Friday, 4 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Plant Variety Rights To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. there is lack of public information about the content and intention of the proposed legislation on Plant Variety Rights; 2. there is concern that the ethical and moral issues of granting private proprietorial rights over genetic resources have not been properly and publicly considered; 3. there is evidence to suggest that such legislation may lead to a reduction in the existing plant diversity; 4. there is reason to fear that farmers may be restricted in their activities due to the controls placed on the use and propagation of seed stocks; 5. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights Legislation will lead to higher costs for the farmer, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax payer, and 6. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights Legislation will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australian resources. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament defer introducing the legislation until full and informed public discussion of the issues involved has taken place. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 23 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. there is lack of public information about the content and intention of the proposed legislation on Plant Variety Rights; 2. there is concern that the ethical and moral issues of granting private proprietorial rights over genetic resources have not been properly and publicly considered; 3. there is evidence to suggest that such legislation may lead to a reduction in the existing plant diversity; 4. there is reason to fear that farmers may be restricted in their activities due to the controls placed on the use and propagation of seed stocks; 5. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights Legislation will lead to higher costs for the farmer, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax payer, and 6. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights Legislation will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australian resources. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure; (i) that information be made freely available to allow full and informed public discussion of the issues involved. (ii) that the Government undertake to carry out an analysis of the costs and benefits involved to the various sectors of Agriculture and the Nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 22 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas Australia underwent an unprecedented expansion in riches (of wealth) post war and the economy is once again on the upsurge, the pensioners and the disadvantaged have slipped further behind the general standard. In this period of renewed expansion their position is being further eroded. Therefore, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray: (1) The proposed Assets Test be rejected completely. (2) That Government instead meet with pensioner, Union and Employer Organisations to work out the method of financing and a timetable for the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme. (3) That the May 1984 adjustment include the CPI increases up to the end of March, and thereafter be increased quarterly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 11 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 36 citizens), Gietzelt (from nine citizens), Harradine (from 345 citizens) and Walters (from 92 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 sufficent 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 974 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled; should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from nine citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for 'drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called 'soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalize and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalize or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by 'drug pushers' through the proposed one oz. legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and license import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society . 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legalisation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from nine 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 their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 340 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I wish to inform the Senate that recently the Parliamentary Library acquired a most interesting historical item on auction from the library of the late Reverend Dr Sir Irving Benson of Melbourne. The item is a Bible given to the then member for West Sydney, William Morris Hughes, at the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament on 9 May 1901. It is signed on the title page by Hughes himself and on the pre-title page by the Duke of York. On the end papers are the signatures of the Speaker and 58 of the members of the First Parliament, including the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. It is fortunate that this item has come into the possession of the Parliamentary Library rather than of a private collector. The Speaker and I have arranged for the Bible to be on display in the reading room of the Library until the end of this sessional period, and any interested senator is welcome to view it there. The pages will be rotated daily and a typed list of the relevant names will be provided. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.05) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. The Chicken Meat Research Act established a joint Commonwealth/industry scheme to undertake research for the Australian Chicken Meat Industry. The Research scheme is funded mainly by a levy imposed on meat chickens hatched with the Commonwealth providing a matching contribution on expenditure from the levy on a dollar for dollar basis. The amendments in the Bill are of a minor nature aimed at facilitating the use of the funds for research. The principal amendment is to provide for two separate accounts within the Trust Account. This provision applies to a number of other research committees already. Levy receipts are matchable by the Commonwealth. Other receipts from sale of assets or produce from research projects, interest on investment of resources, and penalties for late payment of levy, are not matchable by the Commonwealth. In the past, access to the unmatchable reserves has been restricted by the need to exhaust the matchable funds first, and this does not normally occur because levy continues to be received regularly. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. PIG MEAT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 and to make a consequential amendment to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. The Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 established a Pig Meat Promotion Committee of four members funded by a levy of 60 cents on each pig slaughtered for human consumption. This gives the Committee an annual income of around $2.5m. There is no Commonwealth contribution to the Committee's funds. This Bill seeks to change the name of the Committee to the 'Pork Promotion Committee' and to change the name of the 'Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975' to the ' Pork Promotion Act 1975'. The change is intended to update the image of pig meat throughout the industry and in no way indicates any change in the role or functions of the Committee. Administration of the Committee's funds are to be transferred to the Committee itself. At present the Committee's funds are placed in a trust account within the Department of Primary Industry and all accounts are paid through Departmental procedures. Under the proposed arrangements levy money will be paid direct to the Committee which will then be responsible for paying its own accounts. This will streamline the financial operations of the Committee considerably. The Committee will be required to keep its accounts in accordance with usual procedures for such an authority and the accounts will be audited by the Commonwealth Auditor General. The provision will be continued that the funds can only be spent in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. The above changes have the support of the Australian Pork Producers Federation. The Bill also provides for a number of amendments of a machinery nature, which have been endorsed by the Committee. One of the two producer representatives on the Committee is Chairman. It is proposed that the other producer representative should be the Deputy Chairman. It is provided that, instead of all four members having to be present to hold a meeting a quorum of three will be sufficient. The Minister for Primary Industry will be required to approve persons proposed as deputies of members prior to their appointment. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 is to be amended to take account of the change of name of the Committee. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Australian Citizenship Act provides the basis for the citizenship of all Australians, regardless of their origin, or their cultural and linguistic background. The Act provides for the acquisition of Australian citizenship by birth in Australia, by descent through birth of a child to an Australian parent living overseas, and by grant to persons who have come to Australia to settle. It also provides the basis for the loss, renunciation and deprivation of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. The Government is committed to ensuring that the Act reflects the national identity of all Australians; that it does not discriminate between persons on the basis of their sex, marital status and present or previous nationality; that it provides for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act; and that it is thoroughly Australian in character. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those commitments. It is important to appreciate that Australian citizenship did not exist prior to 26 January 1949. Before that time all persons living in Australia were either British subjects or aliens. The current Act still retains many transitional provisions which reflect this historical fact and which provide for British subject status to be given automatically to Australian citizens and the citizens of 46 other Commonwealth countries. Many people genuinely wish to become Australian citizens and assume the associated rights and responsibilities as soon as possible after entering Australia. On the other hand, an estimated 1.2 million non-citizen residents who have lived here for more than the present minimum residential period of three years have not applied to become citizens. The Government wishes to encourage both groups of people to become citizens. We believe that the package of measures contained in this Bill will assist those who wish to become citizens as soon as possible after settling in Australia as well as removing what many people see as the disincentives to acquiring citizenship contained in the present Act. Despite the large number of residentially eligible people who have not taken out citizenship, the number of persons applying to become citizens has increased rapidly in recent years-from 78,000 in 1981/82 to 101,000 in 1982/83. A similar rate of increase is occurring this year. The reasons for the rising application rate are varied but the underlying cause is undoubtedly a greater pride in Australia and in the status of Australian citizenship. This Government is moving to change the citizenship requirement for future permanent employment in the Public Service and the Defence Services from one of British subject status to one solely of Australian citizenship. The Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters, the honourable member for Fremantle, recently announced the Government's intention to amend the Public Service Act for permanent government employment to this effect. Similar changes to the Commonwealth and State Electoral Acts to require Australian citizenship for future electoral enrolments were proclaimed recently. In the face of the increased rate of applications for citizenship, the Department is introducing new computer-assisted processing procedures to streamline the handling of applications and to reduce the time taken to complete each case. The staffing of citizenship sections in each of the Department's offices is currently being reviewed as part of this upgrading of the services provided. In May 1983, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs entered into an agreement with Australia Post for citizenship applicants in larger country towns to be interviewed by senior postmasters on an agency basis. That arrangement has reduced delays in processing applications from country areas and is proving to be efficient. This Bill is the outcome of the most extensive review of the Citizenship Act, since it was passed by Parliament in 1948 under the Chifley Labor Government. On 6 May 1982 the then Minister announced a set of proposed amendments which had already been the subject of close consideration by ministerial advisory bodies and by State Governments. The proposals were widely circulated throughout Australia to community organisations and were discussed at public forums in every capital city in June/July 1982. Additional input was obtained from written submissions and informal talks. The views expressed through these national consultations were summarised in the report on the national consultations on multiculturalism and citizenship by Professor Zubrzycki which was tabled in Parliament on 31 May 1983. In preparing this Bill, the Government has carefully considered the earlier proposals, the views put at the national consultations and amendments suggested by the Human Rights Commission which also undertook a thorough review of the Citizenship Act in 1981-82. Of course, the Government's own policy commitments have been included. For instance the Bill: Reduces the qualifying period from 3 to 2 years for citizenship by grant; Allows for appeals on a number of grounds to be made to the administrative appeals tribunal. No longer will the department, government or minister have a final determinative power in these cases-decisions to deny or deprive citizenship will now have to be justified before the AAT on appeal. (I will later include in detail those areas which will be subject to appeal); and Amends the requirement that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. Knowledge of English is essential to full participation in Australia's social, cultural and political life, but the Government does not wish to deny citizenship to those with limited English who have lived in Australia for some time and who would take pride in becoming citizens. The Bill therefore proposes that applicants for citizenship must have only a basic knowledge of English. Applicants over 50 years of age will be exempted from the new requirement of basic English, recognising the difficulty many older persons have in learning a new language. The present Act allows the automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by British subjects resident in or with close connections with, Australia in 1949, when the Australian Citizenship Act came into force. It was, at that time, entirely reasonable that British subjects, including those ''aliens'' who had been naturalised, should automatically be granted the new Australian citizenship under the new Act. With the passing of 34 years since those transitional provisions were enacted, they are now irrelevant and the amendments will seek their repeal. There are historical reasons for the status of British subjects in the Act. When Australian citizenship was first created, it was one of many initiated by commonwealth countries under an all-embracing British subject nationality. The ' 'Common Code'' concept of uniting all commonwealth countries under the umbrella of British nationality is no longer valid. All other Commonwealth countries, including Britain itself, have abandoned this notion. Australia is now the only country in the world to continue to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. The amendments will provide for the repeal of the definition of British subject status from the Australian Citizenship Act at a date to be proclaimed following an examination of the implications for the operation of other commonwealth and State legislation which at present depends on the citizenship act definition. Let me emphasise that the changes to the act relating to British subject status derive from the need to provide equal rights for all groups, and have regard to developments overseas and the changes which have occurred in Australian society since 1949. We do not seek to prejudice the position of British settlers. Rather , we see it as fitting that Australian citizenship should have a unique status in Australia and be the basis in future of citizenship rights and privileges. The Bill proposes that the residence eligibility period for citizenship by grant be reduced from three years in the previous eight, to two years in the previous five years. It also proposes to relax the continuous residence requirement from the twelve months immediately preceding the application to twelve months residence in the previous two years. This change recognises the increasing difficulty which the current requirement can cause to people in a world which is increasingly internationally mobile. This bill proposes, however, that in future only legal permanent residence will count for residence purposes and that applicants will have to satisfy the minimum requirement before they can apply. Currently, there is a legal obligation upon the Minister and the Department to either approve or reject each application when processed. This has meant that some applicants who were not quite able to meet the requirements have had to be summarily rejected despite the likelihood of qualifying soon after. A new provision will allow a decision on an application for the grant of citizenship to be deferred for a period, or periods, of up to a total of twelve months to enable the applicant to meet one or more requirements. It also provides that persons serving a prison sentence, or under various other forms of detention or good behaviour probationary orders, are not eligible to be considered for citizenship. The declaration of allegiance made at the time that Australian citizenship is granted is, quite properly, regarded as of singular importance by many people. It incorporates three separate elements: The renunciation of former allegiance, a commitment to observe the laws of Australia and the declaration of new allegiance to Australia. There has already been considerable community discussion on this issue. There was strong support at the national consultations for wording which is distinctly Australian in character, which expresses full commitment to Australia, its laws and the constitution, and which avoids the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. The report on the consultations makes it clear that these views were shared by people from a variety of backrounds including holders of imperial awards and persons who expressed in other ways a wish to maintain a link with Britain. The honourable member for Balaclava, as minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in another place, drew attention in May 1982 to the confusion caused to many new settlers by this aspect of the existing oath and to the resistence of many people to taking such an oath. The Government has given careful consideration to whether it is desirable to have one form of allegiance which could avoid the public division of people which occurs now at citizenship cerrmonies with persons separated into two groups wishing to take either the oath or affirmation. This has been criticised for serving to accentuate people's differences of belief at a time when we should be emphasising their common commitment to their new nation. On the other hand, we recognise that many people wish to swear an oath before God when giving allegiance to their new nation. So we propose to adopt a new pledge of Australian citizenship to be made by all new citizens in either of two forms. The proposed wording for the first form is: ''I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any state other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen''. The alternative second form of pledge proposed is: ''I renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any other state other than Australia. I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully uphold the constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen''. The present renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous and does not make it clear whether people are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language and culture, or all three. I believe it is important that the future wording of the renunciation makes it clear that is is only allegiance as a citizen to one's former state or country that is being renounced. As a result of recent statements made by the Minister in another place about the desirability of having a more Australian form of allegiance, some members of the opposition have sought to make this a divisive public issue. They have been supported by a minority in the community which does not appear to accept the reality that Australia is now a multicultural community and an independent nation. People will simply be asked to swear allegiance to Australia and its laws and constitution. The two forms of pledge proposed will allow all people, whatever their views on religion to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. Neither form differentiates between Australians on the basis of their attitudes to the monarchy. While there may be legitimate differences of view on this issue, they should not, in the government's view, be invoked in an Australian citizenship ceremony. In the case of a person obtaining Australian citizenship by fraud, deceit, the concealment of information or any other dishonest means, the Minister will have discretion to deprive that person of citizenship. This discretion also extends to a person convicted of a major offence committed, but not known about, before the grant of citizenship. I stress that deprivation of Australian citizenship could only occur for offences committed before the grant of citizenship. Moreover, it will occur only if the responsible minister, after careful consideration of all the facts, is satisfied that it is in the public interest for a person not to remain an Australian citizen. The law will not allow a person to be deprived of citizenship if it has been obtained properly and honestly. The existing act discriminates on the basis of sex and marital status. Mothers, for example, do not have the same rights as fathers in determining their children's citizenship. It has been decided to amend the act to place mothers and fathers on an equal footing for all purposes related to their citizenship, and the citizenship of their children. All other discrimination on the grounds of gender and marital status will be removed. I now turn to the principal clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that the amending act shall come into operation on the 28th day after the date of royal assent, except certain specified clauses relating to the status of British subject in Australia which will come into force on a date to be proclaimed. This second commencement day is necessary to allow time for consequential amendments to be made to other legislation where the status of British subject is employed. Clause 4 amends section 5, to effect amongst other things, the removal of all discriminations and to insert some new interpretation provisions. Honourable senators will notice that, unlike the existing definition of 'responsible parent ' which is discriminatory on the basis of sex, this phrase will mean a person who is a natural parent of a child, or who, by reason of adoption, operation of law or a court order, has guardianship or custody of the child whether jointly or otherwise. In line with recent advances in the medical field, new sub- sections 5 (6), (7) and (8) are inserted to deem a child born to a woman as a result of artificial insemination or the implantation of an embryo in her body, to be the child of her and her husband where that medical procedure was carried out with the husband's consent. The existing definition of 'alien' which is discriminatory on the grounds of nationality and country of birth, is also being repealed. Consequential amendments are made throughout the act as a result of the removal of these discriminations. Clause 5 inserts new section 5A to give effect to government policy under which generally only permanent and lawful residents are eligible to apply for citizenship. A permanent resident for the purposes of citizenship is defined to mean a person whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to any limitation as to time imposed by law, who is not a prohibited immigrant before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983, or a prohibited non- citizen after the commencement of that act, and is not a person included in a class of persons exempt from the requirement of entry permit under section 8 of the Migration Act 1958, such as foreign diplomats and consular officials, etc. Permanent residents who are temporarily absent from Australia are not going to lose their status if they are holders of a return endorsement which remains in force. Under the migration act, there is provision to exempt certain categories of people from the requirement of an entry permit upon entry to Australia, including citizens of New Zealand. The proposed amendments to the Australian citizenship act will exclude all these exempt categories from being eligible for citizenship in terms of residential requirements. Such an exclusion would be anomalous and the bill therefore under new section 5A (2) will empower the Minister to declare certain categories of lawful residents to be permanent residents for the purposes of citizenship. The major group to be covered by this provision would be citizens of New Zealand. When the Act is amended, a person may acquire Australian citizenship by birth, by adoption, by descent or by grant. Clause 9 amends existing section 10 relating to citizenship by birth in Australia. At present, section 10 provides that persons born in Australia are Australian citizens by birth, unless at the time of birth, the father was a diplomat, a consular officer of a foreign country, or was an enemy alien. This provision does not apply when the mother was in one of these categories. The amendments will remove this discrimination and provide that, where a parent of the person was a diplomat, consular officer or enemy alien at the time of that person's birth, the person will nevertheless be an Australian citizen by birth if the other parent was an Australian citizen, a permanent resident, or a permanent resident who was not himself or herself an enemy alien. Clause 10 repeals section 11 on citizenship by descent, and substitutes new section 10A on citizenship by adoption and new section 10B on citizenship by descent. New section 10A will provide that a person who is present in Australia as a permanent resident and is adopted in Australia by an Australian citizen, is an Australian citizen by adoption: At present, a person in this situation may only acquire Australian citizenship by grant. The current act provides for a child born overseas to an Australian citizen to acquire Australian citizenship only if registered at an Australian consulate within five years of birth, or within some further period that the minister might allow. Under new section 10B, persons born to Australian citizens overseas , may acquire Australian citizenship by descent, if their names are registered at an Australian consulate within 18 years after birth, and where the person's Australian parent had himself or herself acquired Australian citizenship by descent, there will be an additional requirement that the parent was lawfully present in Australia for at least 2 years at any time before the registration. This additional requirement serves to emphasise the association with Australia. Of course, where the failure of meeting one or both requirements of new section 10B would render the person stateless, the person will be registered as an Australian citizen by descent, because of Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness. I refer honourable senators to clause 20 below. The Bill also contains in clause 41 (5) a transitional provision under which within 2 years after the commencement of this amending legislation, registration of citizenship by descent may be effected according to the old provisions. Clause 11 repeals existing section 13 on declaration of intention to apply for citizenship. This section neither assisted applicants nor contributed to the efficiency of administering the Act. Clause 11 also repeals section 14 on grant of Australian citizenship, and substitutes new sections 13 and 14. I have already highlighted the most important changes which are made to the requirement for citizenship by grant. The full conditions set out in new sub- section 13 (1) are that the minister must be satisfied that an applicant: is a permanent resident; has attained the age of 18 years; understands the nature of the application; has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than one year during the period of 2 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing the application; Has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than 2 years during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application; is of good character; possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, and if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship, the applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. There are of course provisions under Section 13 to ease some of the requirements for special cases such as people with physical or mental incapacities, and older people who have difficulties in learning English. For the purpose of computing the aggregate period of an applicant's presence in Australia, the Minister under new sub-section 13 (4):- (A) Must exclude the applicant's periods of confinement in a prison (except where his conviction was subsequently quashed), or in a psychiatric institution by order of a court (B) may, at his discretion, treat as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia- - a period during which the applicant was a permanent resident but absent overseas while engaging in activities beneficial to Australia; - a period prior to the 5 years during which the applicant was present in Australia, or ordinarily resident in Papua or New Guinea before their independence or in the independent state of Papua New Guinea between 16 September 1975 and 16 September 1978; - in case of hardship or disadvantage to an applicant if his application is rejected, the period of his lawful residence in Australia including Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands (for example as a temporary resident). Existing ministerial discretion to grant citizenship notwithstanding the requirements of sub-section 13 (1) is retained in sub-section 13 (9). The most important of these are powers to grant citizenship to a spouse, widow or widower of an Australian citizen, and to persons under the age of 18 years. New sub-section 13 (11) sets out specified situations where during a specified period of time, powers to grant a certificate of citizenship under section 13 are excluded. Clause 11 also inserts new section 14 to enable the Minister to defer consideration of an application for a maximum period of 12 months, where an applicant would be likely to satisfy the requirements of section 13 at a later time. Clause 12 amends section 15 to substitute two new pledges of Australian citizenship for the existing oath or affirmation of allegiance, to enable the pledge to be taken either before or after a certificate of citizenship is issued , and to require that those who are empowered to administer the pledge, are themselves Australian citizens. As I have already stated applicants can choose a secular or a religious based pledge as set out in schedule 1. Clause 13 repeals existing section 17 and substitutes new provisions to the effect that a person, being an Australian citizen of 18 years of age, will cease to be an Australian citizen, where an act is committed-whether inside or outside Australia, but other than marriage-specifically for the purpose of acquiring a foreign nationality or citizenship. But where that act was done under duress or unwittingly, clause 17 provides that the person may, at the discretion of the Minister, resume Australian citizenship lost under new section 17. Clause 15 amends section 21 on deprivation of citizenship. Under section 21 as to be amended, the Minister will have power to deprive a person of Australian citizenship on the basis of not only conviction under section 50 of the Act, but also conviction of an offence committed before the grant of a certificate of citizenship for which a sentence carries at least 12 months imprisonment. The Minister may only exercise this power he considers that it would be contrary to the public interest for that person to retain Australian citizenship. Clause 15 also inserts an interpretative provision to take into account sub-section 19B (1 ) of the crimes act 1914 on conditional release of offenders without proceeding to conviction. The powers of deprivation of citizenship are made subject to Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness, to which clause 20 of the bill gives effect. Clause 16 amends section 23 dealing with children of persons who lose or are deprived of citizenship. Paragraphs 16(a)-(f) amends sub-sections 23 (1) and (2) of the act to effect formal amendments and to remove discriminatory references. Paragraph 16 (g) inserts a new sub-section to ensure that a child would not lose Australian citizenship under sub-sections 23 (1) or 23 (2) where another responsible parent of the child is and continues to be an Australian citizen, or , if that other responsible parent dies while an Australian citizen, at any time after the death of that other responsible parent. The remaining clauses, with the exemption of clause 36, are of a technical nature or consequential upon other amendments clause 36 inserts new section 52A into the Act to confer determinative jurisdiction to the administrative appeals tribunal (AAT) to review certain categories of decisions on merits under the Act . At present, there is no such right of review. The new approach is consistent with the Government's commitment to protect individual's right to fair and equitable treatment by government agencies. The AAT review will, in my view, not only enhance the quality of citizenship decisions but also ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done in individual cases. Under new section 52A, the AAT will not only review on merit, but will also have power to substitute its own decision for the decision complained of. The following decisions are subject to review: decisions refusing the grant of citizenship under section 13; decisions under sub-section 23D (1), refusing registration for citizenship purposes, in favour of a person who was born in Australia and who is not and has never been, a citizen of any country; decisions under section 18, refusing renunciation of Australian citizenship ( except decisions relating to sub-section 18 (5) which deals with the refusal in time of war); decisions under sub-section 21 (1) depriving a person of his Australian citizenship, or under sub-section 23 (2) relating to children or persons who are deprived of citizenship; decisions under section 47 relating to amendments of a certificate of Australian citizenship; decisions under section 23A and 23B relating to resumption of citizenship by children of persons who ceased to be Australian citizens under the repealed Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-1955; and decisions under sub-section 23AA (2) refusing resumption of Australian citizenship by persons who lost their Australian citizenship under section 17 ( which I have referred to above). As only permanent residents are eligible to apply for citizenship under sub- section 13 (1), rights to AAT review of decisions under the sub-section are confined to them. However, any person who is affected by any other decision under the abovementioned sections is entitled to review by the AAT. New section 52B imposes a duty on the decision-maker to advise the person who is affected by such a decision, of that person's right to review by the AAT. Indeed, honourable senators will notice that where appropriate throughout the Bill, new provisions are inserted to require decision-makers to notify affected persons of their decision. These include the following new sub-sections: 13 (12) and 14 (3) in clause 11, 21 (3) in clause 15, 23 (4) in clause 16, and 23D (2) in clause 20. Honourable senators will also notice that penalties for offences under the Act and Regulations (that is to say sections 48, 49, 50 and 53 (J)) have been revised to be consistent with the levels of penalty for comparable offences in other legislation of the Commonwealth. The proposed changes affect almost every aspect of the Act in some way. The requirements to be met for acquiring Australian citizenship both in Australia and overseas will be significantly changed. It is important that these changes be publicised to ensure they are known to as many people as possible and that people are not adversely affected by not being aware of the new requirements. $ 60,000 has been allocated to produce information brochures and other material setting out the changes. I impress upon senators that citizenship plays a key part in the personal and public lives of all Australians. Citizenship brings with it a commitment to Australia on the part of the citizen; it also gives the citizen an entitlement to a range of rights and privileges. Over recent years senators have shown a strong wish to reform the Citizenship Act to overcome anomalies and to remove unreasonable impediments to acquiring Australian citizenship. Some senators have acknowledged that, in this way, many of those permanent residents of Australia who have not secured Australian citizenship are likely to be encouraged to do so . In the past there has been a high level of bi-partisanship over both the need for reform and the direction which such reforms should take. I appeal to all honourable senators to recognise the importance of these measures to Australia and to consider the amendments to the legislation in a constructive and far- sighted way. We are a most fortunate nation, the only single nationality on earth to possess a complete continent. We have developed a multicultural society to share that continent. But while we encourage individuals within that multicultural society to retain various cultural and social links with countries of origin, we believe multiculturalism must offer equal opportunity to all within that society. We wish that no-one should be disadvantaged or suffer discrimination as a result of multiculturalism. These long overdue improvements to Australian citizenship legislation which offer encouragement and incentive to those eligible to attain and enjoy the benefits of Australian citizenship are completely commensurate with this philosophy. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to establish the National Measurement Act by amending the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960, to create a hierarchy of standards consistent with both modern and international practice and to clarify the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission in the light of modern technology. The establishment and use of a common and uniform system of weights and measures has a long history which may be traced back in written records to the earliest civilisations. Today's high technology society requires a far more complex and extensive system and cannot be satisfied by standards for the measurement of length and weight only. A uniformly applied system of measurement is as essential to modern society as a common language or monetary system. Under Section 51 (xv) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth has power to make laws in respect of weights and measures and as a result it established the National Standards Commission in 1948. The Principal Act under which the Commission operates is the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960. In practice, and by mutual agreement, the Commonwealth has limited the application of its power to legislation covering uniform measurement standards whilst the States and Territories have legislated to regulate weighing and measuring practices in the market place. The activities are complementary and combine to give Australia a uniform measuring system applied honestly and consistently everywhere. The principles expressed in the Bill now before you have been discussed with those Ministers of States and Territories who are responsible for weights and measures and have their support. The National Standards Commission is responsible for establishing and co- ordinating the use in Australia of a uniform system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities and for approving the pattern of measuring instruments for use in trade to ensure accuracy and reliability in service. In this era of rapid technological change, the States have looked to the Commission to play an increasing role in matters such as the promotion of uniform principles in State legislation relating to trade measurements and use of units of measurement in the packaging of goods. Trade measuring devices presented for pattern approval have increased in complexity and are often integrated with other devices such as computers. The Bill proposes to give legal effect to the increasingly important role undertaken by the Commission in the new technological age. This Bill increases the number of Commissioners on the National Standards Commission from a Chairman and four members to a Chairman and six members. This is necessary in order to provide adequate representation of consumer and industry groups. Amendments contained in this Bill will permit units which are prescribed as being additional to Australian legal units to be used in specified classes of transactions and so modifies the requirement that contracts be made only in terms of Australian legal units. The Bill also puts beyond doubt the validity of existing contracts made in terms of Australian legal units which subsequently cease to be Australian legal units. This amendment has been inserted at the request of the States. As the official system of measurement in Australia is now the metric system this Bill also proposes the repeal of the Metric Conversion Act 1970. The Metric Conversion Board was established under the Metric Conversion Act 1970 as a transitional body to promote, help and guide conversion from the imperial to the metric system of measurement. Conversion was substantially completed by 1980 and appointments to the Board expired on 30 June 1981. Remaining ongoing conversion activities relate essentially to industries reliant on long life equipment, such as heavy engineering; and those industries influenced by international agreement such as aviation. The Bill provides for the transfer to the National Standards Commission of responsibility for these residual metric conversion activities. In summary the Bill provides for: (A) An updating of the hierarchy of standards of physical measurement in accordance with modern practice; (B) A clear definition of the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission; (C) A definition of the objects of the Act including the continuation of the objects of the Metric Conversion Act 1970; (D) Amendments permitting units which are prescribed as being additional to Australian legal units to be used in specified classes of transactions and the validity of existing contracts made in terms of either Australian legal units which subsequently cease to be Australian legal units, or of these specified additional units of measurement. (E) An increase in membership of the Commission from Chairman and four members to Chairman and six members. The financial impact of this Bill relates only to the two additional Commission members and the transfer to the Commission of residual metric conversion activities. The cost of the additional two Commissioners will be approximately $ 6,600 in 1984-85 and metric conversion activities will within a period of three years reduce in cost by an amount of $48,000. I am pleased to announce therefore that the Government anticipates total savings in this are, overall of approximately $40,000 by 1985-86. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate . Debate (on the motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision, announced on 12 January 1984, to pay a temporary bounty for two years from that date on the production in Australia of two-stroke air cooled, spark ignition engines. Engines up to a maximum power output of 4.5 kilowatts with an Australian content of not less than 55 per cent will be eligible for the bounty if, during the two- year bounty period, they are sold for use in Australia or used in Australia by the manufacturer. The rate of bounty is to be $6 per engine and bounty payments are to be limited to a maximum of $1.2m per annum. The bounty is designed to assist established manufacturers who were producing these engines at the time of the Government's announcement. It is part of a package of industry assistance determined by the Government following consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's report of 6 July 1983 on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. Australian production of engines, other than motor vehicle engines, has diminished very rapidly in recent years. Such engines have in the past been produced by James N. Kirby Pty Ltd, Norton Villiers, Simpson Pope Ltd, Toowoomba Foundry and Victa Ltd. By the time of the last IAC inquiry in 1977, only Norton Villiers, Toowoomba and Victa were involved in engine production. Today the only producer is Victa which produces a single engine model for use mainly in its lawnmowers. To remain competitive, Victa has incurred considerable expenditure in the development of a new engine, the Series 80. This engine has fewer parts, reportedly incorporates the latest available 2-stroke engine technology, and has a lower cost of production. Victa has indicated that the engine is suited to many industrial applications, in competition with imported 4-stroke engines. The potential for increased export sales by Victa has been considerably enhanced by the new engine. Manufacture of this new engine commenced in 1983 and full production is expected to begin in August 1984. In its report, the IAC considered that the then existing general duty rate of 35 per cent on engine imports provided effective assistance in excess of that available to manufacturing industry generally and tended to penalise the relatively lightly assisted engine using industries. The commission considered a 15 per cent duty would provide Victa with a rate of return on funds employed of about the same order achieved by manufacturing industry generally in recent years, and would be sufficient to maintain local engine production. Accordingly, the IAC recommended that the 35 per cent duty be reduced to 25 per cent immediately and be further phased down to 15 per cent over two years. The Government considered the reduction in assistance as recommended by the IAC could endanger the continued production of small engines, and decided that the long term duty rate should be 25 per cent. In line with other power sources such as electric motors and motor vehicle engines. To assist the wide range of engine users, it was decided that the duty reduction should be immediate. However, to give Victa time to adjust to the lower level of assistance and to have an opportunity to develop new markets for the engine; to thoroughly test its commercial attractiveness, and to recoup some of the developmental costs, the Government has decided to pay a temporary bounty for two years. The proposed bounty of $6 per engine roughly equates to a 10 per cent duty and will effectively maintain the existing level of assistance for the next two years. In taking this decision the Government was mindful of its desire to encourage industries which are willing to undertake research and development activities and modernise their operations to improve their long term viability. To ensure that assistance for engine production is not undermined by imported lawnmowers which incorporate engines, the Government also decided that the duty on lawnmowers should remain at 25 per cent, instead of 15 per cent as recommended by the IAC. The Government accepted the IAC's recommendation that engines not made in Australia be dutiable at minimum rates. The assistance accorded lawnmowers and engines will be referred to the IAC for a further review in four years time. Financial Impact Statement I indicated earlier that there will be an annual upper limit on bounty payments of $1.2 million. The maximum cost of this bounty scheme will therefore be $2.4 million over the two year bounty period. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos. 1 and 2 standing in my name relating to the disallowance of certain regulations, be postponed till four sitting days after today. This postponement is made at the request of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who has commitments with overseas guests. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos. 3 and 4 standing in my name relating to the disallowance of a certain ordinance and regulations, be postponed till four sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Motion Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That General Business Order of the Day No. 53 (Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2) ) be considered after Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 (Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 and Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984). Consideration resumed from 3 May 1984. The CHAIRMAN —When the Committee last considered the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill 1984 it rejected clause 5. It will now be necessary to reconsider clause 2 (2) because it is irrelevant or unnecessary with the deletion of clause 5. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.15) —Mr Chairman, I have been requested by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to try to clarify the position as a result of the decision of the Committee on Thursday in respect of clause 5 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill 1984. The Minister for Transport has authorised me to say that he is amazed that Opposition senators have seen fit to reject the legislation which responds to the request of the States which they are supposed to represent . Amendments to the tendering provisions were supported by all the States, including Queensland and Tasmania. Senator Jack Evans —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. This is now discussion on a clause of the Bill which in fact has already been determined by the Committee. I believe that it is going over old ground at an inappropriate stage. The CHAIRMAN —Yes. We have not actually agreed to reconsider sub-clause 2 (2). The Minister is in danger of reflecting on a vote of the Committee. Although I think it would be helpful for the Minister to make very brief remarks, he must not develop the argument because the Committee has dealt with clause 5 and has refused to accept it. Senator GIETZELT —That is true, Mr Chairman. But it is agreed that, as a result of that, sub-clause 2 (2) at page 1 of the Bill has to be either recommitted or set aside. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee that sub-clause 2 (2) be reconsidered? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question is: That sub-clause 2 (2) stand as printed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.17) —I wish to oppose the rejection by the Committee of clause 5 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill and in so doing to point out that the assurances that were sought of me during consideration of that clause obviously could not have been given without my having discussed the matters with the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I think honourable senators will appreciate that the questions asked of me by Senator Jack Evans required certain assurances with respect to clause 5 of the Bill which I was not able to give at the time. Having had the opportunity of being advised by the Minister, I would think that the assurances which the Minister is prepared to give would answer the questions asked of me and should at least be placed on the public record, even if the clause is not to be reconsidered. It must surely be appreciated that the far-reaching assurances that Senator Jack Evans and also Senator Macklin sought of me were of such a nature that it was not possible for me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, to give those assurances without consultation with the Minister. The Minister has now provided me with the basic information that these provisions are supported by all the States and the changes contained in the Bill are not directed towards undermining the tendering principle or towards getting less value for money. I draw the attention of the Committee, now that we are dealing with a revision of the attitude of the Committee towards clause 2, to the fact that the changes proposed which arise out of the Committee's decision to delete clause 5 from the Bill are not in compliance with the assurances the Minister gave in his second reading speech. The changes proposed in the Bill are intended to remove the need to go to tender when it is impracticable or not cost effective to do so. I would have thought that the Queensland senators in particular would have been aware of the fact that Mr Hinze criticised that very provision for tendering in the original 1982 legislation. In fact, we were seeking to accommodate the Queensland Government's view; that is, that in circumstances under which it believes it is not possible to apply the original 1982 legislation, it can initiate action to gain exemption from those provisions . In those circumstances, without necessarily suggesting that there should be a reconsideration of clause 5, I think honourable senators ought to be aware of the assurances that the Minister has given and that those assurances have arisen as a result of painstaking negotiations with all the States. I stress that, having regard to the fact that the original amendment was moved by the honourable senator from Tasmania who said that the Tasmanian Government, in fact , supported clause 5 of the Bill that we are currently debating. So to take out clause 2 presents a very difficult problem insofar as that from 12 February-I think it was-this year, clause 5 has been operating in conjunction with the States. As I indicated in the debate in the Committee of the Whole, we have placed both the States concerned as well as the Minister in a very invidious position because we have taken away their rights which have been agreed to by the Commonwealth in consultation with the States. I stress again that what was intended by clause 5 was a clause which provided for an emergency situation, for the odd or one-off situation where, in a particular far-flung region, it was not possible to have a tendering system operating in respect of day labour. Senator Bjelke-Petersen laid great emphasis upon the position of local authorities in those sorts of cases. She related such cases to her own experience when she worked for the Queensland Department of Main Roads or a similar organisation in that State. So I stress that tenders need not be called in situations where minor works are involved and going to the tender would involve undue additional costs. In other words, where going to tender does not represent value for money the States can initiate contact with the Commonwealth. If the evidence is there, the Minister may exercise the discretion which is provided for under clause 5 of the Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(9.22) —During the early debate on this matter a number of points were made. I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) for his explanation and for his assurances from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). However, it still leaves the problem dangling of what we debated yesterday. But I will not go into that. I recognise that we are debating clause 2 and not clause 5. The minister has got himself into a bind simply because the acceptance of clause 5 was taken for granted and was made retrospective by clause 2 which now has to be reconsidered. To ensure that everybody understands what it is that we are considering, clause 2 states: (1) This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2) The amendments made by section 5 shall be deemed to have taken effect on 12 February 1984. Clause 5 was not agreed to by the Senate yesterday. That is why we must now delete that reference in the Bill. Clause 5 will not only have prospective effect, but also it cannot have retroactive effect. That may cause some embarrassment to the Minister. It may cause some embarrassment to the Government and to other people. But I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Minister to take the assent of the Senate for granted in pursuing actions which would contravene the existing Act, the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. That seems to be the matter of concern at the moment, because, if acts have taken place which contravene the existing legislation, the Minister will have to unscramble such situations and get out of them in the best way that he can. He has my sympathy because he is probably acting in good faith. But it will be a salutory lesson for him and for Ministers in the House of Representatives not to take the Senate for granted and not to expect automatic approval of legislation which may prove to be controversial and which may receive amendment in the Senate. I think that the actions of the Government and of the Minister in this case are not only unfortunate, because they have taken this matter for granted, but also go further than that. As the spokesperson for the Australian Democrats on transport matters I was not consulted on this contentious matter at any stage prior to the presentation of the Bill to the Senate. I made my own representations to the Minister to more clearly understand the significance of clause 5. I took representations from the private contractors to understand their point of view, and judging from the remarks of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport in this place their point of view has certainly been partly ignored in the speeches that have been made in this place by the Minister, if not in total. I think that that is the key to the whole point that is being made. It is not just a matter of catering for the interests of the statutory bodies of the State government road departments and local government road authorities; it is a matter of providing and ensuring the continuance of the balance between private contractors and public contractors in road works under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. That is the point of the rejection of clause 5 by both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. The regrettable consequence of that is that any actions that have been taken prior to this legislation being considered by the Senate will now have to be undone. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.26) —I am temporarily looking after the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 on behalf of the Opposition because this morning Senator Peter Rae has been detained briefly on some other business. The Committee is debating what is essentially a consequential amendment. As the Committee yesterday opposed the inclusion of clause 5 in the Bill and it has been removed, it is of course unnecessary to have sub-clause (2) of clause 2. I therefore confirm that the Opposition will be opposing the motion presently before the Committee that that sub-clause stand as printed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.27) —As I understand it, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has discussed the legislation with Senator Jack Evans. As the honourable senator will appreciate, the only amendment that was circulated dealt with the levy arrangements which were designed to introduce an amendment associated with a money Bill. Until such time as the amendment was moved by Senator Peter Rae in respect of clause 5, it was not in the hands of the Government to debate or discuss the consequential amendment. It now appears that one or two members in the Opposition-I am excluding the Australian Democrats-on the basis of my statement this morning, do appreciate that perhaps there is a need to reconsider this matter and for a conference to be held with the Minister for Transport in order to clarify the views that have been expressed by Senator Jack Evans. Having regard to the fact that the Minister made a statement on 12 February that this would be the course of action that would be taken, he has been placed in a very difficult position as a result of the decision taken by the Senate on Wednesday. Whilst it is true that the Minister has not yet approved any exemptions, nevertheless I understand he currently has some of them before him. I am wondering whether the Committee would be prepared to report progress on this matter so that the difference that does exist in this chamber in view of what has been said to me by some Queensland senators in respect of this legislation, may be clarified, with a view to not only not embarrassing the Government but also the State governments concerned that have agreed to the arrangements and made certain submissions on this matter to the Minister. That would be preferable to putting us in a position in which clause 5 is rejected by this chamber. Therefore, I suggest that a few days delay would not create as much embarrassment as would be created if we were to proceed with the discussion of the Bill. Even though I appreciate that Senator Boswell, who has raised the matter with me, is seeking consultation on the matter with his colleague, perhaps the Senate would be prepared to report progress until such time as clause 5 can be clarified. I move: That progress be reported. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guifoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Foreman, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Grimes, D. J. Rae, PeterButton, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. McIntosh, G. D. Townley, M. Evans, Gareth Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Jack Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.39) —The Opposition supports the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 introduced by Senator Jack Evans on behalf of the Australian Democrats. As will be realised, the Bill is in accordance with the attitudes expressed by the Opposition when dealing with an earlier Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill on this subject in March. That was a Bill to which we took exception on the grounds of its retrospective application to 1 July 1977. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill introduced by Senator Jack Evans is one that concords with the Government's proposals but which removes the retrospective element. It ought to be said at this time that the Bill also is in accordance with a notice of motion found in the House of Representatives Hansard of 30 March which was moved by Mr Howard, the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, to the effect that we would support the reintroduction of the measures that were contained in the Bill that we had defeated if the retrospective element were removed. I think that those who followed the debate on the earlier Bill in regard to this matter of employer superannuation funds will recognise that we were unable to have information provided to us that gave grounds for the necessity of the retrospective application. When introducing the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2)-now on the Senate Notice Paper-and in reintroducing the same measures, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out that the policy of retrospective application of anti-avoidance legislation was one which the Government put before the people of Australia on 5 March last year and was one on which it was elected to government. He said: In the Government's view these tax avoidance practices are clearly in that category of schemes which we intended would be covered by our retrospective policy. He said earlier in that second reading speech: It is one where the losers are the taxpayers of Australia, and the winners are those who seek to enjoy the benefits and privileges of living in this country without meeting their rightful share of the tax burden. It should also be said that the losers under the schemes that are described are the employees who do not benefit from the superannuation schemes supposedly set up for their benefit. That was a point made particularly by Senator Harradine and other honorable senators in this place. They said that employees have not been covered by the legislation introduced by the Government but rather the retrospective application of tax measures will be for the benefit of the public revenue. I take this opportunity to repeat that any statements made by the Government to the effect that the Opposition is acting as a friend of the tax avoidance industry-- Senator Walsh —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I was not in the chamber earlier today but I understand agreement was reached to the effect that there would be a cognate debate on the Australian Democrats' Bill, that is the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill, and the Government's Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2). If I am correct Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle technically is addressing the Democrats' Bill but is speaking to both. That is quite acceptable as far as I am concerned. It has not been formally declared that this is a cognate debate. I request that this be so declared. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —From the point of view of procedure it will make very little difference if the Bills are debated cognately because they are substantially the same, with only one difference. I would not have ruled any honourable senator out of order for discussing both Bills simultaneously. Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering these two measures? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr Deputy President, I am quite happy to proceed along those lines although I was not aware that a formal arrangement had been made that there would be a cognate debate. It is a simple matter for me to address my remarks to the Bill which the Government has before the Senate. In that context I assert very strongly that in taking the view that we have, the Opposition is not acting as a friend of the tax avoidance industry because the record will show that as a government we brought more tax avoidance legislation into the Parliament than any government that preceded us. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) when addressing a meeting of accountants in Sydney a couple of weeks ago made it clear that the tax avoidance industry in Australia was finished as an issue. It therefore sits rather peculiarly with those words to find that we have a reintroduction of a Bill introducing retrospectivity to a date in July 1977. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that he would make an issue of tax avoidance. Whether this is one of the elements of that issue remains to be seen. In a more general way the Opposition would be very grateful if it could have answers to the questions posed by a number of honourable senators when we were last dealing with the Bill. All sorts of questions were raised, and answers were not given to matters that were raised, with regard to the incidence of this activity. One notorious case is cited again and again. We are not given information as to what is the incidence of this activity and why the application of the legislation should date back to 1977 other than, as I see was noted in the instructions to the parliamentary draughtsman, that this was the first date on which the Commissioner of Taxation became aware of the problem. That date in 1977 sits uneasily with the information that was provided on the last occasion that we debated this legislation, and information further provided by Mr Howard in the House of Representatives-when we dealt with it again-on the correspondence that he had with the Commissioner of Taxation when he was the Treasurer. On 7 September 1979 Mr Howard sent a memo to the Commissioner in which he said: I continue to sign a lot of mail replying to people-many in the Life Insurance Industry-who complain about the level of tax avoidance in regard to superannuation schemes. We appear to have had this issue under notice for a while. What is the position? Are there any blatant practices against which action should be taken? This was followed up by another memo from Mr Howard's office on 20 November 1979 , when he asked for a reply and asked what was happening with regard to the schemes in question. On 8 February Mr Howard received a lengthy response from the Commissioner-and this was tabled in the House of Representatives-in which the Commissioner said: The main problem in dealing with this matter is that the corrective measures that seem to be appropriate would also cause difficulties to the very large number of funds that must be regarded as completely genuine in every way. This will be evident from an examination of the kind of corrective actions that are indicated. The Commissioner concluded his memo by saying: Because, in revenue terms, we have larger avoidance problems in other areas and . . . because of the need to make certain that no avoidable difficulties are created in genuine superannuation funds, I would recommend that you await the comments of the Task Force before undertaking any corrective measures to deal with actual or potential misuse of the superannuation concessions. That leads me to ask why, when the Commissioner said that in the memo, we have the sort of legislation that is before us with the retrospective effect to which we take objection. Mr Howard stated further than no evidence had been given to him that the advice that the Commissioner gave him in February 1980 was wrong. Mr Howard did not find convincing the supplementary letter produced by the Government in the previous debate from the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Bouchier, saying that there was nothing inconsistent with the advice quoted above and that which was now being given to the Government by the Department to go ahead with the retrospective legislation. It would seem that we should have some access to information that has not yet been provided of the number of schemes that are affected and why at this time there should be legislative provision dating retrospectively to 1977, when in 1979 and 1980 it was said that there was no great problem involved. It is a matter of importance to us to see that the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act are upheld. When we looked at the provisions relating to these funds-section 23F and other provisions in the income tax Act-we were unable to be provided with any information as to why the Commissioner could not deal with the problem under existing law and, in particular, why he needed to have legislation that dated back to 1977, given that he now has Part IVA and that the date from which that takes effect would cover a large part of the ground which he now seeks to cover by this retrospective legislation. If he was saying in 1979 and 1980 that there was no great incidence of problem and there would be difficulty in acting because of the substantial number of proper funds that were being properly dealt with, we find some inconsistency with that advice and the repeated assertion that we now need some retrospective legislation. I think that the notice of motion that is before the House of Representatives from Mr Howard and the Bill that is now before us from Senator Jack Evans adequately cover prospectively any difficulty that is unable to be met by existing legislation to cover improper use of employer superannuation funds. It would seem to me that if the Government is genuine in wanting to deal with this problem it ought to accept that the retrospective aspect of it should be covered adequately in information given to us. I could instance a number of questions that were raised in the earlier debate by Senator Chipp, Senator Hill, other speakers and me. We asked certain questions relating to the law and to the incidence of the problem. At one time we were given a figure of some 15 million concerning the effect of the legislation. But at no time do we feel that we have been given adequate information to substantiate the application of the retrospective element of this legislation. It would seem to me that to continue to debate the matter of retrospectivity- something to which the Senate has objected in principle-and to continue to fail to provide information that would substantiate this, has led the Opposition to a particular course of action. Prior to the introduction of the Bill by Senator Jack Evans we had in our minds that we should refer the Government's current legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to see whether we could extract before that Committee the information that we are unable to extract in the Senate by asking questions of the Minister who is handling the Bill for the Government. We are still of the view that if there is a great problem in this area, if there is information that can be given to us-there are precise questions that have been raised and that are unanswered- a short hearing before the Finance and Government Operations Commitee should enable us to have the information that would substantiate the Government's reasons for a retrospective Bill. The Opposition at all times has made it clear that it will support the prospective application of such legislation, although we still have some problem in understanding its need, because of the other sections of the income tax Act that could be used by the Commissioner. But we are also prepared to have that tested before the Finance and Government Operations Committee. We do not wish to adopt the procedure to delay the Bill. In fact, if it so happens that we require an amendment to refer the Government's Bill to the Finance and Government Operations Committee after the second reading stage, we would seek to have the Committee report back by 31 May this year so that the matter could be satisfactorily dealt with in this session of parliament. However, at the moment we have a cognate debate on Senator Jack Evans's Bill, which provides that all of the provisions of the Government Bill would apply from December of last year; that is, the date of the introduction of the first Bill by the Treasurer. I also foreshadow that, if it is required, at the appropriate stage I will move an amendment on behalf of the Opposition to refer the Government's Bill to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I hope that this morning the Senate will be able to deal with this matter satisfactorily. As I indicated earlier, the Opposition supports the Bill that has been introduced by Senator Jack Evans on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.54) —We are debating cognately two Bills-the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984-which relate basically to identical items. Those items have been the subject of considerable discussion in the Senate from time to time. The legislation inserts a proposed new section 26A to deal with section 23F, superannuation funds. The history of this matter is rather interesting and I think it ought to be retold at this stage. Many businesses, in seeking additional funds, took advantage of the tax laws to provide funds through superannuation schemes. Those superannuation schemes, once established, would loan back money to the company where employees were the subject of that superannuation scheme. The proceedings with these schemes did not seem to worry anybody terribly much and in fact were available for quite some considerable time before the Commissioner of Taxation issued a series of guidelines as to how these particular funds were meant to be conducted. Very detailed guidelines were issued in 1980, but were dated 1979. They effectively regularised the entire area. When the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) came on for debate, the Government claimed that the legislation needed to be backdated to 1 July 1977 for a variety of reasons, depending on which Government speaker one listened to. Indeed, one Government member in the House of Representatives suggested that that was the first date on which something was discovered. Fairly obviously, that is not the case. If one looks for other reasons at the year 1977 , I think one very clearly sees that 1977 is an excellent date to date the legislation on the basis that it was precisely the year that the enormous jump occurred in bankruptcies and failures of business. The connection between these two is not difficult to see. Essentially this Bill deals with excessive payments . Excessive payments could come about either through malpractice or through natural occurrences within the market place. I will just spell out a problem that may occur: For example, a small business that employed 30 people in the midst of the recession in the Fraser years may have been struggling to survive. In its effort to survive it would naturally seek to reduce its work force. It may have reduced its work force from 30 staff to five staff and then still failed to manage to stay alive and then went over the edge. In those circumstances, the remaining employees of that small business would undoubtedly receive what could be seen as an excessive payment under section 23F. It is interesting that the Taxation Commissioner did not see that at the time as an excessive payment. Indeed as it went on, even as late as 8 February 1980, the Taxation Commissioner still did not see that particular problem as an excessive payment. Failures of businesses in 1977-78 were double those of the previous year. If one is looking to grab in a few dollars, that is the time to start, not 1 July 1978, 1979 or 1980, but 1977. I believe that is the reason for that particular date and no other, but that does not address the issue in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) as to why the Government would seek to have the legislation backdated. Hopefully the Income Tax Assessment Bill, which was introduced by Senator Jack Evans, will receive the support of this chamber. It expresses the views of everyone in this chamber that to regularise matters in this area, we do need legislation on top of the guidelines provided by the Taxation Commissioner. I am not at all sure- unfortunately I have not been able to get any evidence from the Government-as to how successful the Taxation Commissioner's guidelines have been. The hope is that they have been successful. But whether they have been successful or not is immaterial as to whether one would support the legislation introduced by Senator Jack Evans. I believe that there are good reasons for doing that at this stage. However, the Government's Bill still introduces a further item. Let us look at the Act that this legislation is seeking to amend. Section 23F exempts from income tax the income of the fund. Section 23F (2) provides: (a) the fund is an indefinitely continuing fund established and maintained solely for either or both of the following purposes: (i) the provision of superannuation benefits for employees in the event of their retirement or in other circumstances of a kind approved by the Commissioner; and (ii) the provision of superannuation benefits for dependants of employees in the event of the death of employees; It follows that if the fund is not being maintained for the benefit of its member-this is what the Government is arguing-the income of the fund is assessable and contributions to the fund are not deductible. The Commissioner may, as the law currently stands, attack the income of the fund and the employer and employee contributions. He can do that in each and every tax year. If it is not a bona fide superannuation fund and if there has not been a full and true disclosure, the Commissioner may tax income in the relevant fund and disallow as deductions contributions to that fund. In other words, the legislation as it now stands imposes a series of obligations on the employer in undertaking such a fund for the benefits of the employees. There are obligations, and the guidelines of the Commissioner spell those out in far greater detail. That is the current legal status. It is not a free for all; not everybody can do what he likes with it. The Taxation Commissioner has extremely wide powers. The Government has argued that the legislation needs to go back to 1977 because these funds or the companies may not now exist. I think that particular item has to be met. The point is that if we could devise a mechanism whereby the employees gained a benefit out of what we might be doing and not the Consolidated Revenue, I must admit that we would be much more interested in looking at what mechanism might be able to be applied. There is a very simple one; that is, this Government could provide legal aid to employees to challenge in the courts and seek their personal entitlements; in other words, seek cases that they have been criminally defrauded or what other common law openings there are to them. If one looks at recent legal judgments in this area, I think that one can be assured that if an employee has sufficient legal funds he will get compensation out of whoever has got those moneys in a way that he should not have got those moneys. In other words, discussions about the Raymor case or any other case are immaterial. If we are concerned about employees let us help the employees get their just deserts. This Government has no interest in helping the employees get their money back. It is concerned only with getting money for Consolidated Revenue. If the employees were supported in legal actions the so-called concern of the Government in terms of this legislation would evaporate. The Government always talks about the amount that has been denied to Consolidated Revenue. It does not talk about the amount that has been denied to employees by employers. It does not talk about what it will do to support those people in getting their just entitlements. That, after all, was the substance of the Raymor case, details of which were circulated by the Minister. I support the proposals in both Bills to structure the law in a particular way. As I have indicated previously, I have supported all the changes that have been proposed. I am one of only nine people out of 188 in this Parliament who have opposed every retrospective penal sanction that has been brought in, whether it has been brought in by a Liberal-National Party government or by a Labor Party government. I stand by that decision on the basis that I believe it is purely a matter of a person's civil liberties. I would sit well, if not in this country, in an international community which finds this abhorrent. Senator Tate —Not at Westminster. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Tate has moved, of course, out of the civil libertarians by means of his interjection. He is quite happy to deny the United Nations charters, the United States of America Constitution and many other constitutions that have sought precisely not to do this. It is interesting that the proposed Constitution which is currently being discussed in New Zealand has this in it. All political parties support the fact that a retrospective element is indeed an attack upon a person's civil liberties. I wish to refer to one other item which was raised by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in an interview on the AM program. Senator Tate —I will take a point of order on you now. Senator MACKLIN —Would the honourable senator like to do that now? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! I ask the honourable senator to address the chair. Senator Tate —Yes, how about addressing the Chair instead of attacking me. Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Tate did not interject he would not be attacked. The Prime Minister said: I have a fairly firm conviction the Australian people are not going to look with a great deal of satisfaction upon the fact that they, the ordinary law- abiding citizens and taxpayers of this country, have been milked, as they say, of over $500m by these friends of the tax avoiders-the Liberals, the Nationals and the Democrats. He goes on to describe those people in the Senate who opposed the tax legislation as 'the friends of the tax cheats'. In response to that I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him whether that view was correct. At the time I had not heard the AM program. I have only recently been given a copy of the transcript. The only knowledge I had of that was an article in the Weekend Australian of 21 and 22 April in which those words 'friends of tax cheats' appeared. I sought clarification from him as to whether the quote contained in that article was true. I had received no response from the Prime Minister yesterday, when I sent him an urgent telegram to this effect: Your comments on ABC's 'AM' program (April 19th, 1984) in which you stated that the Democrats were 'friends of tax avoiders', and again in the Weekend Australian April 21-22, 1984, in which you are quoted as saying that the Democrats were 'friends of tax cheats', have been brought to my notice. I am deeply disturbed by this untruth and refer you to all speeches I have made inside and outside of the Senate on this issue. The matter is exceptionally damaging to me and I respectfully seek your immediate public withdrawal of the allegation. Because of special reasons I would respectfully request you to issue a statement to that effect today. Again I have had no response from the Prime Minister. I refer, in relation to my view of people who break the law, the Senate to every speech that I have made in this place and indeed to my public pronouncements before I was elected to this place. I am still, and always have been, firmly of the opinion that people who break the law in this area not only gain a benefit for themselves but also attack other citizens in this country. That has been my view all alomg. Indeed, my feelings about the Prime Minister are identical to feelings about Mr Fraser which he expressed on 18 February 1982. Those people who want to find out what they are can look up page 321 of the House of Representatives Hansard. Senator Walsh —He called him a liar. Senator MACKLIN —The feelings expressed in the House of Representatives Hansard are precisely my feelings about him. I have stated my position as clearly and concisely as I can. I do not believe that a person engaged in an action- Senator Walsh —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. While I do not have the Hansard in front of me I think I am correct in saying that the page of the Hansard referred to is that in which the present Prime Minister called the former Prime Minister a liar. I would welcome Senator Macklin's confirmation or refutation of that. That was accepted in the House of Representatives. The present Prime Minister was not required to withdraw it. But I think we should have a ruling in the Senate as to whether the imputation contained in Senator Macklin's comment is acceptable in the Senate. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Acting Deputy President, in speaking to that point of order, I referred the Parliament to the Hansard. The only word which I heard used, which may or may not be unparliamentary, came from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is sitting in the chamber at the moment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —The words 'liar' and 'liars' have always been regarded in the Senate as offensive. In the circumstances, if the word was used, I ask Senator Macklin to withdraw it. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Acting Deputy President, I did not use the word. Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order . It is a fact that Senator Macklin has not used that word in the Senate. I think it is proper and competent for him to refer at any time to a Hansard record of the other place which, after all, is a public document. I suggest to you that the point of order has no application. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It was used in the sense that it was an imputation. It is not the same as using the word, therefore, I will not ask Senator Macklin to withdraw it. Senator Walsh —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I observe that Senator Macklin does not have the guts to actually say what he is imputing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Chipp —Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —Why? Senator Chipp —Because it is offensive to me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, you have been asked to withdraw a statement to which Senator Chipp has taken exception. Senator Walsh —I withdraw my remark. The facts speak for themselves, however. Senator Chipp —Mr Acting Deputy President- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Will you withdraw the remark unreservedly, Senator Walsh? Senator Walsh —Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Mason —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Minister has still used the term 'tax cheats'. I suggest he should withdraw that comment, which was clearly audible here. Senator Walsh —I did not say 'tax cheats', I said 'facts'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Macklin. Senator MACKLIN —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The points I made in relation to this I have made throughout the discussions of these Bills, from the time the first one was introduced by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. I have maintained that position consistently right the way through. The principle upon which I stand and which I hold is that when a person engages in an action that person should be entitled to know whether that action is lawful or unlawful. I believe that many of those actions which were lawful were immoral and I have said so in every speech I have made on the subject. It so happens that the responsibility for that continuing rests on members of this and the other chamber because no actions were taken from when this was first uncovered under the previous Labor Government. No actions were taken by the Fraser Government. Therefore, the immoral actions, such as they were-they were not all immoral-while legal were able to continue. I have made no bones about that. It is interesting to note how in other areas people tend to canvass and say that the law is not something which is concerned with morality but rather is concerned with legality. In this area suddenly there is a wholesale rush for the Parliament to legislate about morality and not only to do that prospectively but to do that retrospectively. I wonder what would happen if we sought also to do that in the many other areas that people consider immoral in this country. I believe the principle is an extremely important one. It needs to be adhered to at all times. I have given the exceptions in which I would vote for retrospective legislation, in which I have voted for retrospective legislation. Mine is not a simplistic position. The first is where no penalty resides on an individual or if a penalty does reside on an individual that individual is able to be identified and accepts it. I remind the chamber that we passed a piece of retrospective legislation in relation to our own wages which penalised us, and we did it retrospectively. That was because it was a unanimous vote, accepted by both Houses; in other words, the people who were affected were happy to be affected and to be so penalised. I would vote for retrospective legislation also when a benefit is provided in such a way as not to cause a detriment to others. Here I refer to situations in which we might discover a problem in a social security area that may be only in relation to a small group of people, the situation has been going on for a period, and the Parliament in trying to meet the problem has taken some time in getting to the issue and wishes to back-date legislation to meet the problem to the point when it first arose. That seems to me to be unexceptional-the creation of a benefit. I have explained those on previous occasions. It is a much more complex position. It is not simply a enshrinement of a ridiculous principle; rather it enshrines a principle in that area only that I believed, prior to the Australian Labor Party coming to government, that the Labor Party itself was fairly much in agreement with. Indeed, I suggest that this piece of legislation before us goes against the guidelines laid down by the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, when he had responsibility for the Australian Taxation Office and gave effect to an announcement made by Senator Gareth Evans when he was shadow Attorney-General. I support the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 because I believe it relates to an area which needs to be tidied up in legislative form and should not simply rest on the guidelines of the Commissioner of Taxation. Therefore, I indicate my support for Senator Evans's Bill and I indicate that I will support the referral to a committee of the Government's Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) for a short period. I believe we need to be clear about this, that it is for a short period. I personally would not support an extension of time on that reference, if the committee were to seek it. The reference would be for such a short period that undoubtedly we would be able to vote yet again on the Government's Bill prior to the next election. I believe that those of us who are opposed to the retrospective element ought to have the opportunity to cast our votes that way before the next election so that the people of Australia know where everyone clearly stands on these issues. I am happy to go to the people yet again on the fact that I have stood firmly by a principle I believe in, and I will do so again in the future. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw attention to the fact that the Senate has before it at the moment a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to income tax, which is entitled: 'Private Senator 's Bill-Senator Jack Evans'. I raise the point that in fact it may be that this Bill ought not to originate in the Senate under the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution. The fact is that there has been a long tradition in parliaments, in their relationship with the Executive in the Westminster tradition, which is to the effect that the financial initiative lies with the Crown, which can be translated in Australian Constitutional terms as to say that the Executive, which is composed of those members of the Executive Council who enjoy the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Representatives, has the constitutional responsibility for introducing laws into this Parliament which impose taxation on the Australian community or, on the other side, appropriate revenue or moneys for its expenditures. That tradition is carried into effect in section 53 of our Constitution, the first sentence of which reads : Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. When one looks at this private member's Bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Jack Evans one sees, as I said, that its long title is 'A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to income tax'. In its operative provisions I believe that it imposes a tax on certain benefits received from or in connection with certain superannuation funds, which tax did not exist before. In other words, it creates a liability in relation to those benefits received from or in connection with superannuation funds, which liability did not exist before. I believe that the mere fact that the Bill seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act should not mislead us into thinking that this amending Bill deals merely with assessment matters. I believe it imposes a tax. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which is sought to be amended, in fact in its long title is entitled 'An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Imposition, Assessment and Collection of a Tax upon incomes'. It is recognised there that the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 does indeed contain provisions and is intended, amongst other things, to have provisions relating to the imposition of a tax upon incomes. I believe that in this provision we are dealing with such an imposition of a tax. Therefore, it is a Bill which ought not to originate in the Senate. It is true that Parliamentary Counsel has appended the notation 'T' at the bottom of the first page of the Government's Bill on the same matter, which is taken to be his categorisation of the Bill as a measure not imposing taxation, but in this regard I do not think the Senate chamber can be absolutely bound by the opinion of Parliamentary Counsel. I point out that if the Chair rules that this is not a Bill to impose taxation, it has, I believe, serious consequences for the Senate because it means, for example, in relation to section 55 of the Constitution that other matters could be tacked on to this sort of Bill coming into the Senate chamber. I raise the point of order and seek your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President, as to whether, in fact, this private member's Bill can originate in the Senate. Senator Jack Evans —The point of order that has been raised is very interesting. I imagine that the Minister for Energy and Resources (Senator Walsh) is in a great state of confusion at the moment because, if the point of order is upheld, the whole basis of retrospective legislation falls to the ground. This is because the grounds for all these Bills-the bottom of the harbour legislation and the 23F legislation we are currently considering-has been on the foundation stone that the taxes were already in existence and that the Bills were simply machinery items to ensure that the taxes were collected. The Bill that I have put forward, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984, is simply a machinery provision. It provides for the assessment of a tax. It does not impose a new tax. It simply ensures that the Commissioner of Taxation has the powers to collect a tax which is already provided for under existing legislation. I draw your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to page 390 of Odgers's 'Australian Senate Practice' which states: Machinery Acts for the assessment and collection of taxes, such as the Income Tax Assessment Act, and Customs Act, are not deemed by the Senate to be laws imposing taxation and, accordingly, are amendment Bills. If machinery clauses were included in the Bills which imposed the taxes, the effect would be to take from the Senate its power to amend such machinery clauses, because the Senate cannot amend proposed laws imposing taxation. In 1923 an Income Tax Assessment Bill was originated in the Senate by a private member. Upon a Minister taking a point of order, President Givens ruled that the Bill did not come within the category of those which cannot be originated in the Senate, and he ruled that the Bill was not out of order. This ruling confirmed an earlier ruling by President Givens in 1921 that an Income Tax Assessment Bill can originate in the Senate. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to rule similarly. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I support the remarks that have just been made by Senator Jack Evans. I was surprised that Senator Tate raised the matter. I was surprised when he first quoted section 53 of the Constitution and made no reference to section 55, because undoubtedly this Bill is a machinery provision providing for the assessment of a tax and not for the imposition of a tax. The quotation from Mr Odgers's book clearly establishes the Senate's practice with regard to these Bills and the established nature of them. If, under section 55, the Government intended that this should be a Bill imposing taxation, it should not have included other matters in the Bill which change the nature of the Bill to a Bill that is an assessment Bill and thus capable of being amended in the Senate and dealt with in the way we have established over a number of years. I uphold what has been said by Senator Jack Evans. As I have said earlier, I commend his Bill to the Senate as one that follows matters we are able to support. I think that what has been raised by Senator Tate is clearly not a point of order in dealing with the legislation before us. Senator Harradine —Mr Acting Deputy President-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Senator Harradine, I have heard three speakers on this point of order. I will now rule on it. Senator Walsh —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your indulgence to speak to the point of order as the Minister present. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The problem I have is that honourable senators will be speaking all the time on the point of order. If I allow you to speak, I shall have to allow Senator Harradine to do likewise. Senator Walsh —In that case, I observe that I shall make some comments when I speak on the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have been advised that Bills for the assessment and collection of taxes have always been treated separately from Bills imposing taxation. They have always been treated as Bills which can be introduced into the Senate and can be amended by the Senate. This practice has the explicit support of the Parliamentary Counsel, who in this particular case, as with all other government assessment Bills, has marked the Government's Bill as dealing with taxation and not imposing taxation. I have no grounds to disagree with that practice. While Senator Tate has raised some interesting points, I cannot rule on constitutional practices. Therefore, there is no point of order. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, can I just clarify your ruling? Are you saying that you cannot rule on constitutional practices and therefore do not uphold my point of order, or that in substance you reject my argument? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No. I am saying that in substance the argument is rejected. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.32) —As I am due to speak anyway, I would like to make a couple of comments on this matter . I think that Senator Tate has raised a very important question. I have taken note of the points that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and other speakers have made. But whatever legal obfuscation may be able to excuse or justify, I think it is an indisputable fact that the introduction of a Bill such as the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 into the Senate breaches the spirit of the Constitution. Senator Mason —What do you mean by that? Senator WALSH —Let me go on to explain. I am aware of the distinction which has been drawn in the past between the principle of taxing assessable income and those guideline or laws which define assessable income. Nevertheless, the practical effect of Senator Jack Evans's Bill, without any doubt whatsoever, will be to make certain people liable to taxation to which they were not previously liable because the provisions actually levying the income are already in place. I make a couple of other comments. Senator Jack Evans quoted Odgers. Odgers said that it was not 'deemed by the Senate'. Frankly, it does not matter what Odgers says, or what the Senate deems. The final responsibility for determining matters like this rests with the High Court of Australia. I understand that some time ago, in 1959, a case which has some relevance to this question was put before the Court, but I believe that it is a matter which ought to be clarified. It does not matter what Odgers, or what Parliamentary Counsel or what the Senate as a whole says. This question ought to be determined in the Court and nowhere else. Without doubt, leaving aside legal escape clauses and rationalisations, the introduction of a Bill such as this into the Senate unequivocally breaches the spirit of the Constitution because it imposes a tax on some taxpayers which did not previously exist. It makes them liable to pay tax on receipts previously exempt from taxation which would now be included. That is not an argument against the Bill itself. I am dealing with the point of whether the Bill ought to have been introduced in the Senate. I must say that Senator Evans's comment that if Senator Tate's point of order were upheld it would erode the whole basis for the imposition of retrospection taxation falls to the ground. I think that has missed the point because Senator Tate's comments have nothing to do with the justification or otherwise of whether tax should be imposed retrospectively, but with the question of whether a Bill, the practical effect of which is to impose tax on people, ought to originate in the Senate. Senator Tate passed no judgment at all in his point of order on whether it was correct either in law or morally that such legislation should be enacted by the Parliament. Indeed, on many occasions Senator Tate's view on that latter question has been made very clear in the Senate. That is the same view which the Australian Labor Party has. It is the same view that Labor has stated unequivocally in Opposition; that is, where schemes are devised which are blatantly contrived to avoid taxation the Parliament does have the moral right, and indeed the moral obligation, to pass laws to see that the people who devise and benefit from such schemes are not allowed to rob their fellow taxpayers, which is ultimately what their actions boil down to. This much can be said in favour of Senator Jack Evans's Bill: At least from 7 December 1983-and I make the point for the record that that also has retrospective application-the tax liability with respect to the cherry picker schemes will be quite clear. It has been argued on previous occasions by a number of people in the Opposition that there is a possibility-they probably put it stronger than possibility-that existing law could be used to deal with people who manage and benefit from cherry picker schemes. It is not the view of the Government that the existing law could have been used effectively in that way. Hence the Government decided to legislate. In a moment I will give the reasons why the Government decided to make that legislation applicable from July 1977. The virtue of Senator Jack Evans's Bill is that from 7 December 1983 it puts the matter beyond doubt. However, the Government is very strongly of the view that it is the Government's Bill which ought to be passed. But if the Government's Bill is referred to a committee, which I understand is likely to happen today, the Government will not oppose Senator Evans's Bill. I want to make one comment on his final point in his second reading speech. He stated: The choice for Government members is clear. Will they continue to play politics in order to arouse public anger at what governments have allowed tax avoiders to do in the past, or will they support this Bill which will prevent further abuses of this type in the future? Are they serious about tax avoidance or are they using tax avoidance to play politics? I think that is a completely unwarranted comment and I say so for this reason: The ingenuity of what is euphemistically called the tax avoidance industry has been quite remarkable over many years. It is not just a question of picking up people who have defrauded fellow taxpayers of at least $1m, as the Kelly brothers did. This was documented in the Kelly v. Raymor case. It is a question of deterring all future tax avoiders. It is the Government's belief, asserted unequivocally in opposition and in government, that once the threat of the imposition of retrospective taxation or amendment to the law to impose the tax which ought to have been paid when blatant schemes have been contrived to avoid tax is seen to be credible, the entire tax avoidance industry will collapse. It is for that reason that the Government's Bill, rather than Senator Jack Evans's Bill, ought to be supported. Mr Deputy President, I think that technically I may have the right to reply again in this debate because I am now addressing Senator Jack Evans's Bill rather than the Government's Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You are correct but you will have to confine your remarks exclusively to Senator Evans's Bill if you wish to have a right of reply on the other Bill. Senator WALSH —It is a cognate debate and it is my intention now to speak on both the Bills rather than reply at the end of the cognate debate on behalf of the Government to the Government's Bill as I would otherwise have done. It seems to me, all things considered, that it would be better for me to enter the debate on both Bills at this stage. I listened to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who spoke at some length about the information which Mr Howard had previously tabled in the House of Representatives as a rationale, an excuse or a justification for the failure of the previous Government to take action against the cherry picker schemes. The substance of that as I understood it-I trust I have understood it correctly-is that at that stage at least it was the then Government's belief that the law as it applied to the Part IVA amendments, which were made, I think, in late 1981, was adequate to deal with the cherry picker schemes. If that remains the belief of the Opposition-it is not clear to me whether that is the belief of the Opposition-what it is saying is that there is no need for the Government's Bill and there is no need for Senator Evans's Bill either because the existing law can be effectively used against cherry picker scheme operators. I would welcome clarification from the Opposition as to whether that is its view. Senator Macklin said quite erroneously that the Government had provided no justification for the backdating provision in the Government's Bill; that is, to make what is the same amendment as Senator Evans's amendment applicable from 1977 instead of 1983. That is quite false. The Government has provided justification for that. Firstly, there is a significant amount of revenue, estimated to be of the order of $15m and possibly quite higher and secondly, the principle, the principle I stress, of whether the people who perpetrated the notorious Kelly v. Raymor case fraud-some people quibble about whether the fraud was against fellow taxpayers or their employees-should be able to retain the $1m or so which they picked up as a result of their fraudulent activities. The Government says: 'No, they should not be allowed to retain that $1m effectively stolen from other taxpayers', or for those who prefer it from the employees of the company. The Government's view is that it was stolen from fellow taxpayers but even to those who believe it was stolen from the employees of the company the moral judgment ought to be the same. The Kelly brothers should not be allowed to retain the $1m-plus which they fraudulently obtained from some source or other. The Government's view on the Kelly brothers case-there are probably others but the Kelly v. Raymor case is one case which is known because it came into court, for completely different reasons-is that people such as the Kelly brothers should not be able to retain the money that they obtained in that way. Those who will not support the Government's Bill clearly take the view that the Kelly brothers ought to be able to retain that money, as should other people who acted in circumstances similar to the way in which the Kelly brothers acted. Additionally, if the Senate passes the Government's Bill a very clear warning will have been given to all potential tax avoiders: People who blatantly contrive schemes to deprive the public of tax revenue will not get away with any blatant contrived scheme in the future. Senator Macklin also claimed-I must say I found Senator Macklin's speech a little confusing; if I have not got it correctly it is due to misunderstanding and not to any intention to misrepresent him-that the Commissioner of Taxation, under the existing law, could review and reassess tax liability of both the funds and the companies which claimed deductions from corporate income over the entire period the funds were in operation. He claimed that the Commissioner had the power retrospectively to reassess-although 'retrospective' and 'reassessment ' are, I suppose, tautologous-the tax liability of those companies over the entire period that the schemes were in operation, both for company tax deduction and for exemption by the funds for income earned by investment within the funds. Legally, I think that that is at least arguable, but let us assume that that is legally correct and that it would be possible for the Commissioner to do this. One obvious objection is that it would be extraordinarily complicated and would occupy human and other resources within the Taxation Office which could and probably should be better applied to other activities. Secondly, and equally importantly, there is knowledge that at least in some cases the companies would have no assets to pay the liabilities which the Commissioner reassessed, and therefore the money would be irrecoverable unless the Commissioner were to attempt to recover the money from the beneficiaries of the defunct companies, which quite clearly the present law does not allow the Commissioner to do. Senator Macklin also asserted that the cherry picker-type scheme had been uncovered by the previous Labor Government. I have no knowledge of it being correct and I do not think that there is anything on the public record or in private records which supports that. I suspect that Sentor Macklin did not mean to say that. As far as I am aware, the previous Labor Government detected no cherry picker schemes. Indeed, the first occasion upon which these schemes were detected by anyone was in about 1977. Senator Macklin also claimed that the Government's action in introducing this Bill was in conflict with the policies which we had stated prior to the electon. That is completely wrong. We stated prior to the election, and the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, stated again on , I think, 30 March last year, what the Government's attitude is towards blatant and contrived tax avoidance schemes, and that is that the beneficiaries of such schemes should be forced to disgorge the benefits that they had improperly gained. I do not think that there is much point in going over all the arguments relevant to this scheme or to the principle of retrospectivity. They were extensively canvassed the last time this Bill was debated in the Senate. Before closing, however, I want to give notice of a procedural intention on the part of the Government. I understand that an agreement was reached between all the Whips this morning to have a cognate debate on these two Bills, and that at the end of that debate the second reading vote on the Government Bill would be taken. I understand that although no amendment has been circulated, an amendment will be moved to refer the Government Bill to a committee. If that amendment were carried, Senator Jack Evans's Bill would then come on for a second reading vote and the Government would support it. I am informed that that is the agreement which was reached. Intentionally or otherwise, the motion that Senator Chipp- Senator Chipp —I am sorry; we genuinely did not know of such agreement. Senator WALSH —All right; I will accept that. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But that is the Government Whip's advice to me. As a result of Senator Chipp's procedural motion moved earlier today- Senator Chipp —Which you knew about; we told you about that. We gave you notice that I was going to do that. Senator WALSH —The only notice that I received was a request for a cognate debate. The Government had no objection to that. Senator Chipp —No. We gave you notice that I was going to do that. Senator WALSH —I am not trying to apportion blame or whatever. Clearly, there was some confusion. As a result of Senator Chipp's procedural motion moved earlier today, the second reading vote on the Australian Democrats' Bill will be taken prior to that on the Government Bill. At an appropriate stage the Government Whip will move that the second reading vote on the Government Bill be taken first. Apart from a principle, which the Senate is not necessarily obliged to accept-that where there are two very similar measures, the Government measure ought to be the one that is voted first-logically it follows that the Government Bill should be put to the vote first, because if the Government Bill should be carried, Senator Jack Evans's Bill clearly becomes redundant. So the logical sequence for taking the vote is that the Government Bill comes first, the Democrats' Bill comes second, if it is still relevant after the vote on the Government Bill has been taken. At the appropriate stage, which will probably be at the end of the second reading debate, the Government Whip will be moving accordingly. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.51) —The Australian Democrats applaud the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) that the Government will not oppose this Australian Democrats' private member's Bill originating from my colleague Senator Jack Evans. We are glad also of the support indicated by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle from the Opposition. So it would seem that this Bill will pass the Senate unanimously. That is as it should be, because we are dealing with the matter which has been called cherry picking, a tax fraud of an extraordinarily cynical and unpleasant nature in which firms used the concessions for tax deductibility for their payments allegedly for superannuation for their employees but in fact to acquire those moneys for themselves and thereby avoid paying tax. These firms used various devices, including sacking or forced retirement, to see that all the benefits of that superannuation came to the owners of the business. That was the picking of the cherries. It would seem that all honourable senators agree with the general principle that this practice ought to be stopped. The enormous importance of this Bill which we have brought forward is that it has cleared the air, it has brought in a necessary holding operation, and that this practice will cease from the date on which it was first made public, 7 December last year. I think that there is general agreement that that date is fair and does not involve any principle of retrospectivity. Senator Jack Evans and I both regard the principle of tax equity as more important than that of retrospectivity. Our further votes in this matter will continue to be informed by that belief. As to the question of the reference to a committee, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has raised a point that has value. A short reference will not do any harm to the Government Bill. It will clear up points which the Opposition and the Australian Democrats hold as being of concern. The reference will be resolved this month. As Senator Macklin said, there is general agreement that there will be no extension to that reference, so I do not think that any claim can be made that this is a delaying or a blocking tactic. It becomes of less importance especially with the Jack Evans Bill passed, because that will then hold and control the present situation. This Bill is designed to include in assessable income the value of certain benefits derived from or in connection with certain section 23F superannuation funds. It will insert a new section 26A, which will operate where benefits are received or obtained in circumstances where the taxpayer had no rights under the fund rules to receive the benefits, or where the benefits paid were excessive for the purposes of paragraph 23F(2)(h). In other words, it will prevent further abuses of the kind outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his second reading speech when introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. We deplore the fact that 23F funds have been used for tax avoidance. This story is not over. The Government's Bill is by no means rendered redundant, nor does it end, with the passage of the Democrats' private member's Bill. The Democrats have been consistent in their view of this matter. We have been consistent in our fight against tax evaders and in our support of legislation against tax evaders. I deeply resent the imputations made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the Democrats have been the friends of tax cheats, as he said in a speech in Adelaide which was broadcast-a recording of the Prime Minister's own words-on the AM program on 19 April 1984. My fellow Democrats, Senators Chipp, Haines and Macklin have been consistent in their stand on principle against any form of retrospective legislation. I understand fully their point of view. I again naturally understand the point of view put forward by Senator Jack Evans and me. We are not unaware of the dangers of retrospectivity. We are also aware of the great dangers to this community of a failure of tax equity, and on balance and consistently we have regarded that point of tax equity as being the more important one. We will continue to do that. On that basis, I would like to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's comments on the AM program. I quote from a transcript of that program. He said: I have a fairly firm conviction the Australian people are not going to look with a great deal of satisfaction upon the fact that they, the ordinary law- abiding citizens and taxpayers of this country, have been milked, as I say, of over $500m by these friends of the tax avoiders-the Liberals, the Nationals and the Democrats. I stress particularly those words 'the Democrats' which are repeated four times in this statement from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said: . . . I'll be saying around Australia in the weeks and months ahead, and the Liberals and the National Party and the Democrats will not be able to move away from this. They will be labelled as the people who have cost Australians half a billion dollars by their refusal on three occasions to pass through the Senate the legislation which this government put through the House of Represenatives. Finally, the Prime Minister said: And as I say I tell the Liberals and the Nationals and Democrats now, I give them notice, that they will be hounded and reminded of that fact for every week between now and the elections. On Friday last Hillman and Woolf, solicitors for Senator Jack Evans and me, submitted letters of demand to the Prime Minister requiring him to withdraw those statements, to apologise and to retract generally. In the words of our solicitor's letter: Our clients require an apology and retraction in respect of your defamatory comments in terms drafted by us and enclosed. This apology and retraction is to be broadcasted nationally on the 'AM' programme of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and is to be published in a prominent position in at least one daily morning newspaper published and circulated in each of the Australian capital Cities. The first letter from Hillman and Woolf to the Prime Minister says: Our instructions are to commence proceedings against you claiming damages. In a further letter of the same day, we say to the Prime Minister: If you provide the apology and retraction and agree to its publication as required in our open letter, we will recommend to our clients that they not take any further proceedings in respect of the defamatory publication. We have had no response this morning from the Prime Minister or from his solicitors, and Senator Jack Evans and I will now consider our further position in that matter. I think I can say at this stage, as no writ has yet been entered on the Prime Minister by us, that it is scandalous that the Prime Minister should make this kind of statement. He is absolutely aware that Senator Jack Evans and I have consistently voted for his legislation, yet in Adelaide he allows himself to be quoted in the Press as trying to put all the Democrats in the same basket. This is not to canvass my colleagues' attitude-I have made that clear already-but the Prime Minister has deliberately and with aforethought said that he proposes not only to punish Senator Jack Evans and me for something we have not done but also to hound us week by week between now and the election. His only intention in that, I take it, is to try to obtain defeat of Australian Democrats senators in the election which is to come. I think it is obvious enough to you, Mr Deputy President, and to other honourable senators that, if he were to succeed in that intent on this basis, he might well be personally disadvantaged. I make it quite plain here that we will take the same kind of action against any other member of this place, any other person or any media who might want to take the same line. Motion (by Senator Robertson) put: That the debate be now adjourned. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Primmer, C. G. Messner, A. J. Foreman, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Grimes, D. J. Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Jessop, D. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave- Given that the Senate has now made the decision that Senator Evans's Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill will be voted on before the Government's Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) the Government, as I said before, will not oppose Senator Evans's Bill. However, that raises the question of what then happens to Senator Evans's Bill vis-a-vis the House of Representatives. Apart from the time constraints and the pressure of government business in the House of Representatives, the Government may need to examine the legal ramifications, if any, pertaining to a possible reintroduction of the Government Bill to amend an Act which by then will already have been amended. This of course will be the situation if Senator Evans's Bill is passed by the House of Representatives. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.07) —I will not detain the Senate long. I believe that it is appropriate that I speak because accusations that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill is a friend of tax cheats are being levelled in public. Once again I record my views on tax cheats and retrospectivity. No honest person-I do not put it any higher than that-could accuse me, with over 24 years of parliamentary experience, or my colleagues, Senator Macklin and Senator Haines-or for that matter any member of the Liberal Party-of being friends of tax cheats. That is a monstrous accusation. Such an accusation should be made only in the face of evidence. As I said before, I put it no higher than that. No honest person, or person purporting to be the most honest man in Australia, should ever make such an accusation, even if it is made in the heat of politics. After having said that, the Australian Democrats and I commend the Government for trying to close the loophole of the cherry picker scheme. The fact that an Australian Democrat senator, Senator Jack Evans, has introduced a Bill that will do that and that the Liberal Party is supporting the Bill, indicates their concurrence that this scheme should be stopped. The scheme is iniquitous and evil. It is a scheme which Senator Walsh quite properly described as ripping money off one's mates, one's fellow taxpayers, for one's personal gain. What is entailed is that a business, normally a smallish business, would deduct salary payments for payment into an employee's superannuation fund, get a tax deduction for those amounts and then when the employee became entitled to payment from the scheme-sometimes employees do not even know that such a scheme had been raised in their name-that employee would be retired early, sacked or retrenched by the owner of the business or the trustees of the fund who put the money tax free into their own pockets. That is a damnable, rotten and despicable scheme which should be stopped. The passing of this legislation will do that. As with the bottom of the harbour legislation the Democrats and the Liberals are totally united in their opposition to people who cheat the system. That is one principle. My colleagues Senator Mason and Senator Evans agree also with this. However, they go further. As was described by the previous Prime Minister there are two conflicting principles. One such principle involves chasing and punishing tax cheats-an activity with which I believe all of us concur. However, another principle involves retrospectivity in legislation. My colleagues Senator Jack Evans and Senator Colin Mason have succinctly described their reasons for believing that chasing tax cheats is more important in principle to them-a principle which they passionately and genuinely hold-than the principle of retrospectivity. All members of the Labor Party honestly believe that also. I do not think that any member of the Labor Party would not believe that retrospectivity is evil. There is a question of judgment here as to which is the greater evil-abrogating a principle which I believe is dear to all people who hold to the rule of law or chasing after those despicable creatures who cheat their mates at tax. I hold the view that once retrospective legislation is regarded as the norm, once a Parliament allows it on one occasion, there is an enormous danger that governments or politicians will follow it in other directions or will similarly legislate in other areas. I say, as do my colleagues Senator Macklin and Senator Haines, that once we have a society in which penal retrospective legislation becomes normal in our law making then we no longer live in a truly democratic society. It is as serious as that. I believe that governments and politicians have been to blame for the situation where tax cheats have been able to cheat the system for so long. I understand that politicians-I lay no blame on the Australian Taxation Office-knew about bottom of the harbour schemes as early as 1975-76. Politicians were asked by the Taxation Office, quite properly, to do something about it. Successive Labor and Liberal governments did nothing for five or six years. There was no fault on the Taxation Office but there was certainly fault on the politicians. Now the Parliament is being asked: 'We did not do anything about this for four or five years, will you fix it up by back dating five or six years or even longer?'. As far as I am concerned, on a matter of principle I will not accept that. As with other senators I speak a great deal to schools, universities and other such groups. It is interesting that one of the questions I am asked is about retrospective taxation. Lately I have retorted by asking the class-only this week I spoke to two groups of 50 students all doing their Higher School Certificate or fifth form-'Be honest with me and put your hands up if you would know how to describe to your friends the meaning of retrospective legislation. How many of you would be confident of getting five out of 10 for your explanation?'. Inevitably only two or three kids put their hands up. There is massive ignorance out there of the meaning of retrospectivity and the evil that that represents. I will give two examples. I instance a splendid cartoon showing Mr Malcolm Fraser as the parking inspector writing out a ticket for a car parked illegally. Beside him was standing Mr Howard. The next cartoon showed Mr Fraser walking to the next car with Mr Howard with a portable 'no parking' sign over his shoulder and about to plonk it down at the next car which was then illegally parked. That is a facetious example. When that is translated in terms of a person's livelihood it can become devastating. Let me give an example. All over the nation there are small businesses-chemist shops, delicatessens, milk bars, newsagencies, manufacturing businesses-in which spouses join with each other as partners in the business. It is normally a respectable, honourable, legal arrangment. Because it is a partnership, the profits are halved or split in certain proportions and the result is that the total amount of tax payable out of the profits is diminished to the extent that the income is split. As I say, it is legal, honourable and within the framework of the law. Let us assume that a future government, in regard to spouses-and I wish, Mr President, that we could change the plural of spouse to spice; it makes so much sense, but such innovations take time-decided to make those sorts of partnership illegal and to deem all of the income to be in the hands, say, of the husband. We might say that that was unfair, a bit rough, but if the political party of the day campaigned on that measure, won office and brought it in, we would say ' Fair enough, it had a mandate', whatever that means. But what if it backdated that law 10 years? The Taxation Office would then be obliged to reopen every assessment it had made over that period, issue an assessment against every male person who had been engaged in a partnership with his wife and tax him double the original amount with penal tax. That person in many cases would now be retired, would have some sort of prospect of looking forward to old age, and would be totally devastated. Every cent he owned would go to pay the taxes that had been retrospectively applied. That is what retrospectivity means. I give one more example. It is graphic, perhaps, but because of the ignorance or lack of knowledge in the community as to what retrospective laws mean, I believe it is essential for those of us who believe in the rule of law to keep thumping this lesson home. Otherwise the untruthful statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that because the Liberals and some Australian Democrats vote against retrospectivity therefore we are friends of tax cheats, will stick. If he is hounding us and thumping that home week after week between now and the election, I believe those of us who believe in the rule of law and who are against retrospectivity, similarly should repeat what are the evils of retrospectivity. The example I give is graphic but I believe it can be well understood. Today, at this time, somewhere in Australia, in every capital city, a termination of a pregnancy is taking place. It will be legal and totally within the law. It will be performed by a fully qualified medical practitioner in a public hospital. A qualified nurse will be in attendance and the operation will be known to the medical superintendent of the hospital, who will approve because it will be conducted within the framework of the law. It is a moral question, as is the question of tax evasion. Many senators in this chamber have very serious views about abortion, which I respect. Let us assume that a political party gained office in this country on 1 December, that had as part of its platform that all abortions or terminations of pregnancies under any circumstances should be illegal, should be a crime and should be punishable by a mandatory gaol sentence. I could say: 'Fair enough, people have those strong views about abortion and if a political party puts that forward, it is quite entitled to do so'. If that political party were elected it would be absolutely entitled to bring in such a law. In that hypothetical situation that political party would bring in a law to make the performing of termination of pregnancies a criminal offence. But what if that political party dated it back 10 years? It would mean that the doctor who is at present performing the operation, the woman upon whom it is being performed, the nurse who is in attendance and the medical superintendent of the hospital would all be guilty of a criminal offence and all would go to gaol, even though now, when it is being performed, it is perfectly legal and five years ago when it was performed somewhere else it was perfectly legal. It would be deemed to be a crime because a government is elected and retrospectively dates its legislation. Students of history will remember that Adolph Hilter used that measure with devastating effect in Germany. In 1938 he brought in a law that any meeting of Jews had to have the permission of the prefect of police of the district, and he dated it back to 1933. If any Jews met anywhere without a permit from the prefect of police they were guilty of a criminal offence. Every Jew who had been to a synagogue between 1933 and 1938 was immediately deemed to have committed a criminal offence and was put into a concentration camp. That is what retrospective legislation empowers politicians to do. While I am a member of this Parliament I will fight retrospectivity in every cause. I am desperately disappointed that those of us who stand up for this great moral principle of the rule of law under which we live and which we take for granted can be blackguarded as we are by the Prime Minister today. If he wanted to say to the people of Australia 'There are two conflicting principles here; we choose to abrograte one of them to satisfy another honourable principle, namely, to catch tax cheats' that would be one thing. But to call people who opposes his view, on the very respectable ground that the rule of law in a democracy must prevail, tax cheats is despicable and, as far as I know, unlike the man I knew to be Bob Hawke. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(11.23) —I know that the Senate wishes to conclude this debate by midday, so perforce I will be brief. I would not have entered the debate apart from the fact that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) made some quite extravagant claims in his closing remarks . Again, as so often occurs in debates on taxation matters, extravagant language overruns the facts. Senator Walsh continually used words such as 'fraud', ' fraudulent' and 'stolen'. If either the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 or the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 were to go before the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I would want to ask the Australian Taxation Office: Is it a fact that if a fraud has been committed on the Commissioner of Taxation through a false return, the Commissioner has powers under his own Act, the Crimes Act or State criminal law to prosecute the people involved and to have them either fined or gaoled if convicted? I would have further thought that where there is not full disclosure in one's income tax return-and full disclosure by the courts has been very narrowly defined; it is almost impossible to make full disclosure under some decisions- the Commissioner has the right to re-open the assessment as far back as one's birth, as far back as he likes to go; whereas, as I understand the tax law, if there is full disclosure within that very narrow definition there is a time limit on how far he can go back to reopen the assessment. All these cherry picking schemes are alleged to have been based on some criminal or quasi- criminal offence. One would have thought that the Commissioner of Taxation, with his normal powers would have the right to re-open those assessments and to re- assess either the corporation or certainly the persons who claim the lifting of their tax liability because of their contribution to these funds. I would have thought the Commissioner could have gone and re-assessed either the corporation, the taxpayer or the individual taxpayer over that period. It really is no answer to me that he now may well be dealing with men of straw because men of straw, in re-opening an assessment, would basically still be men of straw; one would not recover from them on retrospective legislation. The worrying things about the whole business of retrospective legislation are the matters which were averted to by Mr Gyles and Mr Redlich last year when those two special prosecutors reported to Parliament. The Age newspaper of Tuesday 15 November last year had rather a largish headline entitled: 'Tax man ignored advice, says QC'. I have always been struck by what Mr Gyles said as part of his report when he was talking about the differing opinions between the then Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, and a report prepared by Mr Murray Gleeson, QC, a Sydney barrister. He stated: All I am saying is that with two such eminent people expressing such divergent views the place to resolve them is in the High Court, not the back room. That criticism has never been answered by the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) nor by the present Commissioner of Taxation or the Taxation Office. Whilst I agree absolutely and totally in adopting the arguments of Senator Chipp as to the evils of retrospectivity as a principle, I am not satisfied in all the legislation that has been coming before us-be it the Fraser Government's legislation or the Hawke Government's legislation-that the administration of the tax laws, as they stand, have been properly used against the alleged tax cheats of this country. If one goes back to what became known as the Brinsden opinion of the early 1970s-the whole sorry story which came out of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-one will see there has obviously been an administrative ineptness between the Attorney-General's Department and the Taxation Office. It is no answer to send off the former Crown Solicitor who was later Secretary to that Department and put him on the Federal Court of Australia as a judge and say: ' That is the end of that book'. I am still not satisfied that a proper investigation and re-organisation of those departments has done anything to clean up this administrative mess of at least 10 years' standing. I repeat that I regret that if Senator Jack Evans's Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill, is accepted and the Government does not go on with its Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2), and it is defeated, we will not have the opportunity on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations really to quiz to some extent the officials of the Taxation Office. I believe it is screamingly necessary in this country to have an investigation into the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act. We talk about having all sorts of investigations, royal commissions and everything else into the tax system and into the various types of taxes. We have had reports from the Asprey Taxation Review Committee and all sorts of fancy things about how one shifts tax burdens or shuffles the pack and all the rest of it. Long ago I concluded that what is needed is an absolute investigation into the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Commissioner ought to be called to account as to why he has not used the enormous, and in many cases draconian powers, which he has under the present legislation. Merely to hide behind the device that the Attorney-General's Department thought we might not win I think is insufficient. I believe that public officers have a public duty to test their powers in the courts. In my view, public officers fail in their duty if they refuse to test their powers in court and merely rely on legal opinion. I think it is because of the fear which crept into the Taxation Office about what might happen to it in the High Court of Australia over section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act that in the last 20 years we have seen this whole industry get out of hand. I blame successive Commissioners of Taxation for not continually going back to the High Court and arguing what section 260 used to mean in law and means to any person of reasonable intelligence who picks up the ordinary and sensible meaning of those words. I always thought it was an act of legal cowardice for Taxation Office officials to sit down and accept some of the rulings of the High Court on that matter. I think it is to their eternal disgrace that they were not nagging the Parliament day after day to strengthen section 260. It was finally brought up to date with Part VIA under John Howard. For those and other reasons I will never go along with retrospective taxation. I am not satisfied that either in this case or any of the other cases where taxpayers have been abused that the Taxation Office has properly used its powers . I therefore ask that unless Senator Walsh is going to tell us that either the Taxation Office, the Federal Police or State Police or somebody is going to prosecute these fraudulent people, all these stealers of taxpayers' money, for what he is firstly saying are criminal offences, he has no right to walk around talking about stolen money or fraudulent practices. If there are fraudulent practices, Senator, those who indulge in them must be prosecuted for fraud. It was all right for an Opposition front bencher in the old days to make such statements, but the honourable senator is now a Minister of the Crown. For a Minister of the Crown to talk about people committing fraud without following through with prosecution, all I can say is that the Minister of the Crown is most probably derelict in his duty. For those reasons, if none other, I urge upon Senator Walsh either to carry out his duty and have the frauds prosecuted, or stop using such words. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.32) —I wish to thank Senator Withers for his contribution in reminding the Senate of these particular matters. In fact, they are not new. I think we have raised them on each occasion when a retrospective Bill has been brought before the Senate. But what is regrettable is that we have not obtained from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who represents the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a satisfactory answer as to why section 260 and section 160 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and other draconian, and sometimes necessary provisions are put in to avoid these tax cheats. What I am concerned about is that here today we are allowing a precedent to be perpetrated that I believe that this Senate could well regret. The whole issue arises as to what are the Senate's powers. Section 53 of the Constitution, states: Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. That is pretty clear cut. Tax Bills and appropriation Bills go together. As the one implies the other Bills, as in the case of appropriation Bills, imposing taxation shall originate in the House of Representatives. We have before us at the moment two Bills- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson, a point of order was taken on this matter this morning. I understand Senator Sibraa, the Acting Deputy President, made a ruling to which I understand there was no dissent. If dissent is to be taken to a ruling, it must be taken according to Standing Order 429 at the time that ruling is given. If you are canvassing the ruling that was given this morning, you are clearly out of order. Senator WATSON —I wish to speak to that issue without canvassing the matter. I point out that only one Bill was listed on the Order of Business sheet this morning. Unfortunately, I was not in the chamber at the time but, relying on that sheet, I could foresee no problem arising. Although we were aware that Senator Jack Evans had a private member's Bill there was no indication on the Order of Business sheet that it was going to be debated today or no indication of the point at which it was. We had no indication that it was going to be debated cognately. Because of that it has raised a new issue. It might be regretted that some honourable senators on this side of the chamber were not able to get into the chamber before that decision was given and given very quickly. Admittedly it was relying on a very old precedent. The PRESIDENT —The ruling was given this morning. There was no dissent taken at the time. I am here to observe Standing Orders. Standing order 429 clearly states: If any objection is taken to the ruling or decision of the President, such objection must be taken at once, and in writing . . . Quite clearly the honourable senator is now canvassing the ruling. His comments are out of order. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.37) —in reply-In winding up the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984- Senator Walsh —Mr President, I do not want to interrupt Senator Evans. I wish to seek leave subsequently to make an important statement of which the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have been notified. I therefore move: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Chipp —Mr President, as I understand it, Senator Evans will take only a short time. We give the Minister an undertaking that we will give him time before 12 o'clock. Senator JACK EVANS —We are running short of time. I simply want to make it quite clear that the purpose of my Bill was to remove the uncertainty that exists now. Uncertainty exists as to whether the Government's legislation will get through. I want to take away that uncertainty and let people in the electorate know exactly what the position is, effective from 7 December when the Government first introduced its section 23F legislation. We want to let the people know that there will be no more loopholes; there will be no more ability for people to use schemes to avoid their tax obligations. I wish also to make it clear that the Australian Democrats will be supporting the referral of the Government's retrospective effect Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 , to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with the express purpose of having that Committee report back on or before 31 May without any deferrals by that Committee. I believe that that will have the effect of covering the points raised by Senator Withers that questions need to be asked on the handling, until now, of section 23F schemes. Once those questions have been satisfactorily answered, or perhaps unsatisfactorily answered, the Senate can make its decision as to whether it will go along with the retrospective aspect of the Government's legislation. I wish briefly to reiterate my record against tax evaders. The Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) has thrown a cloud across my reputation in Western Australia. I have supported every Bill to retrieve taxes that were avoided or evaded by people in Australia under the three bottom of the harbour schemes Bills, under the first cherry pickers superannuation fund Bill and now, through the introduction of my own Bill, to fight tax evaders in this country. I will further support the Government's new Bill provided there is justification for its retrospective elements as proven by that Senate Committee. I mention also that I introduced this private member's Bill to give the right of appeal to genuinely innocent shareholders of companies whose directors sent their companies to the bottom of the harbour. That would have applied to both the Fraser legislation and the Government's proposed legislation on bottom of the harbour operators. Some genuinely innocent people were caught up in that net who deserve to be let off and who should not be hit as ferociously as they are being hit by the Commissioner of Taxation at this moment. Senator Mason and I have been consistent in our support of attacks on tax evaders. We believe that tax evaders and avoiders are a blight on our community. We believe that the day has come when tax avoidance must cease to be a notorious Australian business practice. I say that with a full appreciation of the honest and sincere views of some Democrats and other honourable senators and, incidentally, I might mention, about half of the population of Australia that retrospective tax laws are reprehensive and are a matter of principle. Nevertheless, the principle of tax equity is paramount. I am not canvassing an opinion on the constitutional point that was raised this morning but, interestingly, if that constitutional point is valid, is upheld and is used by the Government, what we are talking about is the machinery to hit tax avoiders, not the imposition of a new tax. I think that needs to be very clearly understood by everybody, both in this Senate and in the electorate. I ask honourable senators to support this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Bill (on motion by Senator Jack Evans)-by leave-read a third time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave- Yesterday at a joint Press conference with the Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, I indicated that we had agreed I would ask the British Government for its agreement to release the full text of what is known as the Pearce report. That report produced by the British Government in January 1968, deals with the question of residual radioactive contamination at Maralinga in South Australia. An edited version of that report was published in May 1979 and tabled in the House of Representatives by the then Minister for National Development on 7 June 1979. In its original form the Pearce report was a classified document as it contains information on the nature of some of the tests and materials used. In addition the report specifically records the location of various waste burials and their contents. The edited version deletes certain references to aspects of the tests and to the burial sites. In the light of claims that have been made by the late Mr Burke and others that there are unmarked and unknown burial sites, I felt it would be in the public interest to have the full report released. I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that the British Government has responded positively and promptly to this request. I seek leave to table a copy of the unedited version of the report. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I thank the Senate. Unfortunately very few copies of the original document are in Australia. Arrangements are being made to have the report reprinted as quickly as possible but in the meantime I have arranged for a few copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. I note for the record that the copy which is being tabled say on its cover sheet: 'This is the only copy held by DNDE'. That, of course, is no longer relevant. I also sought an assurance from the British Government that it had no knowledge of any waste burial sites arising from the tests other than those set out in the Pearce report. I table a letter dated 4 May from the British High Commission in Canberra advising that to the best of the British Government's knowledge and belief there are no burial sites in existence resulting from the Maralinga tests other than those described in the full Pearce report. Yesterday in response to a question from Senator Cook, in confirming that a small quantity of plutonium had been returned to the United Kingdom in 1979, I said that as part of an agreement between the United Kingdom and Australian governments, Australia had agreed to accept entirely the responsibility for the rest of the contaminated waste material at Maralinga and that the United Kingdom had no further responsibility to have any other contaminated material repatriated to the United Kingdom. Again with the concurrence of the British Government, I have arranged for the exchange of documents relating to this matter to be made public and table a copy of a note dated 29 November 1978 to the British Government and its response of 4 January 1979, as well as the bout de papier referred to in the High Commissioner's letter. While there is understandable concern on the part of the public about the various claims and allegations regarding Maralinga in the last few days this has not been helped by overreaction and misreporting by some sections of the media and by continuing suggestions of secrecy on the part of the Australian and British governments. Typical of this is a claim in the Canberra Times today stating that details were revealed yesterday of another previously unpublicised Federal Government report on the 1979 program to remove a plutonium mass from Maralinga. The plain fact is that the report, entitled, 'Management of Former United Kingdom Atomic Test Sites in Australia-Report of 1979 Work Program', was presented in both Houses of the Parliament on 7 June 1979, and a Press release was also issued. Finally, let me assure the Senate and the Australian people that this Government has no interest or intention of keeping facts relating to the nuclear tests in Australia secret. We are dealing with events that date back some thirty years. There are voluminous records scattered throughout various Commonwealth departments and archives in Australia and the same situation exists in the United Kingdom. My Department is continuing efforts to bring together all relevant documents and information, and I am advised that a similar process is proceeding in the United Kingdom. As I have already announced, later this year the Government will receive a report covering the history of the Maralinga and Emu test series and that will be published. In the meantime, I invite any person who has information believed to be of relevance to come forward and to contact me or my Department. I present the following paper: Maralinga Weapons Tests-Ministerial Statement, 4 May 1984. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.48) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. As I have had a copy of the statement for a matter of only 10 or 15 minutes and it was the view of the Opposition that it was in the public interest that the statement should be made before the Senate rises today, I do not wish to say very much. I also wish to make it clear, Mr Deputy President, that it is the wish of the Opposition to deal with the Government's tax legislation and to move a motion which would refer that legislation to a committee. We would like to see that motion dealt with forthwith so that the Committee to which the legislation is referred can examine the legislation quickly and report back to the Senate quickly, and thereby not unduly delay the Government's legislative program. The only comments on the statement which I wish to make at this stage are to pick up the point which was made by the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) with respect to continuing suggestions of secrecy and his words at the end of his statement when he issued the invitation to any person who has information believed to be of relevance to come forward and to contact him or his Department. I merely say that that invitation is the latest in a series of invitations which have been issued by Senator Walsh's predecessor, Senator Sir John Carrick. I stress that it has always been the view of the Opposition, as it was the view of the previous Government, that this sort of matter should be dealt with openly and thoroughly and that any concern should be raised and dealt with and investigated in an appropriate manner. I draw the Senate's attention to some of the earlier evidence of that approach. Senator Walsh has already referred to the fact that one secret report was actually tabled in this place. I remind the Senate of the report of the Australian Ionising and Radiation Advisory Council dated January 1983 and entitled 'British Nuclear Tests in Australia-A Review of Operational Safety Measures and of Possible After-effects'. That report dealt, inter alia, with issues which have been raised recently. I note that in the Summary at paragraph 1.18 it is stated: The precautions taken to ensure that Aboriginals living in the area were not endangered by the nuclear tests were carefully planned and executed and AIRAC has found no evidence that any Aboriginals were injured by the nuclear tests. I do not quote that as saying that is the end of the matter. If new evidence, new material, is available by all means it should be brought forward and examined. The other report I want to remind the Senate of is the report of the Commonwealth Department of Health entitled 'Health of Atomic Test Personnel'. That contains a great deal of information about the work which was done under Senator Sir John Carrick to ensure that all personnel who had participated in the test programs were as far as possible followed up, that their health situation was examined and a careful examination was made of whether there was any evidence of damage to the health of those personnel. Time does not permit me to go into any detail, but I think it is important if we are to have these matters dealt with sensibly that it be acknowledged that there has been a wish on the part of successive governments to deal with these matters openly. The view taken is that there is nothing to hide and certainly that nothing should be hidden. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(Queensland) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a brief statement about a misreporting in the Hansard record. A printing error has been made in the Hansard record of my speech on the matter of public importance debated this Wednesday, which attributes a chunk of Senator Withers's remarks to me. Senator Withers —Read it out again so we will understand why you want to- Senator CROWLEY —I certainly will allude to it. Of course, it is a very rare occasion that the Senate has the pleasure of hearing from Senator Withers. I would like simply to recall to him and to the Senate his remark, which describes very well what we all experience when he rose to speak, when quoting from Orwell : . . . one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy . . . In this case it was a dummy smiling like a cheshire cat. I think it is important for the record that those remarks made by Senator Withers are not attributed to me. He does claim that he has never paraded himself around this place as a saint . Of course, it is rare to be so gratified with a statement of truth. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crowley, you are going rather away from a personal explanation. You must stick to the subject matter. Senator CROWLEY —This is definitely the subject. This is the content of what was attributed to me, Mr Deputy President. I would like to make it quite clear that it was Senator Withers who claimed not to be a saint, a point with which I can agree but I would rather that ownership of that remark is attributed to him and not me. Finally, I do not wish to have attributed to me any remarks about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or haloes. Clearly a failed or lapsed saint is the person who refers to haloes. Just for the record, I would like it to be clear that that paragraph is Senator Withers's contribution and not mine. Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 3 and 4 standing in my name relating to the disallowance of a certain ordinance and regulations be postponed till two sitting days after today. Consideration resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Reference to Standing Committee Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.55) —Mr Deputy President, pursuant to standing order 196A, I move: That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report on or before 31 May 1984. In view of the time, the fact that Question Time is almost upon us, and the fact that we wish this Bill to be referred to the Committee for an inquiry to be undertaken on it and reported on by 31 May, I make no further remarks other than to seek the support of the Senate for the motion. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.58) — The Government is opposed to the motion to refer the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations . We believe that the Bill ought to be dealt with now. But, in view of the time which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has mentioned and the rapid approach of Question Time and, having spoken to the Australian Democrats who have assured me that they all support the motion, it is quite clear that the motion will be carried regardless of whether or not there is a division. Under those circumstances, while noting for the record the Government's opposition, I do not propose to call a division on this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.57) —In the few minutes available to me I would like to refer very briefly to a meeting which recently took place in Tokyo , the regional inter-governmental preparatory meeting for the world conference to review and appraise the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women- Equality, Development and Peace. On that occasion I had the honour to be included in the Australian delegation to the meeting in Tokyo which was established in order for this region of the United Nations to prepare a report which will go to the end of the decade conference to be held in Nairobi in July next year. On that occasion 32 nations of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific region were represented in Tokyo. They represented the vast majority of nations, with the exception of some of the smaller Pacific nations which were unable to send representatives. It seems to me that one of Australia' s roles in the region should be to make certain that those small Pacific nations with very poor resources are given every opportunity to be represented at such forums. During the course of the conference we were able to put together a report and a set of recommendations which, as I said earlier, are designed to go with the reports of the three other regional conferences to the Committee which will prepare the end of the decade conference in Nairobi in July next year. In the Committee of the Whole each of the countries represented at the conference was able to deliver its own paper. Showing some sensitivity on this occasion, Australia, one of the very fortunate countries in the region, was able, I think, to provide, as it does at other conferences of that nature, a certain intermediary role. It was a matter of some gratification for me to find that as an Australian I was able not only to fulfil the position of rapporteur for the conference but also to be involved in discussions with a wide range of countries and delegations from the region. One of the other very highly satisfactory outcomes of the conference was that subsequently an Australian woman of great calibre, Justice Elizabeth Evatt, was elected at the subsequent ESCAP meeting to be one of the members of the expert committee which deals with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. I found it extremely gratifying to have represented Australia at the conference and, as I say, to have been able to fulfil the role of a conciliator within the conference, obviously representing a country to which all other delegations were able to come and discuss issues. I found that it was of great value for the conference to have been held in Tokyo, Japanese women having in many respects a very long way to go, I might say, at a time when their own Government is seriously considering ratification of the Convention. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12 noon, in accordance with Sessional Orders, I now call on Questions without Notice. ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS Senator KILGARIFF —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy that the terms in which Mr Hugh Morgan expressed his concern about the implications of Aboriginal land rights for the mining industry, to quote the Minister, 'do not necessarily invalidate the case itself'. Does she share the Minister's concern that, since 1981, 165 exploration licences have been offered to 42 companies on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and none have successfully negotiated agreements? Senator RYAN —In my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and, I am sure, representing the Government generally, I share Senator Walsh's condemnation of the terms in which Mr Morgan chose to make a public statement about the problems for the mining industry in the implementation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I have no knowledge of the precise number of exploration licences which have been applied for, nor how many have been granted or how many are still under consideration. I am aware that sections of the mining industry are concerned about delays. Naturally, our Government will take those concerns separately. However-I am trying to remember the end of Senator Kilgariff's question-I certainly cannot give detailed comment on the number of licences. It is the intention of our Government, in the land rights area, as in every other area, to resolve dilemmas or possible problems by consultation with all parties concerned and certainly not to go down the track that Mr Morgan has apparently gone down of trying to create some racist backlash against Aboriginal land owners in the Northern Territory by describing them in such derogatory terms. I am perfectly confident that my colleague Senator Walsh, the Minister for Energy and Resources, and my colleague Mr Clyde Holding, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, will be able-through discussion, and consultation with miners and Aboriginal land owners in the Northern Territory-to overcome any legitimate difficulties that may exist with regard to the development of mining in that Territory. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's answer to the first part of the question. However, I think she said that she had missed some of the figures in the second part. I shall repeat it. The second part of my question is: Does she share the Minister's concern that, since 1981, 165 exploration licences have been offered to 42 companies on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and none has successfully negotiated agreements? Senator RYAN —If that matter is a matter for concern by Senator Walsh, then he is the appropriate Minister to express that concern. I would need to know a lot more about why so many licences were applied for, the extent of current mining projects on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and a great deal of other background material before I could place in context the figure of 165 unapproved applications for exploration licences. The question is complex. Yesterday my colleague Senator Walsh expressed some sympathy with the miners' view, and I am sure that he is exploring that sensitively. I conclude my answer to Senator Kilgariff's supplementary question by saying this: Our Government is firmly committed to Aboriginal land rights. We welcome the fact that a substantial part of the Northern Territory is now owned by traditional Aboriginal owners. Senator Durack —Welcome it? Senator RYAN —Welcome it. I said we welcomed that fact. As the honourable senator will recall, the Whitlam Government introduced land rights legislation into the Northern Territory but did not have the chance to implement it. We welcome the fact that the Fraser Government proceeded with that legislation, even though with some amendments, and that in a bipartisan manner land rights for traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory have been established. I think there is bipartisan support for that development throughout this chamber and in the community. If there are difficulties with regard to delays in the consideration of applications for exploration, those matters will be addressed by my colleagues Senator Walsh and Mr Holding. I conclude by saying that any problems which have arisen or which appear to have arisen ought, in the view of our Government, to be resolved by consultation with all parties concerned; that is, the Aboriginal owners themselves and the miners. Senator ROBERTSON —I preface my questions, which I direct to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, by saying that I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from constituents about inordinate delays in the resolution of their repatriation pension applications. I ask: Is the Minister also receiving an increasing number of complaints? Is he aware of the concern within the ex- service community about this matter and what does he propose to do about it? Senator GIETZELT —I think it would be true to say that my predecessor, Senator Messner, would have been aware, as I have become aware in the 14 months I have been Minister for Veterans' Affairs, of the quite unacceptable delays occurring in the repatriation benefits determining system. That, of course, is what prompted the establishment of the Repatriation Review Tribunal to examine ways and means by which these delays could be overcome. As far as the current position is concerned, as at 29 March 1984 the mean times taken to process claims and appeals were worse than they were when Senator Messner was Minister. It now takes 288 days to deal with claims. Applications for increased pensions take 248 days and appeals to go through the processes have now got to the unacceptable state of taking 777 days to be dealt with. Unfortunately, many of the applicants die before their cases are properly dealt with. I have exercised my rights as a Minister to take whatever administrative steps are available to the Government. There have been major reforms in the investigative processes. Priorities have been given where the claims have special circumstances and there has been an increase in the number of repatriation boards. We have established a number of single delegates of the Repatriation Commission to deal with the claims in the initial stage. The Government is currently considering the implications of the report of the Administrative Review Council which was tabled in the Senate on 16 November last year. It made many recommendations which will speed up the determining system. I am hopeful that before the Senate rises we will have that legislation in place for consideration at least by the Senate. Senator TEAGUE —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree with her colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that his experience in an electorate containing many large Aboriginal communities is that their constant demand is for things such as better health, schooling and accommodation rather than mineral rights unless, to quote Mr Campbell, ' fulminated by white zealots or urban outsiders'. I ask whether the Minister agrees with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in his letter to her and Caucus colleagues on 28 March, which states: There are more Aboriginal people in my electorate than in any other except perhaps the Northern Territory. While I get constant demands for . . . (health, schooling and accommodation) I never have any demand for mineral rights from this group unless fulminated by white zealots or in some cases, urban part Aboriginals. Senator RYAN —When Senator Teague rose to ask a question about Mr Campbell's views I thought he was going to ask me about emu farms because, according to what Mr Campbell said on the AM program this morning, considerable interest has been expressed by his Aborginal constituency in emu farms. Senator Archer —What has that got to do with it? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan, will you please answer the question? Senator RYAN —Senator Teague asked about statements he claims have been made by Mr Campbell about the needs of his Aboriginal constituents. I am in quite a good position to make a comment on those claims because I have spent considerable time in Mr Campbell's electorate. During the period I was shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I visited his electorate frequently, precisely to have discussions with Aboriginal communities about their demands and aspirations. I certainly agree with Mr Campbell, if Senator Teague is quoting him properly, that they have a great concern for educational opportunities, housing and, indeed, for basic things such as running water, which some communities do not have. They have enormous transport problems; they need better health services, more decentralised health services and so on. I would certainly endorse Mr Campbell's view that there are many urgent needs in the area of social policy in his entire electorate, which of course extends beyond the Kimberleys, and that his Aboriginal constituents are very much aware of those things and are very vigorous in pointing out their needs to Mr Campbell and to any other politicians who visit those areas. However, I have also had representations from Aboriginal people living in that electorate concerning their desire to have secure tenure of land and some access to share in any mineral wealth that may be created on their land. I diverge from Mr Campbell's comments to that extent, although his experiences may well have been different from mine. Since the question was directed to me as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I conclude by saying that our policy is that land rights for Aboriginal owners ought to be recognised. My colleague Mr Holding is preparing a co-ordinated Federal approach to land rights so that we can move to our objective of assisting to achieve land rights, including some rights to the development of minerals for Aboriginals in all parts of Australia. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Housing been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review today in which the Housing Industry Association is said to have attributed 10,000 more homes being built than would otherwise have been the case to the Hawke Government's first home ownership scheme? Does the Minister agree with the Housing Industry Association's comments? Further, does she agree that this would indicate the broad acceptance and approval of the scheme within the Australian community? Senator RYAN —I am sure that all honourable senators are aware, even if they did not read the Australian Financial Review this morning, of the enormous success of our first home owners scheme. I am very pleased that that success has been endorsed by an article in the Australian Financial Review, Australia's premier financial journal. Senator Archer —Have you shares in it? Senator RYAN —The news that 10,000 additional homes are available to Australians as a result of this scheme is something that everybody, even Senator Archer, must surely welcome. I expect too that there will be continued development in the home building industry as a result of our scheme because information provided to me by the Department of Housing and Construction is to the effect that 69,000 applications for assistance have been received in the period from 1 October to 27 April. So I agree with Senator Sibraa that the scheme has been outstandingly successful first of all in its primary objective-to assist Australians to get homes, Australians who would not otherwise have been able to get them. Of course there are many related benefits and advantages in such a rapid development in the home building industry. These have to do with job creation in the building and construction industry and increases in demand in retail areas connected with furnishing and furbishing of homes, and so on. Even the most jaundiced critic of the Government must agree, as the Australian Financial Review has pointed out this morning, that the scheme has been overwhelmingly successful. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it correct that key computer staff and consultants engaged by the Government for a 12-month period to prepare the assets test computer programs have been given notice? If it is correct, does that mean that the Government has decided to abandon the assets and income test legislation, despite the fact that the panel chaired by Professor Fred Gruen has not yet reported its findings? If the Government has decided not to proceed with the assets test in any form, will the Minister confirm this to remove the uncertainty and worry now experienced by pensioners? If it is not correct that the staff concerned have been given notice or been warned to look for other jobs because the assets and income test legislation is likely to be abandoned, is it true that they have been given these instructions because the computer system purchased by the Government is unable to cope with the complexity of the proposed assets testing requirements? Senator RYAN —I have no information at present on whether the Department has any non-departmental people working on the assets test. I shall seek to provide information for Senator Haines before the end of Question Time. As to the statement on whether or not the assets test will be forthcoming, she will be aware that the proposed assets test is being reviewed by a panel of community representatives. The Government will be awaiting the panel's report before it makes any decisions in this area. There has been no change from that position. From my experience of representing Senator Grimes before the Estimates Committee on social security matters, where the matter of the employment or the deployment of staff originally engaged to work on the test was raised and pursued at great length by members of that Committee, it would appear to me-I will confirm this later-that any staff that had been engaged for that purpose either have been continued to be employed on the review or are being redeployed in other areas of the Department or, in some cases, in other Commonwealth departments. I hope to have more precise information about the employees to whom Senator Haines's question referred by the end of Question Time. Senator GILES —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has spending on nursing care for veterans increased dramatically in real terms over the past decade or so? What are the implications of this fact for his portfolio, especially having regard to the Government's commitment relating to care of the aged? Senator GIETZELT —There has been a dramatic increase in spending by my Department on nursing care for veterans over the past decade or so. The Commonwealth accepts the full costs of nursing home accommodation required by veterans for service-related disabilities. In current prices, the Department spent $4m, in the 1972-73 Budget, on veterans' nursing care. This rose steadily to $30m in 1977-78 and to $58m in 1982-83. It is estimated that spending will rise to $64m on such health care in 1983-84. That will represent a 1,500 per cent increase in real terms over spending in 1972-73. That arises largely because the average age of veterans is now about 66. In those circumstances, large numbers of them are required to be accommodated in nursing homes on the basis of medical recommendations. The Government has expressed concern, not just at the cost increases involved but because it has become apparent that a considerable number of persons in nursing homes would prefer to be kept in their own homes. So the Government has established a working party on aged care with a view to developing a system of aged care independence and to providing such financial resources as will enable persons to be kept in their own homes for longer periods. The evidence is that up to 30 per cent of nursing home residents could be more appropriately and more happily provided for and accommodated in the community in their own homes. This would make them happier. It would be a much more compassionate way of dealing with them, and there would be considerable savings to the community. In this light, the sort of increase to which I have referred has caused the Government to decide to establish an Office of Aged Care. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will have considerable influence in its establishment. The first part of that process occurred under the last Budget, when we established geriatric assessments units at each of the repatriation hospitals. Under the Commonwealth employment plan we have established a number of pilot schemes under which domiciliary help is being provided. I am hopeful that in the Budget that will be recognised as a permanent feature of the Department's activities. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Is the Minister aware that there are two representatives of the European Economic Community in the chamber now and that they are in Australia to assess the Australian kangaroo industry? In light of this, I ask the Minister whether she can tell the Senate what steps the Government has taken to ensure that these gentlemen receive a fully balanced view of the industry. In particular, has the Government impressed on them the very strict conditions under which this industry is carried out in Australia and the severe adverse economic impact that cessation of imports of kangaroo products by the European Community would have on the Australian industry and our rural communities? Senator RYAN —Speaking on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, I am aware that two members of the European Economic Community, Mr Eismar and Dr Jordan, are visiting Australia in order to discuss the entire kangaroo issue. From Senator Boswell's question, I understand that they are in the chamber at present. They will be meeting the Minister this afternoon. That will be an opportunity for frank discussion of the entire kangaroo issue, covering all of the matters to which Senator Boswell alluded in his question. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment will be making a major statement on the kangaroo issue next Monday. In his statement, the Minister is expected to cover a wide range of issues, from the establishment of a Federal kangaroo monitoring group to the inaccuracies that have been put forward by certain people with regard to kangaroo numbers and quotas. I understand that Senator Boswell is particularly interested in that last point-that there have been very many inaccuracies put around about the industry. I assure him that Mr Cohen will be addressing those problems in his statement on Monday, following his discussions with Mr Eismar and Dr Jordan. Senator COLEMAN —I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce . Is the Minister able to comment on the steel industry following the release of the recent report of the Steel Industry Authority? What has been the effect of the Government's steel industry plan on the industry's performance? Senator BUTTON —The Government's initiatives in relation to the steel industry plan contained, in part, an important element which involved the appointment of a Steel Industry Authority to monitor the industry's performance and, particularly, the performance of the various contributors to the steel industry plan, namely, the producing companies, the trade unions and, of course, the Government, in another sense, in terms of bounty payments which were provided under the scheme. The Steel Industry Authority has recently published its report for the first quarter. It is an encouraging report. I want to refer briefly to some of the matters that have emerged from that report and from recent statistics. The first point I would make is that annual production for the Australian steel industry is now running at approximately 6 million tonnes per year, which is close to the current maximum capacity of the industry. March quarter production for 1984 is 27 per cent above production for the equivalent quarter in 1983. The steel industry plan set a target from the companies and the unions in respect of productivity of 250 tonnes per man, and that target has been exceeded. The average productivity figure per man for the March quarter was 261 tonnes and that figure was probably adversely affected by the fact that the Newcastle steel making plant was out of operation for some time as a result of maintenance requirements. Employment in the steel division of the companies now stands at 24,214 compared with 26,091 in March 1983. The Steel Industry Authority report also commented on the domestic steel market , the improvement in that market and a number of other matters which have emerged in the course of the first quarter of the operation of the plant. It is an encouraging start and the Government congratulates the trade unions involved and the producers on the willing way in which they have co-operated with the deliberations of the Steel Industry Authority. That co-operation will be of benefit not only to the steel industry but also to user industries and the whole of the Australian manufacturing industry sector. We very much welcome the approach which has been adopted. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. When will the Sex Discrimination Act passed by the Parliament in March be proclaimed? Is its date of operation being delayed by difficulties in drafting the regulations? Has the Government selected an advertising agency to promote community understanding of the Act? If so, which agency has won the contract, how much is it worth and when will the campaign begin? Senator RYAN —In answer to the first part of Senator Walters's question, no, the legislation is not being delayed by any difficulties in drafting regulations. We are waiting for the appointment of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner before we proclaim the Act. Indeed, there are regulations, but I am not aware of any drafting difficulties surrounding them. The position of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner was advertised two weeks ago, I think, and it is expected that a decision can be made fairly soon. Of course, the advertising of the Sex Discrimination Act is provided for in the legislation. Quite obviously the Government and all those people in the community who support this social reform want to be sure that people know how to take advantage of it and how to avail themselves of the protections which the Act provides. There is no point in making a social reform of this kind if the very people it is designed to help do not know of its existence or do not know how to go about using its provisions to get protection. So, as is provided for in the legislation, there will be a public education campaign. Part of this public education campaign may well involve the use of an advertising agency to develop advertising of a kind, I suppose, that reaches more people than the kind of community education exercises which the Human Rights Commission is able to carry out. There has been some discussion by officers of the Office of the Status of Women with some advertising agencies, but any decision to employ an agency would be taken by the Government committee on advertising; it would not be taken just within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I think a meeting to discuss the possible use of an advertising agency in this campaign is scheduled for the near future, but no decision with respect to an advertising campaign using an agency has yet been taken. Discussions are in a preliminary stage and any amounts of money that might have been reported in the Press concerning the possible cost of such a campaign were, I imagine, invented by the people who wrote them, because no campaign is yet planned that could be costed in any precise way. As information on this becomes available, I will certainly be keeping the Senate and the public informed, because naturally there is a great deal of interest in the legislation and a great deal of keenness on the part of people in the community to make sure that they know how to get the benefit of it. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister let me know whether tenders have been let for the advertising agency to be appointed? She did not answer the question: When will the campaign begin? Senator RYAN —To the best of my knowledge, tenders have not been let. There has been some discussion between the officers of the Office of the Status of Women and some advertising agencies about ways in which campaigns should be developed, but until we have a clear and agreed idea of the campaign the question of letting tenders is further down the track. To the best of my knowledge, no, tenders have not been let. Senator RICHARDSON —I raise with the Attorney-General the statements he made in October last year following the report of a special working committee of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission chaired by Professor Ronald Sackville concerning the possibility of establishing a national compensation scheme. As it is Australian Labor Party policy to establish Australia's first national no- fault compensation scheme, has the Government decided on the form that that proposed scheme will take? Will this new system help create uniformity in compensation payments and eliminate the erratic differences in the amounts presently awarded by the courts? What stage has the Government reached in establishing this new scheme? Senator GARETH EVANS —As Senator Richardson says, as a party and now as a government we have made no secret of our commitment to accident compensation reform. Both the Labor Party's platform and our pre-election law and justice policy spell out our commitment to developing, in co-operation with the States, a national compensation scheme on a no-fault basis. The report of the Law Reform Commission chaired by Professor Sackville to which Senator Richardson referred was an interim report dealing with a no-fault compensation scheme for the victims of road accidents. It did not in its own terms deal with the national scheme, but the Government regarded it, and still regards it, as the best model yet developed to implement reforms in this area. The Government expects to be examining quite soon a submission prepared jointly by my Department, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury dealing with ways of introducing, on a co-operative basis with the States, a no-fault motor accident scheme. Motorists around Australia will be only too conscious of the escalating costs of third party insurance premiums. Recent estimates suggest that car accidents cost the Australian community nationwide as much as $3,000m each year. A no- fault accident compensation scheme would compensate all victims of car accidents on a rational, humane and equitable basis, with periodic payments able to cover the costs and expenditure of a victim within a short time of an accident. That is in marked contrast to the erratic lottery which a victim of a car crash must engage in today, with lengthy and absurdly complex Supreme Court proceedings which may take up to three or four years to come to trial. When these cases finally come to judgment damages can vary dramatically and erratically. Even worse, the present common law system concentrates on the behaviour of the person who causes the accident in determining whether the victim will be compensated. It regards the suffering and needs of the victim as secondary, whereas a no-fault system, honourable senators will be aware, concentrates on the sufferings of the victim and the victim's compensation needs. The Government has always stated that it sees the introduction of a comprehensive national compensation scheme as not something that can be unilaterally established by the Commonwealth. In that respect our perception differs from that of the previous Labor Government. We have said that we need a gradual, what we have called a four-phase, process of extensive consultation with the States. Senator Missen —Along the lines of the Senate Committee in 1975? Senator GARETH EVANS —That has some parallels. Considering the submission of a no-fault accident compensation scheme, which I referred to before, the Government will be thus embarking on at least its consideration of the first stage of establishing a national compensation scheme in all the areas to which I refer rather than just simply car accidents. However, I do not want, by anything I have just said, to create expectations that there will be any terribly early movement towards actual implementation on this. There are still formidable difficulties, of a financial and legal kind, in getting even just the accident transport scheme that we have in mind off the deck. However, we are working very hard at it. What I am endeavouring to do today is to give a progress statement that consideration by the Government of this is imminent and that we are at last setting a foot or two down the track. The very last thing which I want to say and which I will say very quickly is that the humanity and efficiency of a no-fault scheme cannot be overestimated. It will benefit motorists, the public and those who suffer the tragic effects of the carnage on the road. There is a small but noisy group-lawyers-who believe that they will be disadvantaged by the restriction of common law actions. Over Easter I attended a legal conference in New Zealand and took the opportunity then to discuss the operation of the no fault system as it operates there. The situation is that New Zealand lawyers report that their practices are alive and well; there have been no bankruptcies and no impoverishment of New Zealand lawyers with their no fault compensation scheme. What has happened is that their work has expanded into other useful and profitable areas. I am sure that as a result of that the notorious capacity of lawyers to adapt themselves to changing environments, and always make a buck in the process, will ensure that they really have nothing to worry about with the scheme on which we are slowly but surely embarking. The PRESIDENT —Order! I point out that today there have been only nine questions and answers. In order to give every honourable senator a fair go at Question Time I plead with honourable senators to make their questions as short as possible, and likewise with Ministers in regard to their answers. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and also in the Minister's capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. My question relates to the booklet published recently by the Institution of Engineers Australia, entitled ' Engineering Education in Crisis'. I ask: Will the Minister comment on the report 's claim that the present inadequate funding of engineering education and associated research and development is causing an erosion of the standards of engineering which will be detrimental to the economic development of Australia? In the light of the repeated statements made by the Government supporting the development of new high technology industries I ask the Minister, firstly, what role does the Government see for engineering education in the development of high technology enterprises and, secondly, will the Minister assure the Senate that adequate funding will be made available by the Government to professional engineering schools to ensure that they have sufficient staff, facilities and equipment to provide engineers skilled in the latest technology who are able to keep pace with the increasing rate of world technology progress? Senator RYAN —I am aware of Senator Missen's interest in engineering education. I say that in principle I endorse the sentiments about the importance of engineering education expressed in his question. I have had representations from engineering education interests. Senator Button —And there will be more, too. Senator RYAN —I am probably going to get some more from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. There is no doubt that there needs to be no concern in Senator Missen's mind that the Government is not aware both of the importance of the contribution engineering education can make and of the need for more co- ordination, indeed more resources in this area. I assure Senator Missen that this is something to which the Government is addressing itself. I have just received the first volume of the triennial report of the Tertiary Education Commission. That report will be available publicly in the next few days, as soon as it is printed. It addresses these matters. The Government will be making its response to the recommendations of the report in due course. Senator Missen sought some assurances about funds being forthcoming to meet all the needs of engineering education. Of course, Senator Missen will be aware that neither I nor any other Minister is in any position to give firm commitments about amounts of money. However, in the context of considering the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission for the development of the whole of the higher education and Technical and Further Education area in the forthcoming triennium, I assure him that the Government and I will be giving very serious attention to the needs and future development of engineering education. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health read the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations' report entitled, 'Deadly Neglect: Regulating the Manufacture of Therapeutic Goods' which claims that substandard medical devices are used by doctors in Australian hospitals because of lack of mandatory standards and inspections to enforce them? The report also claims that serious health problems have arisen regarding pharmaceutical products, including labelling errors and- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask her question. Senator ZAKHAROV —Mr President, my next question is no longer than the last one. I continue, including labelling errors and contamination of sterile products. Can the Minister inform the Senate of what steps are being undertaken to ensure the adequate protection of health consumers through regulation of both medical equipment and pharmaceutical products? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Health has provided me with a fairly lengthy response to Senator Zakharov's question. I think I can reassure Senator Zakharov that the concerns she has expressed in her question have been addressed. Mr President, in view of your previous remarks I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Report in essence raises two major issues-the safety and efficacy of drugs and the quality control of drugs that are approved for marketing in Australia, and secondly, the safety and efficacy of devices which are currently in use in Australia. In the case of drugs, controls exercised by my Department in collaboration with the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, ensure that new drugs are released only when the Committee is satisfied as to the safety and efficacy of such drugs . This assessment by the Committee is based on an independent review by my Department of the data supporting the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs and is acknowledged to be effective by world standards. Continuing quality of drugs is ensured by a sampling programme as well as joint inspections of local manufacturers by officers of the National Biological Standards Laboratory and the State authority. While these programmes have proven effective the possibility of a breakdown quality control can still occur. It is my aim to have inspections at least annually. In the case of devices, the AFCO report paid particular attention to the release of defective heart valves in Australia. At the present time, there is no independent review procedure for devices similar to that which applies to drugs. It is my view that such a review procedure should be introduced to minimise the possibility of releasing unsafe devices onto the Australian market. However, the magnitude of this problem is greater than that for drugs given that there are 3, 000 different types of devices and a total of a quarter of a million devices available in some overseas countries. It is my intention to initiate an independent review procedure for those devices which are to be used in a life saving situation or for which the Commonwealth Government has a significant financial commitment. Senator DURACK —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I note that yesterday on the World Today program he referred to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority legislation. The Attorney-General stated: The great virtue of this Committee exercise has been that a lot of people have had a lot more time to understand what the nature of the organised crime problem is, the difficulties that confront executive governments right around Australia in dealing with it and the kind of really very elaborate legislative structure you need to cope with it. Does the Attorney-General believe that that understanding that the Committee exercise has led to will extend to his colleagues, particularly in the Labor Caucus, who caused him so much trouble last year, in bringing forward 'any old form of crime authority', to use his own words? Does he now agree that he was wrong when he said in the Senate in the debate last year on the motion to refer the Bill to a committee that the delay in the establishment of the Authority which would result could not be justified. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am glad to see that the pirate king is back on deck. If that reference is obscure, I remind honourable senators of the virtues of listening to Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Canberra occasionally. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Evans to answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Durack has been a bit land locked recently. I am glad to see the honourable senator is demonstrating signs of recovering his former swash and buckle. The PRESIDENT —Order! I invite the Attorney-General to answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, the question is so entirely lacking in substance that it entitles me to be a trifle playful in reply. The question is not one that can be addressed at all seriously. The reality of the matter is that the Government's commitment to the establishment of an effective national crime authority has been real, immediate and consistent over the whole period that we have been in office. The basic model that we have sought to establish is one that gets two balances right. These were conspicuously neglected in the activities of the previous Government in this respect. On the one hand there is the need to get right the balance between effective performance in dealing with organised crime and in responding to the very serious challenge that it creates while on the other hand at the same time not interfering unduly with individual liberties and getting appropriate checks and balances. The second balance that has to be got right is between the power and authority and capacity of the Commonwealth on the one hand and that of the States on the other hand. For a party which sitting on the Opposition benches has so traditionally prided itself on its commitment to the Australian Federation and to the desirability of co- operative federalism, there could not have been a greater debacle than the circumstances of its drafting and attempted introduction of its own national crime commission Bill, as it then was. The particular model that the present Government has sought continually to get into place, the elements of which have been confirmed and endorsed by the Senate Committee in its report, is a model that is addressed-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. Mr President, you have on a couple of occasions during Question Time made suggestions to both questioners and Ministers which have widespread agreement within the Senate. On this occasion we are getting a very lengthy address on matters which are not the subject matter of the question which was asked, and I ask you to bring the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —I cannot direct a Minister as to the manner in which he will answer a question; that is a matter for the Minister. I appeal to Ministers to make their answers as short as possible so that everyone in the Senate will get a fair go. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate the force and good sense of that ruling, Mr President, and I shall not bore either you or the Senate very much longer. But it was a very boring question and I am entitled under those circumstances to give a boring answer. I finish it by saying that we are committed to a genuinely co-operative structure. Indeed, right now-I have been diverted from it by this Question Time-we are in the process downstairs-- Senator Peter Rae —I thought it was because you were busy listening to local radio. Do you find it more interesting? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Rae's musical preferences would undoubtedly turn out to be for primitive music. I conclude by saying there has been a consistency of approach, which I think was the nub of Senator Durack's suggestion, in our attitude to the Crime Authority. We are concerned and anxious to get a workable body, and nothing that has happened over the course of the last few months gives the Government or me any ground whatsoever to acknowledge either error or the need for apology. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the criticism from the Opposition with reference to the method used by the Australian Statistician in establishing the consumer price index- Senator Crowley —Good question. Senator ROBERT RAY —Can the Minister, for my benefit and Senator Crowley's benefit, indicate the way in which the consumer price index is determined? Did the previous Government attempt to alter the way in which the consumer price index is calculated? Finally, has the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development objected in any way to the way in which Australia produces a consumer price index? Senator WALSH —There were several sub-questions and I will deal first with the last one. As far as I know the OEDC has not expressed any reservations about the way in which the Australian CPI is compiled, although I will ask the Treasurer for further information on that point. Senator Ray also asked whether the previous Government had attempted to make any changes. I think I can recall some minor changes being made during the term of the previous Government to the CPI or to its regimen, or at least to its weighting. I do not know whether that was done as a result of suggestions by the Government or spontaneously by the Australian Statistician. I will try to get that information as well. It is correct that the Australian CPI is not identical to the CPI used in other countries. One important difference between Australia and the United States of America, for example, is that interest rates are included in the American regimen and they are not included in the Australian regimen. Senator Ray asked whether the previous Government had attempted to make any changes. I think what he probably meant was any changes to the present CPI arrangements under which, effectively, indirect taxes are included in the CPI and direct taxes are not. I certainly cannot recall the previous Government attempting to change that arrangement. That has particular relevance to the Medicare levy and the negative quarterly March CPI figure. It is, of course, correct that the Medicare effect on the CPI will apply only in the March and June quarters. But it is still vital because with the wages policy that is in existence the Medicare effect, although it is a once only effect, will establish a new and lower threshold of inflation which will be sustained by the wages policy. For that reason it is very important. That is a fact which does not seem to have been appreciated by the Opposition-at least, if it is appreciated, it has refused to acknowledge it-nor has it been appreciated in the community as widely as it ought to have been. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that on Wednesday last the Minister avoided answering a question as to what was the current position with the Government's plans for restructuring of industry? Was the subsequent report in yesterday's Australian Financial Review accurate in stating that the Government has criticised the draft report of the special task force on industry restructuring because the report did not sufficiently reflect the Government's policy on restructuring? Will the Minister now answer the question as to the current state of progress of the Government's plans for industry restructuring? Senator BUTTON —There is a certain confusion in the question, about which I must say I am not surprised. But the question I was asked earlier was about a meeting of the Parliamentary Labor Party committee on industry policy. Senator Peter Rae —The question asked: 'Will the Minister indicate to the Senate the current position?'. Senator BUTTON —But that is not the point of the honourable senator's question. The point of his question related to what I answered in the Senate the other day . In answering a question in the Senate the other day I was answering a question about what I said, and the reaction to what I said, in the Caucus industry policy committee. I answered that question. If Senator Rae wishes to confuse that with the committee of public servants which has been working on this question in relation to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, he is at liberty to do so. But the confusion will not help him or anybody else. Insofar as the committee of officials is concerned, there was a difference in terms of the approach adopted by that committee and by me. But that is inevitable and, indeed , it is desirable that there should be a dynamic discussion about these matters in developing an approach to industry policy. I am now asked by Senator Rae whether I will provide an answer in relation to the Government's policy on industry restructuring. Senator Peter Rae —The current state of progress. Senator BUTTON —If he wants information on the current state of progress, this matter is being considered by various departments-predominantly my Department- and various groups of officials. It is being considered by a committee of Ministers and, of course, it is being considered by me. But when one talks about restructuring of industry, I hope it is recognised that that is a continuing and ongoing process. It would be absurd to bring down some sort of blueprint or statement of that kind in relation to a question such as this. The progress which the honourable senator asked about is being reflected in the work of those various bodies to which I referred. Ultimately the implementation of those deliberations must be seen in relation to a number of specific areas of industry policy in a pragmatic way as events occur from time to time. But that is the state of progress in respect of which I was asked to comment. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister refer to page 1478 of the Hansard of 2 May 1984 and then make a statement to the Senate indicating that he was wrong when he accused me a few moments ago of referring to a question which was not the question asked last Wednesday? That question-the same reference that I made today-was: Will the Minister indicate to the Senate the current position of the Government 's plans on industry restructuring? Senator BUTTON —No, I will not do that because the honourable senator is so confused that he does not even know which confusions he is involved in at this stage. If he spends the next week reading copies of Hansard and asks me another question about it, I will try to answer his question then. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As the very existence of the Department of Veterans' Affairs arises out of the need to look after people who have returned from wars, is it planning to make any contribution to the International Year of Peace in 1986? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has written to all departments suggesting that they should make a contribution to the International Year of Peace in 1986. I am sure that each department will consider this very seriously. My Department has, and it is planning to make a positive contribution in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have written to the Minister and advised him in those terms. I proposed a number of initiatives in that letter. The first was a scheme to train doctors and other technicians from South East Asian countries in respect of our Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliances Centre. That is particularly important having regard to the amounts of civil strife that exists in countries north of Australia. The second initiative was to consider establishing 'Gardens of Peace' and 'Peace Playgrounds' at our Repatriation general hospitals, and the third was to mount mobile peace displays at agricultural shows, libraries, art galleries and museums. The fourth initiative was to assist the Department of Foreign Affairs in producing a peace film by providing information about the voluntary work of ex-service organisations. I think it is most important that my Department play a significant role in the decision of the United Nations to conduct a year of peace in 1986, particularly because the clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs are veterans and casualties of war and are in the best position to realise the need to carry out the prime objectives of the United Nations as stated in its charter 'to save succeeding generations from the ravages of war and instead, to practise tolerance and live together to maintain international peace and security'. I am certain that they are the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of veterans in this country. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It relates to those hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians who comprised the one major group who have continued to suffer from the policies of this Government and all State governments. In view of the Government's claim that the economy is improving dramatically, will the Government use its influence to negotiate with State governments for the immediate elimination of the iniquitous anti-employment tax, the States payroll taxes, from all 1984-85 Budgets? Senator BUTTON —The Government has been very conscious in determining its macroeconomic policies of the plight of unemployed people in Australia. I just remind the honourable senator in relation to the earlier parts of his question that the Government, prior to the 1983 election, made it quite clear that in its view the capacity to reduce unemployment at the rate at which he would have liked was severely limited. But, in spite of that, there has been a significant reduction in unemployment and as well a significant increase in the rate of job creation in Australia, a much better outcome than the Government expected. The honourable senator asked me more specifically about the question of payroll tax. Certainly we are aware, as governments throughout Australia ought to be aware, of the possible adverse effects or likely adverse effects of the payroll tax on employment. I understand that it is a matter which has been discussed at the Economic Planning Advisory Council. I regard it as a matter which has to be attended to as soon as possible. But I of course can make no commitments on behalf of this Government at this stage in relation to budgetary deliberations and outcomes. I am grateful to the honourable senator for drawing my attention again to this important consideration. Senator BUTTON(Leader of the Government in the Senate)(12.58) —It being two minutes to one, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. I do so to enable Estimates committees to meet. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.58) —I will be very brief. The decision by the Federal Labor Government to include the Cocos and Christmas Island groups with the Northern Territory for voting and referenda purposes poses a number of important questions for the future status of the Northern Territory. As honourable senators will be aware, the Northern Territory attained self-government in 1978. Since then, it has been progressing toward statehood and is now at a stage where there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel . However, the decision to include Cocos and Christmas Islands could raise some difficulties. It is said that these islands could not be included with Western Australia despite their strong trade and communication links because, under the Australian Constitution, a State's boundaries cannot be extended to take in a Territory. No doubt this could be corrected by referendum. If this is not done, to overcome future problems once the Northern Territory gains statehood, the Cocos and Christmas Islands would surely have to be divested from the Northern Territory. Why then should the Federal Labor Government's proposals to include the islands with the Northern Territory in the interim period be carried out in the first place? It seems to me there are very many legal questions relating to States and Territories that require review before any action on this matter is taken. The rights of the Northern Territory and its people must be protected, and the Federal Government should also be seeking a suitable answer to ensure that the people of Cocos and Christmas Islands, and for that matter perhaps Norfolk Island, are given the right to vote in Federal elections and referenda. Rather than rushing into this matter, I suggest to the Government that much more consideration be given to this very important decision concerning representation for the people on these islands. As I have said before, we must also consider the future of the Northern Territory. In closing, I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) who represents the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Senate to answer the following questions when he is in a position to do so: Does the Government intend to go ahead with its proposals to include the Cocos and Christmas Islands with the Northern Territory electorate for the purposes of voting in Federal elections and referenda? If so, will the Government allow the Northern Territory to attain statehood at a time when the Territory Government and its people feel that this is appropriate? What then will be the status of the Cocos and Christmas Islands? Would they be included with the Northern Territory as part of the new State which of course does not appear to be possible under the Constitution? If not, what does the Government envisage their future to be? Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(1.02) — On 3 April this year during Question Time I asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who represents the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) about an increase in air fares which had been announced the previous day. The Hansard record of that question reads as follows : I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Has the Independent Air Fares Committee presented a detailed report on its reasons for recommending a 2 per cent increase in air fares on 2 April? If so, is that report publicly available? If not, will a report be made available so that the travelling public and elected representatives are able to scrutinise the Committee's assessment? In reply the Minister for Veterans' Affairs informed me that not only is the Independent Air Fares Committee obliged to publish its findings following a fare review, but also it is required to make available the evidence and reasons for its conclusions. The Committee must have published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette a notice setting out the terms of the determination, the reason for making it and any findings or facts placed before it. At the time I asked the question, the Independent Air Fares Committee had not published its findings. These findings have now been gazetted and may be found in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. G 16, dated 24 April. I do not wish to read the gazettal notice, but I consider it essential to my comments. I therefore seek leave to have the gazettal notice incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The notice read as follows- SPECIAL INFORMATION NOTICES UNDER THE INDEPENDENT AIR FARES COMMITTEE ACT 1981 DETERMINATION Operator: Ansett Airlines of Australia-Trans Australian Airlines. Section of Act: 15. Date notified: 29 March 1984. Brief particulars of terms and reasons: In response to a request from one of the above operators, the Committee undertook a major air fares review and on 29 March 1984 determined as follows: Economy Air Fare Formulae Determination of the following formulae for setting economy air fares over related routes operated by Ansett Airlines of Australia (AAA) and Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), effective 2 April 1984. Jet Services: The formula for AAA and TAA jet services incorporating a flag-fall plus a distance rate will be: Fare ($) = A + BX + CX2 + DX3 where: A is the flag-fall (value 44.40) B, C, D are the distance coefficients (values B = 143.35; C = -20.64; D = 1.71) X is the journey distance expressed in thousands of kilometres For multistage journeys, the distance rate for kilometres in excess of 3611, where applicable, will be calculated at 6.118 cents per kilometre. This determination results in an increase of 2% for the jet air fare formula. F27 Services: The formula for AAA and TAA F27 services incorporating a flag-fall plus a distance rate will be: Fare ($) = A + BX where A is the flag-fall (value 44.7) B is the distance coefficient (value 0.14585) X is the journey distance in kilometres. This determination is the same as that determined by the Committee on 29 September 1983. Through Fares The Committee determined that, where the sum of sector fares does not apply, a sum of $5 be added to the through fare to reduce the amount being absorbed by an airline when constructing a through fare with another operator, except in certain instances where a specific arrangement has been approved by the Committee. Each operator sought fare increases for jet and F27 services substantially in excess of that approved, and submitted that such increases would have little effect on demand. As required, AAA and TAA provided detailed and extensive operational and financial data including revised cost and revenue estimates for the 1983/84 financial year. The Committee also had regard to its Cost Allocation Reviews Report of 13 August 1982 and to information provided by both operators for their last (September 1983) major air fares review. The revised estimates submitted by both operators showed increases in costs generally (including provision for wage increases effective April 1984) offset by improvements in traffic and revenue yields, and lower unit costs resulting from the impact of the cost reduction programs implemented by both airlines. Aircraft utilisation, in particular for wide-bodied aircraft, is generally not at levels the Committee would regard as efficient. This reflects the composition and size of both operator's aircraft fleets which do not enable the airlines to efficiently service the present market. The Committee was pleased to note the continuing improvements being made by both operators in efficiency generally but from its examination of a number of measures formed the view that there were still certain areas in which further gains could be made. The estimated profit levels of AAA and TAA for the current financial year as assessed by the Committee were likely to show an improvement on the levels estimated at the last major review. Nevertheless, the estimated profit returns for the 1983/84 financial year, including increased revenue from the 2% increase , were regarded by the operators as inadequate. The Committee concluded that the profit levels were constrained by the less than efficient use of the airline's resources, in particular aircraft and through the current state of passenger demand. The Committee further concluded that an increase in air fares of the extent sought by the operators could have a material and detrimental impact on demand. Having regard to the evidence and material before it, including the level of operating costs likely to be incurred by the airlines to the end of the 1983/84 financial year, the Committee determined that a 2% increase in the jet air fare formula for AAA and TAA was justified and appropriate. The Committee further determined that no increase was justified or appropriate in AAA's and TAA's F27 air fare formula having regard to the cost structure and efficiency of these operations. The 2% increase in jet air fares approved for AAA and TAA will mean a compounded cumulative increase of 9.5% for 1983/84 and represents the lowest increase in a financial year since 1977/78. Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. It will be recalled that in my question on 3 April, I asked whether a report would be made available 'so that the travelling public and elected representatives are able to scrutinise the Committee's assessment'. For that purpose, the Independent Air Fares Committee report is useless. It begins by outlining that the Committee undertook a review of air fares in response to a request from one of the major airline operators, Ansett Airlines of Australia or Trans Australia Airlines. It may be inferred from the Committee's comment that either Ansett or TAA did not seek a fare increase. The gazettal notice then refers to some complicated formulae by which fares are to be calculated. No explanation of how these formulae were arrived at is given. The remainder of the notice is a self-justification for increasing fares by 2 per cent with very little, if any, hard data to support the increase. One of the paragraphs of the report states: The revised estimates submitted by both operators showed increases in costs generally (including provision for wage increases effective April 1984) offset by improvements in traffic and revenue yields, and lower unit costs resulting from the impact of the cost reduction programs implemented by both airlines. One of the cost increases was stated to be wage increases. Wage increases are always a convenient excuse. I would like to ask: What were the increases in costs generally? What did the airlines' submissions say in relation to wage increases? What were the offsets? The whole of the paragraph above is double talk. It provides no information by which this Committee's determination can be verified or refuted. One further paragraph states: Having regard to the evidence and material before it, including the level of operating costs likely to be incurred by the airlines to the end of the 1983/84 financial year, the Committee determined that a 2 per cent increase in the jet air fare formula for AAA and TAA was justified and appropriate. The evidence and material before the Committee should be available to the public and their representatives. I cannot accept that the increase as determined by the Committee is justified; neither can the travelling public. Air travel is used extensively throughout Australia because of the long distances between major cities in our country. In Queensland, the State that I represent in this place, air travel is essential for many people. Queensland is the most decentralised of the States. Any increases in air fares are a blow to those residents of Queensland who have to travel long distances. I could, as well, mention the viability of Queensland's tourist industry; an industry which is the second largest in Queensland and has a high labour content. From Coolangatta to the Papua New Guinea border, an estimated 100,000 people are employed in the tourist industry. The industry itself injects approximately $2. 23 billion annually into the Queensland economy. Any increases in air fares are counter-productive to the efforts made in Queensland to maintain, and even increase, the tourist traffic to the State. I acknowledge that, from time to time, increases in air fares will be justified . But the public and the public's elected representatives should be able to see that the increases are justified. They cannot do so at present and have to take the Independent Air Fares Committee's determination on trust. I am not prepared to do that. The Committee must provide that data which will enable its conclusions to be put to the test. I call on the Committee to do that in future. If it does not, it may be necessary to have a close look at the Independent Air Fares Committee Act to determine whether legislative amendments are necessary. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.09) —I do not have any brief to respond either to Senator Colston or to Senator Kilgariff. I will see that their comments are referred to the appropriate Ministers for reply. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates committees A and D will meet at approximately 2 p.m. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee D will meet in Committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. The following papers were presented: Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 67. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 63, 64. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 66. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 65. Public Service Act-Determinations 1984-Nos 7, 12, 13. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 68. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 605) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) What is the annual rental being paid by the Australian Government for the house currently occupied by the second-in-command, at the Australian Consulate in Los Angeles, United States of America. (2) How does the amount paid for this rental compare with rents for comparable accommodation in the same city. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The annual rental for the residence of the second-in-command, currently the Senior Trade Commissioner, at the Australian Consulate in Los Angeles is $62,493 . (2) The rental for six other comparable residences inspected during the twelve week search for the Senior Trade Commissioner's present residential accommodation ranged from $56,686 to $75,582 per annum based on the current exchange rate. The properties were: Toluca Lake, 4411 Arcola Avenue $56,686 per annum Holmby Hill, 1040 Brooklawn $62,985 per annum Bededict Canyon, Deep Canyon Drive $69,284 per annum Encino, 5148 Encino Avenue $69,284 per annum Toluca Lake, 4332 Mariota Avenue $69,284 per annum Hancock Park $75,582 per annum (Question No. 679) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report in the newspaper, the Australian, of 1 March 1984, that a 27 year old Indian man and a 25 year old Sri Lankan woman, who are aliens living in the United Arab Emirates, are to be stoned to death for adultery, the man forthwith, the woman, who is six months pregnant, after she had delivered and weaned her baby. (2) Will the Minister ascertain whether this report is correct and, if so, will the Australian Government protest in the strongest terms to the Government of the United Arab Emirates at the barbaric treatment threatening these two fellow Commonwealth citizens, despite the fact this inhumane sentence is religiously inspired, and demand that they be allowed to return to their own countries unharmed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that the report is correct, but that such sentences on non- nationals have not in practice been carried out in the United Arab Emirates. I understand that both the Sri Lankan and Indian governments have been in touch with the United Arab Emirates authorities concerning the sentences upon the nationals. The Australian Government cannot condone violations of internationally recognised human rights, especially those relating to the security of the person or involving cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. I therefore view these reports with concern and wish to record the Government's hope that the United Arab Emirates authorities will exercise clemency in these cases, especially as the convicted persons are nationals of other countries. (Question No. 684) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 6 March 1984: Why has the attitude of the Government regarding Qantas flights to South Africa not changed, given that seven black African countries currently run regular flights as do nine other major international airlines. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As a result of the Government's 1983 general review of Australia's relations with South Africa, the Government decided that a further review of civil aviation links with southern Africa should be carried out. The Government has not yet completed this review. As a range of options for the longer term future of air links with southern Africa is currently being examined, it would be premature to speculate at this time on the outcome of the review as the Government wishes to examine its options fully and consult with Qantas before making its decision. (Question No. 690) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: What is the effective rate of assistance for (a) lawnmowers, and (b) internal combustion engines not exceeding 4.5 kilowatts, under the Government's new assistance arrangements for lawnmowers, certain engines and parts? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In its report of 6 July 1983 on Lawnmowers Certain Engines and Parts, the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) indicated that effective assistance for internal combustion engine rotary mowers is heavily dependent on the assistance provided to the engine which constitutes about 50 per cent of the factory cost of the mower. The IAC estimated that under the duties operative at the time of its enquiry (35 per cent on the engine and 25 per cent on the mower) the effective rate for mowers was between 15 and 20 per cent. Under the new assistance arrangements, that is with both engine and mower dutiable at 25 per cent, the effective rate on mowers is estimated to have risen to about 25 per cent. The IAC also stated that with the average duty on inputs lower than 35 per cent , the effective rate of assistance available to engine manufacture at the time would be higher than 35 per cent. As the 25 per cent duty and recently introduced $6 bounty on engines provide a nominal rate of assistance equivalent to the previous duty of 35 per cent, the effective assistance for engines will remain unchanged for the next two years. (Question No. 704) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) How many passengers have passed through the international terminal at Adelaide Airport in the period 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983. (2) How many passengers in the above time period using the international terminal have been (a) inbound; and (b) outbound. (3) How many international passengers have passed through the following airports in the period 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983 (a) Brisbane; (b) Darwin ; (c) Perth; and (d) Townsville. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 60,954. (2) (a) Inbound-31,285; (b) Outbound-29,669. (3) Airports Inbound Outbound Total Brisbane 176,016 169,707 345,723 Darwin 16,200 17,280 33,480 Perth 164,976 160,563 325,539 Townsville 11,627 17,442 29,069 (Question No. 714) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What are the current arrangements regarding foreign ownership of Australian uranium projects. (2) Do all projects currently satisfy these guidelines. (3) What percentages of Australian uranium resources are currently owned by overseas interests. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Treasurer announced on 20 December 1983 that the Government has decided to defer consideration of foreign investment policy applying to proposals involving the mining, production and enrichment of uranium until after the Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry into issues relating to Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. In the meantime the broad thrust of foreign investment policy first elaborated by the previous Labor Government in 1975 and, with some amendment in the light of changing circumstances, maintained by the previous Government, will be continued. (2) The Government's uranium policy provides only for operations for the recovery of uranium at the existing Ranger and Nabarlek mines and at the proposed Olympic Dam project in South Australia, if the joint venturers take a commercial decision to proceed with that project. Those projects had received foreign investment approval under the guidelines established by the previous Government. The Ranger project has 75 per cent Australian equity and the Nabarlek project is 100 per cent Australian owned. The foreign investment arrangements for the Olympic Dam project were approved with Australian equity of 51 per cent it being recognised that Olympic Dam was not exclusively a uranium project. The basis of the approval was set out in the then Acting Treasurer's statement of 9 October 1979. (3) Central to the question of the level of overseas ownership in uranium resources is that the Government policy only provides for the export of uranium from the existing Nabarlek and Ranger mines and the Olympic Dam project, if the joint venturers decide to proceed with that project. The equity for those projects is given in (2). In relation to exploration, overseas interests involved in such activities in Australia searching for minerals, including uranium, are not required to seek approval under foreign investment policy to take up an exploration licence. Exploration licences do not convey ownership of minerals. (Question No. 716) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What are the specific elements of the steel industry plan which make a ' fast track' anti-dumping mechanism appropriate. (2) What is the reason(s) why a 'fast track' anti-dumping mechanism is not appropriate to any other industry (see Hansard, answer to Question No. 340, page 2603). Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The steel industry plan is unique in that it involves commitments by the steel industry, the steel unions and the Government. The major producer, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, has undertaken to continue the operation of the integrated steel plants at Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla and to provide job security for the period of the plan. The Company is also committed to an investment plan involving expenditure of up to $800m over a four-year period. Given the frequency of allegations of dumping and the absence of qualitative restrictions on steel imports, the Australian producer needs reasonable assurances that the investment program would not be put at risk by imports at less than fair market prices. The Steel Industry Authority, through its detailed and continuous monitoring of overseas and domestic steel prices, will make a 'fast track' dumping mechanism possible-by providing expeditious gathering and analysis of relevant data from the local steel industry and importers. The immediate availability of this information will facilitate the reaching of a preliminary finding on complaints involving alleged dumping of steel imports well within the prescribed period of 45 days which apply in the case of other dumping complaints. The dumping of goods in Australia, regardless the commodity, is of a major concern to this government. As a demonstration of that concern, shortly after the government came to office it directed an immediate review of both the legislation and the procedures for investigating dumping and subsidisation complaints. On 7 November last year, as a result of that review, I announced that the investigation of all dumping and subsidisation complaints was to be speeded up. Unless there are exceptional or complex circumstances a preliminary finding of whether injurious dumping or subsidisation exists will be reached within 45 days of the complaint being accepted by the department. If the preliminary finding is positive the investigation will then be finalised within a further 120 days. At the preliminary finding stage, if a threat of injury from future dumped or subsidised imports is apparent, provisional action against these imports can be taken. These procedures which will ensure a speedy resolution of dumping or subsidisation complaints will apply to all complaints regardless the commodity or the source of the goods. (Question No. 717) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Will the proposed 'fast track' anti-dumping mechanism for the steel industry be applied to similar products as those to be produced by the proposed mini steel mill in Brisbane. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes. (Question No. 730) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Will the Government convene a footwear summit as was suggested by the Australian Footwear Retailers Committee last November; if not, why not. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The request to convene a footwear summit was first proposed to me by the Australian Retailers' Association Footwear Committee at a meeting of the Footwear Industry Advisory Council in November 1983. The Council, which comprised representatives of manufacturers, unions, retailers, importers, consumers and the Government, was meeting primarily to discuss the draft report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee (Elix Committee) prior to that report being forwarded to the Government for consideration. It was in the context of discussions on the draft report, including various aspects of the tender quota arrangements, that the request for a 'summit' was made. The views of all interests present at the meeting were canvassed and there was little support for the Footwear Committee's request. Moreover, following the Council meeting I received submissions from several interests including unions, manufacturers and importers expressing concern that the current TCF plan be re- opened in a way which would create uncertainty regarding the basic elements of the seven year plan. These interests also suggested that the proper place to discuss assistance arrangements for the footwear industry is the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council and its associated sub-committee on footwear. I have already advised the Footwear Committee that the new Council arrangements will ensure that footwear retailers' views will receive consideration. Under these arrangements footwear retailers have direct representation on the footwear sub-committee as well as being represented on the main TCF Council through the Australian Retailers Association. (Question No. 749) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: What is the cost to the Northern Territory of the recent Commonwealth decisions to prevent the development of the Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium mines and the expansion of the Ranger mine. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: It is not possible to make an honest estimate of the cost, positive or negative , to the Northern Territory of the Government's decision on uranium. No commercial decisions on whether to proceed had been made with either the Jabiluka or the Koongarra projects and neither had secured contracts. In fact, in the current market situation it could be that neither of these mines would be viable. Since the Government has received no application for expansion of the Ranger mine, that part of the honourable senator's question has no relevance. On the other hand, the Government's decision to expand Kakadu National Park and expand tourist facilities in the region can only bring economic benefits to the Northern Territory. In these circumstances any suggestion that the Government's decisions on uranium have 'cost' the Northern Territory anything is meaningless. Senator Gareth Evans —On 1 March 1984 (Hansard, page 223) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: Is it a fact that some overseas students currently studying in Australia, and some other persons on a limited entry visa to Australia, are arranging for their names to be placed on Commonwealth electoral rolls and are using this enrolment as a reason for permanent residence? How widespread is this practice? What action has been taken against such offenders? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has advised that it is aware of only one occurrence where an overseas student has used electoral enrolment as part of a basis for seeking permanent residence. As the application for permanent residence has only recently been received, the student concerned has yet to be interviewed. The Department has no record of other persons resident in Australia on limited entry visas using enrolment as a reason for claiming permanent residence status. Persons aware of circumstances where there is no legal entitlement to enrolment should draw the matter to the attention of the Australian Electoral Commission. Senator Walsh —On 3 April 1984, Senator Peter Baume asked me a question without notice (Hansard, page 1091) concerning the possibility of an army firing range being constructed in the vicinity of the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline. I undertook to make further inquiries and ascertain the latest position. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: At this stage the proposal contemplates the possible acquisition of 320,000 hectares for live firing ranges and about 1.8 million hectares for occasional use in relation to army exercises and access to the firing areas. The Moomba- Sydney pipeline traverses about 150 kilometres of the proposed area. The Pipeline Authority has been briefed on the proposal and has received assurances concerning the positioning of the impact zones and the safety of the pipeline. The Authority will continue to confer with the Department of Defence and other interested organisations to ensure the continuing safety and operational efficiency of the pipeline. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment has been asked to keep the Authority informed concerning the draft environmental impact statement being prepared on the proposal and to provide a copy for comment when it becomes available. On the basis of the information received to date, the Pipeline Authority is satisfied that if the proposal goes ahead there should be no difficulty in ensuring impact zones are kept at a safe distance from the pipeline. Finally, I intend to discuss this matter with the Minister for Defence to ensure there is proper co-ordination at Ministerial level. Senator Gareth Evans —On 5 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1292) Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: Can the Minister advise whether the current study (into simplifying government departmental forms) also applies to departmental information brochures? Will the Minister consider extending the expertise gained from this study to future government information and advertising campaigns? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The simpler forms program is concerned primarily with administrative forms used by members of the public. Information materials such as brochures and other publications are the focus of our plain English program. These programs (which I announced in February) are being developed together to ensure that any relevant expertise can be applied across the range of public information produced by departments. I have instructed my officers involved in the programs also to encourage the active involvement of all departments in both these programs. Such involvement should result in the expertise gained spreading into future government information and advertising campaigns. Senator Walsh —On 2 April 1984 Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question without notice (Hansard, page 1012) concerning the Four Corners program on uranium. I said I would consider making a statement outlining my views on the program. I should say at the outset that the effectiveness of international safeguards arrangements and Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements is one of the matters being examined by the Australian Science and Technology Council. Inquiry into aspects of Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. The inquiry is due to report this month and the Government will be considering what specific action it needs to take in this area in the light of that report. With that inquiry in progress I do not wish to make a detailed statement on safeguards matters. However, there were some factual points in the Four Corners program which I believe should be corrected. Overall, I must say I found the program disappointing, in that it made no real effort to inform viewers of exactly what safeguards techniques involve and to explain the objectives and goals of safeguards measures. Any evaluation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the safeguards system should be made against a knowledge of the aims of the system and its capabilities. It must be made clear that the major objectives of the system are: to provide assurance to the international community by verification that states are complying with their non-proliferation and 'peaceful use' undertakings; and to deter the diversion of safeguarded nuclear materials or the misuse of safeguarded facilities for the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Deterrence is aimed at dissuading, by the risk of detection, any state that might contemplate diversion of nuclear materials or the misuse of nuclear facilities. Thus safeguards must be technically capable, and seen to be capable, of promptly detecting any diversion so that the international community can be alerted to take appropriate action. The safeguards system is not perfect but methods and techniques are being improved all the time. The record of the IAEA is very good, as is evidenced by the fact that since the commencement of IAEA safeguards no diversion of any safeguarded material has been recorded. I would suggest that any danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons would arise from sensitive facilities which are not under safeguards rather than from the operation of safeguarded facilities, hence the importance of seeking universal acceptance of safeguards arrangements. The Four Corners program claimed that the concept of 'Australian uranium' becomes virtually meaningless from the conversion stage because Australian origin nuclear material (AONM) is mingled with uranium from other sources. The mingling of uranium from various sources is the normal practice through the international nuclear fuel cycle, and hence national attribution is accorded to particular quantities on an equivalence and proportional basis. This is a well established approach in a number of domestic and international commodity areas, e.g. minerals and grains. A rough analogy might be drawn with banking: We do not expect to withdraw the very same notes and coins as we have previously deposited , but we do ensure that the value is the same. In the same way we are concerned to ensure that the requisite quantities of nuclear material are confined to peaceful, non-explosive uses. The Four Corners program noted that the enrichment plant at Oak Ridge in the United States is not subject to IAEA inspections, and one interviewee said that the IAEA has no safeguards involvement with this plant. Another interviewee claimed there were no safeguards because Australia had not insisted on them. Neither of these interviewees was correct. Australia requires all AONM to be subject to IAEA safeguards. As the Oak Ridge enrichment facility is not subject to IAEA inspection, Australia has concluded an arrangement with the United States and the IAEA whereby the IAEA has constructed a Material Balance Area around the facility to verify that the same quantity of AONM leaves the plant as initially entered it, thus ensuring that AONM remains in peaceful, non-explosive use. The supposed absence of safeguards on yellowcake was touched on a number of times. In particular, it was said that international safeguards do not apply while uranium is at sea, and that there is no confirmation that material received corresponds to material shipped. It is correct that the IAEA does not conduct inspections at the yellowcake stage, reflecting the assessment that with the low strategic value of yellowcake and the comparatively ready availability of uranium it would be inappropriate to divert inspection resources from more strategically significant nuclear fuel cycle activities. However, the IAEA does require notification of quantities shipped and received, so that there is confirmation of receivals. Moreover, Australia's own safeguards requirements apply to yellowcake. Responsibilities for such matters as physical protection in transit are required to be established between Australia and the Government of the receiving country, which is also required to confirm to Australian authorities (the Australian Safeguards Office) the quantities of yellowcake received. Those quantities are then checked against Australian records of quantities shipped. Reference to the alleged disappearance of a yellowcake shipment in 1968 is of limited relevance to the question of the adequacy of safeguards now, as that incident predated the present international safeguards regime, (including the bilateral requirements for physical protection referred to above. Australia has signed the International Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which will significantly strengthen arrangements applying to the international transport of uranium. I note that although the Four Corners team filmed the signing ceremony in Vienna on 21 February, and this was actually shown in the background at one point in the program, the commentary made no reference whatsoever to the Convention. The program asserted that owing to the present uranium over-supply situation Australia would have little influence on international safeguards by being in the market. Australia is seen as a stable and reliable supplier and many countries are prepared to buy from us, for example for reasons of diversity of supply, in spite of the market situation. To the extent that Australia secures, and has secured in the past, sales with stringent conditions attached, there is clearly a positive effect on the proportion of material in the international fuel cycle subject to safeguards restrictions. If Australia were to withdraw from the market this benefit would be lost. The program referred to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) having consent to reprocess AONM. In the case of four agreements-with EURATOM (which includes FRG) , France, Sweden and Japan-Australia has agreed conditions under which it has exercised its consent in advance and on a long term basis to reprocessing where the reprocessing is to take place in a nuclear fuel cycle program agreed with Australia, under IAEA safeguards, and for the purpose of energy use of spent fuel management. As in other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, all AONM going into and coming out of a reprocessing plant must be fully accounted for. This means that AONM cannot contribute to any stock or nuclear material not under safeguards. Even if the Four Corners presentation had been accurate and objective, the conclusion apparently reached by some people that it established a case for withholding Australian uranium is illfounded. Given that there are several alternative suppliers, how an embargo on Australian exports would reduce the dangers of proliferation is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture before and after the Four Corners program. Considering that some alternative suppliers will impose few if any supply conditions, an Australian withdrawal is more likely to increase the dangers. This is both a very important and a very complex area, where the public is entitled to adequate factual details to facilitate informed debate. I would expect that the report of the ASTEC inquiry will make a major contribution in this regard.