask the Minister: Why is it that when he came to government he said that he would be giving urgent consideration to that scheme and that ever since then every question put to him still results in the same answer, which is that the matter is under consideration? Is the Government going to do anything about that scheme? If the Minister is unable to respond to that question, what precisely is the problem which is causing the inordinate delay? Senator GIETZELT —In reply to the specific question asked of me about the commitment which Senator Durack may have made several years ago on legal aid affecting an ex-service person, all I can say is that there was no provision in the Budget of the year in which Senator Durack made the suggestion, nor was there any such provision in the Budget provided by this Government in 1983-84. I have not, therefore, had access to funds for the purpose of providing legal aid. That matter comes within the province of the Attorney-General. Whether the Government in its wisdom sets aside funds for such purposes is determined at the time the Budget is drawn up. In respect of a number of other more general questions that were asked of me by Senator Macklin, of course there are many schemes which my Party desires to see operating concerning veterans' affairs. But they depend largely on the availability of funds at the time the Budget is framed. Of course the honourable senator has not assisted us in that process by voting against legislation designed to recoup money from tax evaders, because doing so reduces the Government's capacity to meet its electoral commitments. Until such time as we are able to collect all of the taxes that are due to us, Ministers such as Senator Grimes and I who provide benefits for people generally in the areas of social security and veterans' affairs will have our capacity reduced to that extent. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of the United States Attorney-General, the Hon. William French Smith, accompanied by Mrs Smith. On behalf of honourable senators may I extend to our distinguished visitors a warm and friendly welcome to this chamber and to Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Given the role of UNESCO as an important, useful and productive instrument for international co-operation covering a wide variety of interests, will the Minister advise the Senate of the Australian Government's attitude and the implications of the decision of the United States to withdraw? Senator GARETH EVANS —I only hope that the timing of that question is coincidental. The Australian Government has expressed its concern at the implications of the United States decision to withdraw from UNESCO effective from the end of this year. The decision, of course, reflects quite serious American concern at what is seen as the politicisation of UNESCO and its pursuit of proposals inimical to United States interests as well as perceived inadequacies-whether that is an accurate perception or not is something, of course, on which our own Ambassador has other views-in its budget and administration. Australia shares at least some of those concerns. We believe that such problems have unfortunately weakened the support that UNESCO has received in Western countries. At the same time-and this would have been very evident from the recent visit to Australia of our Ambassador-we recognise that UNESCO has played a very important role in advancing international co-operation in the sciences, education, culture and communication. We value those practical programs which can help the development of member states, including Australia's regional neighbours. We are therefore very concerned at the loss of the American contribution, which provides one quarter of UNESCO's budget. That organisation will suffer from the loss of the United States' practical and intellectual contribution to it. In announcing its withdrawal, I recall that the United States indicated that in the year ahead it would remain open to indications of what it perceived to be significant improvement in the operation of that organisation. Mrs Kirkpatrick said as much during her recent visit to Australia. Australia is committed to working this year with the United States and other countries, including the developing countries, for improvements within the organisation, which we hope will enable the Americans to review that decision. Senator HILL —Was the Minister for Industry and Commerce consulted by the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister's announcement in China on future trade in steel with that country? If so, when and by what means? Senator BUTTON —If the question seeks to elucidate whether there were any formal consultations between the Prime Minister and me relating to the China steel initiative, as it has been called, the answer is no. But, of course, there were informal consultations in the context of looking at opportunities for the expansion of Australian export markets and the expansion, in particular, of the steel industry. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy a question about the United Kingdom atomic tests which took place in Australia two to three decades ago. I am concerned that some people may interpret his public comments, which give the facts to the extent that his Department's records show them, as somehow condoning those tests. Will he assure the Senate that he in no way defends those tests, conducted as they were under the auspices of a government of the political persuasion of our opponents, and that the present Government would not be, and would not have been, involved in allowing any such tests; that, while there may be continuing argument about the extent of damage to personnel directly involved and to others who may have been in the area then or since, the tests did no one any good; and further, that while this Government would have to take responsibility on behalf of its predecessors for any compensation which may be awarded by a court, it is not responsible, nor does it excuse, any lapse that may have occurred in the way in which those tests were conducted with the approval of the Menzies Government. Finally, will he also assure us that he will not permit a similarly conservative UK government to misuse so-called national security arguments to hide information which Australia ought to have? Senator WALSH —I assure the honourable senator that the Australian Government is opposed to the testing of atomic weapons. Indeed, that opposition was made to the French in very forceful terms last year, and continues to be made this year. The Australian Labor Party, when in opposition, of course, has long been opposed either to atmospheric or non-atmospheric testing. If I recall correctly, that opposition dates back at least to the early 1960s and possibly further back. With the knowledge of today, it would be generally agreed that many of the things done by the British-with the full approval of the then Australian Government, of course, as Senator Coates noted-at Maralinga were at best careless and at worst irresponsible. It could even be argued that some of them fitted into that category even at the time that they took place. To be fair to the British, I think it ought to be noted for the record that due to the typically sycophantic Liberal-National Party Government that ruled Australia at the time, the British were virtually begged to come to Australia to conduct those tests. Therefore, any criticism of the UK should be put into that context. In other words, the blame for whatever happened at Maralinga ultimately rests squarely with the then Government of Australia; that is, the sycophantic coalition Government led by Sir Robert Menzies which is still admired by most of those who sit opposite. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, relates to the review being undertaken of the Government's assets test proposals and, in particular, to the effect it will have on the date that any subsequent test will come into effect. Because of the immense concern that has been expressed to me by the Combined Pensioners Association and other individual elderly citizens about what they should do with their current assets in case there is retrospective legislation, I ask: Firstly, can it be assumed, for the protection from worry of these people, that the restrospective operation provisions concerning deprivation of income and assets that was to apply from 24 August 1983 will not now take place? Secondly, will immediate action be taken by the Government to clarify its position in this matter with pensioners, so that they can make responsible decisions in dealing with their current assets? Senator RYAN —On behalf of the Minister for Social Security, I provide Senator Missen with the following information. In the Minister's statement on the assets test on Budget night last year he announced that from 24 August 1983 the disposal of assets without adequate consideration would constitute deprivation of assets for the purposes of the test. That provision was included in the test to ensure that in the period between the announcement of the test and its actual implementation people would not be able to circumvent it by disposing of assets that would otherwise be assessable. This, of course, is similar to common practice in relation to changes in the tax system that are aimed at addressing tax avoidance practices and so on. Pending the outcome of the review of the assets test that is currently being undertaken, these provisions will continue to apply at least until the Government has made a decision on the panel's report. If they did not apply and if the Government does decide to introduce an assets test, such a test would be quite ineffective as it would provide opportunities for people to dispose of assets prior to the test's introduction. At the same time, I note that these provisions do not prevent pensioners selling or reducing their assets for legitimate reasons, such as the purchase of consumer goods, home maintenance or improvements or to finance-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —I think Senator Missen at least is quite interested in the information that I am able to provide on behalf of the Minister for Social Security. So I repeat that the provisions do not prevent pensioners from selling or reducing their assets for legitimate reasons, such as for the purchase of consumer goods, home maintenance or home improvements or to finance trips or holidays. I also point out that by maintaining these provisions, as contained in the Bill that has been tabled in the House, nothing has changed in relation to pensioners' expectations concerning the test. Prior to the announcement of the review, pensioners were aware that any deprivation of assets they undertook between 24 August and the introduction of the test would be covered under the test. In this respect continuation of the provisions, at least until the Government has made a decision on the panel's report, changes nothing and has no additional impact on pensioners. I hope that information assists Senator Missen. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister not agree that the extended period while the Government makes up its mind means that many pensioners who are worried by this proposal have no possibility, perhaps, of making certain decisions, and that people of considerable age are therefore stuck in that position until the Government makes up its mind? Senator RYAN —I do not agree with this scaremongering in which Senator Missen, I might say quite uncharacteristically, is engaging. Senator Missen knows, and I am sure that pensioners throughout the country know, that the Government is currently undertaking the review. There is adequate participation of pensioners and groups representing pensioners in that review. I am sure that the attempts to whip up insecurity, that the Opposition seems to be intent upon, will fail totally. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the recently appointed National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education held its first meeting? If so, can the Minister give some indication of priorities established by the Committee? Senator RYAN —Senator Giles's question is timely. The first meeting of the National Multicultural Advisory Committee is taking place as I speak. I think that it is of interest to many honourable senators, and certainly to ethnic communities and to those in the community who have been supporting multiculturalism, that this Government has done what the previous Government was asked to do on many occasions but failed to do; that is, to set up a national body to advise the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs on the development of multicultural education. I was pleased to be able to take this initiative on behalf of the Government. I took it after very wide advertisement and promotion of the idea of the Committee. I am pleased to announce that the Committee has a very wide representation of competent persons from many different ethnic backgrounds, all of whom have expertise in the education area. The Committee is chaired by Professor Jayasuriya, who is head of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Western Australia and is very well known in the area of multiculturalism. Other members of the Committee are equally able, I believe, to make a very important contribution. As to the priorities that the Committee will adopt, as I explained to members of the Committee today, that is a matter for their consideration, but I drew their attention to a number of areas which our Government sees as priorities in the area. They include the development of a national language policy; the development of a policy towards the teaching of community languages in schools and perhaps what must precede that, the preparation of teachers for the teaching of community languages in schools; the development of the participation and equity program to accommodate the needs of young people in secondary education who are from a variety of ethnic backgrounds; and our objectives with regard to establishing equal opportunity for girls and women at all levels of education. We have also asked them to consider the importance of bringing together information on what is happening in multicultural education at all levels, from early childhood services through to higher education and technical and further education. There are a number of initiatives taking place in various States and Territories and, of course, there are initiatives outside the state system in independent schools, the Catholic school system and so on. So, I am looking forward to having a very constructive relationship with this Committee. I am please to report to the Senate that the Committee has expressed, on behalf of the various organisations and community groups that it represents, its satisfaction with the Commonwealth initiative in this regard. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she has extensively quoted. Senator RYAN —I am quite happy to table the papers, but I must point out that I have no prepared answer. I have a number of papers, which contain a number of facts by which no doubt Senator Chaney will be much illumined. The PRESIDENT —The Minister does not claim them to be confidential. I take it that you are prepared to table the papers, Senator? Senator RYAN —Yes. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. On 4 May 1983, nearly a year ago, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following question: . . . what action has been taken or will be taken by the present Government in disposing of the two Boeing 707 aircraft, the acquisition and use of which was constantly criticised by the previous Opposition? To that question, the Minister answered as follows: The prime role of the two Boeing 707 aircraft currently operated by the Royal Australian Air Force is to provide a strategic air transport capability for the Australian Defence Force . . . It is proposed to modify the four B707 aircraft for in-flight refuelling to extend the capabilities of F111 and FA18 aircraft. I ask, first, whether an analysis of the flying time of the four B707s could be given to the Senate; and, secondly, whether the four B707s have already been modified for the in-flight refuelling. Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask the honourable senator to place his question on notice. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. What is the Government's response to the recent agreement between the Victorian Labor Government and its Liberal Party Opposition on parliamentary reform, hailed yesterday by Mr Cain and Mr Kennett as the most fundamental constitutional change in Victoria this century? Will the Minister explain why the Liberal Party members here, unlike their Victorian counterparts, cannot accept the democratic virtue of a four-year parliamentary term with a minimum fixed term of three years? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This question contains a gross misrepresentation of fact. The Opposition supported four-year terms, and the question is predicated on a totally false set of facts and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order at this stage. Senator ROBERT RAY —I continue with the question. Has the Government any reason to hope that the Opposition in this place will accept the reality of stable government, as its Opposition colleagues in Sydney and Melbourne have already done? The PRESIDENT —Order! Insofar as the question relates to the administration of the Minister's portfolio, I would ask him to restrict his remarks to that aspect . Senator GARETH EVANS —It is very closely related to matters of high public policy in this Parliament, Mr President. I think that it is appropriate that we should understand the implications of the recent Victorian development. I acknowledge the point made about the support of the other side of this chamber, perhaps only temporary, for four-year terms. That was not, of course, the nub of Senator Ray' s question. It was the concept of four-year terms with a minimum fixed term of three years. Those were the terms in which the question was asked, and those were the terms in which the concept has been accepted by the Victorian Liberals. The Victorian Liberals' acceptance of that proposition is a fascinating development and one that puts the position of the national Liberal Party absolutely to shame. There are very real and obvious advantages in a system of fixed term parliaments, including the modified version of that system which has now been developed in Australia. There are advantages of fewer elections, of a more rational political climate generally, better opportunities for planning and a general situation of stability and continuity in government, which is a precondition of good government. The present Government remains, as it always has been, of the belief that there are enormous advantages and merits associated with a fixed term parliament system. What we were forced to conclude last year, given the strident and noisome opposition of the kind that is being expressed here today, was that there is simply no prospect of rational debate in the Australian community on this matter so long as the Opposition parties approach it with the dog in the manger attitude which they have expressed so often in the past and are expressing here again today. The utility of a fixed term system goes not only to continuity, stability and rationality in the election cycle. It also has great practical utility in resolving some of the deadlocks and dilemmas that flow from the relationship between two Houses of this kind. It is a measure, again, of the Opposition's unwillingness to accept the realities of the democratic process and the proper role of this chamber in it that the Opposition should maintain, as it has, its fierce opposition to any such system. Our position remains one that, recognising - Senator Townley —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This is almost becoming a ministerial statement. Why cannot the Minister deliver it out of Question Time , thus giving some of us a better chance of asking a question? Things have been going on like this for weeks. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to restrict his remarks to the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —The reality is that there is no point whatsoever in pursuing the notion of fixed terms in any form whatsoever so long as there is an absence of any degree of bipartisan support for it. That has been the history of referendums in this country, and that was the realisation that forced this Government to the position that it has now had to adopt, of putting the concept of fixed terms in cold storage. We simply ask that the Liberals and their National Party accompanists over there appreciate the historical significance of the step that has been taken in Victoria and learn from that example. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the cutting off from unemployment benefit of a number of part time students at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Is the Minister aware that the local office of the Department of Social Security has no firm guidelines to advise it as to the amount of study which renders a part time student ineligible for unemployment benefit? When does a student, by virtue of study load, become ineligible for unemployment benefit? In that event, how does she expect those students to eat or to live? In view of the lack of guidelines, how are the officers of the Department of Social Security supposed to know how to judge individual students as being eligible or ineligible for this support? Senator RYAN —I must say it is amazing that Senator Baume, having not all that long ago presided over the education portfolio and the very inadequate provision of tertiary allowances to students, should decide to take on the cause of students who are too poor to even support themselves. As Senator Baume of all people in this place will be very well aware, we inherited a situation in which the level of the tertiary education assistance scheme had declined considerably in terms of its purchasing value over a period of years, a seven-year period in which increases in TEAS had been few and far between and extremely minor. Therefore I must say I am surprised that he suddenly finds sympathy with the cause of students who do not have enough income to support themselves properly. I am aware of the publicity that has been given to the situation in Lismore. The administration of the unemployment benefit is, of course, the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. The Department of Social Security, in the absence of the Minister, has provided the following information although I must say before I give it that I find it extremely surprising that any Social Security office operating and paying out benefits would not have available to it the information about eligibility concerning the number of hours a student can study before he or she becomes ineligible. The information that has been provided to me does not take up that point. I will ask the Department of Social Security to provide for Senator Baume's benefit information about what guidelines are available to the office in Lismore. However, I would be extremely surprised if this matter were not known to those officers since there has been no change for a number of years. Unfortunately there has been no change; I would like to think that there could be changes in the forthcoming Budget. Senator Baume would, of course, know this since they were guidelines that would have affected his administration of TEAS in the education portfolio. The information provided by the Department is as follows: To qualify for an unemployment benefit a person must satisfy a delegate of the Director-General of Social Security that in each benefit period he or she is unemployed, capable of and willing to undertake suitable paid work and taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. Generally a person engaged in full-time studies would not be able to meet these requirements. Student claimants are interviewed to ascertain all the relevant facts of the case and particularly their intention to enter the workforce. Where benefit is granted and there is some doubt as to a student's continuing eligibility, further interviews are carried out at appropriate intervals. Revised instructions have been issued by the department to ensure that unemployment benefit is paid to claimants who are unemployed and have a genuine intention to find and accept suitable full-time work at the first opportunity. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question to the Minister specifically concerned students enrolled part time all of whom claim that they are available for full time work. I ask the Minister: What is the boundary point at which part time students are deemed under the guidelines not to be available to undertake full time work? That is the point at which they lose their benefit. Senator RYAN —If Senator Baume had paid attention to the information that was provided, obviously the matter is one for determination on the merits of an individual case. If students are interviewed and then re-interviewed as to their eligibility obviously their willingness and availability for full time work is something they have an opportunity to establish. I do not want to defend the application of these guidelines in every case. Obviously I am in no position to do that. As I have said I have no information about particular guidelines available in the offices in Lismore but quite clearly the judgment is one of whether the students are ready and available to undertake full time work. If they are then, according to the guidelines set out here, they ought to be entitled to unemployment benefit. However, I will have to seek further information from the Department about the specific judgments that are being made in the Lismore case. In conclusion I simply repeat that this sudden interest in students with low incomes is quite remarkable coming from the former Minister for Education in a government which was tougher on students than any other government in the history of this country. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women seen an article in the Weekend Australian dated 21-22 April 1984 in which Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen claims: I've never thought there was a need for a women's movement because women could always get what they wanted anyway. Look at Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandhi . Further, talking of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's visit to China and women working out in the fields, she states: The same is going to happen here with this sex discrimination bill. Women will have to work just as hard as the men and they won't have chairs pulled out for them or be given seats on buses. While I am tempted to be flippant about this riotous claim, I think it distracts from the very real- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator CROWLEY —Yes, certainly, Mr President. I think it distracts from the very real significance of the women's movement and this Government's commitment to the rights and needs of all women, not just those who are seeking seats in Federal Parliament. Can the Minister put the senator from Queensland right? Senator Kilgariff —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I suggest it is time the question was put. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the honourable senator to put her question. Senator CROWLEY —Is it appropriate for me to take up- The PRESIDENT —Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator CROWLEY —Yes, Mr President. Can the Minister put the senator from Queensland right and explain the real understanding of the Government's policies for women, including the Sex Discrimination Bill? Senator Chaney —Mr President, after a very long delay the senator came to a question which was a request that the Minister put Senator Bjelke-Petersen right . It is not a part of Question Time to invite the Minister to lecture another senator and I suggest you rule the question out of order. Mr PRESIDENT —The last portion of the senator's question related the matter to the Minister's portfolio and I ask her to answer the question. Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to reports of comments by Senator Bjelke-Petersen to the effect that there was not a need for a women's movement and that women could always get what they wanted. In the view of our Government all women cannot get what they want and generally what they want are things such as a secure income, housing, education for their children, health care and other basic services and provisions that our Government believes all persons in an affluent democracy are certainly entitled to. If Senator Bjelke-Petersen would address her attention to some of the information coming out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the Department of Housing and Construction or indeed the Department of Social Security-the portfolio in which I am temporarily representing Senator Grimes-she would find that there are many women in Australian society who do not have employment, who do not have secure income of any kind, who do not have adequate income to look after the needs of their children, who do not have a secure and adequate home and who do not feel that they have the benefits that our society is able to confer on people such as Senator Bjelke-Petersen and me. While ever there are those unmet needs in terms of the basic needs and securities of women and the people who are dependent upon them then there is, in my view, the need for a women's movement to draw the attention of government towards those unmet needs. With regard to the situation of women in China, I think it is not always very helpful to try to make direct comparisons between, in our case, a democracy with a population of over 14 million people and, in the case of China, a system which is not a democratic system and which has a population in excess of 900 million. I think the economic opportunities that are available to Chinese women must necessarily be different from the economic opportunities that are available to Australian women and it is not particularly helpful to try to make direct comparisons. I conclude by saying that in the view of our Government-it is a view backed up by a vast range of statistical information and a view I think shared by many Opposition senators-there are many basic unmet needs by women in Australian society and we consider it the business of our Government to develop policies to meet those needs. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and follows his lengthy lecture on the question of a four-year parliament. I ask the Attorney- General with respect to that proposition which he will recall had the support of the Opposition as well as the Government: Has the Government had access to market research on the acceptability of that particular proposal for a four-year term in the different States of Australia? Did that research show that it was unlikely that the proposition would be supported by the electorate in sufficient numbers in a referendum for it to pass? If he has had access to research of that nature with that advice or any other sort of advice flowing from it, who paid for the research? Why is the Government not proceeding with its referendum for a four-year term? Was it because it became convinced that the referendum would not succeed? If that is not the case, what is the reason? Senator GARETH EVANS —The question I answered was not about four-year parliaments as such but about the particular question of fixed term parliaments in the light of recent Victorian developments. To that extent, Senator Chaney's question is based on a significantly false premise. As to the Government's research in relation to the likely prospects of success for the proposal mooted last year for four-year parliamentary terms combined with eight-year Senate terms, which was very much the albatross pulling that particular proposal down, it is the case that both a degree of research conducted by us and the publicly available research indicated that the proposal, of all of them, was one that looked to have not a strong chance of success. Certainly that is something that the Government has taken into account in its current consideration of the proposals that will be put forward to referendum later in the year. As to precisely what those proposals will be, that is, as I have said previously in this place, something that will be the subject of a detailed and full announcement in due course. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General referred to research which was commissioned by, I think he used the expression, 'us'. I ask: Who paid for the research that was commissioned by 'us'? Was it the Labor Party or the taxpayer through the administration of this Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that I can give an answer to that question. I believe it was government funded research as is perfectly proper and appropriate when one is talking about-- Senator Townley —Well, table it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am perfectly happy to do that. Estimates committees are sitting this week. It is a perfectly proper question in that context and it will be answered when I have the information available for me to do so. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to the continuing dispute at Broken Hill involving local miners and to various statements issued to the Barrier Daily Truth newspaper by the local manager of the Commonwealth Employment Service, Mr Sullivan, and the Registrar of the local Department of Social Security office, Mr McGrane, in relation to the payment of unemployment benefits. The Minister will be aware that a great deal of confusion and genuine misunderstanding has arisen in Broken Hill as a result of apparently conflicting statements issued by the officers referred to. Mr Sullivan, by way of Press release in the Barrier Daily Truth on 29 March issued the the following statement-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Too much detail is being given in questions. I ask honourable senators to restrict their questions as much as possible to precise questions and Ministers to restrict their answers to the minimum of explanation so that every honourable senator will be given an opportunity to ask questions. Senator SIBRAA —Thank you, Mr President. In view of the conflicting statements, I ask the Minister: Due to the confusion created by the original statement issued by Mr Sullivan in which he implied that miners would be eligible for benefits but failed to mention the eligibility of spouses, will the Minister ensure that benefits are backdated to 29 March for eligible spouses who registered as a result of the statement issued by Mr McGrane on 6 April? Senator RYAN —I am advised by the Department that neither the Minister for Social Security nor the Department of Social Security has any discretion to backdate unemployment benefit claims by miners' wives to the date of their husbands' claims. However, the Department has also provided me with a great deal of detailed information setting out precise arrangements about eligibility which I think will be of benefit to Senator Sibraa and other honourable senators who are interested. I do not propose to take up any more of Question Time because it would be quite a lengthy business to read the information out. I incorporate the detailed answer in Hansard for the benefit of Senator Sibraa and other honourable senators. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The statements made by the officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES ) and the Department of Social Security are not considered at variance. A person is required to register for work with the CES in order to be eligible for unemployment benefit. However, the Department of Social Security has the responsibility to decide eligibility to unemployment benefit. The determination of eligibility for unemployment benefit of persons unemployed as a result of industrial action requires careful gathering of all the factors precipitating the dispute and considering these facts against the criteria set out in the legislation. A person can not be deterred from lodging a claim for benefit at any time during the course of a dispute. A married woman may claim unemployment benefit at any time and her entitlement is decided in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Act. In relation to unemployment benefit the Social Security Act provides that payment may be made from and including the seventh day after the day on which a person became unemployed or after the day on which he/she made a claim for unemployment benefit, whichever is the later. Generally speaking, the date of registration with the CES is accepted as the date on which a person makes a claim for unemployment benefit. Where a person can show that he/she was unemployed, capable of undertaking and willing to undertake suitable work and taking reasonable steps to obtain such work prior to claiming, the date of commencement of benefit can be advanced by the appropriate period up to seven days. Any persons who feel they have met these conditions prior to the lodgement of a claim may have the matter reviewed at the local office of the Department. Of course any person who is not satisfied with a decision of the Department has a right of appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and ultimately to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Neither the Minister for Social Security nor the Department of Social Security has any discretion to dackdate unemployment benefit claims by miners' wives to the date of their husbands' claims. Where a person is experiencing hardship whilst awaiting payment of unemployment benefit, or where a wife is unable to qualify for unemployment benefit, special benefit may be payable. I am advised that these cases of special benefit may commence from the date of the husband's claim for benefit. The statement of 29 March 1984 in the Broken Hill newspaper was made by the Commonwealth Employment Service not by the Department of Social Security. This response has been cleared with the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It refers to an advertisement in a national newspaper for the sale of flags, T-shirts and car bumper stickers which contains an illustration of a flag sub-titled: 'The No. 1 Contender for the 1988 New Flag Job'. I ask whether the following statement in the advertisement is true: The highlight of Australia's Bi-centennial Celebration in 1988 will be the gaining, at long last, of our own distinctively Australian National Flag. That defaced British Blue Ensign, presently masquerading as our National Flag will be replaced. Is this a statement of Hawke Government policy? If so, why has the Government not made a public announcement to that effect? With reference to the advertisement's statement 'Opinion polls now show that the No. 1 Contender for our new Flag is the beautiful flag design shown above', does the Government have any knowledge of which opinion polls this advertisement refers to? If so, will the Government make full details of those polls publicly available? If, however, these claims in the advertisement are fabricated, will the Government consider prosecution under section 53 of the Trade Practices Act for promotion for sale of goods depicting this flag design which people could reasonably believe from the wording of the advertisement to have some official approval? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matter is more properly directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, who is responsible for national symbols and anthems, songs, flags, colours and all the rest of the things that wax passion so indignant and eloquent on the other side of the chamber. The reality of the matter is that the Government has made no decision whatsoever of any kind in relation to the question of a new flag. There have been some suggestions canvassed in various quarters, notably at the instance of the Ausflag organisation, that there ought to be some kind of national competition or perhaps some kind of inquiry-possibly a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry, possibly again, some kind of externally constituted inquiry. Some further consideration will be given to these options by the Government in due course, but no consideration has been given at the moment nor is any such consideration imminent. As to the question of whether any prosecution might be appropriate under the Trade Practices Act for false and misleading advertising, I think that is stretching a very long bow indeed. But I will refer the matter to my advisers and the Trade Practices Commission to see whether they think there might be some prima facie grounds for such action. Senator Martin —That is very specific in section 53 which I mentioned in my question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that all sorts of things are claimed to be false and misleading advertising or in other ways to satisfy the other provisions in Part V of the Act. Senator Martin —Representing goods less than honestly. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have indicated that the matter will be looked at to see whether there is any basis for any such action. On the face of it, I would think it unlikely. Senator JONES —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs seen reports in today's Courier-Mail in which there is a claim of extending the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to all tertiary students? A plea was made by Mr Powell, the State Minister for Education. He stated that means tests for tertiary education assistance schemes should be completely removed. Can the Minister explain why the Government continues to impose a means test on TEAS payments? Would she also give some outline of the cost to the Government of removing the means test. Senator RYAN —I did read the helpful suggestion from Mr Powell that all means testing on TEAS benefits should be wiped out! I was surprised to see him making such a suggestion since his Government, like many others, is making many demands on the Commonwealth Government for assistance in the education area. I am advised by my Department, which has had only a short period to look at this matter, that we would be virtually doubling the expenditure on TEAS by that means alone, which would mean some couple of hundred million dollars extra spent on TEAS, without doing anything about the level of TEAS, without doing anything about the eligibility for it, which is still very restricted, and without addressing the needs in areas such as secondary allowances and other areas. In the light of the present budgetary constraints and in the light of the needs based approach for allowances and other benefits that this Government is pursuing, I consider it most unlikely that we would proceed along these lines because in doing so we would not only engage in a great deal of extra budgetary expenditure with no extra students being involved, but we would also be giving assistance to some cases where assistance was not called for. In the forthcoming Budget period we will be trying to get extra assistance for those students who really need it. We will be trying to get extra assistance so that more young people who would like to study but, at the moment, have no opportunity to do so, might be able to take up that opportunity. Senator JESSOP —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of a recent letter to the Prime Minister written by Mr Rajab, the South African, who was unfairly and undemocratically refused entry to Australia by the Government because the Prime Minister applied censorship and wrongly suggested that the intention of the visit was to propagandise apartheid? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to details of this letter in which Mr Rajab pointed out that he was a founder member of a political party called Solidarity which, inter alia, stands for the abolition of apartheid and which opposes, firstly, all discrimination based on race, colour and creed; secondly, the curtailment of freedom of speech and movement; thirdly, all discriminatory legislation; and, fourthly, detentions without trial. As Mr Rajab- Senator Robertson —What about the length of questions? Senator JESSOP —I have asked two questions already. I certainly have another question implicit- The PRESIDENT —Order! Would the honourable senator ignore the interjections? Senator JESSOP —Certainly, Mr President, but I am getting a little bit annoyed about this business. I can understand you- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. Senator JESSOP —As Mr Rajab is obviously a vigourous opponent of apartheid, which is the main reason why I and 51 of my colleagues invited him to Australia and requested the Government to issue a visa, and as this has been roundly condemned by the Press and the public at large- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Senator JESSOP —Will the Government now reconsider the matter and issue an unconditional visa to enable Mr Rajab and his compatriots to come to Australia? Does the Minister not agree that, if the Government does not comply with this request, it will be condemned by the majority of Australians as an opponent of free speech and human rights? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of any letter from Mr Rajab to the Prime Minister. If I was aware of the existence of such a letter I doubt very much whether, in terms of Senator Jessop's question, the Prime Minister would have drawn my attention to the details of that letter. It is not normal for people to draw attention to the details of private correspondence between individuals. Senator Jessop pointed out that Mr Rajab, on the basis of his letter, is apparently a vigorous opponent of apartheid. Senator Jessop said that this was one of the factors which led him and 51 of his colleagues to invite Mr Rajab to Australia. All I can say about that is I am totally surprised that Senator Jessop did not avail himself of the opportunity to say that publicly when he invited Mr Rajab and when that matter was the subject of debate in this Senate some time ago. It is an extraordinarily interesting afterthought. Perhaps the honourable senator had to see the details of Mr Rajab's letter to find out why he invited him. Finally, I was asked whether the Government would reconsider-- Senator Peter Rae —This is a pack of lies; like the Attorney-General. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Peter Rae to withdraw that remark. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I presume that what I have been asked to withdraw is the description that I used for the words which were-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw his remark. Senator Peter Rae —I withdraw the interjection which I made, as requested by you . Senator BUTTON —Senator Jessop asked me whether the Government would reconsider the matter. I assume that the purpose of Mr Rajab writing to the Prime Minister was to ask him to reconsider the matter. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will reply in due course as he thinks fit. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Senate) —I move: That on Thursday, 3 May, and Friday, 4 May, Question Time take place at 12 noon . I should just say by way of explanation that the proposal to have Question Time at 12 noon will facilitate the meeting of Estimates committees on both those afternoons. I understand that these arrangements have received the agreement of Senate leaders and the respective Whips. I have consulted with Senator Harradine about them so I think they can be said to have the agreement of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator ELSTOB —I wish to clarify recent statements I made during the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983, in particular those referring to the Australian Mutual Provident Society. During that debate I referred to the many tax avoidance schemes operating, where employees are duped into participating in unfair retirement and superannuation schemes. I spoke also of discussions I had had with employees who had been seriously affected by these schemes. The AMP was predominantly mentioned by them as the company that designed the scheme in conjunction with the employer firms. I realise now that, in the haste of speaking within the confined time I had, I may have cast an adverse impression on the AMP Society. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, although the AMP was involved in setting up the plans for some of these schemes, it did so purely on the instruction of client firms and in accordance with the common practice of those firms at the time. I wish to say publicly that I do not lay blame for these schemes on the AMP or any other insurance company. The blame lies squarely with those firms that deliberately set out legally to mislead their employees for corporate gain. Unfortunately, over a period, these schemes have, in an unjust way, brought insurance companies into disrepute. I hope that in clarifying this matter today we as senators will remember our obligations and strive to bring about corrective legislation to prevent these practices from happening again. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades and its deferral of unpopular issues until after that election. 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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(3.09) -The Opposition is bringing forward this matter of public importance for reasons which, in part, are demonstrated by the display we had in Question Time today when, under the guise of answering questions, Government Ministers used the opportunity to obscure the situation rather than provide facts for the Australian people to make judgments. I suppose that the attempts of the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) to obscure the position on the four-year term for Parliament was the classic but not unusual example in what has been a most unsatisfactory Question Time. On that occasion the Attorney-General was trying to suggest that, in some way, the Opposition had subverted the idea of the four- year term when, of course, it is quite evident-that evidence comes in part from the Attorney's own answer in Question Time-that the Government's own election manoeuvering has resulted in its changing its own proposals for referendum. That is so typical of everything that this Government is presently doing. The Opposition's matter of public importance is based on two easily sustainable assertions. We say the Prime Minister wants an early election because he is worried about the future of the economy. We say that because he is going to have this election he has decided to avoid any potentially unpopular issues until after the poll. During the election campaign in February last year Mr Hawke said : 'Under my government parliaments will run their full time'. In February 1983 Mr Hawke said that parliaments under him would run their full time. Now in 1984 Mr Hawke has made it clear that he will have an early election either late this year or perhaps early next year, but almost certainly later this year. That is just one broken promise among many. We know that when the Prime Minister gained government in 1983 he recanted on virtually every undertaking given before the election. He always has an excuse. In this case there are two possible excuses that he will use for an early election. The first is that he wants to synchronise the House of Representatives election with the Senate election. Or he might choose to use the excuse he floated in Adelaide just a few weeks ago relating to Senate obstruction. Very briefly in anticipation I will dispose of those two arguments of Mr Hawke. Does he have a case for an election this year to synchronise the House of Representatives election with the Senate election? My response is to say that such an election is totally unnecessary. In fact, a much later election could be held bringing the election of both Houses together. What the Australian people are facing is the prospect of the shortest parliament for many a parliament. They are facing a term of office of somewhere around a year and a half for Mr Hawke's Government when in fact Mr Hawke could run through until at least May next year and still have a House of Representatives election-albeit an early one -in conjunction with the Senate election. Somehow the idea has been put abroad that in order to bring the election of the two Houses together Mr Hawke needs to have this election this year. That is not true. It is inaccurate. It is a lie. It is a lie which should be put to rest. We have heard Mr Hawke talk about Senate obstruction. According to a radio broadcast, he got a very good reception to a speech he made on 18 or 19 April in Adelaide. He is reported as saying: Our major attack on tax avoidance has been frustrated by what has happened in the Senate. Mr Hawke in that speech then said to the Liberals, the Nationals and the Australian Democrats: I give . . . notice, that they will be hounded and reminded of that fact for every week between now and the election. That is good political stuff. It is absolutely farcical when we note that a senior Minister who was very active in the arguments about tax avoidance in Australia and who, somewhat to his surprise, was caught up personally in such arguments, within a matter of days of Mr Hawke's fulminating about the Senate role in protecting tax avoiders, said that tax avoidance was no longer an issue in Australia. Mr Dawkins on 16 April told a conference of accountants in Sydney that tax avoidance was no longer an issue in Australia and that the Government had 'put the question of tax avoidance behind them'. That is a ludicrous statement if we are to take Mr Hawke's statement seriously. the fact of the matter is that it is Mr Hawke who made the ludicrous statement. He is not to be taken seriously. He is running this as a political rort because it is known throughout Australia that the tax avoidance industry was destroyed by the Fraser Government. This Government now is merely trying to resurrect the issue to damage the Senate. We have brought on this debate because we are concerned that there should be some factual information available to the Australian people instead of the lies being peddled by members of the Government. We believe that it is absolutely important that we should see what the Government is up to and why it is rushing to this early election. In this regard I will first deal with the economic outlook. I will not rely on Opposition assessments of where the economy is going because it might be argued that the Opposition is a doom sayer, is trying to talk the economy down and is trying to damn the Government for partisan political advantage. In fact, the Opposition welcomes the current signs of economic improvement. At the same time we point out, as indeed does almost every economic commentator, that the improvement has occurred almost in spite of the Hawke Government's policies and statements and arises largely from the Fraser Government's wage pause, the pick-up in the United States economy and the much brighter rural outlook following the breaking of the drought. Commentator after commentator has made the point that these factors are the foundation of the economic upsurge over the last year. We would all hope to see that fledgling recovery permanently sustained. However, we are all being advised by almost every economic commentator that there are enormous risks ahead. As far as the Opposition can ascertain, there are no reputable economic commentators prepared to predict that 1985 will see a continuation of the current upturn. If Government senators come in here and say 'We believe there will be an economic upturn and you are engaging in scare mongering' I issue a challenge. If they believe that let them ask their Prime Minister to postpone the election so that we and the people of Australia can wait and see what happens. I guarantee that we will not get that challenge taken up. We will not see the Labor Party holding off an election in order to see whether its policies are working but one which will go helter-skelter to an election at the earliest possible opportunity. As I said earlier, it is not the Opposition's view that I am promoting that there will be difficulties for the next year and the years beyond; it is the view of commentator after commentator. The most recent independent public statement was the reported submission by the Australian Merchant Bankers Association. The Association made a submission to the Government's own economic advisory body, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council. The Merchant Bankers Association predicted a shrinking of the economy in the financial year 1985-86. It predicted a short term drop in inflation and a rise the year after. On the critical question of unemployment the Association is saying: Unemployment will bottom out at 8.8 per cent in 1984-85, but will rise to 10.5 per cent in 1985-86 and 11.5 per cent in 1986-87. What we face is a prediction which confirms the predictions which the Government 's own bodies put down at the Economic Summit last year, namely, that if we return to full wage indexation there will be a gradual rise in unemployment. We have had the benefit of seasonal and one-off charges to the economy which have affected some improvement. However, the long term prospect is much gloomier. At nearly the same time the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures in its monthly summary said that its predictions paint a fairly dismal picture of the Australian economy. The fact is that most people believe that the rest of this year will see the maintenance of economic growth but most have reservations about 1985 because of the potential for wage rises and the generally unsatisfactory nature of the long term recovery. Mr Des Keegan of the Australian in a report yesterday said: Cheerful forecasts of economic recovery should fade as disturbing export figures seep into public opinon in 1984-85. Reality is overtaking propaganda. He also made the point, which is in line with the view which we in the Opposition have been urging now for some months, namely that private advice to the Government urges it to go to the polls before the economy strands it on the dangerous economic shoals which are ahead. In another enconomic commentary, much objected to by the Government which seems to object to anybody having a view which is contrary to the view of the Government itself holds, Mr P. P. McGuiness , the editor of the Australian Financial Review, said on 10 April: The current economic recovery will be short-lived. It is the inheritance of the Labor Government from the Fraser Government and the breaking of the drought, and the inheritance will be soon dissipated. Only today the same newspaper said in its leading article: The balance of probabilities is that the effect of wage indexation, even with an artificially low CPI, will tend to abort the economic recovery within the remainder of 1984. Again, within the last month or so Hill Samuel Ltd, a merchant bank, has drawn attention to the fragile nature of the recovery. I stress that I do not raise those matters from the point of view of wishing those things to happen. I do not raise them as being the forecast of the Opposition. Rather, I raise them as examples of what is being said very broadly among the well-informed in the community about the nature of economic recovery which has been achieved by this Government. It has been achieved because of its inheritance. It is an achievement which it is dissipating by failing to come to grips with the real issues which dog the Australian economy. In the currently relatively cheery atmosphere in Australia, in the circumstances in which informed opinion is making it clear to the Government that it faces real problems next year, we can understand the urgency of feeling within the Australian Labor Party, the urgency of feeling within the Government, the urgency of feeling within the breast of Mr R. J. Hawke that he must take himself back to the Australian people before they wake up to what the experts are unanimously pointing to. So we are facing a situation in which the Government is getting near uniform advice that it will be in real difficulties in the future. It is not prepared-indeed, I think it would say that it is totally unable-to come to grips with the policies that are required to do something about next year and the year beyond that. Therefore, it must pick up the option of an early election. Again, it is no secret among informed people, but I am sure it is still dimly perceived by the electorate generally, that the Government as part of its early election strategy set out to remove those irritants which might cause the public to question its policies. Of course, the Senate has tended to be the forum in which those potentially difficult policy issues have been raised and where the Government has seen itself getting into difficulties. The fact of the matter is that the Government has shown itself quite unprepared to come to grips with any issue on which there is a serious clash between it and the Opposition and the possibility of a serious clash with public opinion. Let us look at just a few of the issues which are around: The assets test, a capial gains tax, a Bill of rights, lump sum superannuation, national Aboriginal land legislation and the education issue. We do not see a resolute government pushing on with the policies that new senators such as the honourable senator sitting opposite, Senator Crowley, were elected on the basis of and went around telling their constituents they supported. Those policies are being pushed aside because of this early election strategy. There is a very simple explanation for that. A recent survey was taken on the assets test and a capital gains tax. We found that 57 per cent of the Australian people disagreed with the proposal that the Government has for an assets test for pensioners. We found that 70 per cent of the Australian people disagreed with the proposition which is supported by Senator Button and many other Government honourable senators and many other Ministers, that we should move to a capital gains tax. So it is not surprising that the Government has chosen to take those matters off the political agenda. Let us look at what happened in respect of the assets test. Legislation for it was introduced by the Government at the time of the last Budget. It was made clear to us that the Government was determined that it would legislate for that assets test. The Government roundly criticised us for political opportunism when we raised the question of the concern in the community about the test and suggested there should be a delay. It was only when the Opposition, in conjunction with the Australian Democrats, determined it would delay the assets test until February to enable pensioners and others to put views to the Government that the Government did not proceed with that legislation. We found that by February this year, the Opposition having been abused for its daring to delay this Government measure, the Prime Minister had completely changed his tune. Rather to the surprise we believe of the responsible Minister, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, we found that Mr Hawke admitted the test was defective; he admitted that it had not been thought through properly and sent it off to an expert committee. I ask the Government: Will it produce a fresh assets test before the next election? Will it disclose its intentions to the Australian people? I for one have very serious doubts that it will. With respect to a capital gains tax, I suppose the Government has been almost disarmingly frank: That is a matter for the next Parliament. Seventy per cent of the Australian people disagree, so that is a matter for the next Parliament. The Government will not make up its mind. The Government will not tell the Australian people what it proposes. It puts that on to the back burner. It hides it away. It tries to make it into a non-issue. On a Bill of rights, we all have sat in this Senate and been lectured by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, about his law reform proposals. We have been lectured about our slowness in government and his determination to set new records in law reform. He came into this Parliament a few weeks ago and said: ' We can't proceed with the Bill of rights because it will be a pre-election atmosphere. Everybody is emotional in a pre-election atmosphere, so that is something we will have to put off. Of course, it is still Government policy but it is something we have to put off'. That is again part of the same strategy. Let us look at lump sum superannuation. As long ago as May last year this Government announced it would introduce a new form of taxation of lump sum superannuation. It was part of this Government's first brave steps to change Australia. That was May last year and still we have not seen the legislation. Again I ask the Government: Will we see that legislation before the election? Will the Government show the Australian people what it is up to, or is that another one which is on the agenda for the next time around? I come to the vexed question, the very difficult question, of national Aboriginal land legislation. It is a matter of common knowledge that this Government has been told by its State counterparts in my State of Western Australia to lay off and go away. I say to those senators who went out and so bravely promised the Aboriginal people of Australia national land rights legislation: I will bet anything you like that you will not deliver on that promise because you know the politics of it. They know that it is something which would not receive popular support around Australia. They will not go ahead with that promise. It is off the agenda between now and the next election. The fact of the matter is that Mr Hawke is the most popular and least courageous Prime Minister this country has ever had. Mr Hawke has shown no preparedness really to disclose where he stands on these issues. He has shown his preparedness only to sun himself under his popularity lamp. That is the sort of man he is. He is the man who suns himself under the popularity lamp. He is a man who does not have the courage of his convictions. I only wish to say that we achieved the great privilege of having some new Labor senators in this place. I ask them to go back to the ideas they expressed when they campaigned to become members of this place. I ask them to go back to what they promised the Australian people. I ask them to come into this place and honestly say whether they delivered what they promised. Of course it is an absurd question to put to them because there is no way that they would show that degree of honesty. We in the Opposition believe that Australia has significant and real problems. We believe that the vexed problem of unemployment which has beset us now for some time is not going to go away. We do not believe that the fundamental policies of this Government, which involve a cosy arrangement between those who have to the exclusion of those who have not, are in the long term interests of this country. We do not accept the fundamentals which this Government is embracing and believe that this Government is maintaining itself only by a thoroughly dishonest approach to government. We believe that, unless the Australian people see that, there is no prospect that this popular but cowardly Prime Minister will face up to the real issues which face Australia. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.28) —When the terms of this matter of public importance first arrived today it raised a lot of speculation in the Australian Labor Party on just how pathetic the Opposition was going to be. The matter of public importance is about the Government rushing into an unnecessary election this year. I point out that as yet there has been no decision to have an election this year. That is an assumption on the part of the Opposition. It is an assumption born of fear. There is a need for a joint election, we believe, before mid-1985. I think the reasons are fairly clear and are understood even by those opposite. The first is to bring the two Houses back into kilter so that we can have simultaneous elections. There is a strong argument on an economy basis to have joint elections rather than separate elections and that is the cost to the taxpayer. Finally, there is the political reason, a reason which neither a Liberal government nor a Labor government would any longer deny: That a half-Senate election held by itself is just a benefit for minority parties. We will never see a Liberal Party of Australia government go for a half-Senate election by itself ever again. We will never see an Australian Labor Party government doing it. When last it was done, in 1970, the Liberal Government responsible lived to regret it for many years. It meant that independent or small party candidates won in every State but South Australia and there they missed out by only about one-half of one per cent. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) has the gall to criticise an anticipated decision of the Labor Party to bring about an early election. Senator Chaney's Party has brought about seven early elections in the last 33 years. Every early election in Australia can be traced back to the conservatives in this country. Let us have a look at the record. Let us go through the early elections and see who is at fault. The last early election was in 1983. (Quorum formed) The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Prime Minister as cowardly. Yet the Opposition is not willing to cop any stick in return. That is typical of it. Before I was interrupted I was saying that those opposite have provoked seven early elections in the last 33 years, yet have the gall to criticise us in anticipation that we may once, since Federation, pull on an early election. Let us look at the circumstances of the last seven occasions. In 1983 the man whom Senator Chaney used to worship, Mr Fraser, called on an early election. Why did he call an early election? Was it because he was trying to hide an economy going bad or something? He called on an early election for political opportunism. He thought that the Labor Party was going to blow itself apart. He thought that he could cash in on a leadership crisis, so he called an election. On election night he broke down and cried when he lost. That is case No. 1. I go to case No. 2. In 1977 Senator Chaney's hero, Mr Fraser, again called an election one year early. Why did he call it? The reason he gave to the public was that he wanted to bring the Houses back into synchronisation to have elections together, the very anticipated reason that Mr Hawke may call an election later this year or next year. But what Mr Fraser was particularly trying to do was again to cash in on what he saw as internal Labor Party problems and the perception that Mr Whitlam could not win an election and might be replaced. Let us go back to the previous two early elections. Who caused the early election in 1975? Those opposite and their colleagues caused it. They had the Government tipped out because they thought correctly that they would win an election. Let us look at the previous example-1974. Who caused that early election? It was Mr Snedden and his cronies. Let us go back to 1963. There was an early election then brought on by Menzies. That was the very thing that put the two Houses out of kilter and allowed for separate Senate elections. So Mr Menzies, the other great hero of the Liberal Party, called early elections. He did so again in 1955. Can Senator Chaney or anyone on that side tell me why there was an early election in 1955? It was to cash in on internal Labor Party problems. Why was there an early election in 1951? It was so that the Liberal Party could run a bodgie double dissolution to try to get control of this Parliament. Every example of an early election since Federation has been perpetrated by the conservatives, the Liberals. Yet here today they criticise us. Are we not allowed one out of ten? Are we not allowed one early election this century? Of course we are not, because those opposite want to play with two different sets of rules, both written by them. Why do those opposite fear an early election? Why does the Liberal Party not want an election? I will tell them very simply. It is because the economy is recovering, we have inflation to its lowest level in five or six years, unemployment is dropping, and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created. Those opposite are not willing to face the people. They were willing in 1974 and 1975 to say that it was good for a Labor government to face the people. They assisted us twice to face the people. But now, when they might get done, they squib it; they are not interested in having an election because they know what will happen-we will cream them. Those opposite can quote this back to me next year after the election if I am wrong-we will absolutely cream them in the election. There is a second reason why those opposite do not want an early election: We have the most popular Prime Minister in the history of the country. What have they got? They have Mr Peacock, put in by the two speakers on the Liberal side, Senator Withers and Senator Chaney. He is their friend; he is their leader; and he is absolutely pathetic. It is very hard in politics to achieve perfection, but Mr Peacock is a perfect mediocre individual. He has done absolutely nothing in leading the Opposition in the other place. Even his own members wince every time he gets up. So the second reason those opposite do not want an early election is that they have a pathetic leader, and they know it. Mr Fraser recognised that when he tried to have Senator Chaney transferred into the House of Representatives as a potential leader. Even though at times I am critical of Senator Chaney, I acknowledge that he would be better than Peacock. A third reason why those opposite do not want an early election is that they have no policies. They have had three policy launches. What have we got from them? We got absolutely nothing. There were 12 pages of rhetoric in their economic policy. They are going to flog off a couple of government enterprises, and that is that. It must have taken them a long time to work that out! They have launched a wages policy, trying to take us back to the stone age by doing away with centralised wage fixing. Finally, they have adopted a foreign affairs policy. What they are in fact doing is going on the long march to the right. They are trying to take the Liberal Party to the right and they know that they will not win an election via that. Senator Chaney today expressed the view that we are dodging hard issues. If any Party has dodged hard issues, it is Senator Chaney's Party and others. When have they ever tried to tackle the problem of the means test? They would not even consider it. No matter what the views are of how a government should work, it is much too hard for them to touch. When have they ever tackled the problem of a total reform of the taxation scales in this country? They were not willing to touch it. When were they ever willing to tackle the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as we have set up an inquiry to do? They are just not game. Yet they accuse the Prime Minister of political cowardice. I believe that if those opposite were sincere in their worry about early elections they would have supported fixed term parliaments, but they have always sought continuously to sabotage anything that would take away from a Liberal Party leader the desire to go as early as possible. Senator Withers has been continually interjecting. He as much as anyone else was responsible for early elections on at least three different occasions in Australia-in 1974, 1975 and 1977. Senator Colston —He is a good judge! Senator ROBERT RAY —He is reputed to be a good political judge. I am not here to doubt that. But there is no doubt that he has worked out what is going to happen later this year. I am surprised that Senator Withers and others do not just concede that it will happen the following year anyway. If we do have an early election we will be putting them out of their pain just a little earlier. It is another example of the humanity of the Labor Government that we would seek to put those opposite out of their misery far earlier than otherwise. It is a phoney issue when those opposite say here that they object to our calling an early election. As I have pointed out, at least seven times in the last 33 years the Opposition has taken this country to an early election. It has done so for one reason and one reason only: It thought that by doing so it would politically advantage itself. When in opposition we gave the present Opposition the opportunity to take away the right of governments to call elections, by our proposal for fixed term parliaments. It rejected that. Now what it would like to do is to deny us our one opportunity. I am not saying what our motives may or may not be for holding an early election. If the motive is political addvantage, it is no worse than anything that has ever been done in the past. Historically, I would regard it as a bit of justice. If the proposal for fixed terms of parliament had been adopted, what Senator Chaney calls the tough issues could be tackled far more effectively because governments would know exactly how long they had to run in office. That is why the proposals for four-year terms of government and such have a lot of appeal to me. It is about time the Liberal Party tried to confront the issues. It is no use just hoping that the economy will turn bad. I am sure that is not the Opposition 's motive. It has to get out there, develop some policies, tackle the hard issues and put them to the Australian people. Next time it produces an economic policy it should be detailed. It should not be just a sort of philosophical thrill kill, something put out to excite its own supporters but nothing more than that. It should work on some detailed plans. The same goes for the wages area. I know it is very difficult for any Liberal party to develop a wages policy. It has the hardest job in the world, given its philosophy. But if it worked at some detail in those areas it would not have to tremble and worry about when the next election is to be. I would not like to be running No. 3 on any Liberal ticket, with seven senators being elected to the Senate. I can understand the Opposition's concern. We have great sympathy for it in that regard. But all it has shown today is how scared it is of an election, whenever it may be. As I said, that reflects a deficit of policy on behalf of the Opposition. It reflects poor leadership and the fact that the economy is recovering. As I said before-and the Opposition can throw it back in my face after the next election if I am wrong-we will cream the Opposition at the next election. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.44) —We are debating a matter of public importance which was brought on by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) , namely: The Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades and its deferral of unpopular issues until after that election. Senator Robert Ray talked about all the previous early elections there have been in the past 20 or 30 years. We are not denying that one bit. There would hardly be a political leader who does not worship at the altar of political expediency. That has been done before. But in this instance we are dealing with a Prime Minister who said, prior to the last election: 'Under my Government parliaments will run their full time'. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has already alluded to that. Straight after the election, on 6 March, the Canberra Times quoted the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, as replying to a question asked at a Press conference in the following terms: I hope to try and rid Australia of this frequency of elections which above all else have been destabilising for our community. As I said, previous Prime Ministers have had early elections. Many have worshipped at the altar of political expediency, but none have come out beforehand, as this Prime Minister has done, and said: 'We will have no part of early elections'. Yet the Prime Minister, having said that, is already taking us down that track. He is making no denial of it. An article which appeared on 16 December in the Adelaide Advertiser stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said on Adelaide radio yesterday there could be an early election over the constitutional referendum issue. Mr Hawke's stand came as the Senate voted to reject Government plans to fund only the 'Yes' case for the five constitutional changes proposed in the referendum planned for February 23. For those people who do not quite understand, I explain that the Government planned to hold a referendum but intended to fund only its side of the story; the other case was not to get any funding at all. But because this Senate said no to that proposal the Prime Minister started talking about an early election because of the great constitutional crisis which was apparently upon us. That was on 16 December. As late as 13 January the Prime Minister was still on that track. An article which appeared in the Australian on that date reported: Attacking the Senate for 'frustrating' the Government's referendum plans, Mr Hawke said it would be 'unusual' if an election were not held to coincide with the half-Senate poll due late this year or early next year. The bandwagon was already rolling then. But then we had a change of tactics. We found another reason to have an early election. The reason then became the so- called frustration of the Government's tax plans. On 28 January-that is 15 days after we had been talking about the constitutional problem-the Sydney Morning Herald stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday laid the grounds for a possible double dissolution election later this year, by putting the Opposition on notice that he plans again to introduce bottom-of-the-harbour tax legislation. Of course, as Senator Chaney said in his contribution to this debate, it was the Fraser Government which put an end to all the tax dodging schemes in this country. After Mr Hawke came to power new tax measures were to be introduced and made retrospective. In other words, people were to be called on to pay tax under a system which never existed prior to the Hawke Government coming to office. A new tax was to be introduced. People were to be asked to pay that tax in a retrospective manner, something which some of the Australian Democrats and the Liberal and National Party Opposition would not abide, and indeed still will not abide. But that was the new excuse for the election bandwagon to get rolling, from a Prime Minister who said: 'Under my Government parliaments will run their full term'. What we basically have is a conning of the Australian electorate into a false sense of complacency when, in reality, it should be very concerned about where this Government is taking it. The fact is that the necessity for an early election, an election prior to about 5 May next year, is a fraud being perpetrated on the people, just as before the last election the fraud was perpetrated about all the things that were to happen, the wage reductions, the cheaper fuel and so the list goes on ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Those election promises have since proved to be a fraud. One of the big matters surrounding the last election concerned the projected deficit, which of course in the Government 's own words proved to be a fraud. Honourable senators will all recall the $9.6 billion projected deficit, in which most of the people of Australia believe. The media picked it up and ran with it. As I said to the people around the countryside, how can we have a projected deficit when we do not even have a Budget? Yet most people believed it. So this year we required the Government to give us the projected deficit figures for 1984-85. What happened? Speaking to the Age, Mr Hawke said: 'We cannot give you those figures because they would be illusory'. Answering a question in the other place, Mr Keating indicated that we would not be getting those sorts of figures because basically they are pretty meaningless. I understand that Mr Dawkins, that great man who does not like tax dodging but has been proved to have quite an Achilles' heel, said at the National Press Club luncheon: 'No, we are not giving those figures because they would be irrelevant'. What a fraud! What a fraud the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is proving to be. What a fraud the Government has perpetrated on the people of this country. Any factors which have led to the improvement of the economy have travelled on the coat tails of the Fraser Government. As Senator Chaney and I have said, there is no need for any election whatsoever before May 1985. We all recognise that there has to be a half-Senate election then so that the new Senate can take its place and the writs can be returned by 1 July. Senator Robert Ray dwelt on the economy picking up and being buoyant, which is not true. Nobody would believe that. The economy might be returning to where it should have been before the disastrous drought that overtook Australia. Of course, if ever there has been a lesson for city dwellers on the impact of the rural sector of this nation upon the economy, it has been that drought. The breaking of that drought and the fact that the economy has started to come back to some normalcy should be an indication to the people who live in the cities that rural Australia still plays a tremendous part in the Australian economy. If we take away the breaking of the drought, where is the recovery? This Government has done nothing. Of course, it is working on a very basic principle that if it does not do anything, it will not hurt anybody. We have seen that principle in operation in the Parliament because very little legislation is being introduced. The Government has done nothing, so it has not hurt anybody. It is travelling on the coat tails of the Fraser Government's initiatives. It has done only two things in regard to the financial system. It will deregulate it and will probably allow the entry of foreign banks into Australia. Those initiatives are not ALP policy. They are basically the coalition parties' policies. Senator Crowley —What about Medicare? Senator COLLARD —What about Medicare? I did not think any member of the Government would be game to mention Medicare. What a disaster has been thrust upon this country! It is said that nine out of 10 people will have cheaper medical costs. What utter rot! Even the Government does not believe that the one per cent levy will cover the astronomical cost that Medicare will put on the Australian people, let alone the inconvenience, the socialisation or nationalisation of medicine which is taking place today, or the fact that all medical researchers, doctors and specialists, if the Government gets its way, will ultimately be beholden to a federal government. The medical system in Australia will stagnate and will be driven to a standstill by this nationalisation, as has happened in every country-indeed, in every country that we have supposedly followed-that has tried this scheme. As Senator Chaney said, we have a Prime Minister who, while basking in the sunlamp of popularity, is not game to bite any of the economic bullets which need to be bitten in order to get this country on the road again. The deficit is blowing out and the Government will not be game to reduce it. It will not be game to assist the private sector. It is not really game to tackle the wages problem when, as every economist will say, and as I indicated, it is riding on the coat tails of the Fraser economic initiatives. Leaving aside the breaking of the drought and the upturn in the American economy, it is still reaping the benefits to be derived from the wages pause initiative. Since this Government came to office there have been wage rises of 8.4 per cent across the board in six months, something which no other country against which we are competing in world markets has had to endure. That indicates that we are heading down the track towards all sorts of problems. Let us talk about the consumer price index. Of course, all the commentators are pointing out-the Labor Government apparently does not want to recognise it-how artificial the CPI is. If a person takes out private health insurance, it is taken as part of the CPI calculations. But if the Government rips it off a person, it is not used as part of the CPI calculation. So we have an artificial lowering of the CPI which, of course, affects pensioners most of all. All of those who are on indexed pensions or who are recipients of any benefits from the Commonwealth Government will be hurt, because they are enduring the costs but are not receiving the benefits because of this artificial reduction in the CPI. One other reason that we can garner that the Government is heading towards an early election is the intimidation of the media, particularly of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. After the last election, during questioning and debates in this chamber, we dragged out of the Government the fact that the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition prior to the election, got on the phone and threatened Dame Leonie Kramer so that he would get his way. That occurred because of a program that was broadcast on the ABC. Of course, all the allegations that were made in that program have been borne out in the courts in New South Wales. But it was despicable for a Leader of the Opposition who hoped to become Prime Minister to get on the phone and threaten the head of the ABC, Dame Leonie Kramer. We know, through the channels of the Senate, that that happened. Ultimately, the ABC went its way and Dame Leonie Kramer was not appointed to the Corporation. We now have a Hawke appointed Board, and he is threatening to cut its funding. There has been complete intimidation of the ABC. In today's Age, an article by Laurie Oakes states: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the managing director of the ABC, Mr Geoffrey Whitehead, have discussed proposals for special procedures to allow politicians to make complaints to the corporation. A controversial proposal considered at a meeting between the two men last Friday involved the establishment of a direct line of communication between the Prime Minister's Press office and senior ABC management. Have honourable senators ever in their lives heard of such despicable intimidation? Senator Chaney —Shameful. Senator COLLARD —It is shameful that the Prime Minister is considering a situation whereby he could phone senior management of the ABC from his office and intimidate them with regard to things that he did not like. If we put together all of these facts, one can only agree that this Government is taking us down the track to an early election because it is not game to bite the bullets that need to be bitten in the Australian economy. The fact that we will have an early election is in itself destabilising, as the Prime Minister has said. Already the business community does not know where it is heading. He has already blamed the business community because the upturn in the economy has not occurred. So we can see that he is painting the scenario, as he takes us down this inevitable track. But reality is overtaking the Government's propaganda line. Fortuitously, the people of Australia are slowly waking up to what is going on. Fortuitously, the business community and the farming community are doing the same. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.47) —I find it quite remarkable and farcical that the Opposition should bring on a matter of public importance devoted to the topic of the Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades. (Quorum formed) I had not even finished explaining to the Senate the farcical nature of this matter of public importance before the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) felt that I should have a larger audience. I think it is fair to say that there are four-actually five, at a further count-Opposition senators present. Clearly, the Opposition does not feel it is necessary to listen to its speakers in this most significant discussion about unnecessary elections before economic recovery fades, or the deferral of unpopular issues until after the election. It seems to choke in the Opposition's throat that the Labor Government can play politics too. It needs to be understood first, if we start with facts and resort to rhetoric later, that the principal reason that there has to be an election late this year or early next year is the decision taken by the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcom Fraser, to call a double dissolution for March last year. It is due to that, and to nothing else, that we have to have a Senate election before May 1985. Senator Robert Ray —Then the big jib cried. Senator CROWLEY —I think it could be said, Senator Ray, that the best way that it was all described was by Tandberg in that endlessly repeated cartoon of endlessly exact humour. Mr Fraser has required the necessity for a half Senate election late this year or early next year, and Mr Hawke, being well aware of the cost to the taxpayer of unnecessary elections, has hoped to have a House of Representatives election at the same time. It has to be borne in mind just what the cost to the taxpayer of an election is. It is an enormous sum. Some $17m can go into an election. Why foist this upon the Australian people when, quite conveniently, the two elections can be held at once? We have heard much discussion, too, during the debate here about electoral reform and the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and of the discussions raised by members of the Opposition too about the unnecessary costs of unnecessary elections-and here they go, giving us a bit of a serve today about daring to do it. As Senator Ray so exactly and nicely pointed out previously in this debate, it is their past record of calling endless early elections that stands and yet they have the gall and the bravado-they are quite cheeky today-to stand here and criticise the Government for political competence. So, we must have an election for the half Senate before next year and it is, as members of the Opposition have also argued in the debate about the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Government's right to choose the time of an election, which is one of the principal arguments against the fixed term with no room for any flexibility or variation. The Government of the day may make the choice because the Government of the day is in business of making wise political choices about when to go to an election so as to retain government. The Government also decides at what time it will introduce its legislation, unashamedly so. So we do not mind the Opposition carping and criticising. We just understand that that is the real world. If Opposition members want to spend some hours today in air time telling the people of Australia what most of them know, good on them. It is necessary to remind the people of what Senator Chaney thinks of them. He said during his speech that there are intelligent people out there who understand what the issues are but the rest, who are a dimly perceiving part of the electorate, are being snowed. If that is Senator Chaney's perception of the electorate, the dimly perceiving masses, I think that that is a terrible insult to the electorate of Australia. Most of them are very well aware of the unnecessary debate that is proceeding here, and mostly they are not dimly perceiving; they understand very well, and they would understand even better if they were presented with proper topics and proper facts and reasonable arguments , instead of silly wastes of time about how naughty it is for the Government to go early. We can be quite clear that the election has been foisted upon us by the previous Government. This Government's responsible co-operation in regard to that necessary half Senate election is to tie the House of Representatives election to it and, therefore, to avoid the enormous costs to the people of unnecessary extra elections. I have heard the Opposition say any number of times that we have a Prime Minister who basks in the sun-lamp of popularity, that he is a very vain Prime Minister. Perhaps it is better to bask in the vanity of popular appeal than in the vanity of brown skin from a ray-lamp. If we are talking about vanity, I should like to draw to the Senate's attention a little ditty on which I was reared: Vanity in women? What about men? Think of the peacock. Was he a hen? It is a particularly pertinent piece to introduce at this stage. Vanity amongst politicians of the day is not novel, but it seems to me that to be vain about being popular, if that is what the Opposition claims, to be vain about being successful in government and to be vain about the effects of the changes and improvements that one is bringing about in the lot of people in Australia, is a much better thing to be vain about than to be vain about being the Leader of the Opposition and, as Senator Ray so aptly put it, an ineffectual Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition is very troubled about the prospect of an early election, because it is very clear to Opposition members that they will lose it. They will lose a half Senate election and a House of Representatives election. They are leaderless and without policy. Their attempts at policy are very ineffectual. So instead of producing anything of substance that they might want to tell the people would be reasons for voting for them, they come into this place and give the Government a kick or two about why the Government has been so effective and why so many people support the Government at present and will support it at the next election whenever it is held. Prime Minister Hawke and the Labor Government are unafraid about the timing of the election, given that it must happen within the next 12 to 15 months. There is no worry on the Government side, because the Government can stand on its record in office. It is a short term of office to date. It is a term of great achievement. To date, 210,000 jobs have been created since the Government came to office. Inflation is down by a number of points. Interest rates have fallen and unemployment is down. All of those figures are well known to the electorate, not in terms of the score that appears in the papers but in terms of the changing quality of their lives. They know that they are better off. We have reports of some increase in the consumer-led part of the recovery in the economy at present. One does not get consumer-led recovery unless people have some money to spend. Senator Collard wanted to attribute it all to the breaking of the drought. That is an exercise in stretching cause and connection. While, of course, the breaking of the drought has contributed to the recovery of the economy to some extent, it has not created jobs in manufacturing and in the city areas nor has it led to the consumer-led recovery that we are seeing. The breaking of the drought is nothing like a total accounting for it. While of course we allow that it contributes to the recovery, it is not the be all and end all of that recovery. It is a silly and trite analysis to attribute the economic recovery to rains falling on the rural sector. Senator Chaney —Oh, is that silly? It has no economic effect? Senator CROWLEY —I concede that it has a whole lot of economic effect, Senator. I am simply saying that it is not all. It does not create jobs and it does not necessarily bring down unemployment. Senator Chaney —Of course it creates jobs. Good heavens. Senator CROWLEY —It contributes to some job creation, Senator, but not all. I shall no doubt hear Senator Chaney speaking on this matter on other occasions. I shall remind him from time to time of the groans and grunts that he is contributing at this stage. The other point to which I should like to allude is the cracks served at the Government by Senator Collard about the consumer price index and the artificial manoeuvering that he claims the Government is undertaking with Medicare. For a start, the Liberal Opposition would know all about that, because it did it five to seven times during the previous seven years. However, this Government will allow that Medicare has an effect on the CPI, which is one of the reasons why, at the same time, it has been indexing pensions and increasing them. But the CPI is not something that is made up by government and it is not a government policy . It is an independently arranged set of figures or appraisals drawn up by economists and, presumably, people in the Treasury. It is from time to time being reviewed. So while the Opposition might want to criticise it, the very newspapers to which the Opposition alluded previously have referred today to the CPI as being an inexact tool, perhaps, but a fairly consistent one over the last few years. It is precisely because of the effects that the CPI allows that one can make the claims that the Opposition makes about the effect of Medicare. The Opposition's claims are right, but they are based on the fact of the CPI and what it does or does not have within it. If it is an inexact tool but a consistent one, it is the best that we have to go on, and it aligns itself fairly well with a measure of the economic recovery in this country. Before the Opposition kicks the Government in the head for the CPI, it should get it clear that the Government is not the total designer of the CPI. If the Opposition wants to change that, why does it not bring forward some legislation? Why does it not propose to the Government that the Government changes what goes into the CPI? Senator Robert Ray —They never did anything about it. Senator CROWLEY —Indeed they did not, except to manoeuvre it, as I said, with their own Medicare or variations on themes throughout the time of the Fraser Government. The last part of this remarkable matter of public importance refers to the deferral of unpopular issues until after the election. I am delighted, Senator Chaney, to be able to read to you from your own words during a debate last night. Senator Robert Ray —That is a bit unfair. Senator CROWLEY —It is a bit unfair. I admit that. I rarely get it served up on a platter. Senator Chaney cannot have it both ways. Either the Government is responsible for deferring unpopular issues or the combined effect of the Opposition in this Senate is responsible. Last night Senator Chaney said: 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. Those are Senator Chaney's words and he owns the responsibility of a threat that made this Government defer that legislation. He then comes in here and says that the Government is to be castigated for deferring unpopular issues. Senator Chaney cannot have it both ways. I really think that the honourable senator has to admit in this case that it was he who claimed responsibility for deferring some to those issues. It was the honourable senator who last night was pleased to talk about the obstruction, so called, of the combined opposition in this Senate that required the Senate to be reflective and thoughtful in its deliberation upon legislation. If he wants the thought and the deliberation he cannot at the same time critise the Government for deferring legislation when he owns the responsibility for the deferral of some of those decisions. This matter of public importance is a matter of complete nonsense. It is, I think, designed to get air time on a Wednesday for the Senate and I thank the Opposition for allowing me to contribute. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(4.11) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Ryan —Goodness me, what a shock. Senator Robert Ray —He used to be a senator here. Senator WITHERS —Oh, listen to them. Mr Deputy President, I was going to start by saying of the debate this afternoon from the Government side that I certainly enjoyed Senator Robert Ray. I may disagree with him but he brought a breath of fresh air into the place. But after Senator Crowley had been going for some time I was reminded of some of my readings of George Orwell. I am not referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four or Animal Farm. Back in 1946 he wrote some stuff on the English language. Senator Crowley so much reminded me of it that I went out and got it. Orwell said this, and 1946 is a long time ago: Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos, White Papers and the speeches of under-secretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases-bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free people of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved . . . Senator Robert Ray —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for Senator Withers to quote from a socialist? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —There is no point of order. Senator WITHERS —The great thing about George Orwell was that he was a disillusioned socialist totally disillusioned. He died a bit like Brideshead Revisted. Senator Robertson —There is hope for you yet. Senator WITHERS —Hallo, our moustached friend is popping up again. Senator Robertson —At least I get up more than you do. Senator WITHERS —Yes, but what the honourable senator says is not worth listening to. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is winding up to an election. We all know when it is going to be held and he is running on Senate obstruction. Senate obstruction has a very familiar ring to me-the awful Senate obstruction. The first time I heard it was from that one time Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. He made a great show of this. I forget whether it was in early 1973 or early 1974. He went to Victoria and campaigned on Senate obstruction. He said to the Victorian electors: 'Throw out this awful State Liberal Government and vindicate what we are doing for you up in cuckoo-land'. Funnily enough the Australian Labor Party lost that State election. Senator Robert Ray —That was early 1973. Senator WITHERS —It was early 1973. He campaigned on that and we heard all about Senate obstruction then. Of course we heard it all through the double dissolution in 1974 and we heard it all during 1975. I, like Senator Robert Ray, know enough about politics. I heard Mr Fraser also talk about Senate obstructionism. It is not just confined to one Prime Minister of one party or another. I do not know which Prime Minister I am on, the sixth or the seventh, but every Prime Minister since I have been a member of Parliament has complained about Senate obstruction. Mr Hawke is now singing the same tune. Both sides of politics do it and I have heard it from all of them. What do Prime Ministers mean by Senate obstruction? What they really mean is what the Senate is doing is exposing a number of things about a government, generally ministerial incompetence, government ineptitude, broken promises and all the rest of it. That is what Senate obstructionism is. That is why governments hate having Bills sent off to committees. They show up all the defects. Governments get things through Cabinet, they get them through their Party meetings, they get them through the lower House with not much attention paid to them at times and then all of a sudden they run into that rock of a Senate committee. I saw this happen under the Whitlam Government with national compensation-the brave new world that was coming-which was condemned out of hand and dropped eventually. Senator Chaney —Senator Button chaired that committee. Senator WITHERS —Senator Button chaired that committee. We saw Senator Murphy's first family law Bill introduced. A Senate committee eventually tidied that up for him. Again the Senate was accused of being obstructive. In recent days we have seen the national crime authority legislation introduced. I do not know whether that will make things better or worse. Was that Senate obstructionism? At least the Government has adopted it. Recently we have had the withholding tax matter which was sent off by the Senate to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations of which Senator Robert Ray and I are both members. I think he would agree with me that by the time that obstructive Senate committee had finished it was a far better administrative tax. I can go on and on and on. What fascinates me about the present situation in Australian politics is that everybody in the Labor Party is forgetting their criticism of Malcolm Fraser during 1982-83. The Labor Party members all had a ball during that period. They portrayed Malcolm as devious, opportunistic; he could never stop talking about how he came to power. I do not suppose Bill Hayden can stop talking about how the present Prime Minister came to power. They are just so much alike. In 1982 we heard about the unnecessary election. Why do we not get election talk out of our hair? It is disturbing the economy, it is putting off investment decisions and it is helping to create unemployment. It is funny that that happened only under a Liberal Government but it does not seem to matter that at the moment it is happening under this Government. Of course it was in those days that the Labor Party had this great dream that it had to have fixed term parliaments to keep the bastards honest, the bastards being the Prime Ministers. The Labor Party has rushed into Government and there it is full of all this high minded principle. One of the first things that the present failed Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) came up with was a Bill for an Act to have a referendum on fixed terms but what happened to that? What happened to that great high minded attitude? It was Acton, was it not, who once said that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Senator Robert Ray —He was convicted of bribery. Senator WITHERS —I would not know about that. Members of the Labor Party do not want to talk about bribery. They have institutionalised corruption certainly in New South Wales and are most likely now doing it in Victoria. What is even more corrupting is the seeking to hold on to power. It corrupts all Prime Ministers in the end and that is what is corrupting the present Government. That is why it is really annoyed about the matter of public importance raised this afternoon. It is exposing that the Government is no better than any other group of politicians in Australia. The best one can say about Bob Hawke is that he is Malcolm Fraser revisited. He is now going to put up the same excuses as Malcolm Fraser put up in 1977 and 1983 for his double dissolution. Is it any wonder it is said that the Australian public has the most cynical attitude to parliamentary democracy in the world? I know I have been accused of contributing to that. I do not deny it. I have never walked away from admitting my sins of both omission and commission in politics. I have never paraded myself around this place or anywhere else as some saint. I suppose the Prime Minister has problems with his halo because he most probably has trouble with his hairspray making it somewhat dull. He came to power some 18 months ago on an enormous wave of popularity about bringing Australia together- Senator Chipp —I suspect that you used Brylcreem once. Senator WITHERS —Oh yes, but I grew out of that. In my old age I have not gone backwards. When I was a young sailor in bell-bottom pants about 40 years ago I did spend some time before the mirror. It is a sight now that I cannot bear. It is bad enough for my wife, children and colleagues; why should I inflict it upon myself? Of course, the problem with the Government at the moment is that it just hates to be painted as the same as any other government. This is all about its own lost morality. Senator Robert Ray —Tell us about your protege. Senator WITHERS —Senator Robert Ray is trying to make a speech, but I intend to ignore him. Nobody in this Parliament will object to the next House of Representatives being in synchronisation with the Senate. It is a very sensible thing. Nobody objects to that. Those of us on this side of the House who have tried to point out the fraudulent and the deceptive nature of the so-called simultaneous elections have always said the obvious way of fixing the problem is that when the Houses get out of kilter the Reps should be taken out a bit early. This really shows that these sorts of simultaneous election referendums are totally unnecessary. The $64 question which needs to be answered is: Why is the election to be in December 1984? Senator Robert Ray —You are scared. Senator WITHERS —No, I am not scared. Senator Robert Ray —Come on; you have been honest so far. Senator WITHERS —Nothing frightens me. The honourable senator ought to know that . I grew up in the Labor Party when there were real men in it, not the latterly arrived middle class petit bourgeois. My father was in the Labor Party when it was a working class party run by working class men who earned their living and who had some respect for the moral virtues of the family and the decency in doing an honest day's work. You miserable tertiary educated petit bourgeois are a disgrace to the working class and eventually they will turn on you all. You are the sort of people that my father always told me to hold in contempt. Never trust those who attempt to represent the working class when in fact all they wish to do is batten upon them. Nothing is too good for the representatives of the working class, it does not matter whether it is VIP aircraft or anything else! There is nothing wrong with representatives of the working class using VIP aircraft to visit children and grandchildren in remote parts of Australia! This is not the sort of thing that Ben Chifley would have done. Ben Chifley was quite content to live at the Kurrajong, but not the latter day Prime Ministers, including Edward Gough Whitlam. Senator Harradine —From rank Labor men to Labor men of rank. Senator WITHERS —That is right. Senator Harradine knows that. Members of the Government would not know that. They would never have heard of that, not this miserable petit bourgeois. They are the curse of the working class and always have been. They are the first people who are generally destroyed. Why is there to be an election in 1984? There is only one reason; that is for party political advantage. Senator Robert Ray asked: 'What is wrong with that?'. I say to Senator Ray: Nothing. I do not mind political parties taking political advantage . That is what politics is all about. One does not win Government to run second. What I do object to is members of the Government whingeing when they are exposed . This is of course one of the reasons why the Premier of Queensland at the moment is coming in for some abuse from the Labor Party. What has Mr Bjelke-Petersen done? He has brought publicity to the Government's intention. I have no doubt that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is entitled to exercise his constitutional right and to decide when the half Senate election will be, not some Prime Minister. The most a Prime Minister can do is to ask a Premier to have it on a certain day; he has no right to tell him. Mr Bjelke-Petersen is saying that he will determine it. I have no doubt that he will consider any proper request made to him, but he will not be told when to have it. I do not see anything wrong with that. What the Labor Party is annoyed about is that if Mr Bjelke-Petersen persists in that attitude, and if he is joined by Mr Gray of Tasmania in having Senate elections in their States when they want to have them, this will be a running sore right throughout the election campaign in December. It would be an issue that could not be buried and would be at the forefront of politics. That is why I say that the Australian electorate owes a debt to Mr Bjelke-Petersen for raising the matter. So far no real reason has been given as to why there ought to be an early election apart from political opportunism. If that is the reason, let the Government members say so. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator COLEMAN —I understand the last speaker, Senator Withers, referred to us as being petit bourgeois tertiary educated members of the Australian Labor Party . Let me assure him I am very proud of the fact that I am neither a petit bourgeois nor a tertiary educated member of this Party. I am very proud of the fact that I come from a plain working class background and that I have made it to this illustrious place. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.27) —I always follow Senator Withers with some misgivings. I am pleased because I know that he not only kept the audience he had when he began but probably increased it because of the entertaining and forthright speeches he delivers to this place. I am impressed by the refreshing honesty with which he expresses himself. I compliment him on his speech. It is a hard act to follow. He said, with refreshing honesty, that he does not mind political parties taking advantage of situations. Well there at least is one politician who has put the facts on the table. I thought the wording of the matter of public importance brought on by the Liberal Party of Australia was rather quaint. It reads: 'The Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades', et cetera. Good heavens! One wonders at any political party, particularly a Liberal Party, talking about rushing to unnecessary elections. I have some figures on elections. Up to 1983 there had been 37 elections in Australia in 82 years. That is one election for every two years and three months . But if an election is held in December of this year, which is almost certain, it will mean that there will have been an election every two years and two months. There will have been an election in this country every 26 months on average. But the figures are even more illuminating when it comes to the Liberal Party talking about unnecessary elections. Since 1972-I am presuming an election will be held at the end of this year-we will have had seven elections in this country in 12 years or an election every one year and eight months. If I am right, every one of those seven elections in the last 12 years has been caused directly or indirectly by the Liberal Party. One wonders how Opposition members have the gall to say that this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is rushing to an unnecessary election. Let us have a look at what Mr Hawke did say. In an article in the Australian of 15 February, it is stated: Mr Hawke gave an undertaking yesterday he would not go to the polls early once the ALP won government. That was said on 15 February 1983. In fact, he did win government three weeks later. A few weeks after winning government speculation was coming out of his office that it may be necessary for the Australian Labor Party to go to an early election. Senator Withers summed it up perfectly. Political parties do take advantage of situations. We now have statements such as this coming out of Mr Hawke's office, obviously to try to frighten the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats: 'Don't you dare knock any legislation back twice; otherwise you will provide a trigger for a double dissolution'. The Prime Minister ought to know that people on this side of the House have shown in the past they do not scare easily. That threat is not only hollow but also it could bring about something even more irresponsible. If Mr Hawke forces a double dissolution, or uses the trigger that we may or may not provide him with and takes the option of a double dissolution, that will further destabilise this country. As I understand it, although such a situation would be eminently suitable for the Democrats, it would destabilise the country to an extent where, a year and a half further down the track, we would then be looking to another early election. If Mr Hawke wants to live up in any way to the image of a responsible Prime Minister that he wants the electorate to have of him he ought to say now that there will be no double dissolution. I think Senator Withers, with great respect to him, spoke a little with his tongue in his cheek when he said we should not have a House of Representatives election before next June. He has been one of the chief advisers to the Liberal Party over the years-a very efficient adviser-and he ought to know that, if a government is going to the people it does so in November or December. There is no way in the world that a government would go to the people early in the new year when people are receiving their Bankcard accounts after their Christmas spending, when unemployment figures are bad and whatever. If the Government has to go to an early election-Mr Hawke has to go before the end of June next year because of the half Senate election-then surely we can make some excuse for it to go before the end of this year. However, that does not take away from the fact that all these elections we are having, of which people are sick and tired, mean that the hard issues are being shelved. I have had a very rough estimate taken out-I do not swear by these figures but they are roughly correct-which show, in the last year of the Fraser Government and the first year of the Hawke Government, the time spent by both Houses of Parliament on what one could call the 'non-hard issues'. We have had the colour television set affair, a shocking and scandalous waste of the time of the Parliament. We have had the dairy scandal, the meat scandal, the spy flights over the Franklin River, the Combe-Ivanov affair, the Mick Young affair, the Button versus Kramer affair, the Ian Sinclair affair, et cetera. Those 'fundamental' matters have taken something like 70 per cent of the time of the national Parliament over the last two years. One would have thought that a Bill of rights would have been a hard issue with which to grapple. Certainly it was promised, and promised vigorously. It has now been shelved until after the election because it is too hard and it might offend certain sectional groups. Fixed-term parliaments were promised; a faithful, vigorous promise made by Mr Hawke in March 1983 when he criticised Mr Fraser's expediency. But that was shelved by the end of 1983 because his hard-headed advisers of a type such as Senator Robert Ray-I mean that as a compliment and not as an insult-said: 'Why should you give up the options that the Liberals have been using for years?' Mr Hawke bowed to expediency. The question of uranium mining has probably been the most classic sellout of all time. I still find it almost incomprehensible that a political party can win hundreds of thousands of votes on a platform which makes 'an unequivocal commitment to phase out uranium mining' and yet it then mines the largest uranium mine in the world. I cannot understand a political party telling its electors before an election that it will review the alliances with the United States of America and review United States bases in Australia. I cannot understand a political party winning votes, putting fear in the minds of people by saying that the United States base at North West Cape makes Australia a nuclear target. It does. I have elicited that information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). He has now admitted that the North West Cape at least is a nuclear target because of the United States presence there. Pine Gap, Nurrungar, Watsonia and Perth in my view, and in the view of some observers, would also be nuclear targets. Yet the Party that campaigned on the issue 'Let us keep Australia out of the nuclear business' has its Foreign Minister standing with his legs astride the largest, most heavily nuclear-armed warship the Americans have, the United States Texas, in the port of Brisbane only a few months ago, saying: 'Is it not a wonderful thing to have our great and powerful friends in Australian ports?' One would not have thought- Senator Townley —It is. Senator CHIPP —Senator Townley interjects. 'It is'. I respect his view, but Senator Townley did not campaign on the basis of getting the Americans out. The Australian Labor Party did, and that is the difference. I disagree with Senator Townley's view, but at least the Liberal Party has had the honesty to say: 'This is our policy. We welcome the Americans. We welcome United States bases in Australia'. I do not agree with that, but at least the Liberal Party has had the honesty to front up to the people and say: 'That is our policy'. On the other hand, the Labor Party says: 'These bases make us nuclear targets. We must rewrite these policies'. But when the Labor Party comes to power it embraces these policies even more warmly than do the Liberals. I was attracted to Senator Withers's description of Mr Hawke as 'Malcolm Fraser revisited'. I cannot top that. I only hesitate to say that he is now being called the best and most effective conservative Prime Minister since Robert Gordon Menzies. I think both statements are true. On the question of foreign policy any semblance of morality or principle has now vanished. All has been sacrificed for great and powerful friends. East Timor and human rights abuses in that country have been ignored. Does anybody remember the statements made by Labor spokesmen during the last election campaign about how they would correct the human rights abuses and the tortures in East Timor? We now find Labor Party foreign affairs spokesmen saying that Mr Suharto is a statesman, with no mention being made of abuses of human rights in East Timor. President Marcos still receives our aid so that he can suppress his population. I have never been one to talk down the economy. I notice that Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Liberal Party, did not do so either today. What he did was sound a prudent warning, and I do the same thing. If we politicians talk down the economy we are doing a disservice. I do think we should not become too euphoric about present indicators. Things do look better now. It would have been disastrous had we continued to decline as we were declining in the latter months of the Fraser Government. We have to remember that some of the causes of this recovery have come about because of the end of the drought. A drought does not end two years running; that is a oncer. It will not occur again, hopefully, for a few years. The United States economy recovered. That is a oncer in a period of five years. That will not happen two years running. Stocks were run down desperately as a result of the 1982-83 recession. Part of this recovery has been due to the building up of stocks again. That will not happen again. All I am doing is saying that these are the sorts of things which the Government ought to be addressing as well as the restructuring of industry. There has been a lot of talk over the years by both political parties, Liberal and Labor, about the need for lower protection, about the need for long term plans and the phasing out of uneconomic and inefficient industries. Can any honourable senator in this place stand up and say that these constructive things have been done in the restructuring of industry? What about the impact of the silicon chip and the effect the technological revolution is having on our work force? We all know that every day thousands of jobs are being lost that will never be available again. Those jobs are not being lost as a result of bad policies either of the Fraser Government or the Hawke Government. They are being lost because of the technological revolution. Is any long term planning being done to restructure the economy and the society to cover these points? To my knowledge, no. The Australian Labor Party, when in Opposition when running for office, quite properly made a great deal about child care centres. It gave assurances and promised that a new child care Act would be introduced when it attained government. Nothing has been done. I will speak for one moment about this question of child care. All the reading that I have done indicates that with children the first three or four years of life are the formative years; the personality is virtually established and things such as ambition, character, the will to survive, the will to fight one's surroundings and the ability to get on with one's fellow human beings are all formed in those early years. What we middle class politicians do is to judge all children by the standards by which we raise our own. We assume that all children have the happy home, the meals-we assume that they do not suffer hunger-and the good education of our own. Tragically, that is not true. We middle class politicians must assume that there are a great number of children in Australia who are deprived of those things through no fault of their own. It is the responsibility of governments to step in and assist in that direction. Senator JONES(Queensland)(4.42) —I would first of all like to pass a few comments on Senator Chipp's remarks. Senator Chipp said that Senator Chaney and the Opposition had not attempted to talk down the economy. However, if one reads very carefully the subject of the matter of public importance it shows very clearly what the Opposition is doing. The Opposition is making a prediction of gloom and setting out, in terms of the wording of the matter of public importance, a downturn in the economy. I am quite surprised that someone of Senator Chaney's standing would attempt to do that in this place. Let me read out the terms of the matter of public importance brought before the Senate today . It states: The Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades and its deferral of unpopular issues until after that election. I suppose any political party would be inclined not to move on unpopular issues prior to an election campaign. I think that is a fact of policital life. I think it is a fact that would be recognised by those honourable senators on this side of the chamber and by those on the Opposition side of the chamber. The other point raised in the matter of public importance concerning the Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before the economic recovery fades is nothing more than a prediction of gloom and a prediction of a downturn in the economy. We do not hear Senator Chaney or other members of the Opposition saying that the Government has lowered the inflation rate and the unemployment level. What we find is an opposition still attacking the Government , still trying to talk down the economy and still trying to create a situation of unemployment. The Opposition is still trying to support a position of inflation so that the economy will go bad and the people of Australia will suffer. I will firstly say something about the historical points relating to the half Senate election. Senator Chipp made some of these points earlier. A half Senate election has to be held by late April or early May next year at the latest to allow sufficient time for the vote to be counted and completed before the newly elected senators can take their place by 1 July 1985. Section 13 of the Constitution states that a half Senate election must be held in the 12 months prior to the expiry of the senators' terms. In other words, we are now in a pre- election period. Current short term senators' terms expire on 30 June 1985. Traditionally, elections in Australia have been held either late in the year or very early in the year, presumably to take advantage of the warmer weather. Since Federation there have been elections for half the Senate and the House of Representatives together on 22 occasions. In 83 years there have been only five occasions when politicians have been silly and irresponsible enough to commit the taxpayers to the expense and inconvenience of holding a half Senate election alone. I suppose when we say that we need to look at the cost of a half Senate election. A half Senate election in December combined with an election for the House of Representatives will cost the taxpayer something in the vicinity of $ 30m. A half Senate election held alone in April next year will cost the taxpayer about $25m to $26m, with the prospect of another election for the House of Representatives some 10 months later at the same price. When one talks about economy of scale, surely one should consider very carefully the holding of joint elections so that the extra cost is not foisted on the Australian electorate. I believe it is economic lunacy and an inexcusable impost on Australian taxpayers to keep on holding Senate and House of Representatives elections out of kilter. If the Opposition is anxious to squander tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money unnecessarily, the Hawke Labor Government is not. I believe that what should happen is that if we go to an election we should test what the electorate of Australia believes in relation to wastage of that money. Let me go back a little and look at what has been happening in relation to the campaign against the early election. A few days ago the Premier of Queensland, who I now believe is the official de facto conservative Leader of the Opposition -his opposition to the early election shows this very clearly-was in New South Wales campaigning vigorously against the holding of this early election. It does appear very clear that he seems to be, as the leader of the conservative forces, replacing Mr Peacock, Mr Howard and, for that matter, Senator Chaney in this place. It seems to me that the only real leader of the conservative parties in this country is the Premier of Queensland who is now campaigning against the early election. The proposition put forward by the Premier of Queensland against an early election is the same proposition put forward by the Opposition in the Senate today. In other words, the Premier of Queensland is dictating the terms to the Federal Opposition in relation to how the Opposition should fight the campaign if there is an early election. The Opposition in this place does not believe there should be an early election , not for the reasons put forward today by Senator Chaney and other honourable senators who spoke, but because they have not got their own house in order. The Liberal Party is still debating within itself who should be its leader. As I said previously, the only leader of the conservative parties throughout the Commonwealth of Australia is the Premier of Queensland, Johannes Bjelke-Petersen . Some time ago a breakfast was held at the Park Royal Hotel at which there was discussion between two leading Liberal Party members of the Federal Parliament. They were discussing the leadership of the Liberal Party. It was reported in the Sunday Sun at the time when the Liberal Party conference was being held that very clearly Andrew Peacock, as Leader of the Liberal Party, was not performing in the way that he was expected to perform. One of the Federal members of the Liberal Party executive stated that he believed that they should 'do a Snedden' on Peacock; in other words, they should remove Peacock as Leader. They went on with further discussion when having breakfast that morning at the Park Royal Motor-Inn. Some of the discussion was about whether they should have Peacock as their Leader, some was about someone called Fred-Fred Chaney, the leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate. I think probably that would have some merit because Chaney would perform much better than Peacock is at the moment as Leader of the Liberal Party. One of the reasons the Liberal Party does not want to go to an early election is that it is devoid of leadership. It has Howard, the discredited former Treasurer, who brought in a proposal before the last Federal election and left this country with a great deficit. He is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Peacock, the Leader of the Liberal Party, cannot even perform in the House. He is out-performed by the Prime Minister of Australia, Robert Hawke, every time they meet in the House. He does not have the confidence of the Liberal Party. We can see that from the discussion held by members of the Liberal Party at the Park Royal Motor-Inn about removing Peacock as Leader of the Liberal Party. The other point that is frightening the Liberal Party about an early election is the fact that the Liberal Party in the Senate rejected the bottom of the harbour legislation. Liberal senators rejected that legislation in an attempt to protect the tax evaders and tax avoiders of this country. Senator MacGibbon —Tell John Dawkins about that. Senator JONES —Senator MacGibbon from Queensland was one the senators who voted to beat the bottom of the harbour legislation because he did not believe it should be retrospective. The Labor Party believed that people who owed tax to the Commonwealth of Australia should be made to pay their debts. Had they been made to do so more funds would have been available to the Australian Government and the Australian Government would have been able to go further and proceed with the programs it had set up for the Australian people. I go back to the point raised when this debate was commenced. The Liberal Party Opposition, led by Senator Chaney, has attempted today to talk down the economy. It has done so in an attempt to create fear, to create unemployment, to create a situation in which the inflation rate starts to rise again. Its members are not playing any role in the Labor Government's consensus operation to ensure that there is a drop in the inflation rate and that employment is created so that this country is better off in the future. What senators opposite did today was to use the weather, the drought, as an excuse. Senator Chaney —So does every economist. Senator JONES —Senator Chaney said that the only reason the economy is running well is that the drought has broken. What Senator Chaney did was shameful. It does not befit a Leader of the Opposition in this place to try to talk down the economy. He tried to create a situation in which the people of Australia suffer further from unemployment and increased inflation. He has the responsibility of being the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and should consider the points he raised in the matter he brought before the Senate. Very clearly he said that he is waiting for the economy to fade. He said the upturn in the economy will fade. The Opposition attempted today to talk down the economy in ways that would cause people listening to this debate to believe that the Australian Labor Party and the Government in power today are not doing anything to ease the inflation rate. The Australian Labor Party, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, has lowered the inflation rate and the level of unemployment and will continue to do so. When we take the Opposition to the next election, whenever it is held, it will be decimated. The people of Australia will not forget that the Opposition voted against the tax avoidance and tax evasion legislation and allowed the crooks and the charlatans of this country to take money away from the working people, the ordinary people of this country. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.55) —I could not understand what Senator Jones was on about during that harangue other than, as my colleague Senator Hill from South Australia said, that it was good fun on a Wednesday afternoon. Then I found out from Senator MacGibbon that the truth of the matter is that Senator Jones has a very difficult pre-selection coming on in Queensland. That is what his speech was all about. It certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject which the Senate is debating at present, that is the Government's rush to an unnecessary election this year before economic recovery fades and the Government 's deferral of unpopular issues until after that election. When one looks at the papers produced in the Senate this year there can be no doubt that the Government is deferring bringing into this place any proper legislation for us to consider. It has all been on peripheral matters. In particular, the Government keeps bringing in insignificant issues concerning retrospective taxation and arguing about that. It seems to be the only subject that this Government is capable of bringing before the Parliament. I ask the Australian Labor Party to tell me what its policies are in regard to taxation. What are its policies in regard to the assets test for pensioners? As Senator Missen asked today, when will the Government tell the pensioners, who have been waiting nearly 18 months, what they can do with their funds? What is this Government going to do in regard to their assests? Senator Chaney —Not before the election. Senator LEWIS —It will not be before the election, as Senator Chaney said. That is the significant thing. Before the next election the Government will not tell the pensioners of Australia what they can do with their funds. What are the Government's policies in regard to defence? Where is the Green Paper on defence that the ALP promised it would being down prior to the last election? I have here the 1982 platform, constitution and rules of the Australian Labor Party and in it there are about 183 pages of promises. Where are those promises now? When will the Government bring in its promised constitutional and legal reform? When will it have the referendum that the ALP has been talking about for five or six years? When will the people of Australia be able to tell the Government what they think about its constitutional proposals? The people are interested in knowing what this Government is doing in regard to legislating. It is quite good at deferring matters and pushing them aside and under the carpet, but it is not too good at bringing legislation into this place and letting us have a look at it. What are the Government's policies in relation to industrial relations? Where is it going in regard to its problems with the accord? The accord is being broken by strong sections of the trade union movement which at present are saying to the Government: 'We've lost 9 per cent under the Fraser freeze and we want that 9 per cent back'. Those unions are starting to squeeze this Government for that 9 per cent. What is the Government doing about that? Where is its policies? Is it standing up to those demands by those unions? Not on your life. This Government will not take any of those difficult decisions until after the next election. What is it doing about the enormous number of strikes which are going on around the nation at present? There are strikes all over the country and the Government is behaving as though there are no strikes at all. Senator Crowley —Rubbish! We have had less industrial unrest since this Government was elected- Senator LEWIS —Good grief-Mr Deputy President, are you going to allow that woman to behave like that in this chamber? Surely she should have some decency. She is one of those petite bourgeois tertiary educated academic slugs of the Labor Party. Where is the Labor Party's minerals and energy policy that Senator Walsh was raving about for so long? What has happened to the resource rent tax? It was an absolute fizz. When are we going to see the Labor Party introduce some of these promises that it made in this 183 page document? Of course, the people of Australia ought to know that this document was prepared before Mr Hawke became the leader of the Labor Party, so it contains the promises made by Mr Hayden. Senator Withers —Before the blood was spilt. Senator LEWIS —That is right. This document was prepared by Caucus committees, back bench organisations and the organisation of the Labor Party working out their platforms. This document was prepared before this Government got its new ad-Hawkery policy-not ad hockery-because Mr Hawke seems to be making up the policies of the Labor Party on the run and his policies have much to do with views that he expressed before he had anything whatsoever to do with the parliamentary wing of the Labor Party. I see the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) sitting in the chamber at the moment. That is most unusual, of course, but where are her policies in regard to education? When is she going to come forward and table her policies so that we know what they are? When are we going to see the next paper in regard to the next triennium? I suppose the Government will try to keep that secret for a long time. When are we going to see that Affirmative Action paper that we should have seen last year when discussing the Sex Discrimination Bill? We still have not seen the Affirmative Action Green Paper, and here we are into May of 1984. This Government has continued on its merry way, hiding behind a whole series of events. Apparently I have upset the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs because she has left the chamber. Anyway, it seems that this Government is behaving at present in a manner which, it is clear to us here, is that of a government avoiding making any difficult decisions or any decisions of real note so that the people of Australia can see what this Government is proposing. Senator Robertson —What has this to do with the MPI? Senator LEWIS —I hear the honourable senator from the Northern Territory interjecting. I hope that he might get an opportunity at some time to tell us what is the Labor Party's policy on tax. What is the Labor Party's policy in regard to the assets test? What is the Labor Party's policy in regard to industrial relations? What is the Labor Party's policy in relation to minerals and energy? What is the Labor Party's policy in regard to education? Does the Labor Party have any policies at all that it is prepared to tell the people of the nation that it stands up for? In the days that Senator Withers was talking about, when the Labor Party represented the working class of this nation, there was a different situation. Then we understood what the Labor Party stood for, but at present, with academics running the organisation, we are unable to see what the Labor Party stands for. Now the Leader of the Labor Party, the present Prime Minister, almost immediately after gaining office, has started talking about an early election to bring the Houses of the Parliament into order. Yet for years when we were in government we kept hearing Opposition senators talking about early elections. I see Senator Walsh sitting in the chamber now, very quiet about having an early election. From 1976 to 1983 practically every week Senator Walsh made a speech criticising Mr Fraser for possibly having an early election. Senator Walsh used to talk up early elections almost from the day the previous election was held. Yet I do not hear him criticising any suggestion of the current Prime Minister having an early election. No, Senator Walsh is very quiet about Mr Hawke having an early election. What reason is there to rush into an early election? The Government has a majority in the lower House and all that has happened in the Senate is that the Senate quite properly has referred some legislation to Senate committees which have come down with some excellent reports to improve the legislation. The Government was trying to push the National Crimes Authority Bill up to us last year and the Senate referred it to a committee. What happened? That committee came up with a majority report of some 60 recommendations to amend the legislation. What happened? The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that he thought that was quite reasonable and went very much along the lines that the Government was thinking. Dear me, why did the Government not bring in those amendments way back in November 1983 instead of waiting until it got the report to approve some 60 amendments to its proposed Bill? This Government is involved in hiding the policies which we know it has. That is why we want them exposed. We know that the Government has policies in regard to the assets test. We know that the Government has policies in regard to the accord which the workers of this nation will not like when they are ultimately exposed. We know that this Government has policies in regard to winding down our defence forces. We know that this Government has policies in regard to industrial relations. But it will not expose them. It will not tell the people of this nation where it is going or what it is doing. So we sit in this chamber day after day debating insignificant matters, not able to debate proper legislation because the Government will not bring the legislation into the Parliament. Time after time we are forced to have some sort of high school debate about matters which are not significant to the people out there because this Government refuses to bring before this Parliament legislation that would give us a chance to consider the various matters which ought to be considered. In particular, I ask the Government when it will please help the pensioners of this nation by telling them what it is going to do with regard to the assets test. When are we going to find out? Will it tell the workers of this nation what it is going to do with the accord? How is it going to cope with the unions who are demanding a 9 per cent increase in their wages on top of the 4.5 per cent they have recently had? How is this Government going to deal with the enormous numbers of strikes raging around this nation at present? There are strikes in Western Australia, from where Senator Cook comes, in Sydney, in Queensland, in Victoria, and in Broken Hill. There are strikes all over this nation, and this Government is sitting down and doing absolutely nothing about them. The people of Australia are entitled to know where this Government is trying to take this nation, if it is trying to take this nation anywhere, or whether it will allow this nation to continue as if there was no leadership at all. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for consideration of a matter of public importance has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. While I applaud the significant contribution by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board on the importance of developing new technology and new products and of being internationally competitive in producing those products, there is nevertheless a fundamental gap in not having a body or institution to bridge the gulf between research and its commercial application. Australia could well adopt a scheme along similar lines to the Ideas Corporation from Ontario, Canada, where the intention is in a tangible way to help innovations succeed commercially and to improve the diffusion of new technology into industry. This Ideas Corporation, through its specialised substructures of micro-electronics, information technology, mechanics and automation, biological and chemical specialities, develops viable business organisations capable of competing successfully in a commercial environment with rewards and incentives designed to draw top and specialised men in the fields of marketing, engineering, commerce, et cetera. Although venture capital is initially provided by the Government and apportioned to projects, the intention is that in time these companies will be sold off to provide an increased capital fund through which to provide for innovations. The Ideas Corporation can also act as a licensing broker for innovation. So often people developing new projects lack a knowledge of industrial law, including the necessity to patent the invention in such a manner that the rewards of the innovation can flow to the appropriate people. Over the years Australia has had a good record of original research, but it lacks the capacity to develop commercial application of this research. I have passed on the concept of the Ideas Corporation, together with a great deal of associated literature, to Mr Barry Jones, the Federal Minister for Science and Technology. I am glad that his initial reaction was to meet the proposal with a degree of enthusiasm. I have also sent the same information to my State colleague, the Honourable Neil Robson, the Tasmanian Minister for Industrial Development. I take this opportunity to thank the President of the Ideas Corporation, Dr B. E. St John, who is a PhD graduate from Australia, for the time he took to explain the workings of the Ideas Corporation when I recently met with him in Toronto, Canada. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.12) —The Australian Democrats are wholeheartedly in support of the existence of an Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board in this country. But it seems to us that although research programs funded by the Board appear to be important and valuable in the main-I think that is not to be disputed, from the report-the Board's priorities ought to be altered to give a higher priority to projects on renewable energy research. We all know, I think, that it is a fact that it is only a matter of time before the world's non-renewable resources run out. We also know that what is left of them now must, in one way or another serve humanity through the rest of its history. On that basis I question whether it is prudent or sensible to go on using those non-renewable resources until they are exhausted or even become very scarce or expensive. We owe a great deal to the people who developed the basic infrastructure of this country-its roads, its railways, its sewerage works, its cities and the like-and who did so with an idealistic view towards the future. Those people knew that they were building for the future and they were concerned about the future. It is worth noting in passing that it appears that we are having great difficulty now in even maintaining sensibly the great resources which they built . We do not seem to have the capacity to do so properly any more. Is it to be our role, as a generation, to cast aside that kind of responsibility of thinking for the future and say that as long as we keep going quite selfishly within our lifetime and there are enough things for us we do not care what hardships or depravations future generations must have? I raise these points because when we look at it that way I think it is suggested strongly-this is what the Australian Democrats believe as a matter of fundamental faith-that the economics of alternative energy are not the only factor to be taken into account. It is not good enough to let matters drift on until it can be said that the alternatives can operate at the same or at cheaper costs as traditional energy resources because by the time we get to that stage it will be too late. We will have reached the stage where we will have seriously depleted our present resources. The Democrats believe that we should be preparing adequately now for a sustainable society and that the community wants us to be preparing now for a sustainable society. These things are very well understood in the community. I often wonder, Mr Deputy President, whether the community does not understand them better than this place understands them. It would not be the only thing about which it had a better understanding. So we should be preparing now for that sustainable society; the community is ready to accept that along with the slight additional cost it would incur. That, of course, can be done only if there is adequate incentive for research into the permanently renewable energy resources. Unfortunately, there has been a minor but noticeable campaign lately in some sections of the Australian media to discredit things such as solar energy, for instance, although we all know well enough that in the long run it is the only possible permanent source of energy for the world. The long run might not even be that long. The work in solar energy must be done. This is, of course, happening extensively overseas, but not here in Australia, which should be the most suitable country for this kind of advanced research. One of the most vital areas of renewable energy resource research is, of course , solar technology. I notice that the report shows that solar technology research received only 1.7 per cent of sunrise industries projects grants for 1982-83. This seems, to the Australian Democrats, to be part of the general, deplorable trend away from government funding of renewable energy research. I have spoken on such papers before, in particular in regard to on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is cutting down severely on its research into solar, wind and other renewable energy resources. Now the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board appears to be doing much the same sort of thing. I ask, through you, Mr Deputy President and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is present, whether this is a concerted, definite and deliberate Government policy. Does the Government really want us to be right at the bottom of this sort of research throughout the world, to be the Rip-van-Winkle compared with countries such as the United States of America and Japan where that sort of research is going on? We believe that it is a truly appalling state of affairs. The Government should realise that non-renewable resources are just that, and that it has a certain responsibility not only to the present but also to the future. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.17) —The 1982-83 annual report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board deals with a very vital area for the future of Australian industry. I am reminded that, just after the war, 37 per cent of the Australian work force was employed in the manufacturing sector. Now 18 per cent of the Australian work force is employed in that sector. There are, of course, many problems in getting growth in manufacturing which will employ workers in productive employment. There are very complex reasons and difficulties involved. But one of the areas in which government can play a very positive role is through the working of this Board in seeking to encourage innovation, imagination and ideas for new products and processes that can be turned to commercial advantage. I believe that this Board has performed a significant and important role in providing seed, planning and development grants along the way for the inventors and innovators in Australian society, which then provides a basis for industrial advancement in the adaption of their ideas. The preface of this report, I think, carries some very important and useful comments. The preface, written by the Board's Chairman, Mr W. L. Hughes, notes in the opening remarks that after 1981-82 there was a significant carry-over of projects that the Board would have approved had it the funds. There was also a carry-over of projects that were not able to be processed. There are two reasons for that carry-over. Firstly, sufficient money was not available to fund the projects that had been approved. Secondly, staff numbers were inadequate to deal with the proper processing of the applications. It is pleasing to note that the report goes on to say that those two factors have been overcome. In the third paragraph of the report the Chairman says: Firstly, and crucially, the Government raised the allocation of funding to AIRDIS mid-way through the fiscal year. An additional $3m was added to the initial budgetary allocation of $11.3m to reduce the carry-over of undischarged commencement grant applications. Further, the commitment limit imposed on the Board's ability to enter agreements in respect of specific new project grant applications was raised from $25m to $35m. Of this additional $10m commitment, $ 2m was provided for expenditure in 1982-83. The report goes on to draw attention to the increase in staff that this Government was able to make. During the discussion of papers it is not an ideal time to make a political point, but the significant reduction in the ability of this Board to process applications during 1981-82 caused a bottleneck in the flow of ideas and meaningful new innovation for the development industry and was a false economy indeed. It is pleasing to see that the Chairman of the Board has drawn attention to the fact that this Government, in its new term and during the current fiscal year, has moved directly and meaningfully to overcome that bottleneck. I suppose that the other comment made in the Chairman's preface which should be referred to is that, despite that injection of new funds and of additional staff , some cases still have been turned away. One should perhaps comment that it is pleasing that the fertile imagination of Australians is alive and well in that, despite an expanded capacity within the Board and an increased processing of applications, more people are knocking on the doors with ideas to be implemented . But it is also a consideration for the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), to whom this report is directed, that next time funding is discussed some consideration be given to ensure that those who have ideas for the adaption of industry which can provide a better, wider and more diversified industrial base for Australia can get on with the job by receiving grants from this Board. I commend the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There are three things that I wish to say in regard to this report. It is difficult to operate and run a land council, especially the Central Land Council , because of the disparate language and cultural groups which make up its membership and because of the different agendas which some of them have. I believe that at least some of the statements in this report give testimony to that fact. Page 8 of the report states: These tensions create problems that need our continuous attention and they require in the Minister responsible an unusual degree of sympathy if they are to be amicably resolved. That is the kind of sentiment with which I would agree. But having said that, I must say that this report is the most overtly politically partisan annual report that I have ever seen in this Parliament. Some of the partisan political statements are unsuitable for a report of this kind. Having been the Minister concerned, I have had a lot of contact with the CLC and I do have sympathy with the problems that it faces. But the report begins by attacking the Northern Territory Government in a most unfair way and its references to the new Federal Government, frankly, are politically fawning in their degree of sycophancy. It refers to 'a welcome return to the sentiments of the Whitlam era'. However strongly those views are held by the Central Land Council, they sit poorly in an annual report which is supposed to set out its activities over a period. The Land Council has had some considerable difficulties. It draws attention to some of those on page 16 when it points out that it is required in some of its establishment matters to obtain the authority of the Public Service Board for certain salary levels and certain other matters relating to the people who are employed by it. I must record that as Minister I had more difficulty in trying to have the Central Land Council deal in a responsible way with my Department and me than I had with any other organisation or body. I notice that on page 37 a certificate from the Chairman, Mr Stanley Scrutton, certifies that funds received from the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account and other sources have been expended in accordance with the provisions of the land rights Act. I am grateful that that certificate appears. I recall that only a few years ago I had enormous difficulty in getting that same Mr Scrutton to obtain from the Public Service Board the authorisation of salaries to be paid to senior officers of the Council , including himself. I had the greatest difficulty in getting proper usage of motor vehicles owned by the Council. On one occasion, in spite of the advice given by the officers of the Central Land Council, the Chairman authorised the use of a vehicle by someone who took it to Borroloola for funeral ceremonies, a use for which a Central Land Council vehicle should not have been used. I must say that over a period I did not find in Mr Scrutton the kind of responsible administrator that the Aboriginal people needed to operate their land council. Other land councils are also operated and managed by Aboriginal people, and their administration was in stark contrast to that which I found in the CLC. I am most disappointed by the political nature of this report. I am delighted to see the extent to which the Council has consulted with Dr Coombs. I am a bit disturbed that his recommendation is for an almost threefold increase in its establishment of officers. But I am forced to conclude that until I see some evidence that the reorganisation has brought about an improvement in the administration, the situation which faced me as Minister may once more arise. I was told that I had no sanctions with which to force the Council to operate within the various constraints that the Act laid down, other than withholding approval of its Budget, which I did on one occasion. I wonder whether the CLC, either by capacity, management or disposition, is or can operate in the best interests of the communities it is supposed to represent. Having said that, I hope that the various problems to which I have alluded can be resolved and can be overcome in the short term for the benefit of Aboriginal people. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.25) —I begin by congratulating the Central Land Council on the quality of its third annual report. It is fair to say, of course, that I do not see it in the same light as Senator Peter Baume does. I would appreciate the opportunity to counteract some of the statements made by Senator Baume, but quite clearly, time does not permit in the five minutes which we are allocated. This is a slim document but well worth reading. It gives a clear picture of the structure and activities of the Council. There are a number of disturbing comments in the report. In fact, the first lines of the Chairman's report set the tone. He states: I must begin my report as I began the last: by pointing out that the Central Land Council functions in a hostile political climate created by an untrustworthy and erratic Northern Territory Government. That Government has not ceased to attempt to undermine public support for the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and accompanying legislation which recognises Aboriginal rights. He notes further in his remarks that a good deal of the resources of the Central Land Council are taken up combating the sort of publicity put out by the Northern Territory Government. He rightly comments that this sort of money could be used far more effectively. The report deals with the CLC, its administration, policy research and negotiation, and the Land Council's Aboriginality, and then moves on to a section entitled 'Issues of Ongoing Concern'. One assumes that that means issues of ongoing concern over the past three years. It is that section of the report to which I wish to draw attention. The first paragraph is entitled 'a climate of harassment' and again opens with comments about the Northern Territory Government. Page 30 of the report reads: . . . the Northern Territory government has continued its attack on the legislation on which Aboriginal people rely to keep their law. That comment is the subject of a statement in today's Canberra Times. I will read it, because I think it ought to be on the record: The Northern Territory Government was engaged in a 'cold war' against the Aboriginal people, the Central Land Council said in its third annual report tabled in Parliament yesterday. It said the Northern Territory Government, led by the Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, had continued its attack on the legislation-on which Aboriginal people relied to keep their law-and waging a propaganda battle against sacred sites. Of course, the propaganda battle was dealt with in a publication entitled 'A Question of Justice' which was put out by the Central Land Council in an attempt to meet some of the massive publicity mounted by the Northern Territory Government in seeking support for its package. It spoke of the package of the Northern Territory Government as being divisive. The report continued: The Government package was itself 'divisive' in that it promised to give to some Aboriginal people while taking away from others. The report contains a quote which is well worth reading. I think most Territorians, particularly those who have been in the Territory for some time, find it very distasteful when actions are taken by a government of a State or Territory which are designed to create divisions between black and white. That is certainly what has happened in the Northern Territory. After years of living in a multicultural society of black and white and other colours, and other ethnic groups, the Government has attempted to create divisions. We have statements such as 'you could have had X except the sacred site is in the road'. The Alice Springs dam reflects such a situation. In other words, a group of white people say: 'We could have had this thing if only this ''nonsense'' about sacred sites was not brought to the fore.' The report deals also with excisions and draws attention, very effectively, to the need for excisions of land on pastoral property. We all know that Mr Justice Woodward recognised the need for living areas, as he called them, on pastoral properties. But living is not enough. The Lake Nash situation demonstrated that quite effectively during the term of office of the previous Government. The people must have secure title. The report deals with that matter fairly well where it says: Only with such security of tenure will people achieve the peace of mind and the community facilities for which they have fought so long. The report speaks favourably of the new Federal Government and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) but cautions against a reliance on national bodies to speak for the Aboriginal people. I should like to read-I do not have time to do so-the comment in the report about the bodies being important and having an important role, but the need for the local groups to be recognised. I commend this section of the report to the Minister. I hope that he will continue to seek the views of the local groups and to make them part of his advice when he makes his decision. I congratulate the Central Land Council on its report and commend the report to honourable senators. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.31) — The report of the Central Land Council makes very interesting reading, as honourable senators have already suggested. I am not as perturbed as Senator Baume was about the overt support for the Federal Government. I think that many of the Aboriginal groups, as with many other groups in our society, will come to see that the promises that have been made to them are as hollow as those made to so many others. However, I should like to look at particular items in the report, because during this year I believe that we shall be debating some legislation in relation, for example, to heritage and sacred sites, and the report contains some very interesting material. But it is not all doom and gloom. People will see in the report discussion about the Palm Valley gas field. That is one very interesting case where, as a result of negotiations and discussions and an agreement on the part of people on both sides to work constructively together, benefit has accrued to Alice Springs, to the Aboriginal people and to the white people there. There are many other examples raised in the report where that type of on-going work, which is one of the major tasks of the Land Councils, is progressing well. As in all matters and certainly as in matters as contentious as this, one cannot expect that one will always get agreement by all parties on every issue. But by and large, significant progress is being made in resolving outstanding issues. Certainly the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as it is currently framed provides that consultative framework that is, surprisingly enough, proving that in almost every area it is standing up to test. That is probably a pretty good recommendation for any piece of legislation that passes through this place. The report is extremely critical, in a number of areas, of the Northern Territory Government. I am not at all sure why one would expect it not to be critical. After all, the Land Council finds itself so often in conflict not only in legislative ways but also in public with the attitude often taken by the Northern Territory Government. One need only allude, for example, to the case of the destruction of the caterpillar dreaming trails, which certainly would give anyone pause as to why one would feel that there was a great deal of trust between the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Government. So I am not surprised at the very critical nature of the comments in the report about the Northern Territory Government. I do not see it necessarily as also totally inappropriate. However, a couple of other issues probably give pause. Senator Baume has raised one of them, and it arises out of the report by Dr Coombs. The Central Land Council is extremely happy with that report, but when one considers that if the report's recommendations were implemented, the current problems of the Central Land Council with its own accommodation would be exacerbated, probably threefold or fourfold, one realises that it is probably not a step that ought to be taken at this time without some pretty serious discussion of both the financial implications of such a move and the need for such developments. I believe that the development of the various organisations in this area needs to be brought closer together. We are tending to look at each organisation as a separate unit, to set up criteria in relation to that, to pursue that through and settle it, and then go on to another one. That does not seem to be a constructive way of approaching this issue. The relationship between a central body such as the National Aboriginal Conference and the land councils has always been of concern, not only to Federal Ministers but also to the Aboriginal people . Those items need to be sorted out before many of the recommendations that appeared in Dr Coombs' report ought even to be considered seriously. The Central Land Council has many reservations about the Toohey review, but I suppose, overall, that the optimistic tone of where Aboriginal affairs may be going under this Government must stay with one when one has read this report. My hope is that the optimistic views that the Central Land Council is taking will be views which are shared in reality. However, in view of some of the things that are going on within the Australian Labor Party, one cannot be sanguine about that. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.36) —I should like to speak briefly to the Central Land Council's third annual report 1982-83. I am disappointed in the tenor of the report. I thought that the Central Land Council could have produced a report which would have done much more justice to the situation, and more justice for its own people. A report such as this does not have the full support of the Aboriginal people. In very many places, the report is inaccurate. I have sympathy with some parts of it, but in many places it is not only inaccurate but most hostile, and it does not take into consideration the situation as it exists , not in the Territory as a whole but in the Central Australian area. To say that the Council operates 'in a hostile political climate created by an untrustworthy and erratic Northern Territory Government' is going far too far when the matter is considered. The matters that I take into consideration are as follows: In Alice Springs, 23 per cent of the town area has now been allocated to Aboriginal villagers. As time is against me, I should like to seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to have a document incorporated in Hansard. I have cleared it with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Deputy Whip. The document concerns the Aboriginal Community Living Areas Bill 1984, which has been tabled in the Northern Territory Assembly for information and public comment. The document gives the lie to the charges made by the Central Land Council, because the legislation will enact pastoral area community areas which will be overseen by a tribunal. There the Northern Territory Government is acquiring land from pastoral leases for 3,000 to 4,000 Aboriginal people. I think that it will affect some 40 groups and give them land. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under sessional order for consideration of Government papers has expired. Do you wish to have the document incorporated, Senator? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, I seek leave for its incorporation in Hansard, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PART OF CLC REPORT Aboriginal Community Living Areas Bill 1984-Tabled in assembly for information and public comment. The Chief Minister, Mr Everingham and the Federal Government have agreed no legislation be introduced until review by Justice Toohey completed. The Bill allows for a 'Pastoral Area Community Tribunal' to be established which deals with applications-by the lessee of a pastoral lease or an applicant ('on his own behalf or on behalf of himself and other Aboriginals') may apply to the Minister for the excision from the pastoral lease of an area of land the grant of an estate in fee simple in that land to a land trust as a living area. The Minister within 90 days of receiving the application will approve it or refer it to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will- In the case of an application other than by the lessee of a pastoral lease- ascertain whether the applicant is entitled to make the application Hear and consider the application Report and make recommendations to the Minister . . . as to whether the land should be acquired and granted in fee simple for the benefit of the applicant . . . There are provisions for the time and form of application, etc. provisions for applications by the same Aboriginal, and the same, or different area of land etc . S. 28 provides for a mediator to be appointed-between pastoral lessee and applicant so agreement may be reached on the application. S. 31 provides for another area of land to be granted in substitution for the land claimed so as not to unreasonably reduce the economic viability of the pastoral lease. S. 36 provides for the establishment of a land trust to hold title to the land granted under the Act and to exercise its power as owner for the benefit of the Aboriginals residing on the land. The land trust does not have the power ('except with Minister's approval) to transfer the estate in fee simple in, or grant a lease of the land granted-other than a lease to an Aboriginal for no longer than 5 years. This Bill-the Aboriginal Community Living Areas Bill-is tied in with another Bill-the NT Development Land Corporation (Vesting of Land) Act-the Living Areas Bill only remains in force as long as the Vesting of Land Act. The Vesting of Land Act is to-to vest in the NT Development Land Corporation an estate in fee simple in certain land, and for related purposes. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —As there is no General Business tomorrow, I shall give a chance to honourable senators to move to take note of the remaining papers on the list presented today, but not to speak on the subject. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —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 Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 4 dated 2 May 1984. Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.41) —I am continuing the remarks I made in the chamber yesterday on this most important report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I welcome the opportunity to continue with some comment about this most important matter. The Senate does have before it the report of the special investigation into the National Crimes Authority Bill. It is special in the sense that the number of members on the Standing Committee was increased by two people, Senator Chipp and me, to investigate this matter. There has been some discussion about whether that was a good or a bad thing but there is no doubt that the report is an excellent one and it will be of benefit to the Government as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) so gracefully said in this chamber yesterday. The main thrust of the inquiry highlights the tension that we had to deal with, in fact that any government has to deal with, when confronting the issue of the establishment of a National Crime Authority. There is a very real tension to be balanced or addressed between the civil liberties of the Australian people and the need for sufficient investigatory powers to combat and reduce, if not stamp out, organised crime in this country. We do have the benefit of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and of other royal commissions too but certainly of the Costigan Commission's great contribution, apart from the specific issues it dealt with. The great contribution of the Costigan Royal Commission was to draw the attention of the Australian people to the existence of very extensive organised crime in this country. I think it was something of a shock to the Australian people to realise just how extensive organised crime had become in this country. Both the previous Government and the present Government have seen the need to deal with this matter by the establishment of a permanent or ongoing authority, something that does not have the same characteristic as a royal commission. I think it is important to stress that royal commissions have special terms of reference, a specific life and very special powers attached to them. The report has recommended-it was certainly one that I spoke against-that the Authority continue with the name Authority rather than adopt the recommendation of the majority report that it be called a commission principally because I think it is important to highlight the difference between a commission, a royal commission and the existence of the powers in an ongoing National Crimes Authority. The Authority has a very different life expectancy. It has very different powers and it has a different role. It is a law enforcement agency and much more akin to that. In this case it is proposed that it be granted very special powers within the terms of reference. However, it is quite unlike a royal commission and it is important to make that distinction very clear. It is for that reason, of course, that I supported the notion that the organisation be called an authority and not a commission so there is no possibility of any confusion. The other point I wish to address briefly is the need for public accountability of the Authority and I alluded to that in a small dissenting report. I would like to see the continuation of the presence in the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 of the role for the Ombudsman and the role for a judicial audit or something approximating that. I feel that I may have been the only member of the Committee who felt very happy that the Ombudsman had a role in the overview and analysis of the functions of the National Crime Authority. I see the Ombudsman as a person who has become very widely accepted in the community as a representative or supporter of the ordinary citizen, particularly a person taking up the cudgels against bureaucracies, institutions or the weight of anachronistic regulations. The Ombudsman has become well accepted by the ordinary citizen in the community. I feel though that the Ombudsman is still doing battle to be taken seriously in a world populated by lawyers. I do not wish to suggest what words the Bill should provide by way of advising what the Ombudsman's role would be. Certainly on occasions the Ombudsman may be able to take action on behalf of an individual citizen who has complaints against the actions or behaviour of the Authority but I also feel the Ombudsman could have a role of overview, the larger review analysis of the Authority's work in the course of its year's operations. However, how that matter is addressed finally is not for me to decide. I simply feel it is important to say that I support the presence of the Ombudsman's role in the Authority. It is an important one and it is principally one of spokesman for the ordinary person in the community. The other dimension of accountability is referred to in the Bill as requiring a judicial audit. There was much discussion in the course of the Committee about whether or not such a judicial audit would be effective and/or effectual. Certainly I am happy with the proposed changes in the Bill that any grievances a person wants to bring against actions of the Authority might be better dealt with by summary applications to a judge. I have no argument with that proposed recommendation as a change to the Bill. However, I still support the need for some external body or bodies to overview, to review and to do an external analysis of the year's performance. The Authority itself will be required to produce an annual report. Of course that is to be commended and I strongly support the recommendations supporting that in the report of the Senate Committee. I feel it is also important that this be balanced by an external annual report. Some people have suggested to me that I am using the word audit non- specifically or incorrectly. I think that audit might be a very appropriate word . There needs to be some external body looking at the functions and the operations of the Authority. These would include, no doubt, the economic analysis, how much it spends, how many people are working in the Authority and what those people have been employed to do. But more importantly it would look at the terms of reference that the Authority has accepted or taken on for itself during the year and how those terms of reference are being pursued or dealt with . I feel that an authority such as this which will be provided with the extraordinary powers that it will be given under the terms of reference does need to have a clear understanding that it has to be publicly accountable. I therefore support the retention of the judicial audit. Maybe the words in the Bill would be somewhat changed but I still feel the principle of public accountability under that term should remain. Finally, the Parliament in its ordinary operations will also be able to examine the functions of the Authority quite adequately without the establishment of any special parliamentary or Senate committee to overview or review the work of the Authority. It is my opinion that with the annual report from the Authority, perhaps a report from the Ombudsman and the judicial audit, the Parliament, in reading those reports and checking through them, would have more than sufficient occasion and opportunity to check publicly and review the functions of the most important organisation that is proposed to be established, that is the National Crime Authority. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.50) —I rise to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs relating to the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. Firstly, I most sincerely congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Michael Tate from Tasmania, on an excellent job. In my view he brought the Committee together extremely well. He had an enormous input into the writing of the report and generally he did an excellent job. When I say 'generally' I mean in all. I have no criticisms at all of Senator Tate's performance as Chairman of the Committee. It was a pleasure to work with him. I would also like to pay a tribute to my colleagues. There were four members of the Australian Labor Party, three members of the Opposition and Senator Chipp from the Australian Democrats. We worked together very well as a team. Some of us had not worked together previously. Two additional committee members were appointed for this report. I pay a tribute and a compliment to the staff for their work. I would also like to pay a tribute to those people who made submissions. There were nearly 40 written submissions. A large number of witnesses came before the Committee. It was clear that the people who made submissions and the witnesses who came before the Committee had put an enormous amount of work into considering the evidence that they gave to us and the submissions they made. People go out of their way to help Senate committees. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has clearly shown the enormous value and importance of Senate committees to the national Parliament. Mr Deputy President, I must say with you in the Chair that I see much merit in important pieces of legislation always being referred to Senate committees for their consideration. In this particular case the report contains some 60 recommendations. Two members of the team could not agree to two recommendations, I could not agree to one recommendation and Senator Missen could not agree to six recommendations. So really seven people agreed to 58 recommendations. That is an enormous indication of unanimity and across the board multi-party thinking. This is the sort of thing that goes on in Senate committees that so many of us have been talking about for so long. I wish people would understand the enormous value of referring legislation to Senate committees for their consideration and not think of it as, in some way, a delaying tactic. What does it matter if for some reason or other a Bill is delayed for a couple of months, perhaps even six months, if as a result of that delay the legislation is as vastly improved as this legislation has been? There is no doubt about that. The unanimous report is that the Bill, as originally presented to the Senate, was totally inadequate. That has been acknowledged by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who has accepted the report. He indicated that in the initial stages of his examination of the report he cannot see any reason why the Government cannot go along with it. I have to be very brief in referring to the detail of the report because I have only a limited time to speak on this matter this evening, but I would like to say that I go along very much with what Senator Hill had to say last night. I thoroughly approve of his remarks. I thought the Chairman's tabling statement was excellent. In the National Crime Authority we are balancing the national interest of the majority of the people of Australia against the individual's civil liberties and rights. This is a matter of fine balance and of great concern to all parliamentarians and indeed to people right around the nation. It was clear to us from the very early stages that the information we received from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and from Mr Redlich that so-called organised crime in Australia is a matter of grave concern and should be a matter of grave concern to the people of this nation. I use the words 'organised crime', but I think Mr Hampson, QC, expressed it as 'a running series of conspiracies'. I think that is probably the true situation because different groupings of people come together to involve themselves in different criminal activities. It is interesting to note that there might be about 2,000 major criminals around the nation. That was one estimate which was given to us. These people spend their entire lives organising the raising of revenue in some way which is illegal. It seems as if once they are involved in one series of criminal activities they involve themselves in others. It might be drugs, tax evasion, arson, murder or bank robberies. They get involved in all of these things. Some of them are for specific purposes. For example, people might rob banks in order to raise money so that they can buy their way into the next syndicate bringing hard drugs into the country. In other words, they raise money so that they can involve themselves in another criminal activity. We will never be able to eliminate this, but suppression must be the aim of this Authority. Suppression can be carried out in two ways: Firstly, by prosecution, which is the way most people think of it. On examination, it became clear that prosecution is not the be all and end all because we were informed of people who, on being sent to gaol, transferred their office to gaol. Once they got involved, so long as they had their funds outside their money was the important thing. One of the most significant things about this Bill is that we recommend civil proceedings be taken and taken rapidly using Mareva injunctions to try to deprive these people of their funds as quickly as possible. The deprivation of funds will suppress this so-called organised crime far quicker than the prosecutions which take months before ultimately people are locked up in gaol. Once they are locked up in gaol they may still continue with their work . Senator Walsh —How do you get their funds from them? Senator LEWIS —I am sorry; I have got only three minutes left. Mr Redlich said one thing which is of major importance: It does not matter how much we disagree with the formation of a National Crime Authority, when we see the lack of co- operation among the prosecuting and investigating branches of the Federal Government and State governments and the Federal and State police forces we will realise the need for co-operation and establish an authority for the purpose of co-operation. That is really what we are proposing with the general level of functions of this Authority. Once it moves into its special level of functions it has all sorts of other coercive powers. I have heard people expressing worry about the disclosure of tax records. Approximately 2,000 or 3,000 people around the nation who are involved in these activities frankly do not file tax returns; legitimate people file tax returns. They do not have to worry about the powers which this Authority might have over their tax returns. We are talking about people who do not bother to file tax returns. Filing of tax returns is for the suckers! These people are involved in criminal activities, they assume different names and involve themselves in fake companies. They are not involved in the legitimate business transactions of normal people of this nation. One of my colleagues indicated that he thought this Authority was still a toothless tiger. This Authority, under this proposal, is far from a toothless tiger. This Authority, under our proposals, will have enormous powers, which I hope it will be able to exercise to the benefit of this nation. I hope the Attorney-General does pay some due regard to my dissenting report because I do believe that although it is a matter of legal technicality it is of great importance to the future of the Authority. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(6.00) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs I also rise to speak to the report . Like Senator Lewis and every other speaker before me on this matter I commence by congratulating Senator Tate for the way in which he handled the Committee's procedures and conducted this inquiry. It has been a difficult inquiry, one that has been forced on the Committee in terms of the time that was available to it. It is one that canvassed quite a number of issues, some of them of very deep complexity. As Senator Lewis mentioned, Senator Tate managed to bring the Committee together in such a way that we have been able to agree on substantially all the 65 recommendations. Of those, only a handful were not agreed to in one way or another by individual members of the Committee. I must also congratulate and thank the Committee secretariat together with the barrister charged to work with us, Mr John Lord, from the Melbourne bar. Their work was extremely helpful. They also had to work under extreme difficulty, working both at weekends and late at night. The amount of work that they contributed should also be placed on record. The other people involved in the Committee who should also be acknowledged are those who put time, effort and thought into the preparation of submissions. We had over 40 submissions some of which were of great length. Some people spent a substantial amount of time with the Committee assisting it to reach its conclusions. Of those, none were more co -operative than Mr Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, and Mr Costigan and his staff who gave us an insight into how an authority such as this can operate. Their assistance ought to be recorded. As has been mentioned, the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 is a response to a major problem in Australian society. It canvasses all parts of society, whether it involves the social effects of organised crime, whether it relates to the impact on loss of tax revenue or whether it impinges on law enforcement agencies and corruption therein. Governments over the years have had the responsibility to respond to this problem but have not done so. As Senator Lewis mentioned, over the last number of years organised crime has blossomed. I have been fortunate enough to get a copy of a report written by Mr Cusack, commissioned by the Victorian Government in 1954, on activities that took place in Victoria in 1954; the then so-called Victorian market murders. It is interesting to go back to the recommendations of Mr Cusack, a person who was brought over from America to advise the then Victorian Government on organised crime and on ways to tackle it. He responded in a number of ways. But the problems that he highlighted then are those that are very much relevant now. He recognised that there was a lack of co-ordination in government response to organised crime. He suggested then that a special extortion squad should be formed, that the Special Branch of the Victorian Police should have an intelligence gathering role and that a criminal intelligence unit should also be set up to assist the operational commands in detecting or suppressing organised crime. Essentially, that was the first time in Australia that there had been recognition of the fact that organised crime was of such a nature that it could not be adequately handled by conventional law enforcement methods. Mr Cusack recognised the necessity for specialist training, a specialist approach and an intelligence gathering role in respect of organised crime as distinct from the conventional role of responding to individual offences. It is interesting to note that the list of recommendations he made-somewhere in the vicinity of 15 or 20-are very much those that could well be the core of the Government's response, both in respect to the National Crimes Authority Bill and the response of the previous Federal Government when it put up its proposal. Since then there have been a number of inquiries-in fact there have been eight as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated to me this week in reply to a question on notice-on different aspects of organised crime in this country ranging over the last 20 years. But substantially the last seven inquiries have been since 1974. This is an indication of the growing nature of the problem. At the outset of the debate on the establishment of the National Crime Authority Bill I raised my doubts about the ability of such a response to handle adequately the problem. I was extremely sceptical about it. I am pleased to say that, like other honourable senators involved in this inquiry, the process of education that I have gone through has been a very healthy one. I still do not resile from the fact that I have some doubts about the effectiveness of the organisation, but I accept fully that there is a need for an effective co- ordinating body of criminal intelligence. This body is one that has the greatest possibility of meeting the problem. The report that has been publicised has been claimed as being one that will strengthen the Authority. That is so. I believe that, in the overwhelming number of its recommendations, it makes for more effective authority but, in doing so, does not necessarily detract from or impinge upon individual civil liberties. It is a balance between expanding the areas of operation of the Authority but, at the same time, in some parts it acknowledges that an individual's rights should be protected. This is done in a number of areas. The Committee, in recommending that the Authority be graded towards a prosecutional role, directs the Authority in the future to act in those areas of utmost priority and need. The acceptance by the Committee of the derivative use exemption to self-incrimination is also extremely important. I made a number of comments in my minority report about my attitude to crime and the reasons for organised crime flourishing. I made the point that all those unenforceable social laws that act as the incubator for organised crime ought to be tackled by government in somewhat of a radical way in order that a major part of the community can be detached from the web of organised crime. When we attempt to enforce unenforceable laws it leads to bribery, corruption and the establishment of avenues to facilitate organised crime. That is the web that ensnares thousands of Australians, willingly or unwillingly. I believe that those laws ought to be re-assessed. My minority report deals with that point in detail. A point about which I was also concerned, as was Senator Crowley, was the question of accountability. We are setting up an authority which has the potential to act excessively in terms of its legislative charter. Mr Justice Kirby, in his contribution to the National Crimes Commission Conference approximately a year ago, made the point that we stand the risk of creating either the cosmetics of an ineffective agency or a too powerful institution unaccountable in practice to the courts or to our democratic institutions. I believe that there is a danger there. The Government, in its proposal to have a judicial audit of the Authority, as well as having the Authority susceptible to Ombudsman purview, is proposing a mechanism which may or may not be effective but which offers the only chance of an effective overview of this Authority. I think it is necessary, given the types of powers and functions the Authority is to have, to have this sort of overview mechanism. I note that the majority has recommended an alternative system but I think the conventional system will be adequate for the particular task. I think my time is very well up. Any other points that I have to make I will make in the course of the debate when the Bill comes before the Parliament. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.10) —This report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs relates to the National Crime Authority Bill introduced by the Hawke Government and debated extensively in this chamber quite some months ago. In essence the Committee was asked to look at the Bill and decide whether it would be effective in carrying out the concept of a national crime authority. First of all I commend the Committee. I commend the Chairman of the Committee for a very difficult task. I commend all members of the Committee for doing one of the most significant jobs that the Senate can do. This Senate, if it is anything, as a House of review functions at its best in the committee system when it takes a Bill apart and reports back. It functions at its best in a bipartisan system where it is willing, after considerable debate-we had this type of debate on the Bill, where great differences were revealed by both sides- and after sifting through material, to come to some unity and comity of view on great matters. It has done so I think on nearly 60 recommendations, all of which are of particular interest. It is very well worth stating, as other honourable senators have done earlier, that those who see the Senate as obstructing because it uses the numbers of its Opposition and minority parties to achieve a purpose, should reflect upon the very great value of such a venture when it brings to the attention of the community outside and to the Parliament a committee report of such value as this. This is not the first such report; it is one of very many. It represents the very life blood of the Senate. I repeat: I commend all members of the Committee. In the course of the past debate on the Bill it was made clear by the Opposition that we had grave doubts about the effectiveness of the Bill as it presently exists. It was a Bill that sought to replace a piece of legislation introduced by the Fraser Goverment and passed through the Parliament but not implemented. The real question was whether the Bill could do its job. A number of major points were made. One point I had clearly in mind was whether the Bill could ever function if the essential veto lay with the States. This was not only on matters that concerned the States themselves but also on matters that were entirely within the Commonwealth sovereignty. Quite clearly when that was examined it was acknowledged that that would be a fundamental defect of the system. It was concluded that the Commonwealth had to be given powers of its own initiative within its own jurisdiction to act without the restraint or confinement of the States in such matters. Obviously there has to be consultation with the States; that is foreseen. One of the other matters I raised here related to the restriction on the subjects of reference in that there were certain specified offences and nothing less than a maximum, I think, of three years imprisonment for such offences. Of course, the world knew that in the past the pursuit of great organised crime had started with the pursuit of money through what were relatively minor offences. I do not know that the Al Capone taxation avoidance was a minor offence but it is worth remembering that in fact that arch criminal of world notoriety was caught in the end by pursuit through the taxation system. Quite clearly one of the things the Committee had to address itself to was whether the limitations in the Bill ought to remain. As I understand the position, it was decided that they should not. The Committee has approached quite a number of subjects on that basis. I believe that whilst many of us may have points of difference to raise when we see the amended Bill we would agree that what the report has done has been very substantially to improve an ineffectual Bill. Some of us would like to see more. While I do not necessarily agree with any of the dissenting reports I commend them because they are a challenge to us to examine the ideas and thinking behind them. I believe that the report itself, apart from its recommendations, is an educative process for the community as a whole. I have now managed to read the report several times and am the better for reading it. I will be the better still for reading the volume of evidence that came before the Committee. I commend to all honourable senators that they at least try to peruse the evidence before we have an amended Bill back in the Senate. Great questions were raised by the Committee. These questions stimulate thought ; for example, the question of the role on the one hand of intelligence gathering and on the other hand of the getting of substantive evidence for the courts. What would be the balance between these two? How do the authorities go about this matter? I think Committee members have come to a basic sensible conclusion. In any case they have done what I think is the job of a Senate committee. They have created a yeasting in our minds of thought on this matter. Therefore, on balance whilst I would have preferred to have had considerably longer to study the matter I certainly believe that a number of the major matters have been confronted. I am a little puzzled about one point. I made a critical comment as to the construction of the Authority and as to the nature, particularly any ex-officio nature, of persons who would be members of the Authority. I felt there would be some subjective involvement back to some sponsors. For example, without reflecting on the police, I felt there was not a need for such a subjective judgment at all. I felt that an authority should be composed of persons who owe nothing to patronage; I use the word 'patronage' in its better sense. I see quite a number of such issues that need to be examined in relation to this matter. I think that we will need to look very carefully at how we define organised crime so that we do not restrict the pursuit of something which may look like a net but which has only one obvious alleged offender to start with. This worries me. I would need to go back to the original Bill to look at the definitions. In any case, in all fairness I should say that the point we have arrived at now is so much the richer and the more rewarding than the point we were at before we started on this journey. As I understand it, the Government intends to adopt the Committee's report. I commend the Government for that. In the very heat of debate in this chamber partisan positions have been taken. It is a good thing to know that from time to time we can put aside our partisanship and get on with the job of sharing of bipartisan views. In brief, in the very limited time that is possible in the discussion on committees' reports, I repeat that the report is a good one in the time that was available. I congratulate those who made their submissions because they were very difficult submissions to make. I thank all members of the Senate Committee for the work they have done. I hope that the Government will, with reasonable expedition, seek to bring before us an amended Bill. There is a great urgency in Australia for an effective national crime authority to get on with the job. A half a dozen royal commissions have thrown up the massive evidence in this regard and revealed the massive urgency of such an authority. It is time we got on with the job. Most importantly it is time that we had an instrument that is effective and does not seriously breach civil liberties. That is a concept that the Committee dealt with. I think the Committee has done well, although I would have some particular criticisms. I thank the Committee. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(6.20) —I rise to speak to the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. In doing so I join all other honourable senators who have spoken in this debate in commending the quality of the report. The report reads extremely well. It is certainly not a dry document. It is very succinct in expression and clear in the portrayal of complex issues. It is a report that lay people can come to grips with very easily. They can come to understand quite complex questions. The honourable senators on the Committee who have contributed to the report also, I believe, deserve the sincere thanks of the Senate for the role they played in bringing this document forward, as of course do the Senate staff who assisted in the inquiry. It has been said by all other honourable senators who have spoken on this report this afternoon that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Tate, has played a vital role and has involved himself deeply in the construction of the report and the conduct of the hearings. My experience of Senator Tate in the chair of this Committee is that he performs his role judiciously, astutely and in the responsible way we have come to expect from his performance in this House . The contribution of the witnesses also requires some comment. The list of people who appeared before the Committee, and indeed the organisations and individuals who put submissions to it, reads almost like a Who's Who of legal experts in criminal law and all the various organisations that have a rightful point of view on that subject. Quite clearly they have given their time generously and their expertise fulsomely. I believe that without that very strong support from the experts in the field the Committee would not have been able to present such a report. I think the report reflects extremely well upon the role of committees of the Senate. A number of comments about that have been made by various honourable senators in their contributions. I support all those comments. For me it has been an experience to see a committee start with a reference and end with a report. I believe that has broadened my horizon quite a bit in understanding the role, importance and significance of what Senate committees can do. I now turn to the report itself. The first comment that has to be made is that the report deals with a problem in Australian society of horrendous dimensions. In this country criminal organisations and organised crime are a major problem. It is a problem that has defied other remedy until this point. Many of the honourable senators who spoke earlier in this debate, particularly Senator Crowley, Senator Lewis and Senator Bolkus, spoke about aspects of the report and removed from me the obligation to go into some detail about them. I believe that the role of the Committee that inquired into that legislation was to find the necessary balance between the very real need to detect and suppress organised crime in this country while at the same time protecting the civil liberties of people in our community and ensuring that by protecting those civil liberties people are able to do things properly and rightly, as they should be able to in a democratic society. As I said earlier, the report in fact has come up with many recommendations which would improve upon the legislation. I know that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated his willingness to consider those favourably . It is important in the intelligence gathering role of the commission or authority-'commission' is the recommended title in the report-that it be able, as an ordinary function of its role and of its own volition, to investigate matters, collect and analyse information and inform itself on all relevant criminal activity so that it is able to receive references and also initiate recommendations for references. It should be able to do that without the granting of an authority or without necessarily having to consult the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. It is important that it have that role of being able in the ordinary course of events to initiate information gathering; so that there is prima facie evidence to justify specific references or to help frame specific investigations. It is important that there be a body of monitored information which enables the money trail to be followed much more quickly and so that recommendations on law reform that might issue from the authority or commission can so issue. At pages 27 and 30 of the report references are made to the need of the authority or commission to be able to obtain information from other government bodies and government records, specifically tax. I think that a reading of that section of the report would repay anyone handsomely. In the debate this afternoon some comment has been made by various honourable senators about the role of judicial audit. I think that, quite clearly, a body such as this requires absolute scrutiny at all times to ensure that civil liberties are protected while its role is in fact made successful in suppressing organised crime. But whether a judicial audit is an effective way of doing that is a matter for proper debate. It is my view that the work of such an authority or commission is so immense, its activities would be so complex, that it is not possible, with the best will in the world and the greatest faith and sincerity, accurately to conduct an effective judicial audit of all of its aspects. To propose the idea of judicial audit is to suggest in the minds of the community that there is a process going on which in reality cannot be achieved. Therefore, I think it is wrong to suggest judicial audit and it is right for this parliament and for the community at large to keep a constant weather eye cocked to the activities of the authority or commission and to make sure that it fulfils its purpose. Senator Bolkus said a number of things about derivative use protections against self-incrimination. Again, I think a reading of that section of the report would repay anyone handsomely and I commend such a reading to the community. I have to remark on one other matter. Yestereday, in debate on the report-this is recorded at page 1394 of the Senate Hansard-Senator Missen made some remarks concerning me and my role in this industry. I think that I should say something about those remarks as the matter has been raised in the chamber. The first comment I make is that I respect absolutely the integrity of Senator Missen and his intent. I do not regard the remarks he made as politically motivated in the sense of trying to best one person against another. I consider that he is concerned, as he sees it, about the role of the Committee. If he is concerned, as clearly he is, in my view he is right to come forward and say so publicly. I do not in any sense criticse him for doing that. However, the fact that he has raised the matter has caused me to examine the purport of his remarks and my role in terms of this Committee. I think in the end it comes down to whether I can sincerely and conscienciously be of the view that rightly my name should appear on the report. That seems to me to be an act of private conscience. I believe I have attended as best I can to obtaining a full understanding of the activities of the Committee by reading the transcripts and considering the evidence. Therefore, while Senator Missen, if he considers it a concern, is right to raise the matter, I am right to say that in those circumstances I do not think it correct that my name should not appear, because I believe I undertook a genuine and conscientious consideration of the issues and can rightly append my name to the report. I commend the report. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.30) —I will be brief because we are rapidly running out of time and because Senator Tate, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, wishes to say a few words before we finish this evening, which I think is appropriate. As a senator who did not take part in the original debate last year nor was a member of the Committee, I feel freer than probably many members of the Committee to laud the type of work they have done and also to put into perspective what the Senate is doing in this exercise. Bills that come into this place are prepared by the bureaucracies attached to the various Ministers and indeed in many ways the Government has a minimal input into those pieces of legislation. When one reads through this report one sees the unique series of skills that people elected to this place manage to bring to bear on something that is going to affect other people in the community. In other words, the operation of the democratic process is probably now seen only in these types of operations and is rarely seen in operation in this chamber. The committees are probably the successor to a genuinely democratic chamber. As are other senators, I am called upon to serve upon a number of committees. I can say that all the committees on which I serve are also conducted in such a way that people, no matter what political party they belong to, bring their unique characteristics, knowledge and skills to bear on what is before them. When the reports come to the Senate fairly obviously political party positions tend to take over and people are bludgeoned or accept the positions dictated to them by the party hierarchies, but when one looks at a report one is looking at the product of individual members of the Senate. While in many debates we tend to denigrate one another as part of the political process, it is useful from time to time to stand back and to look at the high quality work which is able to be produced by senators. It is a pity that this type of work is not given greater publicity and that much more attention is not paid to it by the various media services. The only other point I wish to raise is one that has concerned me in discussions I have had with police forces in my State and with individual members of police forces; that is, that the crimes commission, when it operates, will be able to operate probably only as efficiently as its support by the State police forces allows. I notice that the Committee recomends specifically that, as a matter of urgency, legislation should be enacted which would encourage the States to have parallel legislation but that the Committee has also recommended that the crimes commission be able to pursue its activities if a State does not wish to come in, provided the crime in question goes over State boundaries. I believe that is an effective compromise. Nevertheless, one must still be concerned that the realities of the matter are that the State police forces in Australia are really the best mechanisms for combating crime. The extent to which those State police forces will be able to work with the national crimes commission, I believe, is the extent to which the national crimes commission will be effective. I am pleased that the recommendations seek to encourage the States to work with the national crimes commission so that together they will be able to solve what is undoubtedly a massive and emerging problem in Australia. In conclusion, I hope once again that, in organising the way in which we do our business, we may look more towards committees as an effective and essential element in the democratic process in the years ahead and, given the strength of the political parties, as possibly the only area where democracy can really flourish. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.35) —in reply-As the mover of the motion, I believe I am concluding this debate on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crimes Authority Bill. In the three or four minutes allowed to me I simply wish to thank those honourable senators who have made generous remarks about the work of the Committee. I believe their remarks are justified, as I expect those who get the chance to read the report in succeeding days will be able to conclude that there was no shirking of some very difficult issues by this Committee in its deliberations. I believe we have discharged in a way which should satisfy the Senate the obligation placed upon us, with undue time constraints, to report in a way which will enable this chamber to agree to the passage of legislation to establish a new authority within the Australian community, an authority vested not only with some ordinary powers but also with some quite extraordinary ones to enable it to engage in the fight against organised crime and official corruption. Senator Peter Rae —Did you say 'undue' constraints of time? Senator TATE —Yes, we had to report by 1 May. The essence of our report is that any authority to be established ought to be as free as possible from political directives, intervention or constraints. To that end we have devised a mechanism whereby we distinguish two levels of the authority's operation. One is the ordinary level whereby it can gather information, compile intelligence, establish task forces, co-ordinate activities between Federal and State law enforcement and investigating agencies and, most particularly, require the co- operation and assistance of other Federal departments and agencies. We found throughout the evidence we received that it was the protection of turf and the lack of co-ordination and co-operation between various departments and agencies at the Commonwealth level and at the Commonwealth-State level which really lay at the basis of the failure so far of this community to come to grips with organised crime and official corruption. It is not that knowledge is not somewhere within government agencies. It is that it has not been co-ordinated in a way which allows an effective attack to be mounted. So at the ordinary level we would vest those powers in the authority to act of its own motion. However, if it wants to exercise coercive powers, to compel the attendance of persons, to compel answers to questions, to compel the production of documents, to issue search warrants or to require the giving up of passports, it ought to seek a term of reference from an intergovernmental committee. It ought to be able to articulate to some independent body why it needs these extraordinary special powers and governments, by granting terms of reference, ought to accept the responsibility for those extraordinary powers being exercised. For that reason we approve of the idea of an intergovernmental committee, though much reduced in the opportunities it will have for directing the activities of the crime authority. In particular, we say that States ought not to have a power virtually to veto the Commonwealth, in its desire to have the authority carry out some investigation of relevant Commonwealth criminal activity, or States which wish to undertake the services of the authority in investigating some crimes within their borders. Very briefly, the other major innovation in our report is to say that hearings of the authority ought to be conducted in private out of the public gaze. For that reason the Committee came to the very firm conclusion that the grand jury model of the United States or the ordinary police investigation techniques of Australia, whereby admissible evidence is assembled and then handed to an appropriate person for a decision as to whether proceedings in court should ensue, ought to be conducted in private to safeguard the reputations of persons, their safety and the possibility of their having a fair trial at a future stage, and indeed so that other investigations are not put in jeopardy. For those reasons, we say that such hearings ought to be held in private, out of the public gaze, but that there should be public sittings of the authority during which time it can educate and alert the public to criminal activity and official corruption in Australia. For example, the authority could draw the public's attention to fraudulent tax evasion schemes of which it was aware. I believe that the worth of the report will be seen in a week or so when the Government brings its Bill into this chamber. It is on the basis of honourable senators reading our report in comparison with the Bill that we will see whether the Government has come up with a viable proposal for passage of legislation. Then, as annual reports are put down by the authority from year to year, this chamber will be able to come to an assessment of the integrity with which the authority is discharging its obligations. Then, of course, when the sunset clause comes into operation, we will have a fuller opportunity to see whether the Senate Committee and the Government, in co-operation, have brought into being a new authority within our community which has discharged the task that we wished to set it; namely, to suppress organised crime and official corruption. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The time allowed for the consideration of committee reports has expired. Debate resumed. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.42) —I rise this evening to add some comments to the debate on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984 that are now before the Senate. I believe that road construction-and the money for that purpose, which is the subject of the Bills-is one of the most important problems facing this country. Australia is, of course, a vast continent. A great deal of it is very sparsely inhabited, but people live there just the same. Much of our wealth comes from industries which require the settlement of our far-flung areas . I refer specifically to the mining and rural industries. Because of the nature of those industries small towns are established, often thousands of miles away from anywhere and anything. Roads are vital to the communication process in these areas. They not only enable individuals to get on with the business of living but also enable companies to have access to the major ports and business centres to distribute their production. I certainly believe that to disenfranchise the people of these areas, who are the major producers in this country, is to disenfranchise the future of Australia as a viable producer and exporter. Roads are an integral and vital part of our development. I suggest that not enough funds are being allocated to this program. We realise that the people who live in the far outback have to travel long distances and use a lot of fuel. We know that there has been an increase in the price of petrol. That would be quite all right, provided we knew that the revenue gained from the increase in the price of petrol was going towards the building of roads. We know that the revenue gained from indexation of the petrol price in this case has not been put towards the building of roads. We realise that the Australian bicentennial roads program has highlighted the need for better roads throughout Australia. It has set out in a major way to correct this problem. However, I feel that this Government is misdirecting the extra revenue gained from the indexation of the prices, which should be going towards roads and not just to Consolidated Revenue. As all honourable senators would be well aware, two significant studies on national highways over the past few years have illustrated the serious deficiencies in the funding of highways in this country, and roads, too, for that matter. Some highways are reasonable, but when one gets away from the highways one finds that the roads are rather bad. The problem of road funding has, I believe, really reached an emergency situation in Australia. Largely as a result of the studies conducted, the Fraser Government introduced the bicentennial road development program, which has been the only major road funding initiative to emerge in recent years. I pay tribute to the Hon. Ralph Hunt, who was the Minister for Transport and Construction at the time, because he persuaded Mr Fraser and the Government to go ahead with that scheme. I also mention that, according to the Hon. Russ Hinze of Queensland, he managed to persuade Ralph Hunt to get on with the job and that the need was for money to be set aside. I think that, for the bicentennial year which is coming up, an improvement in the roads throughout Australia most certainly will be a great achievement. The program has provided impetus to road construction. There is no doubt about it. When one travels by road around Queensland in particular one often sees signs stating that the schemes operating on such roads have been funded by the bicentennial roads program. Of course we need to continue those improvements in the roads. In 1983-84 the ABRD program has bolstered funds to a reasonable level , but not to a level which will reduce the vast backlog of work which is needed to upgrade our major highways. Indeed, in Queensland the concern is not what is being allocated for 1983-84 but what will happen with funds in future years. Prior to the last election, the then Opposition party, the Australian Labor Party, was vocal in its complaints about the increasing price of petrol. It promised that if it was elected it would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. We know what happened. It did not decrease the price of petrol; it increased it by 2c a litre. Worse still was to come, because it indexed it every six months. Unfortunately, the indexation is not going towards road construction ; it is going to Consolidated Revenue. In other words, it is like an extra tax. It is being used for other purposes. Australian motorists are not happy to put up with paying an increase every six months. Nevertheless, if they felt that the revenue gained from that indexation was going towards the building of roads perhaps they would feel happier at putting up with it. Not only does the money need to go towards the construction of roads but also towards the maintenance of roads. That is also a real problem. I am glad that the Opposition parties will move an amendment during the Committee stage which will indicate that the revenue gained from the indexation should go towards the use of roads and not into Consolidated Revenue. Senator Peter Rae —It is to prevent the misappropriation of it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is right. That is exactly what Senator Kilgariff said this morning. It is most important. I will wholeheartedly support the Opposition's amendment. The indexation money is not going towards roads at present. Of course, we know that costs are rising all the time. That means that the ABRD program will be somewhat inadequate and will, I believe, decline sharply. I understand that the current studies of Australian roads will soon be available to the Government. The picture that this study will present will be worse than that shown by the national highway studies. Queensland has special needs because of its vast area and its decentralised population. The total road system in Queensland extends 160,000 kilometres, of which 40,000 kilometres is declared under the State's Main Roads Act. Some of it is in quite bad condition. Much of it is still undeveloped and much of the constructed length is aging. We certainly have so much traffic that a great deal of extra work is needed to cover the growth in the traffic volumes and loadings. The additional needs have arisen from the massive growth in the mining industry, which is vital, of course , to the nation's economy. There are now significant towns in what were very sparsely settled regions of our State. New grain growing areas have opened up and the people growing the grain need reasonable roads to get their grain to the rail. Roads are a vital, important and necessary part of this development and they are vital for the people who live in the areas which are servicing this new growth, a growth which is benefiting all Australians through our increased export earnings. The Queensland Government and local governments in our State are doing what they can to maintain their share of road funding efforts. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Queensland Government has twice increased road registration fees, in 1981 and 1984. This year the people of Queensland became somewhat irate because the registration fees were increased by so much. But money to cover the cost of road works must be found, and that is what the Queensland Government was trying to do. The Federal Government, of course, has the major access to finanical resources to solve the road funding problem. I am sorry that, whilst the present Government talks about the need for the ABRD program, it really is not playing fair with the funds that are allocated to road works in this country. In its future planing the Federal Government must provide for a signicant increase in real terms in its total funding allocation from roads grants and ABRD sources. The funds must be directed to the areas of greatest need in the most direct and effective manner through State and local governments which have at their disposal the local knowledge, expertise and all the necessary means of construction and maintenance. I turn now to clause 5(2) of the Bill, which refers to a change in the tendering system. I can appreciate the value that results from a tendering system for contracts. I suppose it does not matter whether we are building roads , a house or additions or alterations, we would want to get the best possible price and the best possible results. I feel that this tendering system has brought good results, although perhaps not enough of them, because there are so many roads throughout Australia. Nevertheless, the tendering system has proved to be quite beneficial. It is a private enterprise system which creates a lot of employment and it has been working well. I am not sure why there is any need to change the present situation. However, I recognise that in the far outback-not only in Queensland but also in Western Australia, some of the other States and perhaps even in the Northern Territory-in many country towns the construction and maintenance of roads provides valuable employment for people. I also believe that under the present system local authorities have the opportunity to tender for works. This helps to keep our country towns going. I speak from experience, having travelled around the country for many years. I worked for the Main Roads Commissioner for a number of years, and I had the opportunity to travel around with him. I guess that was in the days before the ABRD program and the roads were not even as good as they are now. Nevertheless, as I travel over the roads at the moment, I realise that there is a need for further money to be made available. Looking through the alterations to the tendering idea, I believe that there are works of such a minor nature that additional cost would be involved if they were put to tender. That could, of course, be a responsibility of the shire. However, I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the amendments to the tendering arrangements give a great discretionary power to the Minister for Transport. I hope that the Minister responsible will be mindful of that power and use it with the knowledge of the real situation and with caution. I would hate to see a situation where a government was more concerned with playing politics than with doing the job which people had elected it to do, and that is to serve their best interests. I certainly cannot stress enough the importance of our national road network. I reiterate that if Australia is to develop and prosper, urgent attention must be given to the increase in funds for the construction of roads and, indeed, for the continued maintenance of them. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.55) —I oppose the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and support the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition during the Committee stage. The original Bill was one of the most enlightened pieces of legislation to be passed by the Parliament in recent years. It was a product of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government. It was a far-sighted Bill, a Bill which addressed and went some way towards solving a great need in Australia. It was a novel Bill insofar as it proposed a levy for a finite period, and that levy would be directed solely to the improvement of roads. The legislation that is before us tonight exposes the incompetence of members of the Australian Labor Party as financial managers and also exposes their dishonesty as politicians. The original Bill provided a levy of 1c in the first year, rising to 2c and carrying on at that level until 1988. The levy was to be totally devoted to roads. The dishonesty of the Labor Party in government is exposed by the claim that it made in supporting this Bill that it had increased expenditure on roads by 45 per cent. It had no choice under the Act but to increase expenditure, because the money came from the Bill we introduced some years ago. The second act of gross and criminal dishonesty was to index the levy from 2c, in line with its increase in excise payments, and not to give that increase to the road construction programs of this country. That means by 1988 over $500m will be ripped off the motorists in this country. Over $60m will be taken from the local authorities, which have a need to survive, and which have financial difficulties. That money, if it is to be indexed, should go towards road construction. I turn to the financial mismanagement of the Labor Party. The only significant clause in this Bill, which amends the existing Act, emasculates the heart of the original Bill, because it removes the section that requires main roads contracts to go to tender. It allows local government and other parties to be the recipients of the contract at the whim of the Minister for Transport. It means that the taxpayers of Australia will get only half the road system for the money for which they are being touched by this Government. Senator Robertson —What a load of rubbish. Senator MacGIBBON —Those ignorant senators on the other side do not appreciate that it is an established fact. It is an established fact in Queensland that in the year of operation of the legislation the actual contract prices were 40 per cent lower than the estimates from the Main Roads Department. The 1982-83 annual report of the Australian bicentennial road development program supports that, because page 23 of the report reads: The number and value of works on which tenders were invited are detailed in Appendix 6 . . . Tender prices submitted by the successful contractors were below the pre-tender estimate for a number of National and Arterial road construction works put to tender during the year. For those States where statistics are available, some 79 per cent of contracts were awarded at prices below the pre-tender estimate and more than three-quarters of these contracts were up to 30 per cent below the estimate. It is the responsibility of this Government to get value for the taxpayer's dollar. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being nearly 7 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber at 8 p.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 725) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the average cost of electricity delivered to New South Wales county councils is 4.5c per kilowatt and that this is greater than the Minister's figure for wind generated electricity in Denmark, given in reply in Senator Cook's question without notice on 2 March 1984. (2) Is the Minister aware that the southern coastline of Australia is windier than most of Denmark, and hence wind generated electricity in this area may be cheaper than in Denmark. (3) Will the Minister undertake to re-evaluate the priority of wind energy in his Department in view of these facts. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity from a wind generator depends critically on the wind energy resources at the particular site . As I said on 2 March, the cost figures for wind-generated electricity in Denmark were at the point of production, not the point of delivery; nor did they include an allowance for the cost of additional generating plant required to ensure that electricity is available when there is no wind. The cost of generating electricity from wind in Denmark is not directly comparable with the cost of purchasing electricity generated in New South Wales. I also noted in my reply to Senator Cook that the Danish figures were supplied by manufacturers of the equipment. (2) Concerning the honourable senator's assertion about wind in Australia and Denmark the fact is that some sites on the southern Australian coastline have good wind energy resources and at others the wind resources are poor. Further investigations are needed to establish the extent of Australia's wind energy resources and the contribution they could make to energy supply. Such studies are being conducted, with support from the national energy research, development and demonstration (NERDD) program, for Tasmania, Lord Howe Island and western New South Wales. In addition similar studies are being carried out in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia with support from the respective State governments. (3) Priorities within the NERDD program are reviewed annually and decisions on future priorities for wind energy will take into account the results of the studies I have previously mentioned. In view of the general level of support currently being provided for wind energy by both Commonwealth and State governments. I see no reason to re-evaluate the medium priority accorded to wind energy at present. (Question No. 740) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Does Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd provide any government departments or agencies with pegboard style accounting systems; if so, has the purchase of such systems been the result of tender. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Administrative Services has not arranged any contracts on behalf of any government departments or agencies with Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd for pegboard style accounting systems. Also, the Department has not obtained for its own use any such systems from Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd. However, other government departments or agencies may have acquired such systems through their own purchasing agencies without involving the Department in any way. (Question No. 741) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of legal action currently underway in Queensland against small printing businesses which produce pegboard style accounting systems. (2) Is one such small printing company, one to which the Minister gave a small business award last year and whose products have been displayed by the Minister' s own Department. (3) What support is available to such small businesses which are the subject of such action by large companies. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) I have advised the company that I have referred the matter to my colleague the Attorney-General for his consideration. (Question No. 748) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: Does the Minister for Resources and Energy expect that the Northern Territory Government will be formally consulted by the Commonwealth at any future stage of the development of the future national uranium policy in view of the recent Commonwealth inquiry which will look at Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The formulation of Australia's policy towards uranium is a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Nevertheless, the Government is fully aware of the views of the Northern Territory Government on this question, and these views will be taken into account in any future reconsideration of existing uranium policy following the report of the Slatyer Inquiry into Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. (Question No. 752) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: Could the Minister for Resources and Energy explain whether there is any difference between the risks to the environment posed by the use of fossil fuels or nuclear energy for generation of electricity, in view of a recent announcement made by the New South Wales Minister for Environment of a three- year study on the potential threat of acid rain in the Newcastle-Hunter Valley region; if so, which pathway does the Government believe we should be actively promoting on the international scene, as a nation supposedly oriented towards responsible environment protection policies. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy poses different kinds of risk to the environment. Both warrant a significant effort in, firstly, determining the physical and chemical process involved and, secondly, developing techniques to contain potentially polluting substances. The main pollutants from the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal are oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, which are believed to be the main causes of acid rain. Acid rain is alleged to be a major problem where there is a concentration of power stations emitting high sulphur fumes, which occurs in certain parts of North America and Europe. Australian coals currently used in power stations have a low sulphur content and to date there is no evidence that their use is contributing to an undesirable increase in the acidity of rain in Australia. Nevertheless it is prudent to investigate the current situation and the Government has provided a grant of $256,000 under the national energy research, development and demonstration (NERDD) program towards the cost of acid rain investigations in the Hunter Valley. The commencement of this study was recently announced by the New South Wales Minister for Planning and the Environment. The investigation is intended to determine the chemical characteristics of rainfall in the Hunter Valley and, using this information, to determine whether there is an acid rain problem in the region. The study should help assess the need for increased control of sulphur oxide emission. With regard to the safe disposal of nuclear waste, Australia is making a major contribution to the international effort on the containment of radioactive waste . The Government is supporting the synroc program, which is aiming at the development of a safe waste immobilisation method. The concept which was developed by Professor A. E. Ringwood at the Australian National University (ANU ), immobilises radioactive waste materials within the crystalline structure of synthetic rock, thereby simulating naturally occurring minerals and allowing the possibility of long-term storage and disposal. The Government has provided, through the NERDD program, a total of over $1.5m to the ANU, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) and Griffith University for research and development of synroc. In addition, the Government has approved an amount of $2. 754m over a three year period for the construction of a non-radioactive pilot plant at the AAEC to demonstrate the production of synroc. The Government also considers international cooperation to be an essential part of the synroc program. A formal agreement for cooperation on radioactive waste management and disposal has been entered into with the United Kingdom Government and a cooperative project on synroc will begin soon. With regard to the promotion of our energy resources internationally, the sale of Australia's energy resources will depend upon the level of international demand, our capability to meet that demand and Australian Government policies concerning the sale and export of our energy resources. (Question No. 779) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Resources and Energy advise when the NorthernTerritory is likely to be allowed to proceed with mineral exploration in the area known as Kakadu Stage II. (2) Is the rationale for Commonwealth control of Northern Territory land no longer valid because of the failure of Aboriginal land claims in more than 90 per cent of Stage II. (3) Are the Commonwealth arguments for control over another 6000 square kilometres of Northern Territory land at best spurious, in the light of self- government. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is a follows: (1) The question of whether or not mineral exploration will be permitted within the area known as Kakadu Stage II will be addressed during preparation of the plan of management for the expanded Park. A public notice of the intention to prepare a plan of management due to take effect in 1986 will be issued shortly and public comments sought. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 prohibits exploration and mining except in accordance with the plan of management. (2) The Commonwealth's acquisition of the Stage II area of the Park was for the purpose of establishing a National Park. That objective is still valid. (3) No. See (2) above. (Question No. 790) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) Will Australia have full equity in the bauxite development at Aurukun in North Queensland. (2) Will the bauxite mined at Aurukun be processed in Australia or shipped unprocessed overseas. (3) Will Australian money be used if the bauxite is processed in Australia. (4) What price per tonne does the Government estimate the bauxite will sell for . Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (3) The Aurukun bauxite deposit is held under Special Bauxite Mining Lease No. 9 issued in 1975 by the Queensland Government to the Aurukun Associates (Billiton Aliminium Australia-66.2/3 per cent and Pechiney Australia- 33.1/3 per cent). Both companies are foreign owned and controlled. At such time as development approval is sought for the project, it will be subject to the Government's foreign investment guidelines. (2) A feasibility study-completed in 1983-for the establishment of an integrated bauxite/alumina operation at Aurukun indicated the project was presently uneconomic. I am informed that the bauxite at Aurukun is of a lower grade than Weipa bauxite and should the Aurukun project eventually proceed it is envisaged that the bauxite mined would be processed in Australia. (4) No estimate is available of the price per tonne that the bauxite at Aurukun may eventually sell for. Senator Ryan —On 2 March 1984 (Hansard, page 324) Senator Macklin asked me a question without notice concerning a grant to the organising committee of the Fifth International Congress on Mathematical Education. I undertook to provide him with further information on an amount of $5,000 referred to in his question. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I have been advised by the Special Minister of State, whose Department is responsible for the administration of the grants for international conferences scheme, under which the grant was made, that the amount of the grant to the Fifth International Congress on Mathematical Education will be $17,000. Mr Young 's Department, when it offered the initial grant of $5,000, advised the organisers that the amount was subject to review in the light of the outcome of a separate application for assistance by them to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. This application was unsuccessful. The Special Minister reviewed the initial grant and decided, on the advice of the Interdepartmental Committee on Grants to International Conferences, to increase it to $17,000. In these circumstances the questions raised by Senator Macklin do not in my view require any further response.