Thursday, 3 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 members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 102 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 23 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 nine citizens). To, the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law. 1. That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; 2. 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 ; 3. The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; 4. 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: 1. That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; 2.That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; 3. 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 Reid (from six citizens), Scott (from 44 citizens), Tate (from 121 citizens) and Walters (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern over Plant Variety Rights (PVR) legislation. We agree that: 1. PVR will inhibit the free exchange of genetic material for plant breeding. 2. PVR will not enhance Australia's access to plant varieties developed overseas but will encourage the dumping of unsuitable varieties on the Australian market. 3. PVR will restrict the public plant breeding program to basic research for exploitation by private enterprise and discourage breeding for disease and pest resistant varieties. 4. PVR will lead to the domination of the seed industry by foreign interests not responsible to the Australian people. 5. The proprietary rights granted by PVR will encourage the introduction of seed distribution and marketing monopolies and lead to seed price increases. Your petitioners therefore pray that Parliament refrains from enacting any legislation on PVR. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 142 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, A.C.T.; There are at present no such existing facilities. Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library. Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 909 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piece-meal, 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, urges 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 Teague (from 44 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator McIntosh) agreed to: 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 ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, I present a report dated May 1984 on plant variety rights, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Later I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a tabling statement, but before I do so I will make a few general points. As indicated in the preface to the report, the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982 was referred to the previous Committee in September 1982. The investigation of that Committee was not completed when the thirty-second Parliament was dissolved. When the new Committee was elected and members were appointed they decided to continue with the topic, not related to the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982 of course but just the general topic of plant variety rights. The Committee used the material collected to that point as the basis for its investigations. I should explain that when the new Committee was established only one of the original Committee members remained. Also a new Secretary had been appointed. I think it is a tribute to the present secretariat that so much of the original material was utilised both in the carrying out of the inquiry and in the preparation of the report which I believe makes a significant contribution to the debate in this most important area. Although the tabling statement does so I would like to pay tribute here to former Senator Andrew Thomas who was Chairman of the Committee-in fact he took over from Senator Durack-and was Chairman for quite some time; to former Senator Geoff McLaren, who was on the National Resources Committee all the time he was a senator; and to the former Secretary of the Committee, Derek Abbott, who is still here but is now engaged on other duties. During the inquiry we had some interesting private discussions on the place of members' personal views in the preparation of a report. We canvassed such topics as should the report be a digest of current opinion on the topic, should the members attempt to subjugate their personal bias in the particular area and also the role of the report itself, whether it should simply be advice to government, whether it should be background material for senators with various options presented, or perhaps even a definitive statement on the topic or a number of others. Discussions with members of other committees suggested that they are also asking the same sorts of questions that we asked. I suggest that the Senate look at this whole area, either by setting up an ad hoc committee to prepare a working paper for discussion in this place or that the committee of chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and secretariat look at the whole area and suggest what is the role of the report and what is the role of committee investigations. Although I have done so in the tabling statement I would now like in this place to thank members for their contribution and work which they put into the report. I also commend the secretariat for the assistance which it has given so freely during the inquiry and particularly in the preparation of the report. I also thank all of those who made submissions and gave advice and assistance during the currency of the investigation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tabling statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- For the past 20 years there has been debate about whether Australia should adopt a system of plant variety rights such as those operating in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. Like copyright and patent rights, these systems provide protection to plant breeders who breed, for example, a new variety of vegetable, grain or rose. Proponents of PVR have argued that this form of protection would provide an increased financial incentive for private investment in plant breeding in Australia, and would make it easier for Australia to import improved patented varieties from overseas. It is claimed that both farmers and consumers would benefit from more disease-resistant, productive and higher quality varieties of food plants and ornamentals. On the other hand, much genuine concern has been expressed in the community about possible adverse consequences of introducing a system of PVR in Australia. It has been argued that PVR would encourage private investment in plant breeding at the expense of existing government support for public plant breeding, particularly cereal breeding, and that the profit motive could result in the production of not necessarily superior varieties accompanied by heavy advertising campaigns. At another level, it is argued that it is ideologically wrong to facilitate the increased concentration of ownership of the world's food varieties in the private sector. In this regard PVR in Australia is seen as setting an unfortunate precedent for our Third World neighbours, where the role of private enterprise in food production has been strongly criticised. The Committee's report is, I believe, as responsive to these concerns as it is to the arguments in favour of PVR. The Committee considers that a system of PVR would, on balance, be the most appropriate way of improving access to overseas varieties and of stimulating plant breeding in Australia. However, PVR is not by itself an adequate means of addressing these needs. For example, the Committee believes that the possible consequences of PVR on the valuable work currently being conducted in the public sector, particularly in cereal breeding, need to be examined to ensure that adequate funding levels are maintained where appropriate. The Committee has also recommended that publicly bred varieties be eligible for registration under PVR. The Committee has also been concerned that the advantages of a PVR system should accrue to small plant breeders as well as to larger companies and multinationals. It has therefore made a number of suggestions regarding any proposed legislation which, for example, would prevent foreign plant breeders receiving more favourable treatment than Australian breeders, and would also ensure that any necessary litigation over infringements would not be prohibitively expensive. The Committee has argued in favour of a merit-testing system for new varities, so that growers can buy varities on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of advertising campaigns. Most of the concerns expressed by consumer groups have , we believe, been answered by these and other recommendations. The report foreshadows a need to upgrade genetic conservation facilities for germ-plasm of older varieties as these are replaced by new varieties. Concerns about the effect of an Australian PVR system on the Third World should, we believe, be allayed by the discussion on these issues which occupies a central part of the report. The Committee concluded on the basis of the evidence available to it that a decision on the adoption of PVR in Third World countries would be a matter for the governments concerned, and that an Australian PVR system was likely to have very little effect on the activities of multinational corporations in Third World countries. However Australia continues, through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and through more direct aid, to provide assistance to Third World countries in food production and research. The potential inclusion of cereal and other field crop species in a PVR scheme has also been the subject of much debate. In the Committee's view there is sufficient reason for a closer examination of the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding programs before a decision is made to include these species in a PVR scheme. The PVR Bill which was put to the Senate in 1982, and which lapsed with the dissolution of the 32nd Parliament, contained a number of provisions which the Committee believes need to be revised. As well as making a number of suggestions for these amendments, the Committee has also recommended that the operation of a PVR scheme be reviewed within five years of its inception. Paragraphs 1.30 and 1.31 of the report mention the preliminary findings of the study carried out by Dr L. J. Butler and Professor B. W. Marion of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, into the economic impacts of the United States Variety Protection Act (PVPA). This study was undertaken at the request of the United States Senate Agricultural Committee. The report of that study has now been received and confirms the information provided to the Committee by Dr Butler last year. Butler and Marion conclude in relation to the PVPA: ''Both benefits and costs appear to be modest. There is no evidence that PVPA has triggered massive investments in R & D. Based upon the available evidence, the impact has been very crop specific. However, there is also little evidence of substantial public costs from PVPA. Increases in prices, market concentration and advertising, and declines in information exchange and public plant breeding-the feared costs of PVPA-have either been nil or modest in nature. Thus, at this point in time, the evidence presented in this report indicates the Act has resulted in modest private and public benefits and modest private and public costs''. The Committee's report is a wide-ranging response to the surprisingly complex array of issues which has surrounded the PVR debate. In recommending to the Government that it consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia, the Committee also asks that any decision to introduce a PVR scheme take account of the other recommendations contained in this report. Before concluding I should pay tribute to the work of the former members of the National Resources Committee who, in the 32nd Parliament, undertook the bulk of the public hearings into this matter. In particular, I should mention the former Chairman, Andrew Thomas, and the former Deputy Chairman, Geoff McLaren, both of whom are no longer serving in the Senate. PVR was a difficult subject for a committee with five new members to take on and complete at such a late stage, and I wish to commend members for their efforts both during the inquiry and in the consideration of the report. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.09) —As the previous speaker, Senator Robertson, has said, I joined the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources when the thirty-third Parliament was formed. This inquiry has been an interesting examination of a fairly complex matter in which we received a lot of evidence from people whom I regard as very genuine in their attitude. Many of them had absolutely no worries about bringing in a plant variety rights scheme; yet many other people who came before us had some genuine concern. But as the evidence accumulated I, for one, developed a very definite decision that PVR would not be detrimental to this country. In fact, I now believe that we are many years behind some other countries in plant variety rights. Places like New Zealand have had PVR for about 10 years, and they now have access to some varieties of plants that have been denied people within Australia. The summary of the report, at the beginning, states: The debate over plant variety rights (PVR) in Australia has produced a substantial amount of written material and a number of seminars and conferences during the past twenty years. That is a very long time for a discussion to come to fruition. I hope that now that this report has been tabled the Government will act urgently on it, because I believe it is something, as I said, that this country requires. The summary continues: The Committee's inquiry has provided another possibly wider, forum for those supporting or opposing PVR. In addition to seeking these views, the Committee has also noted the evidence of technical, legal, scientific and economic experts . The summary goes on: After considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of PVR and a number of alternatives, the Committee has concluded that PVR is the most appropriate means of improving access to overseas varieties and stimulating plant breeding in Australia. I will not speak at length, but the first recommendation reads: The Committee recommends that: (1) the Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia. The second recommendation states: (2) all plant species have the potential to be included in an Australian PVR scheme. However, the Committee also recommends that initially any PVR scheme have the potential to include horticultural, ornamental and fodder and pasture varieties only and that before a decision is made to include field crops the Commonwealth suggests to the States that the Australian Agricultural Council examine the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding in Australia. There was some discussion at length within the Committee and with people who appeared before us about this matter. I was torn as to whether even at this stage we should recommend that field crops be also included within the PVR system. I think it is something that the Government could very well look at as soon as possible. Another recommendation reads: (4) if a PVR scheme is introduced its effectiveness and impact be assessed following a minimum of five years operation. Subsequent to our preparing that report, I received a document which is entitled 'An Economic Evaluation of The Plant Variety Protection Act', dated December 1983. It deals with the American PVR situation. It points fairly clearly to the fact that five years is not really enough time to assess where a PVR scheme is going. On page 105 the report concludes: Second, in an industry in which new varieties often require 10 years or more to develop, the effects of PVPA-- it says PVPA, which is equivalent to our PVR- are difficult to detect after only 12 years. So it is something that will need a lot of examination as time goes on. I am very much in favour of bringing down this scheme. I hope, as I said earlier, that the Government will examine the matter urgently and report to the Senate as to what its action will be or, better still, get on with the legislation that is required. We do make some comments in this report about the previous legislation that was being examined. In closing, I thank all the people who helped us-the staff and all the witnesses who so willingly came before us, some of them on several occasions-to come to our conclusions contained in this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present two reports on Proposals for Variations of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs-the 81A series and the eighty-second series, first report. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator REID —I will refer to some observations contained in the statement and then seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement. The 81A series of variations deals with the quite small variations of some roads in Canberra relating to the area where the project known as the White Industries project is to be built incorporating, firstly, three office blocks and subsequently a hotel and convention centre. This development is certainly welcomed in this community. The variations are quite minor indeed. As a result of this development a considerable amount of parking space in the Civic area will be lost to what is now all day parking for people who work in that area. The Committee stresses the need to move ahead quite quickly with providing alternative parking and permanent parking structures in the area of Civic to enable this problem to be alleviated. More recently we have been looking at the eighty-second series of variations in which there were some 19 variations. I will be tabling a report today as a first report to enable at least the Chisholm shopping centre to go ahead. We have not yet completed the balance of the report. The Chisholm shopping centre proposal in the Tuggeranong Valley comprises about 4,000 square metres. The Committee dealt at some length with the evidence that we were given by the National Capital Development Commission only last year in relation to the proposal for the Erindale shopping centre which has now been abandoned in place of a town centre in that area. I will not go into the details of that dispute at present. The Committee was a little disturbed at the way evidence had been given of the need for the Erindale shopping centre a short time ago; and that has now been abandoned in favour of another proposal. We have been somewhat critical of the nature of the planning in that area that has brought this about. There is no doubt that the Chisholm shopping centre is needed and should proceed forthwith. That is why we are dealing with the matter. We have deferred consideration of one other variation which was put to us which arose in the area of Hawker. There were some objections to this variation. Of particular concern was a letter that had been written by the Chairman of the Committee in his capacity as the member for Fraser (Mr Fry). It contained a statement which at the inquiry the NCDC said was not correct. We felt that that had created a situation between a member and his constituents and their belief as to what should occur, as against what is occurring, that needed some further investigation. This is not a satisfactory situation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tabling statement prepared by the Committee concerning the two reports. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Statement by the Deputy Chairman, Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Margaret Reid, on tabling the Committee's reports on the 81A series of Variations to the Canberra City Plan and the 82nd series of Variations to the Canberra City Plan The first Report I have just tabled on the 81A Series of Variations to the City Plan covers only one item and relates to the proposed development of a hotel/ convention centre and office space by White Industries Limited. The Committee approves the variation, but it is most concerned about the traffic problems and lack of car parking facilities in Civic which will result from this and other future developments. To overcome the traffic problems, the Committee recommends that the traffic lights proposed by the National Capital Development Commission be established before the first stage of the White Industries Development is completed, and that traffic lights also be provided at the intersection of Akuna and Bunda Streets in the same time scale. As a result of the significant additional demand for car parking facilities in Civic which will be generated by the White Industries and other proposed developments, the Committee recommends that the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government address themselves urgently to accommodating the additional demand by implementing a range of measures. The Committee also was concerned that it was approving this variation while a number of major aspects of the White Industries Development were still unclear. Accordingly, it has requested that it be briefed on the development when project arrangements have been finalised. The other Report I have just tabled covers three items from the 82nd Series of Variations to the City Plan and recommends the approval of work valued at $8.15 million. Variation 15 is concerned with changes to road ways in Chisholm to provide a shopping centre at Chisholm in accordance with a revised strategy for local retail centres in Tuggeranong which include the development of a town centre. The release in May 1984 for a 4,000M2 Group Centre at Erindale and the proposed Group Centre at Chisholm are the first steps in the implementation of this strategy. The building of a 4000M2 shopping centre at Erindale is a radical change from a previous proposal by NCDC for an 18,000M2 commercial centre centre at Erindale. This was examined by the Committee and reported upon to the Parliament in the 79th Series of Variations in August 1983. The Committee was told then by NCDC that it would be at least ten years before the necessary preconditions existed which would enable the construction of a Town Centre to commence. Because of the severe shortage of retail space in the Tuggeranong area the Committee agreed to the Erindale proposal although it had some misgivings about approving it. The Committee has now been told, six months later, that there have been substantial changes affecting the Erindale Centre proposal and that the Town Centre will now be built. In the light of the evidence given in the 79th Series, the Committee is surprised and disturbed that it was not formally advised of the major changes to a proposal it had agreed to only recently and on which it had reported its findings to the Parliament. The Committee believes that in order to determine whether Parliament as a whole should be advised of such changes, the Committee should be formally briefed of any major changes to recent proposals reported to Parliament. The Committee can only reiterate its concern expressed in the 79th Series report about ''the ad hoc nature of planning decisions in Tuggeranong and the delay in the provision of retail facilities''. It can only be hoped that the decisions which have been taken now about the retail structure for Tuggeranong will provide a firm basis for planning and will ensure that retail facilities are established quickly and as required. The Committee therefore approves the variation to provide access for the Chisholm Group Centre and urges that the site be released for public auction as soon as possible. Variation 2 proposes an addition to the City Plan of roads to enable an area in Hawker to be developed for housing. Objectors to the proposal were concerned about the ''T'' junction which would be constructed opposite their properties to provide access to the development. In response to representations made by Mr Ken Fry, MP, to NCDC as the local member on behalf of some objectors to the proposal, it was stated that: ''. . . if the Joint Committee does not support the Commission's proposed access to Murranji Street the sub-division could be modified slightly to delete it.'' When clarification was sought of this statement, NCDC claimed that the statement was incorrect and should not have been included in the letter. They claimed that access to the sub-division as proposed in the variation could not be modified as had been stated in the letter. The Committee recommends that further consideration of this variation be deferred until NCDC can explain fully why incorrect information was included in its letter and whether in fact the variation can be modified to delete the proposed access from Murranji Street. When this information is provided the Committee will reconsider the matter. The Committee approves Variation 5 which is concerned with the development of 544 residential blocks at Lyneham. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) asking that Senator Georges be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on National Resources and nominating Senator Primmer to be a member of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Georges be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on National Resources and that Senator Primmer, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.22) —When speaking yesterday to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Road Grants Amendment Bill 1984 I said that I was quite opposed to them. The legislation that these Bills seek to amend was one of the most far-sighted and enlightened pieces of legislation to come through this Parliament in the last 10 years. It was, of course, a product of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government that had the potential to confer great benefits on the Australian nation. The first piece of legislation is being emasculated by the clause which avoids the compulsion for main roads contracts to go to public tender. This Bill shows the inherent dishonesty and financial incompetence of the Government. I refer to the indexing of the levy. The former Government legislated specifically for all the money from the levy to go to roads for a finite period. By being dishonest, indexing the levy and not transferring it to roads, this Government will be ripping off $500m from the motorists by 1988 and, most importantly, $60m from local authorities which are strapped for funds for road works. Roads are probably one of the big issues in Australia. Nearly everyone drives a car. Everyone is conscious of the inadequacies of our roads. With the exception of the State of Victoria and parts of New South Wales the road system in the rest of Australia is totally inadequate for our needs. There is an economic penalty from these bad roads. There is also a very human and real penalty involved. Commerce in Australia depends on a very efficient road service. The mining industry and the great rural industries, which together provide the bulk of our export earnings, are very dependent on roads. It is true that the mining industry relies heavily on rail for its bulk transport, but the place of roads for the movement of personnel and equipment is absolutely vital to its success. Often when we survey roads we overlook the very human effect that a bad road service has in Australia. Particularly in my own State, which is the most decentralised State with respect to population in Australia, there is a very real impost on families as a result of bad roads and that is on top of the very high cost of living in rural areas. Phantom freight and increases in the price of goods which are beyond the real cost of freight put a financial strain on families who live outside the capital cities. Families have the imposition of a bad road system and the costs that come from that. It is not recognised in this place that the cost of fuel can well be 25 per cent to 30 per cent higher than the already exorbitant prices in the capital city of Queensland. If the price in the city is 41c or 43c a litre it is not uncommon to find that prices in the rural areas are 52c or 53c a litre. Added to that there must be recognition of the fact that when families go anywhere in the country they often have huge distances to travel-distances well in excess of 1, 000 kilometres or a couple of thousand kilometres. So not only are they paying more for their fuel but also they have to use a great deal more fuel to go anywhere for their holidays than do dwellers in the capital city. With bad road systems it means that they are longer on the roads and, most importantly, the costs of repairs to their cars are higher. So the quality of life is very much affected by the inadequate roads we have. Not only the quality of life, the matter of life itself, is a consequence of the roads. It is very unfortunate in Australia that we have the mythology, promulgated by Federal and State governments, that 100 per cent of the deaths in Australia from road accidents come from the use of alcohol. Alcohol probably is the most potent contributor to death on the road, but it is not the sole contributor. People must not drink and drive or, for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party, smoke marihuana and drive. But it is 100 per cent wrong for anyone to maintain that alcohol is the only cause of deaths on Australian roads. Road safety is very much a matter of road engineering and road conditions. No surveys have been done to establish the percentage, but I would not be surprised if it were as high as 30 or 40 per cent of the causes of road deaths in this country. Another contributory factor, of course, is driving standards. There is a belief in the country that everyone is entitled to a driver's licence provided he or she goes through the formality of a test. It may well be that not everyone in the community has the necessary inate skills to drive, but that is a lesser issue. The important point is the standard of road engineering in the incidence of death and accidents on our roads. We need more money for roads and it follows that, since the amount of money we can devote to roads is limited, we must get 100 per cent value from every dollar or every cent we spend on those roads. It is only through private enterprise that we will maximise the value of that dollar spent. It is only by the use of private enterprise contractors in the form of surveyors to survey roads and to design those roads that we can control costs. It is only by using road building contractors from private enterprise and from the use of subcontractors that we will keep down those costs. Private enterprise provides the fastest and the most price competitive way of building roads. Yesterday I read a quotation from the annual report on the Australian bicentennial road development program and instanced the Queensland experience that in the period during which the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act has been in operation the roads in Queensland have come in at 40 per cent below the main roads estimate. Why, therefore, is the Labor Party denying the proven virtues of the Act and seeking to amend it so that tendering conditions are now compulsory? It is doing it for the basest of political reasons: It is pork barrelling. It is doing it so that the shires and the councils with their day labour can get in on the act which their managerial incompetence denies them in an open tendering situation. In the shires there are road gangs on day labour and building gangs for the roads. There might not be very many people, it depends on the size of the shire. It could be 50, 100 or even 200 people. But if one adds the multiplier effect of their friends and families-it may be a factor of four or six-it becomes quite a passable number of votes. It is important to the Labor Party at shire election times and it is important to the Labor Party in State politics. So the good of the nation is being thrown away to buy a few votes, maybe for the Labor Party to buy a seat somewhere for one of its representatives in local government elections or State elections. Senator Crowley —That is a pretty low accusation. Senator MacGIBBON —It is a very low act; I am glad Senator Crowley is squirming about it. If local governments wish to get into tendering they have to become competitive. They have a natural advantage over private contractors. Most of the equipment that local governments have is bought under terms which are far more favourable, their financing is much easier, than that for any private contractor , so the huge capital cost of the plant favours them. Of course, they have local knowledge. They have people on site. They do not have to move road teams in and pay accommodation charges. Most importantly, with their local knowledge they have access to building materials, gravel pits and the rest, again made available at rates which are generally below the prevailing commercial level. If local governments and local authorities got their acts together they could compete for those tenders. They would not need the protection of legislation in the insidious form it has here. When we were in government we recognised that we had two problems with regard to roads. Firstly, we recognised that we were not getting value for every dollar we spent because the departments of main roads in the various States were doing the tendering. Secondly, we recognised that in most of the States we were being subjected to other forms of pork barrelling. I know that in my own State of Queensland, under the long-serving Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police, it became a bit of a Bermudan Triangle. When we gave money to the State for a national highway, often we could not find out where that money went. The Federal Liberal and National Party members were unanimous about this Bill when we introduced it into the Parliament. We wanted value for our money. Both Liberal and National Party members were united that this was the way which would benefit the Australian community. Having seen this Bill now successfully in operation for a period in excess of nearly two years, its having had no criticism but only support from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and from Senator Gietzelt-I have quotations from Senator Gietzelt supporting the virtues of this Bill without any criticism of its operation-we now have this amending Bill introduced which, quite simply, sets out to deceive the Australian community. It is a shabby way to go about what could have been a very great Australian national achievement. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.32) —The Government welcomes the general support of the Opposition of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and the Road Grants Amendment Bill 1984 which we are currently debating, even though there are some obvious differences of approach in the contributions of Opposition senators. Of course, when the original Bill, presented by the previous Government, was before the House of Representatives and the Senate the Government indicated that the thrust of the legislation had general support. Of course, we indicated that there were differences between our approach and that of the conservatives generally in respect of the way in which the legislation would ultimately proceed. At the outset, I think it must be said that the Government believes in an efficient public transport system. That, of course, means not only in the rail system but also in the road system. We regard the national highway system to be an integral part of our economy. But it is essential that it is able to perform its vital role in providing services to both the public and private sectors. In fact, the Government is on the public record many times as supporting the need to reduce costs in the service sector. A principal factor in reducing the costs in the service sector is a very efficient and viable transport system, so we are committed to that objective. To achieve that objective we need an efficient and effective road construction program. This, of course, can be carried out only in a co-operative way, between the Commonwealth, the States and, in particular, local government. That, of course, is where we differ from the conservative approach which has been so much a part of the Opposition's contribution to this debate in the Senate. The roads legislation passed by the Fraser Government-to which I have indicated we gave general support-adopted a very rigid and dogmatic approach which was counter-productive in the way in which the States saw their responsibilities and the way in which local government responded in providing their resources to develop an efficient road system. We believe that the legislation currently before the Senate will result in benefits to the different authorities in the State and local government areas. We believe-the legislation reflects this-that the States can best make the decision as to how road construction will be undertaken. We do not support the very centralist position of the orginal legislation. It is anathema to the often expressed view of co-operative federalism of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and Senator Sir John Carrick. They laid down guidelines and processes in the original legislation that gave the State governments no flexibility whatsoever. It seems to me that the Opposition does not know how to get its act together. People such as Mr Hinze from Queensland sought to have the original legislation changed so that flexibility would be available. Of course, the legislation currently being debated provides for just that flexibility. I find it somewhat difficult to comprehend the rather conservative and Tory expressed view of honourable senators from the State of Queensland. However, I did detect in Senator Bjelke-Petersen's approach, a National Party senator, a somewhat more flexible position than that adopted by Senator MacGibbon, a Liberal Party senator. What we seek to achieve is to ensure that the States are given the opportunity to make the best available decision. If they want to use their day labour force, which is an important factor in country and rural areas, as surely will be conceded by the Opposition, this legislation will provide for that process. Of course, the onus will be on the States to satisfy the Federal Minister about whatever courses of action they want to take under this flexible approach. We believe that this is a proper exercise of State sovereignty and federal fiscal responsibility. In contrast to the position under the rigid earlier legislation, under this legislation the States may satisfy the Minister of the need to adopt an alternative position. The Minister has set up suitable guidelines, not in a dictatorial way but in a way that will encourage that flexibility. We do not quarrel with the need of a philosophy of co-operative federalism under which the Commonwealth, the States and local authorities work together. This should apply not only to road construction but also generally to improving the lifestyle of Australians, whether they be in the urban or rural sectors. The purpose of the legislation is to amend certain provisions and arrangements to give financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory. We have to quarrel with the assertions made in the speeches of some Opposition senators. Senator Rae did not go on the rampage about the amounts of funds available for the important aspect of road funding in Australia, but some other honourable senators did. Obviously they have not correctly understood the dramatic increases in road funding allocations made by this Government since it came to office. Honourable senators such as Senator MacGibbon have ignored the fact that in the period from 1975-76 to 1981-82 there was an actual decline in real terms of 23 per cent in Federal funding for road construction in Australia, whereas what is proposed by this Government is an increase for road construction of 45 per cent on the amount provided in the last conservative Budget. Senator MacGibbon —As a consequence of our Bill, you fool. Senator GIETZELT —It is apparent that some senators, getting on their particular hobby-horses about private enterprise, not only do not understand the legislation but even distort what is inherent in the Government's approach. I must say that we made our position very clear. Senator Crowley —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw to your attention the word used by Senator MacGibbon to the Minister. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator Coleman —Mr Acting Deputy President, speaking to the point of order, I do not believe that at any stage we can permit a member of this Parliament to refer to a Minister as a fool. Senator Peter Rae —Well, now you have put it in the Hansard and it was not in there before. Haven't you been smart! Senator Coleman —No, I do not think I have been smart. But then I think a lot of things that happen in this Parliament are not terribly clever. I just have an objection to any member referring to a Minister as a fool. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear Senator MacGibbon say the word. Senator MacGibbon, if you did say it I ask you to withdraw it. Senator MacGibbon —Mr Acting Deputy President, speaking to the point of order that has just been raised-I will deal also with the point of order that preceded it-I think the ruling of the Chair is being challenged and canvassed here. I ask you to overrule the last point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not the situation, Senator MacGibbon. I said that I did not hear you use the word. But if you did say it, I ask you to withdraw it. Senator MacGibbon —Speaking to the point of order-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MacGibbon, you cannot speak to the point of order. Senator MacGibbon —Well, the Minister is either telling an untruth or he does not understand the legislative position in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is a different matter. Senator MacGibbon, I ask you to withdraw the remark. Senator MacGibbon —But I am perfectly correct in my assumption. He either does not-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You are canvassing my ruling. I ask you to withdraw the word which is objectionable to the Senate. Senator MacGibbon —Very well, I will. Senator GIETZELT —Prior to the election in 1983, the shadow Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, stated in his part of the election procedures that Labor, after it had won the election, would change the emphasis and would establish in new legislation the flexibility which is characteristic of the legislation we are now debating. Consequently, we are carrying out one of our election commitments, which I think the Government is obliged to do. What are the principal factors? In 1982, legislation required the States to maintain in real terms the level of road expenditure and ignored different State needs and processes. As I have indicated, we regarded that as a rigid, inflexible position. As we said in the debate on that matter at the time, we required the Government, although we did not have the support of the Senate, to make the decision that in future legislation sufficient changes would be made to allow the States to make their own decisions, as part of the co-operative effort . We also made the point that in some cases the States were making greater rates of investment in the urban public transport system, and that was necessary in some States. They were therefore required to maintain in real terms their investment in urban public transport in order to qualify for Federal public funding. We found that to be unreasonable because we believed that the States were best able to make that decision based upon their own understanding of their own needs. This legislation is designed to improve that operation. It varies the requirement for tendering. Under the old legislation tenders had to be called for all construction work on national or arterial road projects. The Government acknowledges that the Opposition, whilst it has a philosophical argument with us on that question, has expressed its support of the legislation. Of course, it is the Government's intention that this will operate from 12 February 1984, which was the date of the decision of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). As was raised by Senator Bjelke-Petersen and other honourable senators, the Minister does not intend to use his discretion without a detailed scrutiny of all the factors. So if a State Minister responsible for road construction or highways desires to change the old processes and adopt the new ones inherent in this legislation, he will not make a decision without taking into account all the factors that have been raised by honourable senators. The legislation also provides that when States fail to spend their funds in real terms in a given year-that can happen for a variety of natural reasons-they will make up the shortfall the next financial year. States that spend more than they have in one year can have that amount regarded as a debit in a subsequent year. So again we will be co-operating with the States when, for their own economic or other reasons, they find that there should be flexibility. In other words, we are going back to the system that operated for many years before the original legislation in 1982. The legislation also provides that, where a State proposes that part of its urban road allocation be allocated to urban public transport capital works projects, it must maintain in real terms its own capital expenditure on urban public transport. The overall objective of the Government is to help the States to improve and maintain their urban public transport systems and, of course, to improve road construction, particularly of those roads that play a vital part in both our urban and rural economies. Contrary to what has been said by some speakers, we believe this legislation will remove the uncertainties in the construction industry. It will remove the friction that has existed between the Commonwealth and the States in some categories. It will provide stability in employment and rural communities-factors which were debated at length in regard to the previous legislation-and it will provide stability in local government, which is an important road construction authority. As some honourable senators well recognise, in many States the construction authority of the local council is an integral part of the infrastructure of small country towns. Changes in society indicate how important it is to spend as much money as it is humanly possible on the service sector, because today the service sector is required to be efficient and to be extended as it is now an integral part of the way in which our society operates. I just want to draw the attention of Senator MacGibbon and other honourable senators to the current road funding arrangements. It is possible that the misapprehension that exists flows from inadequate information being available. We have the roads grants program, the Australian bicentennial road development program and what is known as JOLOR-the jobs on local roads program. In this legislation we are providing an estimated $2.5 billion for the ABRD program for the years 1982-83 to 1988-89. We believe that the money made available to the local roads program, $70m, is indicative of the Government's intention to make its financial contribution. Of course, in the roads grants works program $3,650m was provided to the States for the years 1980-81 to 1984-85. The total Commonwealth assistance for roads under all these programs in 1983-84, therefore , is $1.233 billion which represents a 45 per cent increase over the $851m expended in the previous Budget. Suggestions that I am misleading or in some way citing inaccurate figures are not borne out by the amount of funds that have been allocated, which take into account the points raised by Opposition speakers who put cogent arguments for additional Federal funding for roads. The Government has accepted these arguments and has provided an increase of almost 50 per cent from one Budget to the next despite the fact that Budget deficits are difficult for governments, as we are all aware, without wanting to canvass the very difficult financial position the Government found itself in when it came to office in March 1983. More specifically, I should remind Senator MacGibbon that most local government work is undertaken on local roads and that in respect of that work there has never been any tendering requirement under Federal legislation, and none is proposed in the current legislation. In conclusion I wish to raise one of the points made by Senator Kilgariff who seemed to have some misunderstandings about the amount of funds being made available. Estimated on the basis of his argument, the additional funds paid to the ABRD Trust Fund this year, had payments to the Trust Fund been indexed in line with excise rates, would have been $22m, not the $491m that he suggested. In other words, he is not as good at arithmetic as he is at making statements. There has been no misappropriation of funds. I think it was back in 1929 when the first road tax was placed on motorists for the purpose of road construction, and it has to be said that, in the succeeding 50-odd years, all governments of all political persuasions have not carried out the intention of the original legislation. There is no point in belabouring this Government when all governments, in particular the previous Government of which Senator MacGibbon was a member, carried out exactly the same process of paying that road tax money into Consolidated Revenue and then voting funds annually, or over a five-year period to various road programs. I stress that the Government accepts the need for an efficient transport system , which includes roads. To that extent it has put its money where its mouth is. It has provided 45 per cent more funds in the three programs concerned. We believe that is as much as the Budget can provide. I think it is a tribute to the Minister for Transport that he was able to convince Cabinet in the very tight economic conditions of the need for that very dramatic increase in road funding. I thank the Opposition for its general support of the legislation, even though I reject some of the main arguments advanced by it in criticism of the Government's Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —As there are amendments to each Bill it may be convenient for the Committee to consider the Bills separately. Senator Peter Rae-Mr Chairman, may I suggest that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill which is the only one, as I understand it, to which it is proposed that amendments be moved or which will be in dispute at the Committee stage, be taken first and that clauses 1 and 2 of that Bill be taken together. I propose to move an amendment to insert new clause 2A. I propose that clauses 3 and 4 be taken together. As I understand it, there will be no dispute in relation to those. Clause 5 would be taken separately as there is a dispute as to that clause. The CHAIRMAN —I entirely agree, Senator. That is exactly the way I plan to handle it. AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 2A. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.56) — New clause 2A of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to amend section 8 of the principal Act, that is, the 1982 Act. I move: Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Moneys to be paid into Road Fund '2A. Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: ''(8) In addition to the amounts payable into the Road Fund from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under sub-sections (1) and (2) there shall be paid into the Road Fund an amount bearing to the amounts payable pursuant to sub- sections (1) and (2) the same proportion as the current rate of Excise duty for motor spirit or diesel fuel entered for home consumption bears to such rate as at 30 June 1983.''.'. I make the point which has been discussed at considerable length during the second reading stage of the debate and that is that it is believed by the Opposition-it was expressed in the House of Representatives when the matter was debated and was repeated here by numerous Opposition speakers-that the indexed increase for the funds arising from the special levy should be, to use the word which is the new in word as I understand it particularly in the local government scene, hypothecated, and were in fact hypothecated, to the road development funds and not be available for other purposes as part of Consolidated Revenue. That that is clear is obvious from the correspondence and some of that was quoted by my colleague in the House of Representatives Mr Lusher. There is plenty of other correspondence between local government associations and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) which confirms their belief that all of the funds raised by the special levy to which they and various other bodies such as motoring associations, local government, and the States agreed would be directed towards roads. The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund was introduced on the basis that the funds being derived from that would be directed towards roads. I know the Minister has indicated that some 50 years ago another system was introduced and that that did get varied over a period by successive governments. This is something that was introduced less than two years ago and the parties to the agreement still remember it with great clarity and feeling as I understand it. They believe that the shortfall, which will amount over the duration of this special program, that is, from 1983-84 to 1988-89, will amount to $491m to $500m . The assessment of that has been made and was incorporated into the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 April 1984 by my colleague Mr Lusher. I simply refer to the table set out there; I do not seek to reincorporate it in Hansard. The amount which would have otherwise gone to roads but which will now form part of the Consolidated Revenue of the government of the day will amount to something in the order of $500m is in current terms. The reason for the amendment, stated again simply, is that it was being arranged under this program that a trust fund be set up into which an excise levy of, in the first year, 1c, in the second year 2c, be paid and as a result of the Government's amending legislation last year called the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), which became an amending Act assented to on 23 November 1983, there is now automatic indexation of various excises which include the special excise which is the basis of the funding of the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. We are not seeking to raise any greater amount but the amendment states that having raised the amount by act of law, that is, the original Act together with the Excise Tariff Amendment Act, it then go to its originally intended destination which is the Fund for the purpose of road development. Senator Gietzelt —Mr Chairman, I am forced to raise a point of order. It would appear from what Senator Rae has said that the amendment he has moved is similar to the amendment moved in the House of Representatives. It is competent to have such an amendment moved in the House of Representatives but I submit that the amendment should be ruled out of order because it contradicts and is in conflict with sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution. Section 53 states: Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law. The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. Section 56 states: A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. Mr Chairman, I seek your ruling on whether the amendment is in order. I believe it conflicts with sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister has raised a constitutional issue as a point of order . It has been a long tradition in this chamber that the Chair does not rule on constitutional matters. The views of the Minister, particularly as he developed them, as to how that constitutional matter might be affected by this amendment, no doubt will be taken into account when the Committee makes up its mind when it votes on this Bill. I will not rule on the constitutional issue and therefore there is no point of order. Senator PETER RAE —I was conscious of a question being raised as to the constitutionality of this matter. I believe the argument put forward by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to be not good in law. I had also believed, as a result of a message which I received, that the Minister did not propose to pursue it. In view of what Senator Jack Evans may contribute by way of discussion to my amendment, I do not think that the matter should take up a lot of time of the Committee and be debated at length. Therefore, I simply indicate that whilst not agreeing with the Minister I will not argue the other case in detail. I do not believe that the Minister's constitutional argument is correct, but I will not put the alternative in view of what I understand Senator Jack Evans may be about to say. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.05) —The Australian Democrats will not support the amendment. Our reasons, quite simply, are that we believe it is not appropriate for a Bill which has been introduced to change certain administrative and procedural aspects of an Act to be used as a vehicle to set part of the Government's Budget for the coming year. We think that there are other appropriate ways of achieving that objective. Principally, of course, it is the business of the Government to set that Budget and to determine how much it will allocate to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund or any other fund or expenditure area. I find it a little unusual for a representative of the Liberal Party, which has a tradition of opposing the direct linking of revenue with expenditure, to be now claiming that the way that this particular Fund should operate is that every dollar of increased revenue should be automatically passed on to the expenditure side of the ledger for the specific fund. Whilst accepting that that was the way the Fund was established, it is interesting that the government of the day-the Liberal-National Party Government-did not index the Fund and obviously did not see a need at that stage to do anything more than to allocate 1c and then 2c as the fixed amount which would carry through until 1988. It obviously felt at that time-it is interesting that it has had a very sudden change of heart-that if that amount was to be changed, it needed to be changed as a result of government initiative, as a result of a government-felt need for an increase in the Fund. So the Democrats will oppose the amendment in this case and look forward with considerable interest to the way in which the Government handles the Road Fund in its Budget. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.07) —I support Senator Peter Rae's amendment which is before the Committee at present. The majority of senators in the chamber were present when the original legislation was introduced, excluding Senator Jack Evans, who has made naive statements about it. There was concern at increasing taxation on the motorists. The undertaking given-not only by the Liberal-National parties but also by the Parliament as a whole-to the motorists of Australia was that this levy would be for a finite period and 100 per cent of it would be given to road construction programs. It is absolutely incorrect for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to claim that the Liberal- National Party Government would have walked away from that commitment. We would have honoured it. The defence that governments have not always honoured their commitments is one of the most morally decadent arguments I have heard in this Parliament. It is not my business to help the Australian Labor Party with its legislation. The only help I will give the ALP is to help it out of office, not to stay in office. But I would have thought that the commonsense approach would have been to increase the excise and honour the commitment of the Parliament. The money is the same. Why did the Labor Party not increase the rate of excise, rather than indexing and grabbing the indexed amount on the Australian bicentennial road development grant? It is absolutely dishonest and I support the amendment before the Committee. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Rae's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Durack, P. D. Grimes, D. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 3 and 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Additional conditions with respect to approved projects). Senator Peter RAE(Tasmania)(11.15) —Two proposals have been circulated to some honourable senators in the chamber. The first was to amend clause 5. A later one clarified and simplified the position by indicating that the Opposition would oppose clause 5. The Opposition will be voting against clause 5. I will endeavour to outline the reasons for our doing that. The position is that clause 5 will change-this was dealt with at some length by the various speakers in the second reading debate-the conditions of tendering in relation to road construction work carried out under the Australian bicentennial road development program. A number of concerns have been expressed by a variety of people in relation to that matter. One of the first is that there has been something of a log jam in getting the expenditure out. I have a letter from the Department of Transport dated 9 February 1984 addressed to the Deputy Executive Director of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors. It states: Attached are details of the indicative allocations of ABRD expenditure by States for 1983/84 and the payments in the six months to 31 December 1983. It should be noted that the indicative allocations are based on the estimated revenue which will accrue to the Trust Fund in 1983/84 of-- I emphasise this- $420 million. As indicated in the Budget papers estimated expenditure from the Trust Fund during 1983/84 will be $385 million. In other words, it has been indicated that some $35m which will be gathered during the year 1983-84 will not be processed out to expenditure on roads during that period. If that is the situation I believe it is a matter of legitimate concern for everybody in the community-those people who would like to see better roads sooner, those people who would like to see work opportunities created at the earliest possible date, the construction contractors, their possible employees, the Department of Main Roads and everybody else who benefits from this program. I raise that as a matter of expressed concern. I would like to use a document that has been submitted by the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors in support of its case for retaining the tendering provision to summarise what we believe to be the major factors in favour of deleting clause 5 . Again, most of these factors have been referred to by one or other of the speakers for the Opposition or the Australian Democrats during the second reading debate. The document states: The case for retaining the tendering provision in these Acts unchanged and unweakened: The Acts in no way prevent the statutory bodies tendering for their share of work on an equal footing with contractors. It is not an equal footing; it is an unequal footing. In fact, they have numerous advantages which their competitive contractors do not have. The document continues: Indeed, statutory bodies enjoy advantages (taxation, and absence of need to make profit) that should ensure their competitiveness. Governmental authorities have a wide cross-section of advantages over their competitors. The document continues: Statutory bodies must be properly accountable for the outcome of the work they do, both in time and in cost performance. Tendering provides the only yardstick that ensures there can be meaningful accountability at the end of the job, whether undertaken by the private sector or the public sector. Under the tendering system the Government will achieve the greatest output per dollar spent. Quite obviously it is in the public interest-I imagine this is not disputed by any honourable senator in this chamber-that not only the Government but also the people of Australia should achieve the greatest output per dollar spent. The document continues: The engineering construction industry faces under-employment for at least the next two years and the removal of any degree of opportunity to tender for national roads would increase unemployment. In the present need for budgetary restraint, the Government should maximise on private sector availability, rather than increase public sector involvement in construction works, which latter can only be at risk of adding to its longer term budgetary commitment. Tendering allows the Government to draw on all the resources of present excess capacity, equipment, plant and rapid mobilisation. I wish to point out an important point; that is, the efficient utilisation of available plant. It is extremely unfortunate to see, as I have witnessed in various parts of Australia, some local government authorities in particular purchasing new equipment and plant when other readily available plant not in use could have been hired, or could have been used by the State government for carrying out the total bicentennial roads program. The document continues: The Government enjoys control under the present arrangements that will be denied by weakening the tendering provisions; it will be very hard for Government to reinstate them if they are once weakened. Finally, if the Government makes the case for a need for 'Ministerial discretion' in allocating work, such discretion should only be allowed when the Minister knows the cost implications of his decision; this can only occur if there has been prior open competitive tendering. I find it very hard to understand why the Government should be so sensitive about the final point. As has been pointed out in the second reading debate, there is power for the Minister-for any of the reasons that are set out in the proposed clause 5-if he chooses, to overrule the tendering procedure. But at least he has had the yardstick of seeing what other tenders were made and what other tenders were available. If, because of the criteria which are proposed in clause 5 of the Bill, he wishes to take some other action, it is open to him to do so. I submit on behalf of the Opposition that for the national advantage and for the advantage of the motorists of Australia who have to pay this tax, this is the most efficient and accountable system of providing the expenditure. This would get the earliest and greatest advantages by overcoming any road blocks in getting the work done, getting the tenders called and the work implemented. The tendering system should be used to ensure that the greatest value is obtained for every dollar raised through this excise levy. The Opposition will oppose clause 5. This would simply remove the proposed amendment which would limit, in the way set out in the clause, the tendering provisions of the original legislation. This would mean that there are a whole set of exempt works which the Minister can give straight to his statutory authority, Department of Main Roads or whatever it may be. The criteria for those exempt works, particularly in paragraphs (e) and (f) read: (e) are of a kind that are usually carried out by a Department of State of the Commonwealth or of a State or by a particular person by virtue of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State, not being a Department or a person responsible for the construction of roads; or (f) would need to be carried out by the employees of a State or of a government authority responsible for the construction of roads in order to avoid the occurrence of a loss of employment by, or the inefficient deployment of, a substantial number of those employees, even if the State or authority were to take all practicable steps to avoid that occurrence. Those criteria for exempting works would mean that any Minister who wished to destroy the tendering system and destroy the prospects of the private sector having any rights of participation in the road construction program could use them to achieve that purpose. They are so wide as to allow an open go to a Minister to make all works exempt. For those reasons, as the existing system has been working well in Tasmania, nine out of the past 11 tenders have gone to the Department of Main Roads in Tasmania. That is because it has been able to undercut. It does not have the overhead costs which its competitors have; it does not have the sales taxes or all the other sorts of excise taxes and various things which its competitors have. The system has not been as great a benefit to the private sector contractors as it was expected to be. There has been heavy competition. But in summary it means that we have had the best possible amount of work done for the lowest amount of money. The Opposition would wish that situation to continue and for dogma and other things not to come into it which would be possible if the amendment were carried. We will oppose the amendment. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.26) —The Government regards clause 5 as an important and integral part of the legislation . I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the amendments we are currently debating are the result of extensive consultations with all the appropriate authorities in the States. Senator Peter Rae is ignoring the fact that the use of clause 5 will come about only as a result of representations from the States to the Commonwealth. We believe that the States should be given an opportunity to present a case. Particular regions within the States should have an opportunity to approach the Minister in the best way possible to get the maximum benefit from the tendering system. After all, this very clause is not envisaged by the Minister as being one that will be extensively used. But we need that flexible approach; we need that opportunity. One would have thought that, because of the philosophical approach of members of the Opposition, they would believe in decentralisation. This is an important attempt to recognise that there are circumstances which may not exist in Tasmania but which will exist in Queensland or other States. Whilst we are committed to the principle of tendering as a means of getting the maximum benefit for the taxpayer's dollar we believe that circumstances vary. In some cases the States will come to the Commonwealth and say that it is in their best interests to have this flexible approach. To delete clause 5 from the legislation, which Senator Rae proposes to do, would remove the very flexibility to which the Government is committed as a result of the extensive consultations which have taken place with all the road construction authorities in the States. Naturally we would ask the Senate to adopt clause 5 and not take the very drastic step of removing it from the legislation. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.29) —The Australian Democrats applaud the Government for adopting the concept of putting guidelines into legislative form. We believe that this means of prescribing the method by which tenders or submissions will be considered by the Government, whether it be a State or Federal Government or a State or Federal Minister, is a very desirable thing. We feel that, in endeavouring to achieve an objective, the Government has gone too far in scrubbing the tender system for a whole range of possible areas that could use tenders. In particular paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 5 virtually leave it to the discretion of what I think can be accurately described as vested interests, because it would be in the interest of a State to ensure that there are no competitive tenders to be considered. The vested interest of a State, put to the Federal Minister on whatever basis, whether it is a friendly party relationship or any other kind of relationship, could result in the public at large, which is paying for this road funding system, suffering. Having said that it is desirable to have these guidelines somewhere, it is possible for these guidelines to be included in the system right at this moment. Under the existing legislation the Federal Minister has authority to lay down the guidelines. I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), specifically to see whether the guidelines that are inserted in clause 5 can be introduced in new legislation not to exempt tendering but to provide the guidelines for a State Government making a recommendation to the Federal Minister for the acceptance of statutory bodies' submissions in preference to a tender which may be better than that submitted by a State or local government body. That is a specific request to which I would like the Minister to respond. Generally, we support Senator Peter Rae's submission on behalf of the Opposition that there is no justification for throwing out the tender system. Even with the provisions that are included in clause 5 there is nothing to prevent a State government and a Federal Minister from taking into account all those provisions right at this moment. But the old legislation has the advantage of a State and, in particular, the Federal Government having alternative proposals from private contractor tenderers. Senator Peter Rae —This is the cross-check that is important. Senator JACK EVANS —It is. It is a cross-check not just for a State government or the Federal Minister but also for us to know that it has been done the right way. That is all that we are insisting on. As I said earlier, I hope that the Government will see its way clear to use these guidelines. So instead of it being a matter of consultation between the Federal Minister and the State governments to alter the procedural guidelines, they are prescribed by Federal legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.33) —There is a valid argument to be made for works to be put to tender. That argument has been made in representations from the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors. I take the same view as I did on the previous occasion, however. In fiscal relationships between the Commonwealth and the States, in areas which are currently under consideration, the Commonwealth should not use either its perceived constitutional powers or its fiscal powers to impose its will on the States or local government. The Senate will recall that I took that view in the Tasmanian dams case. I believe that this is another extension of the appropriate application of the principle of subsidiarity. Power in these matters should reside with the smallest group capable of efficiently performing the functions for which the power is required. This is an important area of responsibility of the States and local government. Of course, I recognise that the bicentennial road development program is a matter of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. Despite that fact, I consider that clause 5 of the Bill goes at least some of the way towards applying the principle I have enunciated. No doubt the Government has not inserted this clause for those high ideals; nevertheless, it has attracted my vote on that amendment on this occasion. I ask the Chairman and the Committee to bear with me as I take the opportunity to raise another matter. I did not speak but voted with the Opposition on the last occasion on which the matter of the fuel excise increase going to Consolidated Revenue rather than to the ABRD Trust Fund was discussed. I voted with the Opposition on that occasion because I believed a proportion of the increase ought to go to the Trust Fund. But is the Minister in a position to say what will happen with the levy in 1988 at the end of the ABRD program? What will happen then to the 2 per cent levy on the indexed excise? Will the amount of the levy be readjusted to compensate for the indexation of the excise? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.37) —It is difficult to respond to Senator Harradine and indicate what will happen in 1988. I do not know whether any of us will still be here then. Clearly road construction will not end in 1988. That will be a peak period. We support the previous Government's decision to carry out an emphasised road program to culminate in 1988 as part of the bicentenary celebrations. Of course, what happens after that will be a matter for the government of the day to determine. I assume it will still be a Hawke Labor government. If so, we will maintain an emphasis on road construction until we have in Australia a road system which is comparable to the best systems in the world. But that is too far off for us to contemplate at this time. I think it perhaps is not appreciated that the acceptance of clause 5 would allow the operation of the decentralised decision-making processes which allegedly we all support. There are regions in Australia where it is impossible, for example, for the private contracting system to operate, where because of the isolation from the mainstream of urban and city life the local authorities are, as one honourable senator said yesterday, an integral part of the local community, of the local economy. Therefore, in this clause we have provided an opportunity for the States to make application to the Commonwealth for an exemption from the tendering requirement. In such areas the local construction authorities, which in many cases in the far flung areas of our Commonwealth, in particular in Queensland, are the only ones able to carry out the work. It would be inappropriate to remove the discretion provided for in this clause. It is not a matter of the Federal Minister having a say; it is a matter of the States initiating an application on behalf of local construction authorities. It is true that probably in most cases it would be a public authority that would make a request through the State to the Commonwealth for the application of this provision. Of course, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) will expect the State authority to provide evidence to the effect that no other course is available to the State, that the local authority is the only body capable of undertaking the construction work and that the private construction industry is not able to contribute in the same way as the local authority is able to contribute. From what Senator Bjelke-Petersen said yesterday about the great hinterland, many of the private construction authorities would not be interested in the work in many of those isolated communities. In those circumstances, in Queensland, for example, clause 5 is designed for the Queensland Minister to be able to make representations to the Commonwealth. Based on the evidence, the Minister for Transport will have an opportunity to make a decision. To remove clause 5 would be a retrograde step, one which I ask the Committee not to support. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.41) —I support this amendment because it goes to the very heart of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill. If this Parliament is concerned about adopting a responsible position on the expenditure of public funds and about getting value for money and accountability, we have no choice but to support the amendment. I do not want to go into party philosophical differences, but it really gets down to that , to whether one is a socialist or whether one believes in the private enterprise system. If one is a socialist and thinks government can do it better, one votes for the Bill as it is. If one believes in private enterprise and knows from the experience of nearly two years operation of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act that we buy nearly 50 per cent more road mileage for the same amount of money by using private enterprise, if one believes that private individuals can do things more efficiently than can government bodies that are insensitive and do not have hungry shareholders pleading with them for performance, one votes for what the Opposition has done. In 1984 for a Labor Minister to say that he believes in a decentralised form of government for Australia is just humbug. The Minister talked about the great hinterland of Australia and all that stuff. That is not true. Under the original Act the local authorities always could tender. They always had the opportunity to come in with bids. If no one else was going to come in because of the remoteness of the area the opportunity was there for local government and the obligation to do the work was on local government. Senator Peter Rae —That is all that is necessary. Senator MacGIBBON —Absolutely. Local government has the inside running on the track. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage and as Senator Rae said in his speech, local government has concessions with respect to sales tax and other financial agreements on the huge cost of capital equipment, as well as local knowledge and the rest of it. If local government is competitive, as it is in so many shires in Tasmania, it will have its place. It will have its crack at the contract. But we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to see that we get value for the dollar we spend. Therefore, I support the amendment. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.43) —I support the comments of Senator Rae and Senator MacGibbon. The point the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has made is not valid. In a remote area, if there is no private contractor there, it is a lay down misere for the local authority. The local authorities and the government departments are actually playing this game with a stacked deck to start with because of all things that have been mentioned: The tax concessions when buying equipment, the fact that they are on the spot, they have their gangs and housing there. So they are way in front anyhow. If we do away with the tendering system we will have no methods of checking on how funds are being spent. There will be no accountability. In actual fact, the tendering system does provide accountability. If the local authorities and the government department cannot compete successfully against the private operators with all that they have in their favour the tendering system is all more necessary because it does provide accountability. Getting back to the point my colleagues made, the tendering system enables the best use to be made of the sparse taxpayers' funds. With this vast continent of ours and its small population-for 'small population' we can read small tax base- we have to make the best use of those funds. With all the best will in the world we will never have roads of the standard we desire, even were we to use the tendering system. But to make the best use of the funds that are available, there has to be accountability. Given the system under which we operate, that can be achieved only through a tendering system. I reiterate: That will not work against the State or local government authorities, although local government authorities have a head start anyhow. In remote areas where private operators do not want to go, the local authorities win with a lay down misere. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.46) —Two further points come to mind. The first is what happens in 1988, which question was raised before. We can be certain of one thing-we will not have a Labor Administration in Australia in 1988. However, if this Bill prevails, a bureaucracy will be built up in every shire and in the main roads departments in every State. They will be fed off the milk cow of public funds from a Federal source until 1988. Then there will be thousands of people with no jobs to do, because the Bill we are dealing with is finite. In 1988, the year of the bicentenary, it finishes. If there is competition and if the bureaucracies that are built up within the shires and the State main roads departments are lean and efficient through the use of a tendering system, they will be able to face the future with certainty. We will need roads after 1988, but we must have the efficient administrative machinery which will bring that about. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.47) —I rise firstly to repeat a question I asked of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is at the table. That is, will the Government consider introducing the guidelines I spoke of in legislative form in the future in the event of those guidelines being negated today as a result of the vote of this Senate? Secondly, I need to clarify the position of the Australian Democrats, having just heard Senator MacGibbon. I was disappointed to hear arguments which implied that all private enterprise is good and all public enterprise is bad, or vice versa. I think-I acknowledge that Senator MacGibbon implied this-there needs to be competition between the two sectors. It may well be that a public enterprise has the edge over private enterprise for a variety of reasons including the fact that it does not have to pay tax, or, in fact, make profits. But even given that that is so, I ask the Minister to recognise that the procedures laid down, which are based on recommendations by the respective State governments and which are approved by the Federal Minister, give the edge-not just a competitive edge-to public enterprise, should the State Government and the Federal Minister agree, to the government body. I read into Hansard one of the guidelines given under the approved procedures for inviting and dealing with tenders for national road construction works in Western Australia. Where the main roads department has lodged a bid the guideline states: The Minister may approve MRD undertaking the work or may direct alternative action. That is written into the existing procedures. It is in the existing legislation. If the Minister had tenders in front of him, it would still be possible for him to ignore all of the tenders and give the work for whatever reason he may desire or consider appropriate-the reasons do not have to comply with the guidelines written into this Bill-to the main roads department. Following on from that, the second question I put to the Minister is whether he would accept that there may be a need to change those procedures so that not only the main roads departments but also State and local governments have the ability to benefit, under the guidelines laid down, once the tenders have been called and other factors have been taken into consideration. That is, that State or local government bodies can say, with the approval of the Federal Minister: 'In this case we want the work to be done by that local government body'. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.50) —I think there seems to be an apprehension that somehow the Commonwealth, through the Federal Minister, will initiate changes to the tendering system or will suggest to the States some form of exemption that might be applied. There is absolutely no suggestion in the legislation or in the mind of the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that he will administer the legislation in such a way as to allow the States or the local authorities to build up their numbers and position at the expense of the private entrepreneur. That is not what is intended in clause 5. Clause 5 is a mechanism, not from the top but from the bottom, to ensure that where certain circumstances exist, States and local governments make the approach to the Commonwealth, and not the reverse. I have the assurance of the Minister that he does not intend to take any steps or any initiative in that area. Rather, he will act only in certain peculiar or particular circumstances where it is found that the existing Act, that is, the old Act-the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982-was, in its inflexible way, preventing the construction of roads, based on the best economic circumstances in a particular region. Senator Jack Evans —It is clearly understood that the initiative must come from the States. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Evans is proposing that tenders should still be called in all cases. Clause 5 allows an escape from that process, but only in extraordinary circumstances where there is no alternative. It is not envisaged that a contract would be let which would involve a cost to both the State and the local road authorities, which would, of course, increase the overall cost. As indicated in the second reading speech and in the second reading debate this legislation is about getting the best value for the dollar. But it does not follow that we cannot have a degree of flexibility, which is what clause 5 provides for. I assure Senator Evans that if it is found that in some State or region the legislation is being aborted by a neglect of the principles inherent in the Government's legislation, we would be prepared to amend the legislation to meet those requirements. Honourable senators should bear in mind that section 2 (2) of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Act 1984, which has already been approved by the House of Representatives, states: The amendments made by section 5 shall be deemed to have taken effect on 12 February 1984. So to that degree it is already operating. I suggest that, having removed the inflexible position which previously existed, and created a flexible position based upon approaches made by the appropriate authorities in each of the States, that is, the Ministers for highways, and based upon the experience of the 1982 legislation and upon the consultation that we have had with the various State authorities, this legislation, which has flowed from that discussion, should proceed. If it is found that somehow or other the Government's view, the view of the Parliament, is being circumvented, we would be prepared to have a fresh look at amending the legislation. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.54) —The question asked by Senator Jack Evans has not yet been answered. It is extremely important to me as a senator from Queensland, which contains so many country shires, that such a question be answered. Perhaps the Minister could respond to the specific question asked by Senator Evans. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.54) —I thought I answered that question. The Government does not propose that tenders should be called in all cases. There will be opportunities for States to make their case to the Minister. In those circumstances they will have to provide all of the relevant evidence. Question put: That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 12 noon, by order of the Senate I will leave the chair and report to the Senate. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT —It being after 12 noon, in accordance with Sessional Orders, I now call on Questions without Notice. ACCESS BY MINING COMPANIES TO ABORIGINAL LAND Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his statement at the Australian Mining Industry Council meeting in Canberra yesterday, Wednesday, 2 May, in which he is reported to have supported calls for greater access by mining companies to Aboriginal land. I ask the Minister, firstly, in the event of the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act being conducted by Mr Justice Toohey being unsuccessful in easing the exploration log jam in the Territory, what actions does the Government intend to undertake to overcome the problem? Secondly, in light of the fact that various exploration companies-namely, Peko Exploration, Mobil Energy Minerals, Union Oil Development Corporation, Mistral Mines NL and Marathon Petroleum Australia Ltd-have dropped out of mining exploration in the Territory, will the Government take urgent action to review the problems, either by executive action or by parliamentary inquiry? I refer the Minister also to statements made at that same meeting yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, that in providing a just and reasonable framework to enable mining to take place on Aboriginal land on terms which pay proper-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask his question. Questions are becoming far too long. Senator KILGARIFF —Senator Chaney was referring to the Holding-Aboriginal Affairs resolution. My final question is: How does the Minister see this aspect of the problem? Will he support Senator Chaney's amendments? Senator WALSH —When addressing the AMIC seminar yesterday I expressed some concern at the very considerable delay in dealing with applications to prospect and mine on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. I do not have a copy of the speech with me but I did go on to say that if the present inquiry established by Mr Holding, which is under Justice Toohey, cannot produce satisfactory results then in my view the Government will have to have another look at the problem. That remains my position. I do not think I could-or even that I should-forecast at this stage precisely what action the Government would take should that happen. Senator COLSTON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to publicity about in-line amusement machines being used for illegal gambling in Queensland. Does this illegal but apparently officially condoned gambling involve a cash business with a turnover of several million dollars a year? Has the Australian Taxation Office investigated whether tax is being avoided by the promoters of these machines? If not, will the Taxation Office undertake the necessary investigations to determine whether taxation is being avoided by those associated with the machines? Senator WALSH —I have a note from the Treasurer about this matter in which I am told that he is unable-and therefore I am unable-to confirm whether there is an illegal, but officially condoned, gambling industry in Queensland, as Senator Colston suggests or believes. The Commissioner for Taxation has advised that he is unaware of any particular gambling activities involving amusement machines in Queensland, which may also be associated with tax avoidance. As a general rule, the Commissioner seeks to ensure that tax legally payable in relation to any activity is paid. If the honourable senator has any detailed information regarding allegations that tax is being evaded or avoided, the Commissioner will , of course, be pleased to receive such information. I add that I will be very happy to pass on to the Treasurer a request that he sees that the matter is investigated promptly, particularly if Senator Colston can supply some more specific information such as particular locations and activities. Senator SCOTT —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I have had many approaches from schools, particularly government schools, expressing great concern at the dramatic downgrading of government support for the operation of school cadet corps. The value of their operations in many areas, not the least of which is discipline, is highly regarded in the community. I ask the Minister whether the Government will urgently reconsider the virtual abandonment of this important facet of school life and support the cadet units at least to their former level. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will draw Senator Scott's question to the attention of the Minister and ensure that the honourable senator gets an early reply. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns the measures recently announced by the Government to provide incentives to employers to boost apprenticeship intakes. I ask the Minister: What sort of a response has there been to the scheme so far, especially from employers in my home State of South Australia? Senator BUTTON —The announcement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations of policies designed to boost apprenticeship training and apprenticeship intakes was made on 1 March. It provided for a 4.3 per cent increase in the existing Commonwealth rebate for apprenticeship full-time training from 1 January 1984. The package also provided for a number of cash incentives to employers to encourage them to increase the levels of apprenticeship training. That package was to operate between 30 June year on year. Employers have until 30 June 1984 to take action to avail themselves of that package. At this stage it is not possible to give any sort of objective understanding of the success of the package because the time of notification of desiring to be in the scheme does not end until 30 June this year. Figures on apprenticeship training are compiled by State apprenticeship commissions and one is not able to provide an across Australia picture of those figures at this stage. But it is believed by the commissions that the proposals announced by the Minister on 1 March have been well understood and accepted in the community, and there has been a good response to them, but not one which can be reflected in statistics at the moment. Insofar as South Australia is concerned, the State training authority has indicated that it believes the measures are having success in boosting apprenticeship intakes in South Australia and that there are already signs of improvement after what was really a disastrous year in 1983. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Does the Minister agree that the changes to the health insurance arrangements through Medicare do not save pensioners who are already receiving free health care any expense, in other words, that they do not advantage pensioners in any way? Does she also agree that the drop in the consumer price index that is occasioned by the switch to Medicare does not represent a real reduction in the cost of living and that pensioners in particular will be affected by actual price rises during the March quarter? As the next pension adjustment in November will reflect the artificial drop in the CPI represented by the Medicare change, what action will the Government take to stop pensioners being disadvantaged by what has been described as the Medi- fiddle of the CPI? Senator RYAN —In response to the first part of Senator Chaney's question, obviously, if pensioners or anybody else are receiving free services, benefits cannot change that situation. If services are free they are free, and quite clearly no changes will affect that situation. So those who have free services will continue to do so. With regard to the impact on pensioners and beneficiaries of the fall in the CPI, I draw Senator Chaney's attention to a statement issued by the Acting Minister for Social Security, Dr Neal Blewett, who has reassured pensioners and beneficiaries that there is no cause for alarm as a result of the 0.4 per cent decrease in the CPI for the March quarter. The fall in the CPI has no impact at all on the May 1984 increase in pensions that has just taken place. Obviously there has been an increase and that increase is now flowing to beneficiaries. So the CPI decrease has no effect on that. There is a potential impact on the next pension increase in November, to which Senator Chaney's question drew attention. However, I can assure pensioners and beneficiaries and Senator Chaney that the Government is well aware of this potential impact and we are giving serious consideration to measures to cope with this in the Budget context. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to a proposal by the Queensland Premier to embark upon a loan raising venture in the Middle East? Is it a fact that the Queensland Premier is using an unknown middle man to raise these moneys, bypassing traditional services? Is it also a fact that the Premier will not disclose the financial arrangements he has with this latter day Khemlani? Does the Australian Government approve of such loan raising ventures by the States? What action can the Australian Government take to protect Queensland taxpayers' money from the latest outrageous scheme emanating from the Queensland Government? Senator WALSH —I understand that the Queensland Premier has appointed an agent to raise funds in the Middle East, along the lines suggested by Senator McIntosh. Indeed, that was confirmed, I think substantially, if not entirely, by the Premier himself on AM yesterday morning. I also understand that the purposes for which he intends to raise this money include, amongst other things, the building of a cancer clinic for Milan Brych, a hydrogen car factory for Stephen Hovarth, an oil mill for Dr Shrian Oskar and a round-the-world ticket for Wylie Fancher. The agent appointed is, I understand, Mr David Pan Meni, whom Senator McIntosh described as a latter day Khemlani and about whom little is known by me, but I assume that there is a prima facie case that he can be placed in the same sort of category as the odd characters who the Premier has collected around himself in the past, like Milan Brych, Shrian Oscar, Stephen Hovarth and Wylie Fancher. In regard to the last part of Senator McIntosh's question, any such movements of currency into the country by a State government or by private individuals would ultimately, of course, be subject to Commonwealth approval. I do not think the Commonwealth can entirely protect Queenslanders from the depredations of their Premier and the latest of his eccentric schemes, but I suspect that the latest eccentric scheme really will not come to anything, so the question of Commonwealth overview or control of foreign exchange movements will not arise. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy a question concerning an article in today's Australian headed: 'Walsh backs Morgan on NT land rights'. Is it accurate that the Minister supported a call from Mr Morgan, Executive Director of Western Mining Corporation, for greater access by mining companies to Aboriginal land? I ask the Minister what is meant by the following quote from the article: 'Senator Walsh said that if the current review of the Act being conducted by Mr Justice Toohey was unsuccessful in easing the 'log jam' in the Territory, then the Government would consider further action'. Does that mean that the Government is considering reviewing the Aboriginal Land Rights Act with a view to taking away part of the land rights granted to Aboriginal people under the Act? Can we have a firm denial or affirmation of that? Finally, will the Minister condemn Mr Morgan's racial and religious bigotry-- Senator Walters —Religious bigotry? Senator CHIPP —In his claim of Aboriginal cannibalism and infanticide as outlined in the article? For Senator Walters's benefit I will quote what Mr Morgan said yesterday. Did the Minister hear this? Mr Morgan said: Nineteenth century accounts of clashes between Europeans and Aborigines, particularly in the north of Queensland, are quite explicit concerning the partiality of the Aborigines for the particular flavour of the Chinese, who were killed and eaten in large numbers. Will the Minister denounce this example of naked racism? Senator WALSH —I looked briefly at the Australian report to which Senator Chipp referred. He asked me whether I supported Mr Morgan. The answer to that is no, because at the time I spoke yesterday I did not even know that Mr Morgan had spoken, let alone what he had said. Indeed, I am not sure that he had even spoken at that stage. Senator Chaney —He spoke after you. Senator WALSH —It was after me, was it? I can assure Senator Chipp that there has been no collaboration between the two of us in any way. Regarding the general tone of Mr Morgan's comments, I think- Senator Chipp —I am not suggesting that there was. I am just asking you to denounce what he said. Senator WALSH —Yes, okay. I think his comments are highly exaggerated. Mr Morgan made a similar type of speech about another subject in London, I think at the beginning of this year or the end of last year, for which he was somewhat roundly criticised by my friend and colleague the Minister for Finance. I do not support the terms in which Mr Morgan put his case or his argument, but I am concerned and the Government is concerned- Senator Chipp —Do you denounce them? Senator WALSH —I denounce the terms in which he put his case, but the terms in which a case is put or exaggerated do not in my view necessarily invalidate the case itself. I and other members of the Government are concerned that, since 1981, 165 exploration licences have been offered to 42 companies on Aboriginal land and none has successfully negotiated a consent agreement. So 165 exploration prospects, not necessarily mining prospects, have been held up for almost three years because consent cannot be negotiated. Senator Chipp asked me what 'further action' meant in my speech yesterday. I refer him to what I said earlier. I do not believe I can, and even if I could I do not believe I should, be specific about the sorts of things which the Government might do if Mr Justice Toohey's review and report cannot resolve the question. I think there is some reason to be concerned. There is a prima facie case, at least in my view, that in some instances difficulties are being incited by non-Aboriginal people. I do not say that as a general condemnation of people who are acting in a legal capacity for Aborigines, but I think there is a prima facie case that some white lawyers have recognised the income generating potential of delays and litigation. I do not think that has helped either the Aboriginal cause or the mining industry. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. While I do not ask him to specify the action the Government will take, can he see any way of rectifying the problem that he has enunciated, other than by amending the Aboriginal Land Rights Act? Senator WALSH —An amendment to the Act would work; I think that is beyond dispute. But I would prefer it if some other way could be found to overcome the problems, and I believe the Government would similarly prefer an alternative route, if there is one. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, refers to the Family Court. In view of the anti-social and violent behaviour associated with many family law settlements, does the Attorney see the need to review current Family Court procedures? Has consideration been given to recording and researching Family Court statistics, particularly disputed custody cases, and their possible connection with social and domestic violence, child abuse and mental health? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that the honourable senator's question is prompted, as it may be, by recent violent attacks on the person and property of Family Court judges, I am simply able to say in general terms that a great many improved security measures have been put in place, the detail of which I do not propose to announce publicly for fairly obvious reasons. They have to do with the security of the courts themselves and the judges in the course of their travel to and from court and in their domestic environment. To the extent that the question has a larger import about concern about the emotion and subsequent violence that is generated in family law matters generally, I think some specific things can be said. The procedures of the jurisdiction are continually under review by the Court itself, by the Family Law Council, which is one of the most successful advisory bodies with which I have had any dealings, and by officers of my own Department. The Family Law Council is due to report at the end of this year on the operation of the amendments to this Act which were put in place last year. Two amendments in particular last year were directed to the problem of domestic violence, section 114AA enabling a power of arrest to be attached to an injunction where a person has caused or is likely to cause bodily harm, and the companion section preserving the operation of State domestic violence legislation. We are hoping that the new remedial powers of the Court, together with the operation of the State legislation, will have an impact on this very distressing social problem. It is the case that a good deal of further and continuing research is necessary to fully appreciate the nature of these problems and, accordingly, to devise appropriate solutions. In this respect, it is the case that the Court itself collects statistics on litigation and counselling. It is to have very shortly a computer facility installed which will obviously improve very markedly the ability to collect and evaluate such statistics. In addition, the Institute of Family Studies, based in Melbourne, whose annual report was tabled in this place yesterday, does research, with very elaborate statistical weaponry available to it, on a number of inter-related family issues affecting family and marital stability. In addition, I have recently written to all States requesting co- operation in the collection of statistics under the Family Law Act in relation to matters that arise in magistrates courts, which is another dimension again of this jurisdiction, and in one way or another I hope that we will have a much better co-ordinated approach to developing information and to understanding this extremely significant array of social problems. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the Government's assurances given by the Minister for Health in his Medicare legislation second reading speech that the one per cent Medicare levy deducted from pay packets would be shown separately on pay slips. Why has this undertaking been dishonoured by the Hawke Government? Is it that if the levy were shown separately on pay slips it could be regarded by the Statistician as a cost of health insurance and so would continue to be included on the consumer price index, while if the one per cent levy is shown as personal tax it has to be taken off the consumer price figures, so giving a very false picture of the increase in the cost of living? Senator RYAN —I presume that the last part of Senator Walters's question was meant to refer to the reduction in the CPI. I do not have information from the Minister for Health on the specific matter raised by Senator Walters. I will certainly seek an explanation for the current information to taxpayers and levy payers of the one per cent levy. I do not know whether the Department of Health could respond in any rational way to Senator Walters's rather bizarre speculation about why it has all happened. However, I will see what information there is about the ways in which the Government is informing the public of the one per cent levy. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Can I have a decision by the Department on what I have put forward, a decision by the Department on whether that is a scenario? Senator RYAN —I will seek further information from the Minister for Health. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to links between recent increases in short term interest rates and the seasonal rundown in private sector liquidity due to taxation payments which are now occurring. Because these seasonal taxation factors tend to cloud the underlying trends or real movement in interest rates, will the Government investigate the feasibility of rescheduling or spreading taxation payments as a means of smoothing out liquidity flows, thereby reducing side effects on interest rates? Senator WALSH —As Senator Maguire notes, because of the taxation arrangements there has been a seasonal factor for many years which tends to push interest rates higher than they would otherwise be at around this time of the year. For that reason the suggestion that Senator Maguire has made has some obvious merit. However, I would expect that there would be some difficulties, perhaps considerable difficulties, in actually applying the suggestion that he has made, but I will certainly put it to the Treasurer and see what the view of people who administer the taxation system is. On the broader question of interest rates in general which Senator Maguire has raised it is, of course, quite clear that the trend in interest rates is downwards, even though for those seasonal reasons there have been small increases in some interest rates-not all interest rates-just recently. The trend is clearly downwards to the extent of between 1 1/2 per cent and 2 per cent in the last year. Some politicians have made fools of themselves in the past by issuing iron-clad guarantees about what would happen to interest rates. The two people in particular whom I recall made fools of themselves in that area were the discredited former Prime Minister and discredited former Deputy Prime Minister in 1977. It is safer and more responsible to talk about trends and what is likely to happen under certain conditions. The trend is already downwards. The negative consumer price index figure for the March quarter, which was released earlier this week, and the prospect or near certainty of another very low figure in the June quarter means that the next national wage case will contain a very small, perhaps even negligible, increase in wages. So although the Medicare effect is a one-off issue in itself, with wage indexation it becomes translated into a new and significantly lower threshold of inflation. Obviously that will have some effect on interest rates. It may take some time for nominal interest rates to respond to lower inflation rates, but inflation has fallen very considerably. There is little if any doubt that it will continue to fall significantly again in the next nine to 12 months, and after a period nominal interest rates must follow the inflation rate downwards. Senator TOWNLEY —What is the view of the Minister for Resources and Energy of the recent agreement between China and the United States of America about the exchange of nuclear information and the supply by the United States of nuclear power equipment to China? Does the Minister see China as a future possible market for Australian uranium? Senator WALSH —I do have some information on this matter. I am advised that the agreement between the United States and China to which Senator Townley referred provides the legal framework regarding the ways in which guarantees and controls on nuclear related materials supplied by the United States to China may be applied. The agreement includes guarantees that no nuclear material or equipment subject to the agreement will be used for any nuclear explosive device or for research into explosive devices, that no material will be transferred beyond Chinese jurisdiction and that no material will be enriched, reprocessed or in other ways upgraded towards weapons material. China is in any case already a nuclear weapons state. As to the final part of Senator Townley's question on whether Australia would consider supplying uranium to China, the issue has never arisen. I think it would be premature for me to forecast what the response of the Government would be should such a question arise. However, I can say that certainly uranium would not be supplied to China or indeed to any other country unless it were subject to the strictest and most effective safeguards which we believe can be applied. Senator PRIMMER —My question, which concerns the prosecution of an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Don Witheford, whose case was described by the Acting Chief Magistrate as being 'conceived in prejudice and born in bias', is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Is it a fact that a private Sydney barrister by the name of Hastings has been retained for the past several months at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to assist Foreign Affairs officers working on Mr Witheford's prosecution? Is that barrister still working out of the Department of Foreign Affairs? If so, will the Attorney provide full details of Mr Hastings's hiring, including the costs involved and the level of security clearance, if any, he enjoys? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of the existence of any brief of this kind to anyone from the Sydney Bar, but I will certainly find out the information, either from the Minister for Foreign Affairs or from my Department, to the extent it may have been the case that if such a briefing did occur it was through my Department, although I do not believe it was. I will do my best also to get the other information for which the honourable senator asks. Senator HARRADINE —My question, which has serious implications for human rights in this country, is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It relates to those Australians of Indo-Chinese origin who travelled to Canberra on 15 March 1984 for a peaceful demonstration against repressive acts of the Vietnamese authorities or government internally and in Kampuchea. Is it correct that these people were stopped by 15 to 20 carloads of police on the Hume Highway at Craigieburn on the northern perimeter of Melbourne? Is it correct that they were subjected to body searches, photographed and required to fill in forms which included questions about their level of education, prior military service and religion? Is it correct that the search extended even to children under nine years of age whose shoes and even nappies had to be removed? Were Australian Federal Police or officials in any way involved? If the police concerned were all Victorian police, were they acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, the Commonwealth police, or any department or agency of the Commonwealth Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have answers to the honourable senator's questions . I will seek them as soon as possible from the Special Minister of State. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government continuing to give consular support to Father Brian Gore in relation to the trial being conducted in Bacolod city in the Philippines? Accepting Mr Hayden's assurance that the Australian Government has not involved itself in any consultations between the co-accused and the Philippines Government, nevertheless, can the Minister indicate the Australian Government's understanding of the stage reached in this trial which has proved so significant in determining Australian-Philippine relations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The latest brief I have on this, which is of today's date, is to the effect that following undertakings made by President Marcos during Mr Hayden's visit to the Philippines from 24 February to 26 February, measures were taken to expedite the trial of Father Gore and his co-accused in Bacolod city. The trial, which opened in Bacolod on 23 February, resumed on 1 March and sat on 17 days until 5 April. Between 1 March and 5 April the court adjourned seven times; each time, though, with the agreement of both the defence and the prosecution. When the court adjourned on 5 April the prosecution was given until 10 April to present its exhibits and the defence until 16 April to submit any objections. It was also agreed that the prosecution would have a further 10 days in which to consider whether to recall any of its earlier witnesses, following which the judge would decide on any issues which had arisen. A defence petition for the dismissal of charges against all the defendants was lodged in Bacolod on 30 April. There have been discussions about the dismissal of charges between the defence and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr Borromeo. It is possible that the court will reconvene sometime in the next two weeks to respond to the defence petition, but it is not expected that the trial will resume until the second half of May. Officials from the Australian Embassy in Manila have attended all the court proceedings and will continue to do so when the trial resumes. A representative of the Law Council of Australia has also observed much of the trial. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the fact that Australia has lost 70 per cent of its Korean market share of meat exports to New Zealand, that Australia's share of the beef market in Japan has fallen from 64 per cent in 1979 to 50 per cent in 1983 and that Australia has recently lost an $18m Singapore beef tender. Taking into consideration that New Zealand, Australia's newest and most successful meat competitor, is being subsidised by its Government to the tune of $12m for inspection and grading of beef, would the Federal Government consider assisting the Australian meat industry by waiving the Commonwealth inspection levy which will cost the processors, and ultimately the beef producers, $40m annually? Senator WALSH —I have been told by the Minister that he is aware of the response to the Korean tender and he shares the industry's disappointment that Australia did not gain a larger share. I think we all share that concern and disappointment. But there were several factors, I am advised, which operated in New Zealand's favour in respect of that particular tender. They included the fact that recent currency fluctuations favoured New Zealand and that increases in Australian domestic livestock prices had forced up Australian quotations. It follows inevitably, of course, that that would also have pushed up the income of Australian livestock producers. Viewed in that context, it is arguable, to say the least, and indeed I suggest that- Senator Archer —Are you serious? Senator WALSH —Serious about what? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer Senator Boswell's question. Senator WALSH —About the recent increases in domestic beef prices? Senator Archer —About the farmers being better off? Senator WALSH — Yes, better off than they were at some previous period and, I observe for the record, much better off than they were when the previous Government was in office; indeed, better off to the extent, in terms of net income, by about 100 per cent than they were when the previous Government was in office. To the degree that Australia's uncompetitive tender in another country was attributable to increases in domestic prices there is an offset. I am advised that the tender was also for boneless beef only, a type which has traditionally been supplied by New Zealand. The Minister advises me that he is confident that once Korea resumes normal purchase patterns, Australia will maintain its position as a major supplier to that country. The last aspect of Senator Boswell 's question was whether the Government will forgo the meat inspection levy. I will put that to the Minister. But I expect that the response of the Government will be that the policy enunciated by the previous Government, that 50 per cent of inspection costs should be recovered from charges, will continue to be applied. Senator HEARN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the newspaper reports of atomic tests at Maralinga, both those that have been publicised and those that it is claimed were conducted secretly. Are Australian servicemen who were employed to carry out those tests eligible for compensation by the Commonwealth? Senator GIETZELT —Servicemen involved in the nuclear testing program at Maralinga in the 1950s and 1960s did not qualify for disability pensions. Peacetime service in the defence forces has attracted compensation under the Repatriation Act only since December 1972, when it was introduced by the Whitlam Government. However, servicemen are eligible for workers' compensation benefits. I understand that such benefits have been paid for illnesses and death claimed to have occurred as a result of the participation of servicemen exposed to radiation during those tests. I draw the attention of Senator Hearn to the fact that on 15 December last-I think it might have been the last sitting day of the previous session-a Department of Health report entitled 'Health of Atomic Test Personnel' was tabled. Although some statistically significant associations were found between various tasks and subsequent illnesses, it was concluded that there was no association between proven radiation exposure and subsequent illness, and that there was no excess mortality which might have been due to exposure to radiation . I understand, of course, that those views have not been accepted by the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association which has been pressing governments in recent years to have further examination of the difficulties that they believe they experienced as a result of those tests. I point out, of course, as some of my ministerial colleagues in the Senate have said, that we are dealing with events that are now more than 30 years old. However, I can say that the Government is considering the need for a special compensation scheme, dealing with claims by veterans as well as civilians, arising from the British atomic tests in Australia. I am sure that that will also be taken up with the British Government, having regard to the joint co-operation that took place in those years. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I refer to the report that the Government has had since February this year from the Task Force on Self-Government. Does the Minister agree that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory have a right to comment on the report's proposals before any government decision is taken? When will the report be made available for public consideration and debate? If the Government has already considered its position on the report's recommendations, when will that decision be announced? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Reid is correct in drawing attention to the fact that the Government is considering the development of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. A task force has been working on this for some time, headed by its Chairman, Gordon Craig OBE. A draft report has been presented to the Minister. There is, of course, a great deal of detail to be dealt with in the report. The honourable senator will appreciate that I represent the Minister, therefore I am not necessarily completely up to date on the matter. I think the matter is still being considered by the Government. If the Minister has any further information on how much progress has been made by the Government in considering that report I will provide it to Senator Reid. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the nuclear waste produced as a result of the atomic tests and weapons trials conducted at Maralinga during the 1950s and 1960s. I refer also to the clean-up and burial operations and the return to Britain of part of the nuclear waste generated at Maralinga in 1979. I ask the Minister: Which government is responsible for the management of the nuclear waste from the British nuclear tests which remains at Maralinga? Senator WALSH —I noted yesterday that the sycophancy of a previous, indeed a distant or almost ancient, Liberal-Country Party Government was the cause of the problem that has subsequently been inherited at Maralinga. That initial sycophancy and irresponsibility was compounded quite significantly in 1978 by a very recent Liberal-Country Party Government which accepted entire responsibility by Australia for the management of the waste that remained there. At that time a small quantity of plutonium embedded in salt was about to be returned to the United Kingdom. It was part of an agreement that that small quantity of plutonium would be returned to the United Kingdom and that Australia would accept entirely the responsibility for the rest of the contaminated material which was in the country. In quite explicit terms the United Kingdom had no further responsibility to have any other contaminated material repatriated to the United Kingdom. A couple of days ago I considered the possibility of asking the Prime Minister whether he would consider writing to the British Prime Minister suggesting that the United Kingdom should accept responsibility, even to the point of repatriation to the United Kingdom, for some of this contaminated material. Whatever merit that may or may not have had, it is very difficult, to say the least, to pursue that course now given the agreement which the previous Government has made with the United Kingdom. Senator ARCHER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry noticed that Mr Wally Curran of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union again took out on strike about 2,000 meat workers throughout Victoria? Does the Minister agree that the meat industry is already in deep trouble? Will not occurrences such as this lead only to more losses in permanent work, add even more to the costs and worsen the deplorable reputation of unreliability that Australia currently has at a time when customers world-wide are expecting more and more responsibility and service? Senator WALSH —I must confess I was not aware of the incident to which Senator Archer has referred, but I will seek the Minister's views on the likely effect of that. Since I am not aware of the incident itself I am, therefore, not aware of the background to it. But it would seem to me that at least some of the undesirable consequences to which Senator Archer has referred could-could-follow as a result of the action that he says has been taken. But I will seek whatever comment the Minister has to add to my comments and supply them to Senator Archer . Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As the Minister is aware, I have received a number of representations from veteran constituents in north Queensland regarding difficulties they have experienced in gaining ready access to the services of his Department. Will the Minister inform the Senate of any progress towards the upgrading and expansion of the services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in north Queensland? Senator GIETZELT —Following representations from north Queensland, from Senator Reynolds and the honourable member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, I have examined the possibility of people living in the northern part of Queensland having more direct access to the Department's branch office in Brisbane. I have decided to upgrade the Townsville regional office, which acted as an agent for Brisbane. There is no doubt that client demands have grown very considerably in recent times and there is a need for an expanded operation. At the time when the requests were made to me by Senator Reynolds we had a staff of two operating from the Townsville office. They handled something like 450 inquiries a month. It was pretty clear that there needed to be some changes. By March next year the staff will be increased to about 15 and a wider range of services will be available, including medical examinations, treatment arrangements, service pension approvals and disability determinations-all of the matters that are dealt with by my Department. In those circumstances, there will be adequate staff capable of dealing with the increased number of demands that have been made upon my Department. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Is he or has he been concerned that the telephones in his Parliament House office or elsewhere may be or may have been bugged? If he is or has been, what basis has he for suspecting this? What action has he taken to establish whether his suspicions are correct? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not believe I ought to say publicly what I have told my ministerial colleagues in a Cabinet situation. There were substantial grounds for the concern which I am reported to have expressed. I have done my best to check the matter out to the extent that the technical and other resources allow, but I do not feel it would be proper for me to comment further. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I preface my question by saying to the Attorney-General that there is a public interest-and an interest on the part of all of us, I suppose, as we all deal with Ministers-in knowing whether Ministers are being subjected to this sort of surveillance. I ask the Minister: Does he suspect that, as has been reported, and is there any reason to believe that, indeed, other Ministers may have had similar treatment? Senator Peter Baume —Or other parliamentarians. Senator CHANEY —Or other parliamentarians. Senator GARETH EVANS —I say only this: The next time the honourable senator rings me up he would be wise to moderate his language. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he has seen the article in the Age of 30 April referring to the huge cost of road crashes, estimated at $3,000m a year. Is he aware of the figures by the Road Safety Council in that report that show fatal crashes are five times more costly than crashes with major injury and 265 times more costly than those causing only property damage? Can the Minister say whether the Government agrees with the claim in the report that Australians expect high standards for aviation and shipping safety but are very casual about road crashes? What action is the Government taking to change that attitude and to reduce the huge cost of road crashes? Senator GIETZELT —In my briefing notes the Minister for Transport has provided me with a copy of the booklet entitled The Cost of Road Crashes, which actually is an incredibly important book of statistics. It shows the cost to the community not only in human terms but also in monetary terms. For example, there is a table on page 7 which shows that the average cost was $300,000 for a fatality, $ 67,000 for a major injury, $8,000 for a minor injury and $1,900 for property damage only. The total community cost has been estimated as a result of the work by the Road Safety Council as follows: $1,000m for fatal crashes, $240m for those involving major injuries, $500m for those involving minor injuries, $970m for those involving property only-totalling $2,710m. This has prompted the Government to take a much higher national profile on road safety than has previously been the case. To that extent the Government will be launching a three-pronged campaign and will be publishing documents such as the documents I have before me which show the monetary cost of road crashes. There will be what has been described in my brief as slick television commercials, mainly aimed at the high-risk under-25 age group. The Government has already indicated during the debate on the road legislation today that there will be a dramatic increase in Federal spending on roads. In the 1983-84 period Federal spending on roads will be close to 50 per cent higher than that in the period 1982-83, which is an unprecedented increase. The Government will also be commissioning relevant research that will be conducted at Sydney University into the effects of drugs, including pharmaceuticals, marihuana and alcohol taken in combination, on people's driving ability. I understand that this will be the first time such research has been conducted in the Western world. However, the Government indicates that it will not usurp the proper role of the States but that it will work closely with them on a number of joint ventures designed to overcome the obvious human costs as well as the monetary costs to the Australian economy. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that there has been a reduction in Royal Australian Navy surveillance of the Bass Strait oil fields? What organisation, if any, has replaced the Australian Navy to ensure that security of these strategic oilfields is not placed in jeopardy and, in particular, their safety from ships travelling along Bass Strait? Can the Minister give an assurance that security measures have not in any way been reduced? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able to advise the Senate that the RAN Trackers were withdrawn from Bass Strait surveillance on 1 January this year as part of the planned phase-out of naval fixed wing aircraft. The RAN continues to provide a patrol boat on station around the oilfields for 24 hours a day, weather permitting. The limited presence of the RAN Trackers was not significant in the overall security measures adopted to protect these important oilfields. A more effective form of surveillance is provided on a 24-hour a day basis by the radar installed by Esso on one of the platforms. Esso is proceeding to install an additional radar which will improve the surveillance of Bass Strait. Because of its relatively short time on task, the Tracker was of limited use, as I have said, in protecting the Bass Strait oilfields. Its surveillance coverage became primarily directed to the monitoring of shipping movements to prevent collisions between passing ships and the platforms. Even in this role the Tracker was responsible only for the initial detection in advance of the Esso radar of a small proportion of the intrusions in the restricted area around the platforms. The withdrawal of the Trackers has not reduced the effectiveness of the security measures protecting the Bass Strait oilfields. The Government believes that, with the introduction of the additional radar, the security of the platforms will be enhanced. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to reports that the Federal Department of Resources and Energy is hampering investigations by a South Australian Health Commission inquiry, headed by Dr Ken Smith, into the effects on Aboriginal people of atomic tests at Maralinga. I also refer the Minister to his statement that the Government has no intention of hiding facts surrounding the atomic weapons tests in Australia. Will the Minister give an undertaking to make available to this Health Commission inquiry all information on the atomic tests at Maralinga without sanitisation by departmental officers? Further, will the Minister support the request by the South Australian Premier for the British Government to provide to the South Australian Government all records on the atomic tests at Maralinga? Senator WALSH —I have seen one report in the Adelaide Advertiser. Senator Bolkus referred to the undertakings which I had given not to suppress any of the facts relevant to this inquiry. At the time one qualification was given to that, or perhaps 1 1/2 qualifications, the first one being about material which was supplied by the United Kingdom on a confidential government to government basis. It seems to me that that confidentiality would have to be respected. Indeed, if it was not respected we would have no chance of obtaining further factual information from the United Kingdom. It is believed that factual information which may be held by the United Kingdom is relevant, at least to the common law claims for compensation which have been taken against the Commonwealth, and probably relevant to some other areas as well. So, without that qualfication, I cannot give the undertaking that Senator Bolkus requests to make everything available to the South Australian Health Commission, at least not without the prior clearance of the United Kingdom Government. The report in the Advertiser, to which I have referred, quotes Dr Smith as saying that he was being refused access to Commonwealth material. I think that needs some qualification. Firstly, the background is that the South Australian Premier wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 March seeking access to this material. The Prime Minister replied to the Premier on 18 April. Shortly after that Dr Smith contacted the appropriate officer in the Department of Resources and Energy to whom he had been referred. He was told that his research assistant would have to obtain a security clearance before he was given access to the information and that some of it would require agreement by the United Kingdom for it to be released. I note that on 1 May Mr Bannon said in the South Australian Parliament: I must stress that the attitude of the Commonwealth Government is most welcome because they are committed to open access to as much information as possible. Mr Bannon did ring me, I think on that same day, stating that the South Australian officials had not been given ad lib access to the Commonwealth files. I think it is necessary, for the reasons I have given, that they not be given ad lib access to everything. But the South Australian officials were advised that specific requests for subject matter would be supplied in specific instances subject only to that restriction of the United Kingdom and maybe some Australian security material which would be classified as highly secret. I am advised that most of the material which Dr Smith is likely to require-this is the British material-would be confidential rather than secret. Therefore, it should not be difficult to obtain consent for access to the United Kingdom classification. Finally, I am seeing Mr Bannon this afternoon along with some officers from the South Australian Government-I am not sure which ones-and some officers from the Department of Resources and Energy in the hope that we can satisfactorily resolve this matter. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MASON —Following a cable from the Australian Associated Press last night an article appeared in this morning's Australian under the heading ' ''Deal'' delays pornography debate', in which I claim to have been misrepresented. It states: Australian Democrat senators and the Government had 'done a deal to further delay debate on the importation of pornography', the Senate was told. Senator Brian Harradine (Ind, Tas) said Senator Colin Mason (Dem, Qld) had ' done a deal' with the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, to delay debate on referring regulations governing the importation of pornography to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Of course, that relates to Senator Harradine's motion yesterday. On page 1461 of the Hansard we see a statement by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, which states: 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 did not permit that. Following that the debate was adjourned on the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Durack. I find it quite extraordinary that any statement or report should be made especially since I did not speak on that matter nor at any time discuss it with Senator Evans or any other government member. I did not enter the debate. I did not utter a word or take any action which might have prompted that statement. We have a situation in which in fact there was an agreement and, indeed, it was Senator Durack himself who moved the adjournment. The allegation published in today's Press, attributed to Senator Harradine, that I did a deal to delay that matter is obviously quite without foundation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I agree with Senator Mason. Of course I did not accuse him of doing a deal in respect of that. In fairness to the Australian Associated Press, I notice that it put out a correction of that part yesterday afternoon. A report on the matter appeared in the Australian but presumably it did not pick up AAP's correction. Unless Senator Mason is complaining about misrepresentation in his being referred to as a Democrat from Queensland, there is no basis for complaint . The Australian newspaper got it wrong. Of course, the other aspect of the Australian newspaper's comment is that it did not follow the AAP story because it has me saying what in fact the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) said. What he said was in the AAP report that went to the Australian, but the Australian failed to put: 'The Attorney-General said . . . '. The remarks just follow on from what I was reported as saying. I think I have more reason to complain about the Australian article than Senator Mason has, particularly as it shows me as saying what Senator Evans said about this matter. I do not think either of us would agree with that. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(1.06) —Mr President, to enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates committees D, E and F will meet at 2 p.m. Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sittings of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. The following papers were presented: National Capital Development Commission Act-Erratum slip for the Annual Report of the National Capital Development Commission, for year 1982-83. Public Service Act-Determinations 1984-No. 8. Trade Union Training Authority Act-Corrigenda for the Annual Report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, for year 1982-83. Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Act: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Judiciary Amendment Act (No. 2) 1984-sections 3-6-1 June 1984 (Gazette No. S 153, 1 May 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 267) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 23 August 1983: (1) Does the Public Service Board recognise the qualifications of a Royal Australian Air Force senior technical officer; if not, why not. (2) Does the Board recognise other skills gained in the defence forces and on what criteria does it base its judgment. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I understand that there is no employment group in the RAAF called ' technical officer' or 'senior technical officer' but that the RAAF uses the terminology 'technician'. The Public Service Board recognises their qualifications for employment in the Australian Public Service (APS) in two ways : (i) where a person's qualifications meet the Board's formal qualification prescription for draftsman and technical officer, that is, a Board approved technical and further education middle-level certificate or equivalent education qualification, the person is deemed to be qualified. Most RAAF technicians obtain such certificates as part of their RAAF training; and (ii) following a review of RAAF training in 1977 by the Department of Defence, completion of RAAF basic radio/telecommunications training plus at least 800 hours formal training in one of several advanced RAAF courses is also accepted by the Board for APS draftsman and technical officer jobs. (2) Yes, other skills are recognised under a variety of arrangements. The Public Service Board will write to the honourable senator providing details and an officer of the Public Service Board will be available to discuss the matter if the honourable senator wishes. (Question No. 644) Senator Baume asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: 1. Has there been a reduction in funds available for materials (foodstuffs) in respect of the initial catering and home science schools at the Canberra and Woden technical and further education colleges in the year 1983-84; if so, has there been a cancelling of certain courses for the first semester of 1983-84. 2. Will there also be a number of permanent teachers without a full teaching load because of such cancellations. 3. Will the cancellations bring about a reduction in fees greater than the savings effected in expenditure. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1. Canberra and Woden TAFE colleges each decided on the funds to be allocated to the home science area from the total amounts available to each for non-salary items. Each decided to allocate a reduced amount to the (non-trade) areas of home science where the cost of consumables is particularly high. Consequently a range of home science courses have been cancelled in the two colleges in the first semester of the 1984 academic year. 2. All teachers concerned at Woden TAFE college will have a full teaching load. At the Canberra TAFE college, a total of 14 teaching hours per week will be unused because of the cancellations of classes. Teachers with a slightly reduced teaching load will devote additional time to curriculum development and thus be fully employed. 3. The cancellation will not bring about a reduction in fees or revenue greater than the savings effected in expenditure. (Question No. 729) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that the Tasmanian State Government is operating an accommodation allowance for tertiary education students amounting to $900 per annum (30 weeks at $30), while those students receiving tertiary education assistance scheme allowance either full or any part thereof receive only $500 per annum because of a regulation contained in the TEAS guidelines stipulating that even where a student may earn up to $2000 per annum, no more than $500 per annum must come from other allowances: If so, has the Minister any plans to correct this anomalous and inequitable situation which discriminates unduly against low income families who are struggling to send their children through tertiary education. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: TEAS is an income-tested scheme. It is not unreasonable therefore that in determining the level of TEAS entitlement regard should be had to other income available to a student, particularly when that income is in the form of an allowance provided by another agency broadly for the same purposes as TEAS. This along with other aspects of the income test is a matter which is kept under regular review. However it must be realised that to abolish the existing TEAS conditions governing income from other allowances or to raise the threshold would add to the costs of the scheme. This means therefore that the timing of any change must be determined in the context of the availability of funds and the priorities established for their expenditure.