Wednesday, 13 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Regulations and Ordinances: Availability of Publications and Video Material To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth; that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 16 citizens), Harradine (from 257 citizens) and Robertson (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that the Polish People's Republic authorities has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Convention (signed in 1975) and United Nations Human Rights Pact ( ratified in 1977), particularly with regard to the following issues: Freeing of all political prisoners; Respect for all citizens and human rights; The right to form free trade unions; Removal of censorship; Permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad especially to allow family reunions; We humbly request that Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through proper diplomatic channels, raise in the United Nations Forum a strong request to the Polish People's Republic authorities that it honour its obligation agreed to the Helsinki Convention (1975) and Human Rights Pact (1977). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 337 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that- (i) the French Government continues to test nuclear bombs in the South Pacific against the expressed wishes of regional nations including Australia; (ii) the French Government has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and transfers nuclear materials and technology necessary for nuclear bombs to other nations including non-signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and (iii) the French nuclear power industry has used, and is using, nuclear waste from so-called peaceful and civilian reactors for its nuclear bomb program; and (b) calls on the Government to totally reject the economic blackmail being suggested by France and to ensure that Australia prohibits absolutely the export of uranium to France. Notice of Motion Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Bill 1984 having been read a first time, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that under the new restrictive nursing home guidelines the Minister for Health expects no increase in the rate of opening beds over the next 12 months; (b) expresses its concern that this rate of opening will not meet the increased demand due to the imposition of the 35 day rule for insured patients in hospitals; and (c) calls on the Government to take immediate steps to relieve the severe pressure on the sick, elderly and their families caused by the Government's mishandling of this matter. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Minister for Territories and Local Government acted incompetently in failing to- (a) respond to correspondence from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism of 27 April 1983, and 17 August 1983 as to the use in the Australian Capital Territory of the allocation from the International Standard Sports Facilities Fund amounting to $2m; and (b) advise the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism of the recommendations of the House of Assembly as to the disposition of those moneys made known to him on 13 December 1983, as a result of which failure to act by the Minister for Territories and Local Government the $2m has been cancelled and is now not available to the nominated sports: (i) The National Capital Horse Trials Association, (ii) the Southern Districts Hill Climb Association, (iii) the Australian Capital Territory Water Ski Association, (iv) the Australian Capital Territory Softball Association, and (v) the Australian Capital Territory Squash Racquets Association. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the publication in the National Times of 8-14 June 1984 of a purported report of evidence taken by and documents submitted to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the issues of nuclear disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy are separate and that Australia has a duty to share its resources in an energy hungry world; and calls upon the Government to formulate and apply policies with respect to the mining and export of uranium which take these opinions into account. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting a discrepancy in Queensland between published minimum Tertiary Entrance scores required for entry to many faculties and institutions and the actual cut off Tertiary Entrance score determined by the quote system and that the system disadvantages Queenslanders because of inadequate funding from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, requests the Government- (a) to increase funding for Queensland so that year 12 students will have tertiary opportunities at least equalling those enjoyed by school leavers in other States; and (b) to ensure that Queenslanders have equal rights with other Australians to undertake tertiary studies. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that holding a referendum on the same day as a general election confuses the issues and annoys electors; and (b) urges the Government to abandon plans to stage a referendum in conjunction with the next general election, particularly the plan to bring forward a referendum on the controversial subject of simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Mason moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Minister for Territories and Local Government for failing to support tourism in the Australian Capital Territory in the 1983-84 Budget by lowering in real terms the allocation to tourism and recommends the Minister raise the allocation in the 1984-85 Budget to a realistic amount. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day , and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.09) —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- Mr President, this Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 were part of the machinery of government referendum package which was to have been put to the electors last February. The first will alter the Constitution to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly. The second will enable the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other. As you will no doubt recall, the Government decided not to proceed with the referendums in February because of the action taken in the Senate by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats to block government advertising in support of the proposals. The Government has decided to proceed with referendums on the simultaneous elections and interchange of powers proposals, which will now be put at the next election. To put all five of the original machinery of government proposals in conjunction with an election would have been too complex. It is vital that electors have a proper understanding of the issues involved in a referendum so that they can cast informed votes and thereby play a meaningful role in constitutional reform. That is why the Government is only proceeding with two of the proposals at this time. However, this does not mean that the others have been abandoned. The Government remains firmly committed to systematic constitutional reform and will keep the balance of the February proposals as well as a number of other important proposals under consideration for putting to referendum at a later date. Both these proposals have been around in one form or another for a very long time. I do not propose to take up the time of the Senate by going over again in detail the ground I covered in my second reading speeches last year. However, I will briefly outline the purpose of each proposal and the arguments, for and against, which have been put in the Parliament and outside. Simultaneous Elections The Simultaneous Elections Bill is, apart from its long title and the transitional provisions, identical to the Bill I introduced into the Senate on 21 September last year. That Bill in turn was substantially the same as the one submitted to referendum by the Whitlam Government in 1974 and by the Fraser Government in 1977. The Bill alters senators' terms from 6 years to two terms of the House of Representatives and provides for half-Senate elections to be held at the same time as elections for the House of Representatives. The long title is in accordance with the position reached last year when the Senate debated the form of referendum questions. The title is 'An Act to ensure that Senate Elections and House of Representatives Elections are always held on the same day , and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly'. The form of referendum questions is now prescribed in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. The transitional provisions are sub-sections (10) to (13) of proposed new section 13. Unless there were to be a double dissolution, the effect of these provisions will be as follows: There will be no alteration of the terms of those senators whose present terms are due to expire on 30 June 1985; senators whose terms are due to expire on 30 June 1988 will hold office until the first expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives after the commencement of the amendment-that is the House of Representatives elected at the next election; and senators elected at the next election whose terms would have expired on 30 June 1991 will hold office until the second expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives after the commencement of the amendment, unless there were an earlier dissolution of the Senate. The arguments in favour of Simultaneous Elections are well known. By eliminating separate half Senate elections, the number of elections will be reduced, thereby allowing governments to get on with the job of governing as well as minimising inconvenience to electors and significantly reducing the cost to taxpayers. At present, a separate half Senate election costs approximately $ 21.8m and a separate House election $23m. Thus, the total cost of separate elections for the two Houses is now $44.8m. If simultaneous elections are held, the total cost reduces to $27m. This means that the extra cost to the taxpayer of a separate half Senate election is a staggering $17.8m. Put another way, simultaneous elections will save the taxpayer $17.8m on each occasion they are held. But the benefits to the people lie not only in cost savings from fewer elections but in the fact that the elections which are being eliminated are the unnecessary separate half Senate elections, which cannot change governments and which, as is indicated by their much lower level of voter turnout, do not really come to grips with the issues of the day. In the 39 years since the end of the Second World War there have been no fewer than 20 Federal elections of one kind or another-7 combined House of Representatives and half Senate elections, 5 House of Representatives elections, 4 separate half Senate elections and 4 double dissolutions. In the last 20 years the pace has increased-11 elections, only 2 of them being combined, 3 House, 3 half Senate and 3 double dissolutions. Following the Fraser Government's February 1983 double dissolution, the terms of the Houses are once again out of phase. If they were to remain out of phase, no fewer than 7 separate elections would be due in the next 10 years-3 for the House of Representatives and 4 for half the Senate. By holding an early House of Representatives election to coincide with the half Senate election due before 30 June 1985, the Government will bring the two houses back into phase again. However the only way of ensuring that never again will elections be thrown out of phase is by amending the Constitution. The simultaneous elections proposal will have other important advantages. It will ensure that the composition of the Senate at any given time reflects the current wishes of the people more accurately than under the present system and, by ensuring that the people's will is reflected simultaneously in both Houses, it will provide a more satisfactory electoral basis upon which the government of the country can proceed. It will also provide greater accountability of the Senate to the extent that senators themselves will have to face the people if the Senate's actions lead to a premature House of Representatives election. A small minority of honourable senators opposite have suggested that the Bill is really aimed at undermining the independence of the Senate. I wish to make several points about that. First, the Senate does not exist in a political vacuum. The growth of the party system has meant that there are no matters of great significance to one House which do not also affect members of the other House. The 1983 double dissolution illustrates that, even without simultaneous elections, senators cannot regard their terms as being unrelated to events in the House of Representatives. Secondly, the independence of mind and action of senators is not dependent on whether or not their terms are fixed, but on their quality as individuals. And lastly, it should be stressed that the Bill does not affect the powers of the Senate. It will retain, for better or worse, all its present power to review, amend or reject legislation. Quite different arguments have been put from outside the Parliament. The Queensland Premier has suggested that half Senate elections ought to be held separately from House elections. Political commentator Malcolm Mackerras, on the other hand, has argued that they ought to be held on the same day, but within the framework of the existing Constitution. Mr Bjelke-Petersen's argument has, I think, hardly any justification at all. It involves, over a period of time, enormous expense to the taxpayer and contemplates the institutionalisation of elections which change nothing, at which no great issues are at stake and which for practical purposes only decide who is to fill the last place on each State's list of vacancies. The Mackerras argument is, not surprisingly, made with reference to statistics of the relatively few separate half Senate elections since Federation but what is omitted or glossed over is an acknowledgment of how the picture has changed over the last 20 or 30 years in which elections for the two Houses have become chronically out of phase. Interchange of Powers The Interchange of Powers proposal has its origins in the submissions made to the Sydney meeting of the Constitutional Convention in 1973 by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria. The Bill aims to establish machinery whereby legislative powers can be vested by the Commonwealth in the States in areas previously outside their jurisdiction and to facilitate the reference of powers by the States to the Commonwealth. With two exceptions, the present Bill is identical to the Bill I introduced on 12 May last year. As with Simultaneous Elections, the long title has been altered in accordance with the position reached in the Senate last year. It now reads: 'An Act to enable the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other'. Secondly, proposed section 108A has been altered by the substitution of the words 'the powers of the Parliament of each State' for 'the powers of the Parliament of a State' in sub-clause (1). The purpose of this alteration is to clarify the point that any reference of power from the Commonwealth is to be equally available to all States. It was always the intention that the Commonwealth should not be able to refer power to one or some only of the States. I understand that last year there were some misgivings on the part of some senators or members as to whether this intention had been carried out. When I introduced the 1983 Bill in May last year, I outlined in some detail the history, significance and purpose of the Interchange of Powers proposal. It emerged from the first meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in Sydney in 1973, having been put forward in submissions by the then coalition Government of New South Wales and the then Liberal Government of Victoria. The then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced that the leaders of the delegations had been able to reach agreement in principle on the proposal and that Parliamentary Counsel would confer on the terms of an amendment. The announcement was welcomed by the leaders of State delegations but Queensland reserved its opinion on the merits. The history of the proposal since then has been one of successive endorsements by the Constitutional Convention of the principle of Interchange of Powers and expressions of concern in some quarters over points of detail. Interchange was endorsed by the 1975 Convention in Melbourne, the 1976 Convention in Hobart, the 1978 Convention in Perth and the 1983 Convention in Adelaide. Bills to implement the proposal have been considered by this Parliament in 1974 , 1975 and, of course, 1983. In 1974 the Opposition wished to defer the Bill until it had been considered by the Convention. In 1975 the double dissolution put an end to Parliamentary deliberations and in 1983 the referendum was postponed. The significance of the 1983 Convention resolution on Interchange was that, for the first time, unanimity was achieved on the details of the proposal. The Bill presently before the Parliament faithfully reflects the terms of that resolution. The Bill contains two principal reforms which will create the conditions for a more flexible response to political issues and facilitate greater co-operation between the Commonwealth and States. First, it corrects the present one sided situation in which the States may refer powers to the Commonwealth but the Commonwealth is unable to refer any of its exclusive powers to the States. This will mean, for example, that the Commonwealth could confer on the States the power to impose duties of excise and to legislate in respect of Commonwealth places. Secondly, the Bill clarifies the basis on which States may refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth. It makes clear that a reference given by the States will be revocable, that it may be given subject to conditions, including conditions regulating the type of laws that can be passed under it, and that such references may be made for a limited period. Other areas of possible application include: Rationalising the fragmented conciliation and arbitration system; obtaining uniformity in the regulation of State and private insurance; and dealing with the gaps in federal family law. The only arguments that have been put against Interchange are that it is, on the one hand, redundant because of the existing provision for references of power in section 51 (37) of the Constitution and on the other hand, dangerous because it may lead to wholesale references of power to the Commonwealth. It is said that State Governments of the same political persuasion might be all too willing to refer their powers to Canberra and that other States might be forced to do so by unspecified means. If either assertion had any validity it would be surprising that we have not already reached this position by use of the existing reference provision, section 51 (37). In fact, the argument that the Interchange proposal might enable the Commonwealth to coerce the States in some way ignores political realities. There are other provisions in the Constitution, for example, section 96, to which this kind of argument might apply, with more plausibility but, even there, the political accountability of Commonwealth governments makes the practical position quite different from what it might be said to be in theory. In any event, the two arguments cancel each other out. The same proposal cannot logically be both redundant and dangerous. In fact, it involves a very practical and sensible alteration to the Constitution which will encourage Commonwealth and State governments to co-operate to solve a range of difficult problems which have bedevilled Commonwealth-State relations for many years, to the detriment of ordinary people. The problems for which it offers a mechanism for agreed solutions are real practical problems such as that of clearly identifying the court which a parent or grandparent should approach to seek custody of a child or grandchild and identifying whether a State or Commonwealth arbitral tribunal should deal with a particular industrial dispute. What is often overlooked is that the proposal will also allow the Commonwealth, for the first time, to refer some of its powers to the States. I do not shrink from acknowledging that this could lead to new State taxes but, where it does so , the Commonwealth will ensure that such taxes do not damage the national interest. By this means it will be possible for the States to raise money by more equitable means than are available to them at present in the limited fields of petrol and tobacco retail sales. Opposition Attitude The Opposition, with some dissentients, has previously indicated its support for both these proposals and I would expect that support to continue. Of Simultaneous Elections and Four-Year Terms Mr Peacock said, 20 October 1983, Hansard, page 2,032: No one would deny that Australia has far too many elections. In the last 30 years the average life of the House of Representatives has been 2 1/2 years and in the 14 years to 1977 we had 10 elections. The difficulties this puts in the way of good government are obvious to all. Senator Durack said, 12 October 1983, Hansard, page 1,358: The Opposition acknowledges that a real problem has existed in Australia for the last 20 years and, in particular, since an early election was held for the House of Representatives in 1963. Mr Anthony said, 20 October 1983, Hansard, page 2,047: I believe also that the Senate should be accountable for any action it takes in stifling the operations of the Parliament or the government of the day. If the Senate were to block Supply there is no redress on the Senate unless double dissolution Bills are before the Parliament. The Senate could force the House of Representatives to an election without going itself. Whilst some senators argue that the Prime Minister should not have the right to take out half the Senate at the same time as the House of Representatives, I do not think the Senate should have the right either of sending the House of Representatives to the people without going itself. This is a sensible proposal which should be supported by the Australian people. I probably feel more strongly about this proposal than any of the others. In addition, Mr Anthony effectively scotched the argument that the proposal would give the Prime Minister power over the Senate which he does not now have by pointing out that a Prime Minister can already create the circumstances for a double dissolution and call out the whole Senate. This point is underlined by the circumstances of the 1983 double dissolution election. So far as the Interchange of Powers proposal is concerned, the following statements are indicative of Opposition support: Mr Peacock, 20 October 1983, Hansard, page 2,032: The third Bill under consideration relates to the interchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. Like some of the other Bills, it has a long history and has been endorsed by successive Constitutional Conventions. The object of the amendment is to give greater flexibility to State and Federal governments and greater certainty about the conditions under which powers may be referred. One benefit given by way of example is the empowering of State governments to impose sales tax. As the Attorney-General pointed out, the amendment might also improve the chances of achieving other worthy objectives such as uniform defamation laws and comprehensive family law powers at the Commonwealth level. Senator Durack, 19 May 1983, Hansard, pages 617 and 618, also supported the proposal: It had as far as I could see, unanimous support at the Adelaide Constitutional Convention in the amended form, which Senator Evans wisely agreed to, and it seems that it perhaps may in some circumstances be a useful facility to have in the Constitution.'' Mr Anthony, 20 October 1983, Hansard, page 2047: The Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill is worthy of support. It makes for the better working of government. The interchange of powers has to be on a co-operative basis with the States. If there is some confusion or if there is duplication of authority between the States and the Commonwealth, an overlapping of powers, it makes good sense to get the States to do the work of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth to do the work of a State. It has to be a voluntary arrangement. It can be done on a State by State basis if a State is referring power to the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is referring a power to the States, the power has to apply to all States and all States have to be in agreement. That proposal is sound and will make for better working of government . Even Mr Hodgman, who expressed ambivalence towards the proposal in the parliamentary debate last year, said he thought it was a practical and sensible proposal when he spoke at the 1978 Perth Constitutional Convention. Conclusion Both proposals have received strong support from the Constitutional Convention, indeed the Interchange proposal was unanimously endorsed at the Adelaide meeting , and both were passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses last year. Votes in the Senate were 43 to 12 in favour of the Simultaneous Elections Bill and 53 to 3 in favour of interchange. In the House the votes were 103 to 4 and 104 to 3 respectively. Not only do the proposals have the support of the Convention and of the Parliament, but according to a Morgan Gallup Poll held in December of last year, they also have the overwhelming support of the electorate . When the Simultaneous Elections proposal was put to referendum by the Fraser Government in 1977 it received 62.2 per cent of the national vote and only narrowly failed to gain the requisite majority in 4 States. Since that time public opinion has swung even more strongly behind the proposal. Of those polled in December, 80.3 per cent said they would have voted in favour, 10 per cent would have voted against and 9.7 per cent were still undecided. Moreover, the proposal would have gained a clear majority in all States. The Interchange proposal would have received a majority in 5 States, with 61.3 per cent overall in favour, 23.7 per cent opposed and 14.9 per cent undecided. Both Bills have attracted genuine cross-party support in the past. They should continue to do so . They are constructive measures which will contribute to the improvement of the system of government in this country. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enable the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr President, the details of this Bill were covered in my second reading speech on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses in relation to the passing of proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government, and for related purposes. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.11) — by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The question of the Senate and Supply has been under consideration by the Australian Constitutional Convention and its Standing Committee 'D' for a number of years. It arises from concern over the possibility that the Senate has, at present, the capacity to force the House of Representatives to an early election without necessarily being required also to face election. Many Australians, including the Liberal and National parties in this Parliament, regard this as a major deficiency. It was at Perth in 1978 that the Convention, after considering competing proposals and a report from Standing Committee 'D', took the first positive step towards reaching a resolution of the matter, when it was decided to recommend that the Constitution be amended to provide for automatic dissolution of the two Houses if the Senate rejected or failed to pass within a certain time an appropriation for the ordinary annual services of the Government . This decision and related matters were referred again to Standing Committee 'D ' for detailed drafting consideration-taking into account the matters raised by delegates during the debate. Standing Committee 'D' comprised 17 members and, in addition, the Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, and myself were members during consideration of the resolution on the Senate and Supply. The Standing Committee was representative of all States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Standing Committee 'D' made a number of reports, the most recent being the fourth report-dated 27 August 1982-the recommendations of which were, with an amendment I shall come to, adopted at Adelaide last year. Honourable senators will find the reports, particularly the fourth report which is in two volumes, of great value in their consideration of the proposal now before the Senate. Let me stress immediately that the Bill faithfully expresses the decisions made by the Australian Constitutional Convention held at Adelaide in April of last year. The governing principle of the Bill is that the Constitution should be altered to provide that, if the Senate within 30 days fails to pass a Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government of a particular year only and dealing only with such appropriation, the Governor -General shall forthwith dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. I submit that such a provision is consistent with the high principle of Westminster style government that a government which has been denied Supply by the Parliament cannot govern and should advise a general election or resign. It is also consistent with the, I think, general opinion that, if the Senate blocks Supply to force an election of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the whole Senate, should also face the judgment of the people. But, Mr President, what are ordinary annual services of the Government? Clearly , the meaning of the expression is open to differences of opinion. However, Standing Committee 'D' did not spell out what were, or what were not, appropriations for ordinary annual services of the Government. If that position were to remain, there is the danger that any or all appropriations might be classified as appropriations for ordinary annual services, thus not only undermining the Senate's amendment power but also creating possible unreal double dissolution situations where a dispute between the Houses over an appropriation-perhaps minor and unconnected to the mainstream of Supply for ordinary annual services-and which is not resolved within 30 days or less, may lead to a mandatory double dissolution. Such a consequence would be totally unacceptable. Fully to make my point, Mr President, which I believe is vital to a proper operation of the proposed constitutional changes, I find it necessary to expound the matter of ordinary annual services. The expression 'ordinary annual services of the Government' is employed: (a) in section 53 of the Constitution to classify the expenditure in respect of which the Senate's powers of amendment are restricted to requesting the House of Representatives to make amendments; and (b) in section 54 to protect the Senate against the tacking of extraneous matters to an Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of the Government, which the Senate may not amend. The very first Budget Bills, in 1901, were returned to the House of Representatives by the Senate insisting that the form of presentation be changed to a more appropriate form. Over the years the Senate has been vigilant in ensuring a proper classification of ordinary annual services, thus protecting its amendment power which, I submit, is of even more importance than the veto power. Matters were arranged reasonably well for some 50 years. Then in 1952 the practice of processing the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill as a Bill not for the ordinary annual services of the Government was challenged, but the Senate confirmed the ruling of the then President that it was a Bill which a Senate may amend. Then in 1964 the Government of the day made a statement announcing that the contents of the Appropriation Bill and the Appropriation ( Works and Services) Bill would be amalgamated, except for some small special expenditure. This announcement led to the appointment by the Government senators of the day of a 'Committee on Appropriation Bills and the ordinary annual services of the Government'. The recommendations of the Committee, which consisted of Senator Cormack, Chairman, and Senators McKellar, Wedgwood and Wright, were largely adopted by the Government and became known as 'The Compact of 1965'. This was the product of careful consideration and negotiation between the two Houses. In brief, the Compact excluded from the ordinary annual services of the Government appropriations for the construction of public works and buildings, acquisition of sites and buildings, certain plant and equipment, section 96 grants to the States, and new policies not authorised by special legislation. Under the Compact, all such appropriations were to be subject to Senate amendment. Later, in 1976, the Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, Senator Missen, brought up a report stating that, on behalf of the Committee, he had written to the then Treasurer seeking his views as to whether or not the procedure contained in the Compact of 1965 in respect of ordinary annual expenditure would be followed in future appropriation legislation. The Treasurer replied in the affirmative. Arising from the report the Senate resolved in 17 February 1977, on the motion of Senator Missen, to reaffirm the Compact of 1965. With that history in mind, and supported by an opinion of Mr. Ewart Smith- formerly Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General's Department-who in a paper to Standing Committee D observed that the Compact of 1965 may be seen as approaching the status of a convention, I proposed at the Australian Constitutional Convention, to the motion that the report of Standing Committee ' D' be adopted, an amendment to insert a new section 53A in the Constitution to give statutory recognition to the Compact of 1965, with drafting modifications, and the addition of appropriations for the services of Parliament which under current practice are the subject of a separate Appropriation Bill not deemed to be for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The amendment was agreed to by the Australian Constitutional Convention and this forms clause 3 of the Bill now before the Senate. There are difficulties in defining what are 'ordinary annual services'. Honourable senators will note that clause 3 approaches the question of classifying appropriations from the point of defining what is not 'ordinary annual services'. This is seen as a more workable approach than attempting to define what is comprised in 'ordinary annual services'. It is not possible to over-emphasise the need for new section 53A of the Constitution as contained in clause 3 of the Bill. Let me give the Senate an illustration. Without the amendment, and with a wide-open interpretation by Government of what are 'ordinary annual services', the proposals put forward by the Standing Committee 'D' may have led to a situation where the Senate, in the exercise of its function as a State House, and in attempting to ensure the rectification of an inequity between the States-say, for instance, by amending or rejecting some grant, or form of financial assistance, to one State to the detriment of another , might find itself forced into a double dissolution on the grounds of blocking Supply. That surely would be a strong dissuader to the Senate to act in its proper role in ensuring equity between the States and the Commonwealth. But the dissuader would exist if grants to the States were to be processed as appropriations for ordinary annual services and not in accordance with the amendment contained in new section 53A. Let us, therefore, entrench in the Constitution this amendment which has at its roots the ensuring of some certainty in the protection of the interests of the States and of the relationships between the houses of this Parliament and the workability of the other proposals for resolving the issue of the Senate and Supply. It will control the content of Appropriation Bills and, furthermore, be of assistance to the Governor-General in determining whether possible grounds for any double dissolution are proper. It is true that it is proposed by sub-section (4) of proposed new section 54 of the Constitution that within 30 days after assent an appeal may be made to the High Court challenging matter in an Appropriation Bill on the ground that the matter is other than an appropriation for ordinary annual services of a particular year only, and the High Court may declare the matter of no effect. However, the proposed appeal to the court is after the event-that is, after double dissolution is involved. Nevertheless, the provision could prove useful, although with new section 53A the need for the involvement of the High Court should not arise. From what I have said, I trust that honourable senators will be persuaded of the importance of having defined, at least what are not ordinary annual services of the Government. I see it as crucial to the whole scheme of the Bill. The Senate-and of course the Governor-General-must know where they stand and know what proposed expenditure may be the subject of double dissolution. I turn now to certain other important features of the Bill. Of much importance are amendments to the second paragraph of section 53-restrictions on Senate's power of amendment of appropriations for ordinary annual services-section 54 (1) -protection against tacking-and proposed new section 54A-providing for double dissolutions-which make it clear that those several provisions apply only to appropriations for a particular year. As the notes contained in the report of Standing Committee 'D' explain, the Senate would be free to reject or amend, without exposing itself to dissolution, any Bill that proposed to make appropriations, in whatever form, covering ordinary annual services for a period of more than one year. Another important and related matter is that contained in proposed new section 54 (2), which is designed to prevent long term supply for salaries and allowances of public servants, administrative expenses of departments, and Defence pay and allowances. It is provided that any appropriation for such expenditure shall not have effect unless it is made by a law that relates to services of a particular year only and is passed, or is deemed to have been passed, by the Senate not earlier than six months before the commencement of that year. The effect is to prohibit standing appropriations for those classes of ordinary annual expenditure without which it would be virtually impossible for a Government to carry on and prevents possible abuse by a Government obtaining supply for the whole of its term in its first year. Mr President, I refer now to the proposed amendment to section 57 of the Constitution, which is the existing mechanism for double dissolution when there is disagreement between the Houses. Section 57 is to remain, but it is proposed by the Bill that the section not apply in relation to a proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government of a particular year only and dealing only with such appropriation. However, it is proposed that the one dissolution may be founded on both new section 54A and section 57, circumstances permitting. Next I draw attention to the, what I believe is, eminently sensible provision in the Bill that the Governor-General in Council may authorise expenditure for a double dissolution election and to maintain 'ordinary annual services' of the Government after dissolution until 21 days after the House of Representatives next meets. If I have a reservation about the Bill, it is the provision that after dissolution the Appropriation Bill which was the subject of the dissolution may be presented for assent after passing the House of Representatives only, the Senate having no say in the matter. I see this proposal as a downgrading of the Senate in the Federal system and a rejection of the Federal Compact and the States which demanded as the price of federation a States Assembly having equal financial power with the House of Representatives, except for the financial initiative. It follows that the Senate's continued participation in the legislative process following a double dissolution is necessary to uphold the time-honoured Constitutional and Federal principle that Supply is the joint grant of the two Houses. My preference, therefore, in the event of a deadlock after dissolution over Supply is to apply the joint sitting device, as in section 57 of the Constitution. If the Bill is passed at a joint sitting, then that is in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. If, on the other hand, the majority will of a totality of elected members of Parliament be against Supply, then it should be a matter of the whole disagreement and the real decision being sent 'back to the people'. That is in the spirit of the Constitution. That is real democracy. However, I face the fact that the Bill before the House represents the collective wisdom of the Australian Constitutional Convention and, accordingly, I give way on this point for the sake of the greater good in the Bill. There is one final matter to which I should refer. This Bill is all about resolving disagreement between the Houses in relation to the blocking of Supply with respect to ordinary annual services. There is, I recognise, a significant area of Supply which is not for 'ordinary annual services'; but, if the Constitutional changes proposed in this Bill are adopted, I do not believe that there will be a problem in respect of Supply for appropriations which are not for the 'ordinarily annual services'. If the Senate is intent on blocking Supply and forcing a double dissolution, the battleground will be on an appropriation Bill for 'ordinary annual services' and there would be no point in blocking a Bill for appropriations other than for 'ordinary annual services'. So far as the latter appropriations are concerned, the Senate's main concern is to have and to retain the power to make any necessary amendment and that objective is achieved by the proposals in the Bill. So, with an understanding of what are and what are not 'ordinary annual services' as proposed in the Bill, any continuing legislative disagreement between the Houses in respect of appropriations not for 'ordinary annual services' may safely be left to the operation of section 57, which is the existing mechanism for resolving disagreement. Mr President, I conclude as I began by re-stating that this Bill for the resolution of the question of the Senate and Supply faithfully expresses the decisions of the Australian Constitutional Convention. We are much indebted to the Convention and its Standing Committee 'D' for their long and patient deliberation on the matter and for their considered resolution reached at Adelaide in April last year. In the spirit of consensus, which the Government claims to be the prevailing mood of the electorate, let us thank the Australian Constitutional Convention, accept the careful and well considered findings and recommendations, and give this Bill a speedy passage. Let us be seen to be balanced and reasonable. Mr President, I thank the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(10.13) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent senators who are members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence attending a meeting of the Australia and ASEAN Sub-Committee during the sitting of the Senate for the remainder of the present period of sittings. The Association of South East Asian Nations Sub-Committee of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, of which I am Chairman, is currently taking evidence on a reference 'Australia and ASEAN'. The Committee had originally scheduled meetings thinking that the Senate would have concluded its business last week. Meetings were scheduled for Thursday, 14 June with four ASEAN-based academics in the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia; those meetings to take place in Canberra. I stress that the witnesses are available only this week. Two of them have to leave for overseas this weekend. It is imperative for the Committee's draft report, which will be written in the parliamentary break, that we take evidence from these witnesses. The meetings will take place in the Senate committee rooms so that no pairs will be required. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —The Opposition does not oppose the motion moved by Senator Sibraa. I merely wish to point out that the Opposition is concerned when committees are required to sit while the Senate is sitting as a matter of general principle, not necessarily related to the immediate matter before us. We have a further request which we will be dealing with shortly, again with which the Opposition will be agreeing. It is almost impossible for parliamentary committees to schedule their meetings to avoid the sort of difficulty that Senator Sibraa and his fellow members on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence face today unless the Government gives a very early indication of the weeks in which it wishes to extend the sitting. It is almost universally accepted that at the end of a session the Senate sits on. It was the view of some of us that the Government was likely to maintain the two weeks on two weeks off pattern. However I ask the Government with respect to any future period of sittings to indicate at an early time when the Senate sittings will be extended, if extensions are required, so that the sorts of difficulties which several committees face at the moment can be avoided. I think that all honourable senators agree that it is better if we are all available for Senate sittings. In the present circumstances obviously it would be a pity to deprive the Committee of the opportunity to meet with the academics who are only temporarily available. For that reason the Opposition, whilst not wishing in any way to encourage this practice, is prepared to go along with this request. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.16) —I welcome the request from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and I am pleased to see that the Senate will accommodate the Committee. Senator Harradine —How do you know? Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator can object but he will be the only one who does. The PRESIDENT —Order! We will get on with the motion, not the numbers. Senator GEORGES —The point I wish to make is that this difficulty that committees face is increasing. I hope this morning that the sympathetic response which the Senate is likely to give to the two requests will lay the ground for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts-I am very serious about this-getting the permission of the Senate to sit for some limited time while the Senate is sitting. The Public Accounts Committee now has an added responsibility as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle announced the other day. The Committee would expect that when it makes the request it will be sympathetically considered and permission will be given to the Committee to sit for a brief time while the Senate is sitting. If that is not going to be the case I think the Senate will have to re-examine its sitting times because it is now impossible for committees to sit during sitting weeks because of the limited time that is available to those committees. If committees are to do their work satisfactorily they need to be assisted by the Senate as a whole and need to be allowed to sit while the Senate is sitting, if we accept that their work is important which I say it is. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.17) —I was not going to speak about this matter because I recognise the difficulties with which the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence are faced. They are precisely the points that were made by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. However, Senator Georges's contribution has influenced me to respond and to say that the Senate should not regard this as a precedent. I will be voting against Senate committees sitting at the same time that the Senate is sitting because I believe that this practice is becoming too frequent. This is a danger to the proper representative character of this chamber and it could, if it continues as a practice, lead to a situation in which debates in this chamber simply are a farce. This is a most important question. It is a most important question for the parties and it is also a most important question for individual senators who not only have responsibilities to the committees, which are subordinate to the Senate, and to their parties but also as individual senators they do have representative functions which need to be discharged in this chamber. It is unfortunate that if Senate committees are meeting outside this chamber their members do not have the benefit of hearing the viewpoints that are expressed here by honourable senators representing their constituents. Also honourable senators present in the chamber do not have the advantage of hearing the views of the honourable senators who are in the committees meeting elsewhere. As I have said this could lead to a situation in which debates in this chamber are reduced to a farce. On this occasion I recognise that the Chairman and members of the Committee have a very real problem which has been brought about by the extended period of sittings. This was not foreseen at the time the arrangements were made with these overseas guests. I simply make that comment in response to Senator Georges's remarks. Question resolved in the affirmation. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.21) —by leave-I move: That leave be granted to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare to meet during sittings of the Senate this day. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare had a meeting scheduled for last Wednesday which was cancelled. It is imperative for the meeting to go ahead tonight. We have had difficulty in getting some of the witnesses before the Committee. If the Senate were to grant leave to the Committee to meet it would be very helpful so that it could continue inquiring into its current reference. I take note of what many honourable senators have said. We have tried to plan our meetings so that they would not coincide with the sittings of the Senate, but in this circumstance it was almost impossible to do so. I ask that honourable senators take note of the request. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.22) —I have already indicated that we will support the motion. I want to respond to one point made by Senator Harradine and make quite explicit the fact that we also do not regard this as a precedent. Certainly, we would look very hard indeed at any suggestion that standing committees should sit regularly while the Senate is sitting. It is important that Senate sitting times permit committees to meet. Perhaps the solution, while the Government maintains the two weeks on and two weeks off sitting pattern, would be to set aside one of the off weeks as a week when both party and parliamentary committees can meet. I think that at the moment there is some resistance to that. If that resistance is maintained I think that we are very likely to go back to the three weeks on and one week off sitting pattern. There are matters which need consideration. I assure Senator Harradine and the Senate that the view he expressed about a precedent is certainly the view of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.23) —by leave-I move: That Government Business notices of motion Nos 4 and 5; Government Business orders of the day Nos 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62; General Business notices of motion nos 8, 19, 21, 27, 41 and 51, and General Business orders of the day Nos 10, 40 and 59 be discharged from the Notice Paper . I understand that the items for discharge have been arrived at after full discussion with the Whips and Senator Harradine. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 June. The Bills. The CHAIRMAN —By agreement, the Committee is considering both Bills as a whole. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.24) —Before the suspension of the Committee last evening, I was addressing some remarks to clause 15 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984. I had referred to page 76 of the explanatory memorandum. I had quoted from the explanatory memorandum as it dealt with new section 27A (4) and I read out that new section. Say a widow of a superannuitant is paid directly by an employer or a superannuation fund an amount by way of a pension after the death of her spouse and subsequently that widow, considers after advice, that she needs a lump sum to pay off, say, her mortgage or something of that nature. As I read the explanatory memorandum and the Bill, she would not be able to have the pension commuted to a lump sum without incurring the super tax, as is provided for in this legislation. If that is so it would mean that that payment would be an eligible termination payment and would not be exempt from the super tax. Is my understanding of the situation correct? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.27) —Yes, it is correct. Where a pension payable to a surviving spouse or other dependant is commuted, the commuted sum would be taxed in accordance with the general provisions of the legislation. Senator Harradine mentioned a widow-and I believe it would also apply to a widower-who received advice to commute a pension into a lump sum, and put forward the proposition, apparently, that that commuted sum should be tax exempt. The widows or widowers might receive advice for a number of reasons, one of which could be that they had substantial income of their own and that the additional pension would be substantially taken in income tax. Therefore they might receive advice, well based from the selfish point of view of the individual, to commute it to a lump sum in tax free form. It is precisely that sort of commutation which, among other things, this Bill is aimed at terminating. If Senator Harradine is implying what he seems to have been implying, he has missed the entire intention of the Government; that these arrangements are to provide for incomes rather than for lump sums. It is the intention of the Government and it is the whole thrust of the policy to shift benefits in that direction. There is one point, however, that should be noted: If a pension entitlement by way of an annuity which has already been purchased is commuted in the way suggested by Senator Harradine, that portion of the lump sum capitalised from an annuity entitlement, which is a notional return of capital used for the purchase of the annuity as distinct from income earned by the payment made to purchase the annuity, will be exempt from taxation. That is a consistent application of the rules which are applied for more general annuities and tax treatment of annuity payments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.29) —I do not want to sit here, nor does the Committee, and be lectured by Senator Walsh. The last comment he made was gratuitous. I am perfectly aware of the situation in regard to pension or annuity payments, the amount of taxes applied to them and the amount of taxes applied to lump sum payments. I do not accept from Senator Walsh the continued snide comment about smart advice being given to people to avoid tax. I gave the example of the widow of a superannuitant. My reading of clause 15 and of the explanatory memorandum indicates that a widow must make the election immediately her husband dies. She cannot leave it till later. The first thing she must do after her husband drops dead is to rush to the phone, get on to the superannuation fund or the employer and say that she wants the money in a lump sum. Under those circumstances the superannuation payment is exempted from the eligible termination payment provisions. Let us compare the situations of the widows of two superannuitants. One of the widows receives a lump sum payment which would be exempt from tax; it would not be an eligible termination payment. However, the other widow, being in a confused state, receives from the superannuation fund or the employer a direct payment for a period of, say, two, three or four weeks. She is not immediately concerned about questions of finance . If, after that period of two, three or four weeks, she decides that she wants to pay off the mortgage or something of that sort and seeks to have her pension commuted to a lump sum, then it is deemed for the purpose of the Act to be an eligible termination payment and is subject to tax. To my way of thinking, that is inconsistent with the view taken under the social security legislation. Even under that legislation a widow is given, I think, 12 weeks grace in which she receives both her husband's pension entitlement and her own. I think that period of grace is appropriate in this situation as well. I emphasise that this is a real, practical problem. I can think of at least one circumstance in which a period of grace could well have applied and the circumstances of that widow were such that she was far from well-heeled. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.34) —I wish to refer to clause 15, the clause to which Senator Harradine addressed himself. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to certain aspects of proposed new section 27A and in particular the definitions and requirements that are laid down in respect of the Commissioner of Taxation. It seems to me that under the heading of 'approved rules' we are setting down the means of controlling superannuation funds. However, unfortunately, we do not have by any means a complete set of rules that would have to be administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. It seems that the Government, by back door means, is regulating superannuation funds through the taxation Act rather than by introducing a separate Act in order to govern the affairs of superannuation funds. I believe that a more complete approach could have been better adopted by the Government in order to deal with superannuation funds in that way. What it amounts to is that the Taxation Commissioner will now become the arbiter of the affairs of superannuation funds and will be responsible for their approval in very many ways. Coming to the detail of one aspect of it, I note that, amongst the rules for a superannuation fund that would need to be approved by the Commissioner, there is one that requires an audit to be conducted. One of the ways in which the Commissioner is devolving his responsibilities under the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) is to appoint an auditor. I am pointing now to proposed new section 27A(j)(ii). There is a requirement by the auditor to present a certificate which will state that the rules of the fund that were approved rules were complied with. It seems to me that that is a very onerous provision to be set upon an auditor. As I understand it, an auditor is not a judge or a jury for that matter but rather a person who investigates the affairs of a company or any entity to which he is appointed auditor and has to form a judgment about the affairs of that organisation and whether or not it has been properly conducted. This Bill will be seeking to impose upon auditors a requirement that the details of the rules have been complied with. I think that, in the normal course, is an absolutely onerous provision which will make it extraordinarily difficult for auditors to satisfy that condition. Indeed, one can only imagine that this will cause an enormous amount of heartburn in various areas over the next several years when this clause comes into force. I suppose we need to accept that that is the Government's role, that it is bent on imposing such onerous duties upon people. However, in this circumstance, I wonder what guidelines the Government will be prepared to issue as to the way in which auditors will conduct their examination of the rules and whether we will find it extraordinarily difficult for auditors to comply with them without that. I would like to know what the Government has in mind in that area. One other aspect that worries me, very much, about this is that it seems that a superannuation fund should, under normal accounting standards, be required to state its contingent liability for future benefits to beneficiaries. If that is so and an auditor is required to certify as to that contingent liability which would be a requirement in respect of corporations registered under normal company law, I would like to know from the Government how it intends to set down guidelines as to how that might be calculated. It is obviously intended that actuaries will be employed in order to determine such a liability. However, I see nothing in the approved rules definition to require an actuary to be employed in that duty nor do I see any requirement for an actuarial certificate. I wonder whether the Government has even considered the great shortage of actuaries in this country who will now be required to enter into an entirely new duty to certify in this situation. I would like the Government's assurance that it has considered those aspects. Most of all I would like to hear how it is that guidelines will be established for auditors to operate effectively in this area. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.40) —I want to make a brief reference in the committee stage to one or two matters. I thank the Government for the response that it has made with regard to clauses 10, 18, 19 and 20, which relate to the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation and his opinion with regard to certain matters. I think the statement that was made last night by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) will be of great help to those who were concerned about what would be the breadth of the Commissioner's discretion and the use of his opinion to determine some matters. I thank the Government for the statement that was made. With regard to clause 15 and lump sum superannuation arrangements, I would be interested to have some information from the Government, in its response to the Committee, on a number of representations that have been made to me and, I feel sure, to the Government. One matter has been raised by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. I would like to know what would be the cost if employees who came under the scheme prior to 19 May 1983 were to be taxed under the existing legislation rather than to have the new legislation applied to them; that is, if those who are presently in schemes were to continue under one set of rules and those who enter schemes from the date of the new legislation were to have the new legislation applied to them. I would be interested to have some views about costing on that. Some of the other representations that have been made by the Australian International Air Pilots Association- Senator Walsh —Are you restricting that to the air pilots? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —The representation before me is from the air pilots. But it would be of interest to see a general costing on those who are presently in schemes under existing legislation and those who will have the new legislation applied to them in the future. I imagine the overall cost would be considerable because the purpose of the legislation is to apply new arrangements into the future. Other representations have been made by the air pilots with regard to redundancy payments. I would be interested to hear from the Government with regard to those matters. Not only air pilots have raised that point; others , such as fire brigade officers and other groups who have certain requirements for retirement at particular ages, have also raised many matters with us. I think it would be appropriate for the Government to make some response to the public representations that have been made on a number of issues. I think the superannuation funds feel that there has been a breach of understanding in the Government's approach and in the consultations that were held with them. The sorts of matters raised by Senator Harradine with regard to election of a commutation are of concern. Also, when there is a right to commute after a particular period, it was understood last year in consultation with the Government that this would begin at the period of retirement. But this is not covered in the terms of the legislation. The Chairman of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia is concerned with regard to these matters. I would like to have a response from the Government to the representations that have been made by air pilots, superannuation funds and others on particular concerns that they have. It is obvious that the Government's proposals are contained in the legislation. I recognise that there will be those who will be affected by them. But there are some who believed that they had understandings with and undertakings from the Government which have not been fulfilled in the legislation. I would like to have some response on that so that we might pursue the matter. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.44) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move: Page 53, clause 52, proposed section 160AA, at end of proposed section, add the following new sub-sections: '(3) Subject to sub-section (4), the definition of ''residual amount'' in sub- section (2) has effect, in relation to a year of income, as if, for the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that definition to $50,000, there were substituted references to an amount calculated by multiplying- (a) in a case to which paragraph (b) of this sub-section does not apply-$50,000 ; or (b) where that definition has had effect in relation to a year of income or years of income preceding the relevant year of income as if references to another amount were substituted for the references in that definition to $50,000 or would have so had effect but for the operation of sub-section (4)-the substituted amount or the last substituted amount, or the amount or the last amount that would, but for the operation of sub-section (4), have been so substituted, as the case may be, by the factor ascertained in accordance with sub-section (5). '(4) Sub-section (3) does not have effect in relation to a relevant year of income where, if it did so have effect, the substituted amount would not exceed $50,000. '(5) The factor to be ascertained for the purposes of sub-section (3) in relation to a relevant year of income is the number (calculated to 3 decimal places) ascertained, as at the date on which the index number for the March quarter immediately preceding that relevant year of income was first published, by dividing the sum of- (a) the index number in respect of the March quarter immediately preceding that relevant year of income; and (b) the index numbers in respect of the 3 quarters that immediately preceded that quarter, by the sum of- (c) the index number in respect of the March quarter immediately preceding the year of income that next preceded that relevant year of income; and (d) the index numbers in respect of the 3 quarters that immediately preceded that last-mentioned quarter. '(6) Subject to sub-section (7), if at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of a quarter in substitution for an index number previously published by him in respect of that quarter, the publication of the later index number shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section. '(7) If, at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the reference base for the Consumer Price Index, then, for the purposes of the application of this section after the change took place or takes place, regard shall be had only to index numbers published in terms of the new reference base. '(8) Where the factor ascertained in accordance with sub-section (5) in relation to a relevant year of income would, if it were calculated to 4 decimal places, end with a number greater than 4, the factor ascertained in accordance with that sub-section in relation to that relevant year of income shall be taken to be the factor calculated to 3 decimal places in accordance with that sub- section and increased by 0.001. '(9) The Treasurer shall cause to be published in the Gazette before the commencement of each relevant year of income- (a) the factor ascertained in accordance with sub-section (5) (as affected by sub-section (8) ) in relation to that year of income; and (b) the amount that is to be the substituted amount for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition by ''residual amount'' in sub-section ( 2). '(10) Where, but for this sub-section, the definition of ''residual amount'' in sub-section (2) would, by virtue of sub-sections (3) to (9), inclusive, of this section, have effect in relation to a relevant year of income as if, for the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that definition to $50,000, there were substituted references to another amount, being an amount that consists of a number of whole dollars and a number of cents (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant number of cents'')- (a) in the case where the relevant number of cents is less than 50-the other amount shall be reduced by the relevant number of cents; or (b) in any other case-the other amount shall be increased by the amount by which the relevant number of cents is less than $1. '(11) Where, but for sub-section (4), the definition of ''residual amount'' in sub-section (2) would, by virtue of sub-sections (3) to (10), inclusive, have effect in relation to a relevant year of income as if, for the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that definition to $50,000, there were substituted references to another amount, being an amount that consists of a number of whole dollars and a number of cents (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant number of cents'') then, for the purpose of the application of paragraph (3) (b) - (a) in a case where the relevant number of cents is less than 50-the other amount shall be reduced by the relevant number of cents; or (b) in any other case-the other amount shall be increased by the amount by which the relevant number of cents is less than $1. '(12) In sub-sections (3) to (11), inclusive, a reference to the relevant year of income shall be read as a reference to the year of income in which 1 July 1984 occurs or a subsequent year of income.'. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the threshold figure of $50,000 is indexed. It may appear to be a fairly complicated amendment-it runs to four pages-but its purpose is simple. It is to ensure that the $50,000 figure does not change in value over the years and that the tax rate of 15 per cent below that threshold of $50,000 is applied to a higher indexed amount each year according to the consumer price index. I find it very disappointing that this amendment has to be moved in the Committee stage. The Government gave assurances last night that the $50,000 figure would be reviewed annually, dependent on a number of criteria, including the Budget constraints of the day. That to me is an indication that the Government may well plan to reduce the $50,000 threshold and not to increase it annually, nor to index it annually. The Senate needs the assurance that the amendment I am proposing would give, by giving to all superannuitants across Australia the guarantee that the Parliament has given, that the threshold on superannuation will be indexed. It is also disappointing that the amendment has to be moved in this way in the Committee stage, following two votes that were taken last night in the Senate at the second reading stage. I do not reflect on those votes. I simply draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it is necessary to make these moves in Committee because last night not only did the Opposition reject the Australian Democrats' second reading amendment which asked the Government to index this threshold figure, together with providing for a number of other alleviations for people on superannuation, but also, incredibly, it did not call for a division to pass its own amendment, although it had been given an assurance by the Australian Democrats that it would have their support so that its amendment would have been passed by this Senate. Unbelievably, the Opposition did not call for a division at that time. The vote was lost on the voices without a division being called. I indicate to the Opposition that it has let the side down. It has let down every superannuitant in this country by not supporting my second reading amendment and, far worse, by not taking to a division its own second reading amendment. Senator Messner —Stop playing politics and get on with the argument. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Messner missed the cue and he is now trying to retrieve a situation which is almost irretrievable, other than by supporting the amendment which I am now putting. I appeal to the Liberals, to Senator Mess- ner , to vote with the Democrats for this amendment and show that there is a little bit of courage left in the Liberal Party, a little bit of the courage of the convictions that they have been spouting around the nation for the last few weeks about what they would do to help the poor superannuitants in this country. When the time to vote came, a division was not called; they ran to water. There can be only one reason why they have run to water-I am putting this in the form of a challenge-and that is that they want the pensioners and superannuitants of Australia to bleed for the next four years until, they hope, they will be re- elected. But in the meantime the pensioners, the superannuitants, can suffer simply because the Liberals lack the courage of their convictions or the statements that they put out to the public. Senator Messner —Rubbish. Senator JACK EVANS —We will be able to tell if what I say is rubbish by the vote of the Liberal Party in this House. If that vote does not support this amendment , the evidence will be there for the whole of this nation to see: the Liberal Party is making loud noises on behalf of superannuitants outside this Parliament , but inside the Parliament, when the crunch comes and when it is time to take the vote, the Liberals run to water and they are willing to let the superannuitants suffer because of their unwillingness to stand behind an amendment such as that which I have moved. Senator Messner —Oppose the Bill. Senator JACK EVANS —I hear a call from someone, who in fact voted for the Bill last night, challenging me to vote against the Bill. I was one of five people who sat on the other side of this chamber during the only division called last night, so I have nothing to be ashamed of in my stand or in that of the Australian Democrats on this issue. I did not side with the Government when the division came, when the fate of the superannuitants under this legislation was being determined. I make my final plea to the Opposition: Vote with the Democrats on this. Give the superannuitants something that they can hang on to as they make plans for the future. Do not let the Government get away with this one. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.51) —We have just listened to an absolutely extraordinary speech from Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. He had the luxury, sitting with his three colleagues last night, of moving an amendment on which he provided no costing but by which he suggested alteration to the social services legislation, with an indexation mentality, which is an inflation mentality, with regard to provisions in the legislation before us. For him to suggest that there is some reluctance on the part of the Opposition to make its position clear ignores what we have been saying about the proposed superannuation legislation since May 1983. We have made it quite clear that our approach to legislation of this kind is that we shall repeal it on our return to government. As regards Senator Evans's amendment to the clause, he circulated earlier his amendment to the second reading, which contained a number of provisions that we did not support, for the reasons I have just mentioned. When we were voting on that he then circulated some amendments to the clauses, having suddenly discovered that the Bill was amendable in the Senate. For him now to come up with some sort of outrage in regard to the Opposition is absolutely insupportable. I make it perfectly clear that the Opposition has views about the Government's revenue-raising proposals. Those proposals are supported, with the exceptions that I named when we were dealing with retrospective legislation in particular circumstances. This is a revenue-raising tax Bill of the Government. It contains numerous proposals, such as the strengthening of section 26 (a) and a whole range of other measures related to other taxation provisions. The House of Representatives having risen, it is certainly not our attitude that a frivolous amendment introduced in the closing stages of this session of the Senate by the Australian Democrats to hold up a very important tax Bill ought to have our support. We would not thereby put ourselves in the position in which Senator Evans would like to find himself, in that he would have somehow saved superannuitants. It is an absurd proposal. If he understood either the legislation or the practices of the Parliament, he would not have made such a ridiculous speech as that which he has just delivered. The Opposition will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the Democrats. We put forward our own second reading amendment, which was the same as the one on which we divided the House of Representatives. With the charade last night of two amendments before the Senate-one from the Democrats and one from us-we chose not to call a division on them, because we would like to get the legislation dealt with. There is plenty of legislation ahead of us. Simply to have almost the whole Senate moving across the floor to suit the Democrats so that they could make some sort of grandstand did not fit in with our attitude. Our position is clear. We do not support the proposals for the changes that have been instituted by the Government, but we have agreed to the passage of the legislation. The way in which to change these proposals for superannuation is to change the Government. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.55) —I make just a couple of points, having suffered a little from the invective thrown about the chamber by Senator Messner while Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was speaking. The position of the Australian Democrats needs to be made quite clear. We have moved an amendment which, constitutionally, is in order. Senator Messner —It cannot be passed by the House of Representatives. Senator JACK EVANS —The amendment was not moved for frivolous reasons. It is an amendment which can be passed by the House of Representatives. Senator Messner is totally unaware of the fact that the House of Representatives is willing to come back if the Senate passes amendments to any of the legislation that it wants to have resolved before the Budget session. This Bill is important enough for it to be resolved. All that we heard from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was the disappointing and pathetic excuse for not calling a division on her own amendment to the second reading motion last night, that it would have taken up five minutes of the Senate's time. My God, I do not think I have ever heard such an excuse, and I do not think the Senate has ever heard such an excuse, for failing to call a division on a motion in respect of which the mover knew she had the numbers. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —How would we know where your numbers are? Senator JACK EVANS —I had already given notice that the Australian Democrats would support Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's amendment. I come back to the amendment I have moved, and again throw down the gauntlet to the Opposition to support it and show that it has some element of sympathy for the position of the pensioners and superannuitants in this country by at least giving them some opportunity to plan ahead, to know that they will have a reliable figure at which the tax change takes place. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.57) —In regard to Senator Jack Evans's amendment, there is something to be said in principle for indexation. If that principle is adopted, it could be argued that the same principle should be applied to the income tax schedule as a whole. Indeed, we did have for a very short time a government which indexed it even though it used to fiddle with the indexation figure and discount it for all sorts of questionable reasons. But that Government, despite a solemn election undertaking, very quickly reneged on the indexation of the tax schedule. The Government's view is that this is not the time to apply it, certainly not in isolation, and as Senator Grimes said last night annual reviews would be the Government's preferred policy. An additional reason for not supporting Senator Evans's amendment is that I am advised it has been taken from another piece of legislation having something to do with motor vehicles-I am not sure of the details-and it is technically defective when applied in this case. The reason for its technical deficiency is that it indexes the whole of the $50,000 as it is in this case. Other provisions of the legislation allow somebody to take a lump sum of, say $40,000, which qualifies for the 15 per cent concessional rate of tax assuming that the $40,000 entitlement accrued entirely after 1 July 1983, the intention being that if any subsequent lump sum is taken it will be added to the $40,000, which had previously been taken for assessing tax liability. However, in this case Senator Evans's indexation proposal would index the entire $50,000 rather than the residual $10,000 entitlement of the concessional rate. That is, assuming there was the one indexation adjustment of 10 per cent bringing the $50,000 threshold up to $55,000-bearing in mind that in this hypothetical case $40,000 of that concessional rate had already been drawn-the $ 10,000 residual would effectively be indexed not by 10 per cent but by 50 per cent because it would be increased from $10,000 to $15,000. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked what the cost to revenue would be if those provisions were applied only to new schemes instead of, as is the case in this legislation, applied to all entitlements which accrue after 1 July 1983. I do not know precisely the answer to that but I can make general and fairly accurate observations. As the second reading speech states it is estimated that the revenue yield in 1984-85 will be $70m, of which $20m effectively is revenue lag which otherwise would have been collected in this financial year had the legislation been operative throughout this financial year. The actual revenue yield applicable to liabilities incurred in 1984-85 will be of the order of $50m . If Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's hypothetical proposal were adopted almost all of that $50m would be lost to revenue; I would think in excess of something like 90 per cent, given the average duration of participation in a superannuation scheme. The revenue yield from this legislation increases year by year at probably a fairly steady rate. That $50m or thereabouts-probably less than $50m-in 1984-85 which would be collected as a result of liabilities incurred during 1984-85 will grow by a similar amount year by year. Therefore the initial cost of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's proposal to revenue will be something like $50m. The annual increment in cost would be less than $50m but the absolute cost would continue to increase for a very considerable period. I hope I have explained that clearly. Senator Messner referred to clause 15 of the Bill relating to proposed new section 27A (j) (ii) concerning audit requirements for superannuation funds. For the sake of the record I say that that proposed new section applies to approved deposit funds rather than superannuation funds per se. The advice I have received is that auditors for superannuation funds already are required to observe a great number of conditions and that although this provision will marginally increase the responsibilities of auditors it should not be too onerous. Senator Harradine referred to his hypothetical widow who could also, as far as the law is concerned, be a widower. If I understood him correctly he said that at the time of death this legislation requires a surviving spouse to make a decision whether a pension entitlement will be taken as a pension or as a lump sum. He said that, if the surviving spouse did not make that decision almost immediately, the option would be lost. That is wrong. The correct situation is that where a fund provides for an option to a surviving spouse of either a lump sum or a pension this legislation imposes no time limit on the period for which this option may be taken. The rules of the fund may be a separate question and probably do provide a time limit; I expect they would provide a time limit. But this legislation provides that in the case where an option may be exercised, if the option of taking a pension is taken up, that pension may not subsequently be commuted to a lump sum without subsequently exposing that lump sum payment to taxation under the general provisions of this Bill for the taxation of lump sum payments. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.06) —I thank the Minister for that explanation. That is the very point I was trying to get at. I make this point and I hope the Government will take it up with its advisers. For example, page 76 of the explanatory memorandum, which deals with this proposed new sub-section 27A (4), contains a sentence which is 98 words long. The way in which this explanatory memorandum has been drafted is most obtuse. I believe that those who were responsible for drafting this explanatory memorandum, containing one sentence of 98 words without drawing breath, should have another look at the way they draft such things. But it is the very point that the Minister has mentioned that concerns me. I refer to the situation of a widow immediately following the death of her husband, the superannuitant. She is phoned by the fund and asked: 'Would you like the payments to continue as they have been continuing?' That would probably involve the payment of $200 a week. The widow would say: 'Oh yes, fine' . The point that I have made is that within, say, three or four weeks of making that decision, she may realise that she has liabilities; that she has the mortgage to pay off and various other things. If she then says to the fund or the employer: 'I want to commute this to a lump sum', she will be taxed blind under this legislation. All I am asking the Government to do-it is acknowledged that this is the case-is to re-examine that and provide for some period of grace after the death of the superannuitant-for example, the period of grace available to a widow under the social security legislation. I hope the Government will bear that in mind. I reiterate that there are features of this legislation that are important, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has said. They are important in other general taxation areas not associated with the superannuation aspect. But so far as the superannuation aspect is concerned there are many unanswered questions and problems that have been raised. I will raise another couple. One was adverted to very briefly by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I refer to the situation of fire fighters. I was secretary of the Federal Firefighters Union and I am aware of the superannuation funds which are designed to cover their special circumstances. As honourable senators know, fire fighting is an industry whose members live under the bells all the time. In many cases they want to get out and need to do so because of their health, at the age of 55, or something of that order. They may indeed need to get out beforehand. If they do, their superannuation fund is designed to provide them with a lump sum in order that their standard of living does not dramatically drop, bearing in mind, of course, that they cannot get the pension until they are 65 years of age. They will certainly have a problem under this legislation if they retire earlier than the prescribed age because their superannuation payments will attract the superannuation tax penalty. Another aspect of this legislation which I believe the Government ought to amend is the roll-over provisions-the provisions which enable lump sums to be rolled over into annuities. Of course, one of the attractions of an annuity in a number of situations was that after it was paid out the money could be split between the husband and the wife. The provisions in this legislation will not only tax that money but also, if it is rolled over into an annuity, will trap the married couple into a single income throughout the rest of their lives. I do not think anybody else has raised this matter. I certainly have not heard it raised in this chamber. Yet this legislation traps a husband and wife into a single income for the rest of their lives and they are taxed accordingly. That is unfair and is inconsistent, in any event, with the Government's taxation attitude to the ordinary pension. As you would know, Mr Chairman, and as the Committee would understand, so far as the married couple is concerned, the pension is split; a pension is paid to the husband and a pension is paid to the wife. Under those circumstances, of course, the money is treated as a split income for the purposes of taxation. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the so-called radical feminists in the Australian Labor Party, this legislation will trap the married couple for the rest of their lives into a single income situation. I wonder whether the Government has really thought that problem through to its conclusion. Perhaps it ought to reconsider the matter and ensure that the wife is able to have conferred upon her some direct entitlement, as was the case under the previous lump sum provisions. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.15) —I wonder whether I could seek a response from the Minister on the matter of redundancy which has been raised by a number of associations. It seems from representations made to us that there were certain understandings with regard to redundancy payments, whereas the provisions of the Bill before us relate to the possibility of retirement at an earlier age and not simply to a 5 per cent tax on a redundancy payment. The provisions in most schemes where there can be an earlier age of retirement, but usually with some loss of benefit, seem not to be the understanding that pilots, engineers and others have as a result of discussions with the Government. I simply pass these representations on and ask whether undertakings were given by the Government with regard to redundancy payments that relate to a 5 per cent tax and do not relate to other provisions within superannuation schemes for earlier retirement dates. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.16) —Again I am addressing the definitions in clause 15. I refer to the heading 'eligible termination payment'. The Committee will know that the Commissioner of Taxation has generally applied a formula for determining maximum benefits payable from superannuation funds. I think that until recently that has been based on seven times the estimated final average salary of an employee who is a member of a superannuation fund. Now that the amounts of benefits will be severely cut back as a result of the imposition of the tax and therefore less benefit will come into the hands of beneficiaries, I seek the Minister's comments as to whether or not the Commissioner will be altering his formula for determining the maximum benefits to take account of the loss of benefit to employees as a result of the Government's tax. It is a reasonable request that people have that opportunity and it would introduce the question of choice between taking lump sums and annuities under the new taxation regime as it is envisaged. I proceed now to the definition of 'registered organisation' in the same clause . May I have the Minister's comment as to why professional associations and other organisations representing small business organisations and employers are excluded from the definition of 'registered organisation' and why there is no capacity in the legislation for such bodies to gain the same benefits as do associations of employees. I turn now to proposed new section 27E which sets out conditions upon which approval will be granted for early retirement schemes. This, of course, is another extension of the Commissioner's power into an area quite beyond his expertise and takes him into the area of industrial relations. It seems to me, especially referring to proposed new section 27E (b) (iii), where we talk about cessation and reduction in part of the output of an employer , that decisions on schemes of arrangement or schemes for early retirement and so on would have to be determined in a very rapid manner. I would like the Minister's assurance that the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to cope with the situation where urgent approvals for retirement schemes can be given. Clearly, there will be a great deal of work which is new to the Commissioner of Taxation, because his office will have to give approval for early retirement schemes. I wonder what expertise the Australian Taxation Office envisages it will have to cope with this kind of work. What kind of liaison will go on with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations? What kind of guidelines will be issued on 1 July so that employers can take account of this new situation when seeking approval for early retirement schemes in order to render their employees who face the situation outlined in the Bill free of tax? Finally, I refer to the clause 56 of the Bill regarding group employers. I note that there are requirements now for employers, presumably-I will come to that in a moment-to be granted group status under the group payments arrangements of the Australian Taxation Office. My question is: In the situations that are envisaged , where trustees of superanuation funds as well as employers are involved, who will have to register as the group employer? Is it the trustee of the superannuation fund, the employer, both or somebody altogether different, or is there some requirement upon the employee himself to be registered as a group operator in those situations? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.21) —I am advised that the answer to Senator Messner's last question is that the trustee of the superannuation fund is required to register. As to the other more general matters he raised, the Commissioner of Taxation will be reviewing his guidelines following the passage of this legislation. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked a question about treatment of redundancy payments. I am advised that if the amount paid exceeds that which would normally be paid for a voluntary retirement, 5 per cent of that excess will be included as taxable income in the year in which it is received. In other words, the previous treatment for lump sum payments will apply. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.22) —The Minister did not address himself to my question regarding why it is that associations of employers and small businessmen are to be excluded from being able to set up approved deposit funds. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.22) —I raise two points which have been represented to me on this legislation. The first is to do with defence forces and the defence force retirement benefit scheme. The second is to do with airline pilots. I will speak to the second point first. The problem of the airline pilots, who have some possible difficulties as a result of this legislation, have been canvassed around this country for quite some time. I have been making representations on their behalf for several months. I sat with their representatives and put to them a proposal which they seemed to find favourable. That was put to the Government and, I believe, was part of the Government's consideration in changing the formula for the sharing of the superannuation tax arrangement. I now tell honourable senators that I am not representing the airline pilots in this debate in this chamber because I refuse to represent a body which holds a gun at my head or at the head of the Senate during the processes of a debate, the gun being levelled not only at those senators who are deliberating today but at our constituents, the people of Australia, simply to put pressure on the Senate. I find that to be a reprehensible act. I will not respond to it. I wash my hands of any representations of that body while the airline pilots take actions of that sort. Senator Messner —Irrespective of the merit. Senator JACK EVANS —I continue to uphold the issue and the merit, but I will not represent the airline pilots in this chamber while they are causing industrial disorder. The other matter that I draw to the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) is the anomaly which seems to come about because of commutations of Defence Force retirement benefit funds, commutations which come under a superannuation provision and which should be treated separately. The matter was raised during the second reading debate and there was no response to that issue at the time. Just to put it into perspective, I would like the Minister to take on board the fact that under the arrangements members of the Defence Force are allowed to retire at 45 years of age, but under this new legislation they will be taxed at 30 per cent. I understand that Defence Force members are allowed that commutation because of the special provisions relating to their service. I indicated last night that I felt that rather than move amendments to this legislation it would be more appropriate for the Government to make special provisions under separate legislation for this particular fund. I ask: Will the Minister accept that there is such a need? Will the Government prepare legislative changes to provide for members of the Defence Force to retire and not be harshly taxed as a result of this legislation, which has entirely different objectives I am sure from picking up Defence Force service personnel at the time that they retire at 45 years of age or shortly thereafter? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.27) —I am going to be very brief. I think we have had enough nit picking on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3). In reply to Senator Jack Evans's final query regarding the defence forces, nobody is to be taxed at the rate of 30 per cent at any time in the future. The first $50,000 has the concessional rate of 15 per cent, so the average would never be 30 per cent. The entitlement which Defence service personnel have can be rolled over, can be subsequently added to or, alternatively, an annuity can be purchased. So the tax rate is not 30 per cent, it never will be 30 per cent and, even when it could conceivably be an average of something like 25 per cent for a very high payment, other options are available to the person who has the entitlement. Senator Messner's question-I have forgotten the exact words-was essentially why small businessmen are not allowed to run their own funds, or something like that. Senator Messner —Business organisations. Senator WALSH —Well, business organisations. It is a question of judgment as to where the line should be drawn for organisations that are eligible to run their own funds. People may agree or disagree with judgments that have been made, but I think there would be a general agreement that a line has to be drawn somewhere . Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.28) —I have one final question, just to pick another nit. Will the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) please advise me whether the Commissioner of Taxation intends to alter his formula for the calculation of maximum benefits under the legislation? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.29) —The answer I gave before applies. The Commissioner of Taxation will be reviewing that matter, among other things. As I understand it, there has been no decision at this stage to change it. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.31) —The Opposition is very pleased indeed that this measure is before the Parliament to enable the residents of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to be fully integrated into Australia and the Australian community. The question of integration has been a matter of very serious consideration for some considerable time. I do not propose to traverse the history of the matter. Suffice to say that there was a need for Australia to discharge its international obligations to enable the final determination on integration with Australia to be decided by the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders themselves. They determined quite decisively in April this year in favour of integration. I refer to the figures quoted by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). All the 261 eligible voters in the referendum voted and only two informal votes were recorded. What an outstanding achievement. I do not think I have seen figures in any election in Australia that would equal that for seriousness of purpose by voters. They voted overwhelmingly in favour of integration. Two hundred and twenty-nine voted in favour of integration, 21 voted for free association and only nine voted for independence. It was really a most decisive and impressive election, one on which I think Australians should ponder with respect and consider how people should face up to the major decisions that are made so frequently at elections which perhaps are not treated with the same degree of determination that the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders gave to the matter on which they voted in April this year. That matter is now out of the way. It has been a long-standing process. It has been a long-standing concern not only for the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders but also for Australia. As I have said, the decision to integrate with Australia is one of major importance not only for the Islanders but also for all Australians. I think we can express a great deal of satisfaction with the result, which is in our interests as well. The fact is that the Islanders clearly see integration with Australia as being in their interests. I look forward to a much closer association and integration of the Islanders with the Australian mainland. There has already been a good deal of association by the Islanders with the mainland, particularly with my State of Western Australia. A very close association has formed. A number of Cocos Islanders are residing in Western Australia and there is obviously a good deal of interchange and association. As far as I am aware, communication with the Islands is almost entirely through Perth. As we all know, a number of Australians have resided on Cocos Island performing various Public Service functions and that will continue. There is no doubt that as time goes on there will be further developments of that association. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 gives effect to the Cocos Islanders having full integration with the Australian community. It also amends health laws, social security laws, the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act, the Health Act and so on. Of course, the Bill deals with the perhaps all-important question about the rights of Cocos Islanders to vote in Australian elections. Clearly that is what they must have the right to do. There is absolutely no question about that at all. As they are now part of Australia they must be given the right to vote in Australia. I think a more difficult question is how that should be achieved and it is one to which the Senate should give some further consideration. It is also bound up with long term questions of other Territories being integrated with Australia and having the right to vote in Australian elections. At the moment there is a great deal of talk about the future of Christmas Island. The Government seems to be moving ahead very quickly with the integration of Christmas Island. I am disappointed that no clear statement has been made as to what will be done about Christmas Island. At this stage there are difficulties but I think they are part and parcel of the same question. A policy decision will have to be made in the long term about Norfolk Island. This legislation provides that in Australian elections the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will become a division of the electorate of the Northern Territory. That is a surprising and disappointing decision by the Government. The Opposition has already taken steps in another place to amend the legislation in that regard. I have given notice that I shall do the same on behalf of the Opposition in the Senate during the Committee stage. However, the Opposition believes that the right way of determining this matter is by properly and fully ascertaining the wishes of the Cocos Islanders themselves. The matter has been raised with them. I do not know whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is at the table and is in charge of the Bill, has any further information to give us about this question. When the Opposition was in government the then Minister responsible for the Territories, Mr McVeigh, discussed with the Islanders which electorate they would prefer to be a part of. They were asked which part of Australia they felt was the right one for them and their interests. Mr McVeigh in fact discussed with them the possibility of their being part of the Australian Capital Territory electoral division of Fraser. Certainly, the Islanders themselves wished to be consulted and wished to express their own choice in relation to this question. Unfortunately, because of constitutional problems, there is some limit on the choice that they can make. We recognise that. Because of the close association which the Islanders have with Western Australia they may well choose , as their first choice, to be a part of a Western Australian electorate. It seems fairly clear that they cannot be part of a State electorate. I do not propose to go into the reasons for that. Under the provisions of the Constitution regarding the representation of States in the Federal Parliament, there seem to be very strong legal reasons why the Islanders cannot be part of a State electorate. The State boundaries would have to be extended to include the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or any other territory to allow it to belong to a State electorate. There is another difficulty in incorporating the Islanders into the Northern Territory as this Bill proposes. As we all know, the Northern Territory is moving rapidly towards Statehood. We do not know when it will become a State, but we are pretty certain now that it will become a State and probably in the not too distant future. If the Cocos Islanders are to be part of the Northern Territory electorate for the purpose of voting, once the Northern Territory becomes a State there will be a real doubt as to whether the Islanders can continue to be part of the Northern Territory for the purpose of voting. It is quite unbelievable that the Government should be rushing ahead in the way it is and incorporating the Islanders as part of the electorate of the Northern Territory. As I have pointed out, the Islanders have very little connection with the Northern Territory. Their main connection is with Western Australia or the Australian Capital Territory. I say the Australian Capital Territory because a great deal of their interests must reside with what happens at the seat of government, the Federal government. It is very strange that the Government is seeking to join the Islanders with the Northern Territory. Apart from the constitutional restraints which may exist, the overwhelming question is: What do the Islanders themselves want? As I say, the matter has been discussed with them . They have indicated that they want to be consulted about it. Therefore, at the end of the second reading stage I propose to move: 'but the Senate is of the opinion that a State Supreme Court Judge should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens in the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands as to which electoral division of Australia they should be included in for the purposes of participating in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament and referenda under the Commonwealth Constitution'. There is only one other matter that I want to mention. It has been a very difficult subject to make any public statements about because of the United Nations vote that was imminent for some time, but which is now out of the way. It is the situation of Mr John Clunies-Ross and his family. I do not propose to traverse the relationships between Mr Clunies-Ross and successive Federal governments; suffice to say that several years ago steps were taken to acquire almost all of his land on Home Island, leaving him with only his home and a curtilage. I do not know how much it is exactly but it is a very small area around the home. As he has pointed out, that is his home: that is what his family regards as home and they have so regarded it for some generations. However, steps were taken last year by the present Government to acquire that property. Mr Clunies-Ross will not sell it voluntarily, for very good reasons, and the Government has taken steps to acquire it and those steps are being challenged in the High Court of Australia. I do not want to say anything about the arguments in the High Court; that will be for the Court to decide. But I must say that I am very disturbed indeed by the actions the Government has taken . I do not accept its justification and I did not even at the time. But if there was some justification for the attitude the Government adopted when the Islanders were considering what their future would be, now that they have decided it, there is absolutely no justification that I can see for continuing with this attempt to acquire Mr Clunies-Ross's home and, in effect, to expel him and his family from the islands. All that debate has now passed. We are now looking to a future close and happy relationship between the Islanders and Australia. Mr Clunies-Ross and his family must be included in that process. Moving him out of his home and taking his home from him is, I believe, a most alarming, dangerous and unjustified course of action. I was even more alarmed by what I read of argument by counsel for the Commonwealth, the former Solicitor-General, in the High Court yesterday when he was no doubt arguing his brief. I am not reflecting on Sir Maurice Byers, as he was doing his job, but for a counsel for the Commonwealth Government to be emphasising the fact that the Commonwealth Government has the power actually to expel Mr Clunies-Ross and his family from the islands, not just take their home from them, I think is anathema to anyone on this side of the chamber. That has been his and his family's home for generations. I think to talk about exercising those sorts of powers is totally contrary to all of our concepts not only of rights of private property but also of rights of home ownership and freedom of association. In fact, I do not know- Senator Georges —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am astonished at the remarks that Senator Durack is making. This is a matter before the High Court of Australia. I think the honourable senator is intruding into that area. No matter what the rights and wrongs of the matter may be, I think it would be unwise for him to continue in that vein. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —The honourable senator is raising the question of whether this matter is sub judice. I have to consider whether anything said here would prejudice the fair consideration of the case. So far Senator Durack has said nothing that would prejudice the case. I call Senator Durack. Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have been very careful. If Senator Georges had been in the chamber he might have heard me say that I do not propose to canvass the arguments. I am simply making a comment on argument that has been put forward by the counsel for the Commonwealth Government as to matters which are quite extrinsic to the case that the Commonwealth Government is presumably adopting, a policy of which we strongly disapprove. Senator Georges —Let the Court decide. Senator DURACK —The Court is not deciding that. It is deciding the interpretation of an ordinance. It is not deciding what the policy should be. That is the Government's decision. The Government is pursuing some sort of vendetta, as far as I can see, with all the powers at its disposal. We on this side of the chamber are saying that what the Government is doing is quite anathema to us. If in fact the High Court finds in favour of Mr Clunies-Ross in this litigation, and I make no comment one way or the other on what the Court should find, the Government should think very cautiously about trying to exercise any further powers by amending the ordinance because it can be assured that this side of the chamber will be very strongly opposed to that course of action. If the High Court upholds the Government's power to amend the ordinance there is no reason why it should exercise that power. I believe it would be deplorable if it did so. As I have said, the Opposition welcomes very warmly this new association and integration with Australia by the Cocos Islanders. We welcome them as citizens of Australia. We are sure that they will make good citizens and that they will derive great satisfaction from their new status as part of Australia. We support this measure for those reasons. I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate is of the opinion that a State Supreme Court Judge should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as to which electoral division of Australia they should be included in for the purposes of participating in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament and referenda under the Commonwealth Constitution'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.53) —The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self- Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 seeks to give effect to the act of determination made by the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to enable them to vote in Australian elections now that they are Australian citizens. It seems to the Australian Democrats that really the proposition is relatively simple. An election will be held shortly-at least before the middle of next year under the Constitution-and therefore it is necessary that provision be made now to enable those citizens to participate in the electoral process. The choices as to which Federal electorate these electors will belong to really come down to the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. The Government has chosen the Northern Territory for reasons set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). There has been a lot of discussion about whether it might be more appropriate for the Cocos Islands to be attached to Western Australia. Certainly, in terms of the criteria which are contained in the Commonwealth electoral legislation, there would seem to be strong arguments to that effect. However, it is not possible for that to occur at this time. I refer the Senate to a report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-committee on Territorial Boundaries of 6 December 1976. That Sub-committee was asked to look at the changes to the existing boundaries between Queensland and Papua New Guinea. The Committee rehearsed the arguments about how boundaries of States might be changed. In particular, it referred to section 123 of the Constitution, which states: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected. From a reading of that section of the Constitution it would seem that an inclusion of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in Western Australia would not be possible. The Committee rehearsed other types of legal argument including an opinion of the Attorney-General of 1906, the Hon. Isaac Isaacs, expressing the view that it was within the power of the Commonwealth to so change boundaries. He said: Covering Clause 8 cannot in my opinion be construed as referring solely to such extraordinary alterations. I therefore think that the King . . . in Council has the power with the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and without reference to the electors of Queensland, to alter the boundaries of the Commonwealth and incidentally those of Queensland, in the way proposed. That judgment, however, seems to stand alone. When one goes, as the Sub- committee has done, through various other opinions that have been given, it seems fairly definite that from that point on almost all people who have been called upon to comment on this matter in an authoritative way have suggested that section 123 sets limits to the Commonwealth power in that regard. If one thinks for a minute about that, it certainly seems to be a doctrine which one ought to uphold. I am quite sure that the members of the Liberal Party who have been very vocal about States and the rights of States would be very upset if the Commonwealth arrogated to itself powers to increase or diminish the territories of States simply by an Act of this Parliament. I think it can be and is fairly concluded that such a power does not lie with the Commonwealth and would have to be exercised in concert with State governments. If that is the case, I believe that one way out of the problem that has been posed about the seeming desire on the part of many people on the Cocos Islands to be associated with Western Australia might very well be to follow, somewhat, the line that has been put forward in Senator Durack's amendment to the motion for the second reading and, first of all, ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens in the Cocos Islands. I am not at all sure that a State supreme court judge is the best person to do that. However, I suppose such a person would be capable of doing it. I think it could be assigned to any person of stature, standing and independence. Indeed, it came to my mind that a person such as ex-Senator Neville Bonner would be well equipped to undertake such a task as a certain amount of political understanding would need to be associated with it. But if such an investigation took place and the desire of the people in the Cocos Islands was that they be attached to Western Australia, it would obviously necessitate the holding of a referendum in Western Australia at some later stage to enable that process to take place. However, that cannot be done prior to the next election. I think that the course of action that the Government is taking is the only course of action which is currently available to enfranchise the citizens of the Cocos Islands in the forthcoming elections. Whether or not they ought to be associated with the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory, of course, is another matter. I expect, in terms of travel, that one could argue that there is not much in it either way. Arguments could be put forward that the member for the Northern Territory already has an enormous area to cover. But if one thinks of the person who would be likely to represent the Cocos Islands if a successful referendum were held and they were incorporated in Western Australia, it would fairly obviously be the member for Kalgoorlie, who represents a larger electorate than that represented by the member for the Northern Territory; indeed, I understand it is the largest electorate in the world. So I do not think we can push that argument against the Cocos Islands being included in the Northern Territory electorate. I do not think there is much in it either way. We certainly do not feel that there is a great deal of relationship between either of those arguments, except possibly in terms of geographical proximity. I suppose the Cocos Islands are closer to the Northern Territory, as is Christmas Island, which I presume will suffer the same type of integration into the Northern Territory in the Budget session. It would seem, however, fair and reasonable, if the member for the Northern Territory is to be given this additional responsibility to look at the type of operation that one would need to go through to be able to get to the Cocos Islands. From Darwin one would have to fly to Perth and then out to the Islands. I understand that the plane schedules are such that one would have to wait a week to do the return trip. That may be very nice. Many members may devoutly wish to be able to spend a week there and not be able to be got at by other people. I wonder whether in that regard additional benefits by way of support ought not be made available to the member for the Northern Territory to in any way enable that person to-- Senator Kilgariff —Will this include Territory senators? Senator MACKLIN —Territory senators will have a responsibility as well. It would mean that the Territory senators would also need additional support to enable them in any way to represent the people adequately. That additional support ought to be forthcoming to the senators and the member for the Northern Territory to enable them to undertake their task adequately. I hope that the Government will take on board the comments that have been made by Senator Durack and me and will not see that this legislation necessarily must be the cutting off point for consultation with the Cocos Islands people about their desires as to where they may finally fit within the structure of the electoral process in Australia. I believe that if the Government expresses itself in that way, further consultations will be able to take place and if necessary a referendum may be held at a later stage. However, I indicate that the Australian Democrats will be happy to support the amendment moved by Senator Durack to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. It does not delay the Bill in any way. I believe that as an expression of opinion it expresses the types of views that we have for further consultation. However, as I have already said, I would not necessarily want to be held to the proposition that a State Supreme Court judge should ascertain the wishes of the people. Senator Durack, although he did not address the matter in his speech during the second reading debate, and I am not sure whether he intends to proceed in this way, had circulated for the Committee stage some amendments. I simply indicate now so that we may speed up proceedings that the Democrats do not propose to support any amendments in Committee; rather, we will support the Bill and hope that at a later stage the Government will review this in fairness to the people on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.05) —I was interested to hear Senator Macklin's remarks on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. He considers that Federal representatives of the Northern Territory should be able to go to the Cocos Islands if eventually they are integrated with the Northern Territory, at least for electoral purposes. One would expect that the Northern Territory representatives would have to go there. I wonder whether, while he is arranging the necessary facilities for these members to visit the Islands, he could arrange an extension of the weeks in a year from 52 to, say, 54. That may be helpful. I welcome the decision of the Cocos Malay people to integrate with Australia. Indeed, we have heard quite a lot about that in the last few weeks. On 7 May I received a letter from Parson Bin Yapat who is the Chairman of the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands Council. In part of the letter, he said: I, . . . , am writing this letter as Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council to thank you very much for your letter of 27.4.84, and for your expression of best wishes to us. You will know from the Election result that it can be said that almost all Cocos Malays chose to option Integration with Australia. I point out that he purposefully said 'integration with Australia'. He continued : This option guarantees our future and that of our children and grandchildren. That letter makes it quite obvious that the people look forward to their integration with us. There is also no doubt that we welcome them as people who will be part of Australia as are those of the Cocos Malays who live in Australia . Of course, quite a few Cocos (Keeling) Islands people are living in a particular suburb in Perth now. However, there have been some criticisms of the way the Government carried out the poll which leads one to wonder whether the decision that has been made was an informed one. Honourable senators would be aware of the criticisms of the United Nations mission which observed the vote. That mission said that it had reservations about the Government's handling of the education program. Indeed, an article in the Australian of Monday 9 April was captioned 'UN raps political education program for Cocos natives'. Perhaps it would have been nicer had it referred to Cocos people, but there it is. The article states: The Chairman of the United Nations mission observing last week's referendum in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands has criticised the Australian Government's handling of the political education program for the native population. The Cocos Malay natives-about two-thirds of whom are illiterate-last Friday voted to integrate with Australia in an act of self-determination which will see Australia assume responsibility for the islands' social, political and economic welfare. Almost 90 per cent of the population of about 360 voted to become a part of Australia in preference to two other options presented to them in the referendum . Yesterday, the mission's chairman, Ambassador Abdul G. Koroma, from Sierra Leone, said that although the whole ballot had been conducted freely and fairly he had some reservations about the Government's handling of the political education program. He was being critical of the fact that one particular option had been pursued perhaps to the detriment of the other two options. Nevertheless, the situation now is that the people have voted for integration with Australia. In a debate such as this, it pays to review briefly the history of the Cocos Islands. As most honourable senators will know, the islands were discovered in 1609, but they were not settled until 1826 when the Englishman Alexander Hare settled there. In 1827 a second settlement was established by Captain John Clunies-Ross. Australia had no real association with the islands until 1955, when they were accepted as a Territory of Australia, known as the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In 1978 the Australian Government bought from Clunies- Ross his property on the island, with the exception of five hectares of land and the Clunies-Ross residence. So, as of 1955 when the islands became a Territory of Australia, all people born there are automatically Australian citizens and, therefore, eligible to vote in Australian Federal elections and referendums when the islands are included with a State or Territory of Australia. The population of the islands at 30 June 1982 was 546. It is very interesting to note that many Cocos Islanders have already emigrated to Australia. Most of these people are now living in Western Australia, particularly in a Perth suburb. Looking briefly at the economy and history of the Cocos Islands, it is interesting to note, too, that until 1978, when the Australian Government purchased the islands from Clunies-Ross, the economy functioned under what has often been described as a feudal system. The sole source of employment was provided by Clunies-Ross, and he ran the islands as his own private company. The island workers employed on his copra plantation were paid not in cash but with plastic tokens which were tenderable at the general store, again owned by Mr Clunies-Ross. This system came under severe criticism from the Australian Press and from the United Nations, and it was a major reason for the eventual purchase of the islands. Since that time, the Islanders have set up their own co- operative, which controls a copra plantation and a small retail store. Obviously , Australia could assist the Cocos Islanders by improving their economy. That would mean increasing the size of the plantation. I have mentioned the strong traditional links of the Islanders with Western Australia. Over the years, shipping and air services to the islands have originated from Perth. As to telecommunications, all Overseas Telecommunications Commission calls go through Perth. There is a strong argument-perhaps it should have been really put-for integrating the Cocos Islands with Western Australia. It appears that this was not considered. Certainly the people of the islands have at no stage been given the opportunity of indicating to what area of Australia, following their integration into Australia, they would wish to become attached. The argument that their being attached to the Northern Territory would be unconstitutional could be solved through a referendum held in conjunction with the next election. These Islanders are Australians. They should have some say in the matter. So far, as I have said, there appears to have been little consultation between the Islanders and the Federal Government. At this stage of negotiations, the Islanders are unlikely to make a prominent stand. I say that deliberately, because I believe that they are very gentle and polite people. It is my understanding that, having gone through what I suppose has been a traumatic experience of integration into Australia, it is not their wish to agitate once again for more consultation. But this Senate has the right to say to the Australian Government that we believe that these Australian Islanders should be consulted. It is up to the Government to initiate these discussions. The Cocos Islanders should be able to consider the alternatives and whether they should, for electoral purposes, be part of the Northern Territory as has been planned, the Australian Capital Territory or, perhaps, Western Australia. That is a constitutional matter but I believe any problems could be overcome. Another problem was raised by Senator Durack. What will be the effect of the Northern Territory's progress along the road to statehood on the Cocos Islanders if the Cocos Islands are associated with the Territory? As a Territorian, I believe that somewhere along the track the Territory will become a State and, as I have said, it is working to that end. It has had responsible self-government since 1974-that was a momentous step-and the time will come when the Northern Territory becomes a State. What then will be the status of the Islanders? Will it be up in the air if the Territory becomes a State, or will the Islands be a part of the Territory and as such become part of the new State? Contrary to what the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) has said in the other place, the Northern Territory, as I have indicated is looking to statehood -in the not too distant future, too. I take this opportunity, without taking up too much time, to read from a letter sent by the Northern Territory Deputy Chief Minister, the Hon. Nick Dondas, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regarding this issue. The letter was written on 28 April and referred to a letter dated 28 March 1984 concerning the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders. The letter states: As you are aware, the Northern Territory is substantially self-governing and it is envisaged that it will progress towards Statehood in the not too distant future. This raises a number of difficulties in respect of the status which will then be accorded the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island upon the grant of that Statehood. When the Northern Territory becomes a new State, I am advised that it would not be constitutionally possible for the Senators and Members representing the new State to also continue to represent the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, unless those Islands were incorporated within the new State. There is no suggestion in your correspondence that any form of incorporation is proposed, whether now or in the future-merely a common electoral representation. I am advised that the Constitution does not envisage a sharing of general representation between a State and a Territory. Thus, if your proposal to include electors on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Northern Territory electorate for Federal election and referendum purposes were to be implemented, it would have to be terminated upon the grant of Statehood for the Northern Territory. Accordingly your proposal, would only temporarily resolve the issue of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, as the Islands would not be incorporated with the Northern Territory upon the eventual grant of Statehood for the Northern Territory and would presumably remain a territory of the Commonwealth. There is more in that letter but I think I have put its main points. I take the opportunity to reiterate that the statement by the honourable member for the Northern Territory regarding statehood is nonsense because my Party in the Northern Territory, the Country-Liberal Party, brought the Northern Territory to responsible self-government with the total support of the people of the Territory and after five years of self-government the Party continues to gain support, as was instanced in the last election. One of the planks of the Party is statehood. Senator Robertson —As it is with the Labor Party, of course. Senator KILGARIFF —I recognise the honourable senator's interjection. I am not referring to matters concerning the Australian Labor Party's policy-I recognise its policy-I am saying that perhaps the honourable member gave some misinformation in his talk. The Territory is well on the way to statehood but, at the same time, it is not rushing blindly into it. The Territory will have to wait for indicators as to when the time is ripe. The Northern Territory is set to become a responsible and progressive part of Australia. It is certainly growing that way now. I think at this stage in discussing the Cocos (Keeling) Islands I should refer to Christmas Island and perhaps, for that matter, to Norfolk Island. What will be the future of Norfolk Island? Legislation passed through the Senate some little while ago set the Island up as a self-governing territory. As I understand the position, it has no representation in the Federal Parliament and the people of Norfolk Island cannot participate in referenda. What is their future? Senator Peter Baume —Northern Territory maybe? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes. One wonders what is going to happen with Norfolk Island. I now look briefly at Christmas Island also. The Federal Government has indicated that it also is to be included in the Northern Territory electorate. Will Christmas Island be in the same boat as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are now ? As I see it, there has been no consultation with the people of Christmas Island in regard to the electorate that those people might like integration with . Christmas Island also has strong ties with Western Australia, in particular with the Australian Labor Party through the union movement. Presuming that the decision to include the Islands in the Northern Territory has been made-there seems to be some quite strong basis for it-that has happened without consultation. A decision has been made by the Federal Government that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are to be integrated with the Northern Territory. One can only see that-as do a large number of people in the Northern Territory-as a political move in an endeavour to rescue the present member for the Northern Territory. Surely the people of Christmas Island should have the opportunity to say what should happen to them. I have noticed with surprise that as soon as the announcement to integrate the Christmas Islanders with Australia was made, the Hawke Government started to lay the law down very firmly in Christmas Island. I refer to the Government's decision to close the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd if enough workers do not leave the island. That was indicated in the West Australian of 9 May. In an article headed 'Christmas Island Govt ultimatum on closure' it was stated: The Federal Government sent a blunt warning to Christmas Island yesterday, that unless enough workers were willing to quit the island, the entire operation would have to fold. In a report of the same situation an article in the West Australian of 10 May was headed 'Mining chief quits and blames Govt'. It seems rather strange to me that having very firmly indicated that Christmas Island is to be integrated with Australia there immediately seem to be Federal Government plans to close the Christmas Island mining if it does not get its own way. In these circumstances I do not think the Christmas Islanders will be very happy to be political guinea pigs, as appears to be happening now. I believe that the Christmas Islanders and the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders should be given every opportunity to decide for themselves where their association with Australia will be. Whatever their decision, it will be welcome. If they wish to integrate with the Northern Territory, so be it. If they wish to be associated with some other part of Australia, for example, Western Australia, so be it too. It is my opinion that they should be associated with Western Australia or, for that matter, with some other State. Surely the question can be solved by referendum. In closing I therefore give my total support to the motion moved by Senator Durack which is the same as that moved in another debate by Senator Hill. The motion stated: . . . the Senate is of the opinion that a State Supreme Court Judge should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens in the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands . . . I believe that we must let the people of the Islands have their say. In closing my contribution to the debate, like Senator Durack, I again say that the Cocos Islanders and Christmas Islanders are very welcome to Australia. We have very many people from South East Asia living in Australia. If it is their wish to come to Australia, they have that right to do so. It would be my pleasure to visit the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island when the Government sees fit to allow me to go there. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.25) —The Government welcomes the Cocos Islanders to Australia. They have made the important decision to integrate themselves and their islands with a friendly neighbour country. This indicates that slowly but surely, on a world scale, all of those islands, countries and regions, which previously operated as part of a colonial or personal empire in the immediate post war years, have come to nationhood or come to accept a need to be integrated with a friendly and sympathetic country. We are cleaning up the remnants of a colonial era. In the case of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, we are cleaning up a personal , feudal and fiefdom situation which is no longer tolerable or acceptable by any standards of democratic process. The people of the Cocos Islands, having participated in a free and democratic act of self-determination under the auspices of the United Nations, have elected overwhelmingly to become part of Australia. For the first time they will have the democratic rights which were denied them by the Clunies-Ross dynasty. That family afforded them no rights at all except to work under its personal direction. Naturally, we are delighted that the people, in a free vote, have elected to become part of the Commonwealth. But, having made that important decision, the next step is for them to participate in the democratic processes that exist in this country. That, of course, is the intention of the Government in this legislation. They will participate in the next Federal election, whenever that may be held. Obviously, whilst there now appears to be bipartisan support for the general principle of the people of the Cocos Islands to be integrated with Australia, the point of contention that exists is whether they will be able to participate for the first time in their lives in an election process which will determine the government of their choice and the member of parliament of their choice. This Government, committed as it is to the principle of self-determination and to democratic processes, desires that no stone be left unturned to make sure that the people of Cocos Islands will participate in the next Federal election whenever that may be held. To do that, the only action available to the Government is to make them part of one of the Territories under the control of the Commonwealth, that is, the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Durack emphasised the contention by saying that they should be a part of Western Australia. That would require a decision of the people of Western Australia to have the Islands and their residents included in that State region and under that State's responsibility. The people of Cocos Islands would have to choose, at the next Federal election, the constituency in which they would like to be placed. That would mean, of course, that they would not be participating in the election of the government but rather in the process of determining where they are to be placed. The amendment moved by Senator Durack seeks to appoint a Supreme Court judge to ask the people of the Cocos Islands in which electoral division of Australia they would like to be included. The Government believes that to make such a determination would be a tremendous responsibility for the people of the Cocos. The Government, in its wisdom, has decided that they should be placed in the Northern Territory, certainly not in the Australian Capital Territory with which they have absolutely no affinity and no common interest. There is no reason why they should be placed in the Australian Capital Territory, an area far removed from them geographically, socially and economically. The reason the Government has chosen the Northern Territory is that some association between the two areas can be justified. We do not regard it as the final act of integration but rather as a temporary act, placing the Cocos people in an area whereby they can participate in the next Federal election. I believe that there are good and cogent reasons why the Government's position can be defended. Firstly, the political representatives of the Northern Territory, both the senators and the members of the House of Representatives, are probably more expert in this area than are many other members of the national Parliament. They deal with isolated communities and with disadvantaged people. No one could disagree that the people of the Cocos Islands have been disadvantaged socially and economically as a result of the Clunies-Ross influence. That, of course, has been the case with the people who comprise a sizable proportion of those who live in the Northern Territory-our own Australian Aborigines. Representatives of the Northern Territory are used to flying over large distances and dealing with isolated communities. It seems that in the short term, they would be more expert in dealing with the residents of the Cocos Islands and ultimately, as has been suggested during the debate, also, when the decision is finally reached, with the people of Christmas Island. So a degree of pragmatism, but also a degree of principle, is involved in what the Australian Government is seeking to do, that is, to extend the first principle of the democratic process to the people of the Cocos Islands. It is natural, of course, for the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) to recommend to the Government that the people who live on Cocos should, in fact, be incorporated for the time being in the Northern Territory. I emphasise that what is not being said is that somehow or other this would advantage one point of view against another. In other words, the Opposition is presumptuous enough to say that the electors of the Cocos Islands would prefer one party, one candidate or group of candidates when voting in the Senate and the House of Representatives elections. That, of course, is absurd. We know that a very big problem has arisen out of the dynasty of Clunies-Ross, who kept the people at such a political level that they were not able to understand concretely, in the same way as the rest of Australia, their political responsibilities. Only this Government has endeavoured to raise the political understanding of the indigenous people of the Cocos Islands, to educate them to an understanding of their political rights. Of course, that is not a process that takes five or 10 minutes; it takes many years. Consequently, it is quite absurd that we should say that the Cocos Islanders, having made a decision as part of their initial political consciousness, should then be able to decide which of the electorates-Western Australia, for example, or elsewhere in Australia-they should be placed in. Some people have suggested Perth; others have suggested Kalgoorlie. What affinity, what closeness would they have with those areas and what process would the people of Cocos be able to use to make a value judgment upon those lines? As the Government has indicated, it is not making a dogmatic decision in respect of the ultimate future of the people of Cocos. After all, the Opposition stands indicted for the low educative process that existed on the Cocos Islands with respect to the people's political rights. It was only on the initiative of the Whitlam Government that the process of seeking to protect the interests of the people in that region began. It is true that finally public opinion forced the previous Fraser Administration to take the next step in 1978. As I am advised, one of the principal problems that the Government was faced with-it was one of the principal problems that the people of Cocos Island raised with my colleague the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren-was the people's desire for a political education program and for some government action in respect of acquiring the Clunies-Ross land so that the political, social and economic interest of the Cocos-Malay people would be protected. They want to be removed from the influence of that family which has held such a sway upon the rights of the people for more than 160 years. So it was at the request of the people that the Australian Government sought to acquire the land to protect the overall interests of the people on Cocos. The Government is seeking to take the next step in the process, and that next step is to have the people vote in the next election. Personal links have been established with the Australian political process through representatives from the Northern Territory. Those representatives, regardless of their political colour, will then be in a position to advise and to raise the political education of the persons on Cocos so they will not be confused about where their future may lie. Absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Opposition that the people on the Cocos Islands are concerned about where they will be placed electorally. They have just made the very elementary, but important and vital step of wanting to be integrated with Australia. They are now Australian citizens. The purpose of the Act is to confirm that. The purpose of the Act is also to give them the right to vote in the next Federal election to be held, as Senator Macklin has indicated, sometime between now and 30 June 1985, the end of the next financial year. The Government believes that there is a pressing case for these people to be part of the political process and in view of the shortness of time they had to be placed in the electorate of the Northern Territory. I am advised, I think correctly, that it would require a referendum in Western Australia to have the Cocos-Malay people attached to one of the Western Australian electorates. Assuming that the referendum determined to the satisfaction of the Parliament where they would be placed in an electoral constituency, it would be another three years before they would have an opportunity of actually voting for a senator or for a member of the House of Representatives. That is not our intention. We support the principles of representative democracy. We have taken the view that the clearest, best and fairest method is now to extend that right to the people of the Cocos Islands. Whilst it is true that some criticism has been made by Ambassador Koroma from the United Nations delegation of the inability of previous governments to raise the political understanding and education of the residents of Cocos, I have been assured that in no way is that a reflection on the present Government. The present Government is anxious not only to welcome Cocos Islands residents to Australia but also to welcome their participation in the next electoral process. I do not think there is anything difficult about that. We have a different situation with, for example, Lord Howe Island. Whilst it is part of New South Wales and is within the Federal seat of Sydney and the State seat of Elizabeth, that is a historical fact going back to the early part of last century and not one that can be shown to be associated with this move. The relationship of the people of Norfolk Island is different again in the sense that their social and economic conditions and position in society are very different from those of Cocos and Christmas Islands residents. The Minister, in response to representations by the Australian Democrats, has agreed to recommend to the Remuneration Tribunal that once the decision has been reached by the Parliament to attach the Cocos Islands to the Northern Territory, special arrangements be made to enable the elected representatives to make regular visits by charter to converse with the people of the Cocos Islands. If, in that process, the people of the Cocos Islands decide that they require some other consideration in this matter, the Government will be quite happy to accept such representations. Finally, I say that the previous Minister, Mr Tom McVeigh, was in favour of acquiring the Cocos Islands land owned by Mr Clunies-Ross but the proposition was never put before the Cabinet for a decision because the decision about self- determination was not made sufficiently quickly. So the Australian Government has a clear conscience about the way in which we propose to deal with this matter. We urge, therefore, support of this legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Grimes, D. J. Collard, S. J. Button, J. D. Jessop, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Rae, Peter Ryan, S. M. Missen, A. J. Evans, GarethChaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 12.49 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, will be absent from Question Time today. Any questions which might normally be directed to Senator Grimes should be directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan. Senator TEAGUE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, held a news conference in Sydney yesterday and bought into the dispute between doctors in that State and the Wran Government? Did Dr Blewett intervene because of the Commonwealth's interest in the public hospital system in the States or was he motivated by a desire to back up Mr Wran's big stick approach to the surgeons who refuse to accept the restrictions unilaterally imposed on them? Does Dr Blewett's involvement mean that the Commonwealth Government endorses the conditions of the public hospital service proposed for doctors in New South Wales? Senator RYAN —Quite clearly, the Federal Government has an interest in the health care that is being offered to all Australians in all States and Territories of Australia. So it does not seem to me to be inappropriate that Dr Blewett has involved himself to some extent in a dispute which may lead to a deterioration in health services available to some Australians, in particular Australians who choose to use public hospital services in New South Wales. However, I do not have available at this stage of Question Time a specific explanation of the nature of Dr Blewett's involvement or what progress is being made as a result of Dr Blewett's involvement. But I will endeavour to get that information for Senator Teague before the end of Question Time. Senator PRIMMER —Has the Minister representing the Special Minister of State seen the comment of former Chief Superintendent Headland of the Australian Federal Police in yesterday's Canberra Times wherein he is reported as saying that Federal departmental fraud is being overlooked and there is much Federal fraud going on that is largely undetected and uninvestigated? Has Chief Superintendent Headland been involved in investigations into allegations of fraud in the Department of Foreign Affairs? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to answer Senator Primmer's question in a way that is likely to satisfy him at the moment, or perhaps ever, but certainly not at the moment. I will refer the question to the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, in order to get a reply for him as soon as possible. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Attorney-General as Attorney -General in a government which has a close interest in the State public hospital system and as a person who claims to have a deep interest in questions of civil liberties. Is the Attorney aware that the New South Wales Public Hospitals ( Visiting Practitioners) Amendment Bill, introduced by the Wran Government, provides for the forced resignation of doctors who engage in any work ban or any industrial action in a public hospital? Is he futher aware that once the so- called resignation has taken place the doctor concerned is to be blacklisted by public hospitals for a period of seven years? Does he realise that the names of the blacklisted doctors and their addresses will be published and that they will not be liable for any compensation through damage to their professional reputations which might result from such government action? Does the Attorney- General believe that such draconian provisions are consistent with a proper regard for individual rights and civil liberties? Senator GARETH EVANS —My answer is addressed to someone whose commitment to civil liberties clearly is well and truly submerged by his commitment to maintaining the privilege of the medical profession in manifestly unjust circumstances in many instances, a position which he has made manifestly clear on numerous occasions in this place. I am not in a position to comment, nor do I propose to do so, as to the detail of the proposed legislation now passing through the New South Wales Parliament. I simply remind Senator Baume that the Federal Constitution does contain certain very stringent provisions governing what might , in normal circumstances, be regarded as inappropriate claims to protection against legislation by the medical profession insofar as it prohibits civil conscription. No doubt the honourable senator will also be well aware that the High Court of Australia has given what many people would regard as an unconscionably large interpretation to that provision. So if the doctors in question believe seriously that their rights are being threatened in a way that is inconsistent with the Australian legal tradition in general and the terms of the Constitution in particular, no doubt they have some remedy available to them . Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of computer education programs being run in the Northern Territory Aboriginal schools which have increased attendance and achievement levels and have helped overcome many cultural problems? Does the Minister consider that such a successful program could be introduced at other rural schools? Will the Minister advise whether research is being conducted into modern educational equipment and its use at classroom education level? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to hear from Senator Elstob of the success of the Federal Government's computer education program in Aboriginal schools in the Northern Territory. I have not yet had a detailed report on that aspect of the program. I am encouraged by the terms in which Senator Elstob's question was put to believe that the program is achieving its objectives in that Territory, as I believe it is throughout Australia. The Federal Government is very well aware of the need to provide educational services to children-be they Aboriginals in remote parts of Australia, city children in our large cities, or children in country towns-that will enable them to understand the new technologies which dominate so many aspects of the work force these days and to enable them to become proficient in them so that in many cases they can enhance their job prospects when they leave school, or their prospects for higher education. It is because of our commitment to giving all Australian children these opportunities that last year we initiated the national computer education program. That program is being supervised by the Commonwealth Schools Commission and several million dollars have been allocated in the first period of the program to provide computer education in secondary schools throughout Australia. The program does not merely focus on the provision of the hardware, the computer itself, because we realise and the Schools Commission realises that in order to have a successful new education program in this area one needs curriculum materials, and the program will provide that; one needs in-service teacher training, because the teachers need to be instructed in the use of the new technologies and the educational benefits of them; and, of course, one needs parent and community understanding of what is going on. An important element of the program will be the involvement of parents and the community generally in the new developments so that they can be thoroughly understood and implemented properly. We have set up the program on a three-year basis but it is being monitored by the National Computer Education Co-ordinating Committee. In conclusion, the successes in the Northern Territory to which Senator Elstob referred are being repeated throughout Australia, but we hope to build on those successes and over a three-year period have a comprehensive program which will improve standards in education and improve the opportunities of young people once they go on to the job market. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and follows a question asked earlier in Question Time by Senator Teague in that it concerns the doctors dispute in New South Wales. I ask : Does not the state of the dispute today indicate that the issue is being grossly politicised by both the Labor Government of New South Wales and the Liberal and National Party Opposition to the detriment of the people and indeed the doctors of New South Wales? Will the Federal Government intervene constructively to ensure that some sanity is restored to the situation before current legislation, which would ban specialists from working in hospitals for seven years and which would lead to massive dislocation and huge cost increases in hospitals, is passed and proclaimed? Senator RYAN —I have been provided with some information from the Minister for Health. I will make it available to the Senate now. I think it will answer some of the issues raised in Question Time earlier today by Senator Teague's question . The Minister for Health advises me that the Commonwealth's overriding interest is to see that patients have access to appropriate hospital services, and to this end we, the Commonwealth, have entered into agreements with each State under which the State governments have undertaken to provide hospital services in accordance with the Medicare program. Dr Blewett reports that he is confident that the New South Wales Government has every intention of upholding that agreement. It is, of course, that State's responsibility to ensure that hospital facilities and resources are available to those who require them. The Commonwealth cannot dictate to the State the manner in which it carries out its responsibility to provide these services and thus it is clearly inappropriate to suggest that the Commonwealth should intervene in the dispute. Honourable senators should be aware that this Government went to considerable lengths to accommodate the views of the profession over the issue of private practice in public hospitals to the extent of establishing an independent inquiry conducted by Professor Penington. I understand that this spirit of negotiation has been followed in New South Wales where a number of concessions have been made in the course of negotiations between the New South Wales Minister for Health and the Australian Medical Association. It is shown again in the legislation introduced yesterday by the New South Wales Premier which removes the claimed ambiguity in section 42, sub-section 1 (A) of the Public Hospitals Act. As a result of the Federal Government's action an agreement was reached with the AMA on 5 April 1984 that all industrial action by doctors would cease pending the outcome of Professor Penington's Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The New South Wales Health Minister has also renewed his earlier call for doctors to await the outcome of the Penington inquiry before taking precipitate action. The Commonwealth supports that call to doctors to abide by the agreement. As Dr Blewett told the news conference yesterday, this Government is hopeful that the doctors will look at the various olive branches that are offered in the legislation and seize them because of the efforts that have been made to meet their stated objections. In conclusion, it is quite clear that all appropriate and legitimate efforts to reach consensus on this issue have been undertaken by the Federal Government and the State Government. There is still time for the matter to be resolved properly and in the interests of public hospital patients in New South Wales. That is the wish of the Commonwealth Government. It is to that end that Dr Blewett's efforts are being directed. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister telling us that in effect the Commonwealth is washing its hands of this matter and that it does not propose or contemplate pursuing even a good offices role in this dispute? Senator RYAN —I thought that my rather lengthy answer would have avoided the need for a supplementary question. It is not the case that the Commonwealth is washing its hands of this matter. Dr Blewett has been engaged in continual negotiations and is obviously willing to assist the State in further negotiations. But this dispute is clearly a matter for the State Government and the representatives of doctors to resolve. Quite clearly, Dr Blewett is continuing to pursue the Commonwealth's objective which is also the objective of the Government of New South Wales, and that is to resolve the issue and avoid precipitate industrial action by the AMA. If the AMA chooses to ignore all the olive branches that are being offered to it, let that be on the head of the AMA. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has seen the editorial in today's Australian Financial Review which states: . . . the single greatest cause for optimism about the future of the Australian economy is the astonishing success of the accord so far. I ask the Minister: What further information can be provided on the forthcoming personal income tax cuts to honour the Government's commitment to the prices and incomes accord? What gross weekly money wage rises would correspond with a hypothetical tax cut of $5 a week? Should employers support the proposals for reductions in personal income tax in the Budget? Senator WALSH —It is not surprising that the jealous people in the Opposition did not like Senator Maguire's question and in particular did not like his quoting from the Australian Financial Review editorial which stated: . . . the single greatest cause for optimism about the future of the Australian economy is the astonishing success of the accord so far. The previous Government, in its dying years, had no wages policy for a considerable period because the Prime Minister of the day thought it was more important to jump on a 707 and go to London for the royal wedding than to have a wages policy. That was the state of the previous Government's wages policy, or wages non-policy, in May 1981. At the end of 1981, in desperation, the previous Government produced this stunt which it called a wages freeze. Senator Lajovic —It is still operative. Senator WALSH —It is not still operative. It has not been operative for about six or eight months. Of course the wages freeze had some value but it failed to address completely the question of a longer term wages policy. It is the Government's intention that there should be reductions in taxation in the forthcoming Budget to compensate for earnings reductions attributable to the Medicare effect on the consumer price index and, therefore, on wage indexation. Because of the Medicare effect the next wage indexation increase will be negligible. The Government believed it was necessary to compensate wage earners for that effect in order to sustain the prices and incomes accord-a view, incidentally, which has been fully endorsed by the employers at the most recent Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting. The further benign effect of Medicare, which some of the more numerate members of the Opposition, if there are any, might care to contemplate-it does not seem to have got through to them yet-is that although the effect of Medicare on the CPI is a one off effect, because it is transmitted to wage indexation, it establishes a new and lower threshold of inflation. It is something which will be particularly beneficial-and it is worth noting particularly today when the Premiers are meeting the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-for the States because wages comprise an extraordinarily high proportion of State Government expenditure. With a negligible increase in wages in the next six-monthly adjustment it means that for nine months of the next financial year there will be a negligible increase in wages paid by the States above that level which is being paid now. The importance of that should not be overlooked. Senator Maguire asked specifically what gross increase in wages would be equivalent to a hypothetical tax cut of $5 a week. The answer in round figures is that for somebody presently on average weekly earnings the gross income increase equivalent to a $5 a week tax cut is $9.30, and for someone on the lower marginal rate of income tax the gross wages increase equivalent of a $5 a week tax cut is $7.20. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and is provoked by the inadequate, incompetent and irrelevant answer that Senator Baume received earlier on the medical dispute . Does the Federal Government support the blacklisting of doctors provided for in the New South Wales Public Hospitals (Visiting Practitioners) Amendment Bill which was before an emergency session of the State Parliament yesterday? Is this part of Labor's doctrine on industrial relations? Can we look forward to a similar policy in future disputes when powerful unions are bullying the general public? Senator BUTTON —As indicated in answers to Senator Peter Baume by Senator Ryan, the Government has no public view on the New South Wales dispute apart from the fact, as disclosed by Senator Ryan, that Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, is taking a close interest and is monitoring developments with a view to lending what good offices the Commonwealth can in respect of that matter. Apart from that I can take the question no further by way of answer. As Senator MacGibbon would well know, having contemplated the industrial relations record of this Government in the last 15 months compared with the industrial relations record of the previous Government, there can be no extrapolation of any situation of particular difficulty in New South Wales to which Senator Ryan has referred in her answers to the general industrial relations climate in Australia. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister invited me to contemplate the industrial record of this Government. When I look at that and having asked the question I did, I am confused as to why the Government condoned the secondary boycott against a Canberra taxi company applied by Transport Workers Union of Australia drivers when they were on strike last week. How does the Minister reconcile that with the statement he just made? Senator BUTTON —It is not my task or any Minister's task to reconcile every confusion which Senator MacGibbon has and I do not intend to embark on that exercise. In answering his first question, I invited him to contemplate the industrial relations of this Government. Senator MacGibbon, after one second, immediately rose and postulated a whole series of hypothetical questions which revealed his chronic incapacity to contemplate anything. 'Contemplate' means consider and think, and they are things that I invite Senator MacGibbon to do, however tortuous a process it might be for him. Insofar as the question of the transport workers is concerned, I have no comment on that whatsoever. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, concerns the Government's new car industry policy announced recently. What does the future hold for the car industry in South Australia in light of the new motor vehicle plan? Is there likely to be any substantial further loss of employment from the industry in South Australia over the next five years? Senator BUTTON —I am asked what the future holds. Of course, I want to qualify anything I say by indicating that nobody can look into a crystal ball in respect of the motor car industry or any other industry in the sense that that question might suggest. But let me say, first of all, that in relation to the development of the car industry plan, very specific attention was paid to the difficulties of South Australia in terms of its former very substantial base in the motor vehicle industry and to the importance of employment in that State in the motor vehicle industry. Two major manufacturers, General Motors-Holdens Ltd and Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, which, if one examines the public record of their financial performances over the last few years, are the least successful companies, have operations situated in South Australia. Both are still experiencing difficulties, although I believe the situation of both companies has improved considerably this year. Insofar as the specifics of the car industry plan are concerned, let me say that one of the important elements of the plan is designed to give a degree of stability to the industry in the next couple of years. That involves decisions which were made about substitute passenger motor vehicles. That will mean that some 10,000 to 15,000 more vehicles a year will be manufactured in Australia in the next two or three years under this plan than would have occurred otherwise. So that will be relevant to the question of employment, particularly in South Australia. Secondly, the question of employment in South Australia will be favourably affected, I believe, by the attention the Government has given first of all to making money available in respect of the design of vehicles and research and development in the motor vehicle industry. That will be very relevant to the skilled work force in South Australia as will the proposal which the Government is currently investigating with South Australia to establish a tooling centre for the industry at Woodville. In the course of the development of the motor vehicle plan we have had considerable discussions with the unions involved and, so far as South Australia is concerned, with the Government of South Australia. The Premier welcomed the plan. The Federal office of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia welcomed the plan as did both Mitsubishi and General Motors, the two companies operating in South Australia. The Federated Automotive Parts Manufacturers organisation described it as a vast improvement on the previous Government's policies and a plan which could see the Australian industry developing into a more efficient and competitive industry ensuring stability of employment. Those comments, I think, indicate the fact that concern which was previously present in South Australia has been considerably allayed by the development of the motor vehicle plan. I will be in Adelaide later this month. One of the things I will be doing will be meeting with the unions in Adelaide at the State Conference of the Builders Workers Industrial Union of Australia. We will have the opportunity for further discussions at that time about the ramifications for South Australia. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the questions he has been asked by Senator Baume and other Ministers have been asked about the situation in New South Wales between the New South Wales Government and the doctors. I ask: In the light of the fact that the New South Wales Government, the Wran Government, is providing for the forced resignation of doctors who engage in any work ban and is proposing to blacklist doctors for a period of seven years if they have been engaged in such activity, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us whether the Federal Government, of which he is a part, would be prepared to impose the same or similar sanctions on any trade union under its jurisdiction for similar activities by trade unionists in any other area? Senator BUTTON —I would have thought that Senator Chaney would have known better. First of all, let me make the simple point that there are no unions under the direct jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government as there are unions under the direct jurisdiction of the New South Wales Government- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —The Public Service. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not under the direct jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government. Senator Chaney —You can legislate. Senator BUTTON —I will come to the Public Service unions in a moment. There are no unions under the direct jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government in the same way as the unions are under the direct jurisdiction of the State Government in New South Wales. That, as Senator Chaney ought to know, arises from the limitations of the constitutional power in respect of the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government. I believe that most of the Public Service unions, if not all of them, are registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Despite the best efforts of the Fraser Government to remove the protection afforded to Public Service unions by that registration in amendments to legislation over the last few years, that is still the position. There is, at least, a cushion, as it were, between the Commonwealth Government and the Public Service unions provided by that fact. I was asked for an opinion as to whether the Commonwealth Government, even if it were able, would go around blacklisting particular unions or particular unionists. It is a highly hypothetical question. Senator Chaney —But it is a very practical question. Senator BUTTON —I am told that it is a very practical question today. It has never arisen before. It has never arisen in the Federal jurisdiction and it will not, under this Government. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the final words of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he was saying that it would not occur because the Government would not be prepared to take such action with respect to people under his jurisdiction. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney can take what he likes; I did not say that. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen an article in yesterday's Age headed: ' Tenosynovitis will cost millions in compo, says solicitor'? Is he aware of comments by the solicitor, Mr John MacMillan, that computer manufacturers claim that ergonomic features built into their products substantially lowered the incidence of tenosynovitis in key stroke operators? Is he further aware that Mr MacMillan claims that job design, with adequate rest periods, is far more important in preventing tenosynovitis than ergonomic components? Can the Minister say whether similar consideration is given to computer operators in Federal Government departments? Can he confirm the estimates of cost to industry of workers' compensation, as claimed in the article? Will he raise these issues with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for reference to the proposed national commission on occupational health and safety? Senator BUTTON —I was not aware of many of the matters about which Senator Crowley asked. I was delighted to receive the answers she gave in the course of her question because I am now more aware of the position than I was before the question was asked. Let me say that I will certainly raise these matters with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. They seem to be matters which are highly appropriate for reference to the Interim National Commission on Occupational Health and Safety. I will obtain an answer from the Minister as soon as possible. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the Department of Social Security is presently experiencing industrial action brought about by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association? Is the dispute due to a freeze of staff levels within the Department? Has this freeze been brought about by the haste in which the Government recruited 1,500 staff for its ill-fated and discriminatory assets test mark II'. Is it true, as reported, that the dispute is costing the Department half a million dollars a week because of the officers' refusal to deal with overpayments and to check the identities of people applying for pensions and benefits? Did the Government take this cost into account when assessing the savings and costs associated with the introduction of the assets test mark IV? If not, what is now expected to be the total cost of the Government's mishandling of the whole issue? Senator RYAN —In order that Senator Messner can have a full and detailed answer to his detailed question, I think it would be better if I referred that question to Senator Grimes, and he can answer Senator Messner accordingly. Senator COOK —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen the front page report in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed: ' BHP Wins China Job'. Can the Minister verify the report? Specifically, has the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, signed a memorandum of understanding which clears the way for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to win a $35m contract to build a cement plant in Fujian province in southern China? How does this contract relate to the Government's China action plan? Is the Minister in a position to say anything further on that plan? Senator BUTTON —The article has been drawn to my attention. Of course, the Government is pleased to see this development. As I understand it, the proposal is for BHP to provide the technology and other expertise to build a $35m cement plant in China. At present a number of negotiations are going on with the Chinese about matters of technology transfer and also negotiations regarding iron and steel sales. Mr Loton, the Managing Director of BHP, is currently in China leading a group from that company which is investigating the prospects of further trade developments with China. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese which will lead to a technical mission leaving for China in July to examine and report on ways in which the Australian industry might help in upgrading Chinese steel technology. In the article in question reference was also made to Kwinana. Both the Australian and Chinese steel industries are negotiating on the future of that plant at this time. Senator Durack —When will it open? Senator BUTTON —The Opposition keeps asking when it will open. If such a question had been asked in this Parliament two years ago it would have been: ' When will it close under the Fraser Government?'. The answer would have been: ' Very quickly'. It is an absurd interjection to ask when it will open because, as I said just a minute ago, the matter is being negotiated in China at present between BHP and representatives of the Chinese Government. However much Senator Durack may wish that Kwinana never opens again, that is not the wish of this Government. This Government wishes to give every support to those negotiations to ensure that Kwinana is opened. If the Jeremiahs on the other side of this House do not want that to happen, they should go back to Western Australia and say so. This Government is lending every effort to see that Kwinana is reopened. Senator Durack can, of course, take that matter up with his constituents. We are very concerned to see that it is opened as soon as possible and that these negotiations are successful. Senator Messner —Tell us when. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, the penetrating wit of Senator Messner breaks me up! Negotiations are also continuing on iron ore sales with a number of companies and the Chinese. Senator Chaney —You think it is a laughing matter, don't you? Senator BUTTON —No, I think Senator Messner is a laughing matter. I understand that the Chinese will make a decision about these matters as soon as possible. The Government welcomes these various initiatives which have been taken. They are continuing now and will be pursued in July in further negotiations between the Australian industry and the Chinese. We on this side of the House look forward to the success of those negotiations. They have already been largely successful in terms of iron ore sales to China this year. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the Government decision last November that said, in part, that: no new contracts for the export of uranium from existing mines be approved until after the inquiry- that is, the Slatyer inquiry- has reported, subject only to two contracts already negotiated by ERA and signed in good faith with U.S. utilities, which contracts are essential to maintain the immediate viability of the projects and the export of uranium pursuant to which will be made subject to such conditions as the Government determines after the inquiry; Given that the committee has reported and has recommended Australia's continued involvement in the uranium industry, will the Government now approve new contracts for the export of Australian uranium under appropriate safeguards? Senator WALSH —No submission has been put to the Cabinet on that question, nor is there anything in the pipeline. I ask Senator Chaney to be patient and wait for further clarification of Government policy. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister regard it as being within his jurisdiction to take an interest in the matter and to pursue the decision of whether there are to be further uranium exports from Australia? Senator WALSH —I regard it as being partly my responsibility, partly the responsibility of the Minister for Trade and, I suppose, partly the responsibility of everybody associated with the Government. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the alarming increase in motor car accidents. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to criticism expressed in a report of the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities that about 85 per cent of Australian roads are substandard and that an increase in funding of 25 per cent or, preferably, 50 per cent is needed to upgrade them? What is the Commonwealth's position? Senator GIETZELT —I have seen the newspaper comments on that report but I have not actually seen the report itself. The report deals with the state of the roads in 1980-81. It clearly indicts the previous Government for its neglect of the road systems throughout Australia and the principal highways in particular. To that extent, the Government can agree that much more needs to be done in respect of bringing our roads up to a standard that will enable motorists to use them without affecting their capacity and in a safe fashion. However, as the report was based on the 1980-81 period, it is proper to draw Senator Childs attention to the greatly expanded funding that has occurred since the period covered by the report. For example, since 1980-81, funding from the Commonwealth has increased from $278m to $520m in the 1983-84 Budget, which represents an increase of 85 per cent. Between the last Budget of the Fraser Government and the first Hawke Government Budget, there was an increase of 52 per cent, in one Budget allocation. The Hawke Government believes that whilst the report is relevant, it is rather unfair to suggest that the state of the roads is due to inactivity and an inadequate understanding of our Commonwealth responsibilities in respect of roads. The Bureau of Transport Economics has identified a sharp increase in funding over the period 1982 to 1984. That has been due largely to the funds that were allocated under the Australian bicentennial road development program and the jobs on the local roads program, some of which has been the responsibility of this Government. We accept that there is a need to emphasise increased expenditure on our national highways system. I drew the Senate's attention to the fact that the Minister for Transport, whom I represent in this place, made an inspection of the Hume Highway yesterday. Currently $300m of Federal money is committed, up to 1988, to bring that highway up to four-lane standard. Of that sum, $88m will be spent on the New South Wales section. The purpose of that expenditure is to construct the Berrima bypass, which is needed. In the next few weeks tenders will be called to meet that objective. I emphasise that no other government has accepted the challenge regarding better roads more effectively that this Government has accepted it. We have given a 52 per cent increase in roads funding in our first Budget to symbolise that commitment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister representing the Minister for Trade. I refer to Press reports that the Departments of Trade, Resources and Energy and Foreign Affairs have advised that the Government faces an international legal nightmare if the Australian Labor Party persists with its bans on exports of uranium to France. Has the Minister received advice that not only would such a ban be difficult to enforce but it could also blow apart the frail international consensus that currently gives force to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, invite France to take action against Australia in the International Court of Justice, and incite France to take retaliatory action such as banning the import of Australian steaming coal? Is the Minister concerned at the consequences outlined in the advice? Will he make this advice publicly available before the Australian Labor Party national conference is held to enable an informed debate to take place on this important issue? Senator WALSH —From the tone of that question, I take it that Senator Crichton- Browne is quite laid back about the fact that the French are testing atomic weapons in the South Pacific. I hope that that is noted. I suppose that, for someone who has his name on the back of Christo Moll's cheques, it is not surprising that he should adopt that sort of attitude. Senator Crichton-Browne —Wash your mouth out, you grub. Senator WALSH —Opinions have been sought by the Government preparatory to making decisions on this matter. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President. The reference to Senator Crichton-Browne in the Minister's response is a reference to a matter that has been debated in the Senate. It is an attempt to smear Senator Crichton-Browne in a way which has absolutely no substance in fact. It is typical of this Minister. The statement is offensive and it should be withdrawn. Senator Gareth Evans —On the point of order, Mr President. In the course of this exchange, the interjection was heard from Senator Crichton-Browne: 'Wash your mouth out, you grub'. Whilst that might be appropriate for the less refined atmosphere across King's Hall, I suggest that it is quite unparliamentary when used in the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I must say I heard Senator Crichton-Browne make a noise but I did not pick up what it was. However, I suggest on the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister-and I heard his remark-was not out of order in that in the Chair's opinion there was no imputation against Senator Crichton-Browne. Therefore, I rule the Minister's statement in order but I ask him to be careful in his utterances in respect of honourable senators. Senator Crichton-Browne —Otherwise I'll produce a few cheques with names of the Labor Party on them from Christo Moll, including a very senior member of the judiciary. Senator WALSH —I gather from Senator Crichton-Browne's latest interjection that he has a deep knowledge of the affairs of Mr Christo Moll. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to respond to Senator Crichton-Browne's question. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. Advice has been sought from the three departments cited by the Senate's resident authority on the affairs of Christo Moll. I regard that advice as being confidential advice to the Government, preparatory to making a Government decision. Nevertheless, I will seek the opinion of the other Ministers who are involved, Mr Hayden and Mr Bowen, to see what their views are on making that information available not only to members of the Australian Labor Party but I suppose also to members of the wider public. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has his attention been drawn to letters being distributed by the Freehold Rights Association in New South Wales, particularly in the New England region of the State, urging people to write to Federal members of parliament seeking their support for a proposed Property Rights Protection Act 1984? What is the Government's view of such an Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen copies of letters being circulated by the Freehold Rights Association in which some bizarre claims are made about alleged socialist ravages being perpetrated by the Wran Labor Government. Those claims are bizarre on any view. The Association is primarily concerned about an Act of the New South Wales Parliament relating to coal acquisition, and an Act of the type referred to-namely, the Property Rights Protection Act-would appear to be essentially a matter for the New South Wales State Parliament. Any private member's Bill in the Federal Parliament along the lines being proposed would equally appear to be quite misconceived. Senator Durack —What about the external affairs power? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is capable of some very interesting applications, as the honourable senator is well aware, but I do not think it is being suggested on this occasion as being appropriate or necessary. Senator Chaney —Selective civil rights. Senator GARETH EVANS —As that has come from the mouth of Senator Chaney, he ought to go and wash his mouth out too. As regards the Commonwealth acquisition of land, the Minister for Administrative Services and I announced last year the Government's intention to reform the laws in this area in accordance with many of the recommendations contained in the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report No. 14. It is hoped that, subject to the restrictions of the parliamentary timetable, legislation may be introduced and debated in the Budget session. For the information of honourable senators and in further answer to Senator Sibraa's question, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of a short Press statement. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Reform of Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Law The Hon. John Brown, M.P., Minister for Administrative Services, and Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Attorney-General, to-day announced that the Government proposed to introduce a new Lands Acquisition Bill into the Parliament in the near future. The Minister said that the Bill would pick up many of the recommendations for reform made by the Law Reform Commission in its Report No. 14: Lands Acquisition and Compensation. Mr Brown added that amongst the results to be expected from the proposed legislation were more open procedures in the land acquisition process, greater public accountability for decisions to acquire property and more generous provisions for compensation for persons deprived of their land by the actions of the Commonwealth. These reforms would be achieved by new acquisition procedures whereby owners will be notified of their rights and be able to seek valuation and legal advice at Commonwealth expense review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of acquisition decisions and offers of compensation expansion of the categories of compensation for compulsory acquisition to include a solace payment where the principal place of residence was acquired more generous compensation for disturbance compensation for principal private residence to be based on the cost of a replacement property where compensation is otherwise insufficient to purchase a replacement property for leasehold interests the reasonable prospects of renewal to be taken into account in assessing compensation. Mr Brown added that, for the time being, the Government had deferred a decision on the Law Reform Commission recommendations for the payment of compensation for injurious affection where no land is taken pending consultation with State Governments. After the new Bill is introduced the Government would allow for public comment, the Minister said. Senator Evans said that the proposed Bill demonstrated once again the Government's commitment to constructive law reform and its concern that Law Reform Commission Reports should be implemented unless a strong case against implementation could be made out. 30 September 1983 Canberra A.C.T. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, concerns the war widow's pension. The Government has announced its intention to reactivate the former war widow's pension if widows remarry after the amending legislation. I ask the Minister: Will the Government include war widows who have married prior to 1984 and who advise the Department of this, particularly in view of the fact that war widows who live in de facto situations and who have not advised the Department of this still draw the war widow's pension? Senator GIETZELT —I indicated in the second reading speech on the legislation to review the Repatriation Act as it dealt with the determining system that the Government intended, in the Budget and in the legislation that dealt with the repatriation system itself, to take into account and amend the regulations as they apply to the capacity of war widows who lose their war widow's pension on remarriage. The Government had agreed in principle to amend the legislation to provide for the war widow to maintain her war widow's pension on remarriage. Whether that will be dealt with retrospectively is of course a matter which will be dealt with specifically in the legislation. Having regard to the Opposition's general attitude to retrospectivity, I imagine that it will not support such a proposition. Senator BOLKUS —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and refer him to allegations in today's edition of the Greek newspaper O Kosmos, which I am sure he has not read, concerning a recent programming decision of the Special Broadcasting Service 0-28 television station . I ask: Is it a fact that the SBS had bought an award winning Greek film, 1922, with a view to screening it? Is it also a fact that, after intervention by, amongst others, the Turkish Consul-General in Sydney, the film has not been shown by the SBS? Will the Minister order an investigation into this matter to ensure that SBS programming decisions are not made in response to such political interference? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that the Special Broadcasting Service has bought the film in question. I am advised that there are problems with subtitling the film as it is in two languages, Turkish and Greek, and this has caused some delays. I am not aware of whether the Turkish Consul intervened. Because of the subtitling problem no decision has been made about when the film is likely to be shown. I will make further inquiries of the Minister for Communications regarding the latter part of the question to see whether I can obtain an answer. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I understand that new guidelines for employment programs were issued last week. As the guidelines have not been released to the public by the Minister, is he able to confirm that, as a general rule, approval will be given to projects involving new employees and not to those funded prior to 30 June? Is it a fact that there will be no automatic roll-over of existing programs into the Commonwealth employment programs and that there is wide concern that funding for current programs ceases on 30 June? I understand that all applications for funding will need to be considered in terms of the total program for 1984-85, with consequential gaps in funding until decisions are taken for the approved new projects. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate on these matters, or is any public statement able to be made with regard to funding after 30 June? Senator BUTTON —I understand that, as the honourable senator pointed out, new guidelines have been agreed to. I imagine they will be published shortly, but I am unable to say. I understand the concern expressed about funding after 30 June . For those reasons I will obtain as quickly as possible an answer from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to give to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister will recall that shortly after this Government took office he and his colleagues the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs jointly announced that compensatory payments would be made to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander World War II ex-servicemen or their dependants for their underpayment, relative to white ex-servicemen, of service pay and, in subsequent years, of repatriation benefits. Is the Minister aware of claims that a number of Aborigines who served with military units in the north of Australia during the war, far from being underpaid were in fact unpaid? Is it the case that representations for compensation on behalf of these people have so far been rejected? Will he pursue the matter of their entitlement to compensatory payments and possibly also repatriation benefits? Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Robertson suggested, that the Government moved with a great deal of alacrity to overcome some of the discriminatory practices that had existed during and since World War II in respect of Torres Strait islanders and Aborigines identified as being underpaid in relation to benefits and allowances due to them for their service during World War II. Several weeks ago I issued a Press statement which indicated that the first cheques had already been paid by my Department to Torres Strait Islanders who had been underpaid. But it appears now, based on a Press report that obviously appeared in the Northern Territory Press, that cases have been brought to notice not only of people being underpaid, but also not paid at all for service during World War II. Information has already arrived in my office which indicates that at least 67 Aboriginal men and one woman from the Milingimbi area of the Northern Territory carried out unpaid service with both the Australian and United States of America armies in northern Australia in World War II. It is quite likely that many Aboriginal persons from other areas of the Northern Territory also performed unpaid service of this type during the War. I recall that it was part of the conventional wisdom at the time that many Aborigines were paid with a pack of tobacco and rations for performing services during that period. I understand they worked in such jobs as cooks, drivers and labourers. It is also claimed, according to one report, that on at least one occasion Aborigines were sent in dug-out canoes to clear mines from the coast of Australia. Of course, if this last report is true, it may be that my Department will have to examine the eligibility for a service pension and other repatriation benefits of those involved in mine clearing, on the grounds of their having been exposed to clear and present dangers from hostile enemy forces , which is the criterion under which those benefits are paid. It is also claimed that at least one of the 68 Aborigines from Milingimbi was killed in action. If so, the question arises of compensatory payment such as a war widow's pension to his dependants. I must say that I am sympathetic to these claims, if they can be proven. I will take prompt action to look sympathetically at the claims and seek compensation where necessary. As Senator Robertson has raised this matter with me, I will make sure that it is taken up with my colleague the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, as well as referring the matter specifically to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and follows the answer he gave to Senator Crichton-Browne. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the supply of uranium for peaceful purposes must not be confused with the question of nuclear weapons? I refer to a number of statements by the Prime Minister, one of which was in Perth, just before Easter, at the University of Western Australia. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the claim by the 28 senators and members who signed the letter of protest over Mr Hawke's arms control statement that Australian Labor Party policy draws an integral link between alleged peaceful use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation? I ask the Minister: Is that claim correct? I further ask: What steps has he taken to ensure that Labor's uranium policy reflects the views of the Prime Minister, the report of the Slatyer committee and the Ambassador for Disarmament , all of whom agree that Australia can best contribute to nuclear non- proliferation and world peace by being actively involved in the supply of uranium for power generation purposes? Senator WALSH —I do not know what the purpose of Senator Chaney's asking this question really is. He asked whether I agree with the Prime Minister's statement that the supply of uranium for peaceful purposes, that is for power reactors, should not be confused with nuclear weapons. The answer is yes. Indeed, it is a statement I have made on many occasions. It is a distinction which I believe ought to be drawn, not only because of the question of intent or stated intent but also because of more fundamental technical reasons. Power reactors operated in a way to optimise the production of electricity will produce plutonium of a grade which cannot be made into efficient weapons. Regardless of the intent of whoever may be operating the reactor, it is a technical reality that efficient weapons cannot be produced from fuel rods irradiated in a way that maximises the output and minimises the cost of electricity produced from a nuclear power plant . However, the Government-this is a statement which has been made by Mr Hayden, by me, I think by the Prime Minister and probably by a number of other people-is nevertheless concerned to maximise the degree of surveillance and control over Australian uranium and the uses to which it is put in other countries. I am currently discussing with Mr Hayden a proposal to strengthen the intensity of surveillance of nuclear power plants by officers of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am not able to say at this stage how productive that discussion is likely to be. The idea that there should be far more intensive or perhaps even continuous inspection of those plants by accredited officers of the IAEA seems to me to be worth following up. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I welcome the answer so far as it went and thank the Minister for it. What steps has he taken to ensure that the uranium policy generally reflects the view that we should be involved in the supply of uranium for power generation purposes? Senator WALSH —Again, it is a matter of public record and has been for some time that I have circulated a draft platform for the National Conference of the Labor Party which I think incorporates that view. Obviously, I am not in a position to state with any certainty at this stage whether that draft, in its original form, slightly amended or more significantly amended will be the policy that finally emerges from that Conference as the Labor Party's platform. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the Senate meet on Friday, 15 June 1984 , as follows: 9 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the Senate meet on Monday, 18 June 1984 as follows: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; and (b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate on that day shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (c) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I believe that there would be a reasonable degree of unanimity of purpose amongst honourable senators in regard to the desire to finish this sitting at some time or another. When that time is will be very dependent on discussions which have to take place and the progress that can be made with the legislative program which the Government has to get through. I gave this notice in order that honourable senators might concentrate on the most desirable sitting pattern that can be followed by the Senate during the next two weeks and so that the matter can be discussed because in the last week or two in the Senate we have tried to reach some agreement on these matters. The notice of motion expresses the Government's intentions in relation to this matter. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-To avoid undue perturbation on the Opposition back bench, I say that the Opposition certainly wishes to discuss the notice of motion which has been given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). There have been some discussions, including discussion with the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, about the pattern of sittings for this extended period. Undoubtedly, most Opposition senators have made arrangements which would be very severely affected by this proposal. I give the Government notice now that we wish to discuss it because the sitting hours proposed would be impossible for a large number of honourable senators. I indicate to the Opposition, with whom I have not had a chance to discuss this matter, that there are obvious difficulties involved for us. I will take those difficulties up with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-On the last occasion we were dealing with this matter I raised the issue of sitting next Monday. I said that if we were to sit next week we should at least be given next Monday back in our electoral offices. We have spent only one day or half a day in our electoral offices in the last three weeks. So if the Government is considering sitting next week, I do not mind that-when I say 'I do not mind that', I say that very loosely-but I would prefer to sit on Tuesday. Let us have Monday back in the electoral office. Assent to the following Bills reported: Supply Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 Audit Amendment Bill 1984 Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984 Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984 Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the sixth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1984, the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1984, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 and the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 8, dated 13 June 1984. Consideration resumed. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.09) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, Part II-Amendments of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, lines 1 to 27, leave out the Part. (2) Pages 4 and 5, Part VI-Amendments of Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, line 29 (page 4) to line 13 (page 5), leave out the Part. The only purpose of these amendments is to delete the provisions of the Bill concerning the electorate in which the residents of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be incorporated for the purpose of voting in Federal elections. As I have already indicated in my speech at the second reading stage, the Opposition is strongly in favour of the Cocos Islanders having a right to vote. The Islanders are now part of Australia and clearly the people have a right to vote. We welcome them as voters and as fellow Australians. However, we have raised our concern about their being attached to the Northern Territory electorate. I have already canvassed the various reasons for that concern, to which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is in charge of the Bill, has given a partial but rather misguided and misleading reply. The fact is that the Senate has agreed with the view of the Opposition as expressed in my amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that the wishes of the Islanders should be ascertained as to the electoral division in which they should be included for the purpose of voting in Commonwealth parliamentary elections and in referendums. I think it will be most unfortunate if the Government does not take heed of that advice and persists with its proposal to incorporate them in the Northern Territory. Senator Gietzelt in the second reading debate, in his reply to my arguments in regard to that matter, said that the Opposition had not produced any evidence that the Cocos Islanders want to be consulted about which electorate they should be in. He also made what I thought were some rather disparaging references to the ability of the Cocos Islanders to decide which electorate they wanted to be in. What an arrogant attitude Senator Gietzelt expressed in that regard. That was not only an arrogant but also a quite unjustified and unintelligent comment in light of the outstanding record of the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders in the voting pattern they displayed in regard to the question of whether they should be integrated into Australia. I have cited the figures-absolutely remarkable figures. There were 261 eligible voters on the islands, and only two informal votes were recorded. All eligible voters on the island voted. That is an outstanding record. They really know what they are doing and they are clearly entitled to express their views on which electorate they should be included in. They are obviously highly qualified people to make decisions of that kind. In regard to the question of evidence, Mr McVeigh, who was the Minister responsible for the territories in the Fraser Government, visited the islands and discussed this matter with the Islanders. He discussed with them the question of whether they should be incorporated in the Fraser electorate in the Australian Capital Territory. I refer to the debate in another place as recorded on page 2369 of the House of Representatives Hansard for Tuesday, 29 May, when Mr Ruddock, who is currently the shadow Minister responsible for this area, referred to discussions that he had had with representatives of the Islanders when they were in Canberra recently. He quoted a Press statement that he issued after meeting with the Islanders as follows: On the question of in which electorate of Australia the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders would vote to participate in Australian elections, their answer- that is, to Mr Ruddock- was that they would like to be in a position to weigh up the pros and cons of the various propositions in the knowledge of both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory proposals. He continued: They said that they wanted to be in a position to weigh up the pros and cons . . . In other words, they wanted to be consulted. They did not want the decision to be made for them. They wanted to be able to be in a position to express a considered view on behalf of their own people. I do not know what more evidence the Minister wants. That was a clear statement from the shadow Minister who spoke to the representatives of the Islanders who had come to Australia following the act of self-determination. They had come to Australia, he had consulted with them and this is what he reported to another place about the result of his discussions with them on this very question. There is ample evidence of the Islanders' wishes. I would like to know from the Government what it has done to ascertain the views of these people. It has obviously done nothing and it is not taking any interest in them. It has taken a doctrinaire- Senator Peter Baume —Arbitrary. Senator DURACK —It was an arbitrary decision and I think it was made because the Government thinks it is in its political interest. That is the only explanation that I can see. I am glad that the Minister has said that he would not want to make any judgments and he would not want anybody to make judgments about that, but why have the Islanders been arbitrarily put into the Northern Territory? It is a part of Australia with which they have no connection, as has been made clear in this debate. It is for those reasons that I have moved these amendments to the Bill, not with any object of preventing these people from voting in the next election. The Committee now has agreed to provide a mechanism for consultation and I am pleased that the Australian Democrats supported my amendment to that effect. We have suggested a State Supreme Court judge but I do not want to make too great a point about that. I agree with Senator Macklin that any competent person could do the job, but it should be done quickly. The matter could well be reflected in an amendment to this legislation at the beginning of the Budget sittings, well before the next election. Of course, as we know, the Government is rushing madly and headlong to have an election but even the Government will not manage to bring off an election before the Budget. There will be time in the Budget session to give effect to the wishes of the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders which can be easily ascertained over the period of our winter recess. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.16) —The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Durack, as I indicated in my remarks in the second reading debate. While we feel that the views of the Cocos Island people need to be ascertained with a view at a later stage to incorporating them into the most appropriate electorate in Australia in accordance with those views , at this time we feel that it is necessary to have them incorporated somewhere. This in no way solidifies the situation and at a later stage it will always be possible to move them if the Government takes up the views expressed by the Senate in the vote at the second reading stage and consults with the people in detail. We will not support the Opposition's amendment. The Cocos Island people will by this Bill be given the right to vote somewhere in Australia. As to the next move, we believe the ball is back in the Government's court to ascertain the Islanders' views as to the most appropriate electorate for them. If that can be done prior to the next election, all well and good. If it cannot be done, the people of the Cocos Islands will still have the right to vote. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.17) —Senator Durack has canvassed the questions which were dealt with in the second reading debate. He has indicated that the amendments he has moved would delete the Government's decision, subject to the concurrence of the Senate, to include the Cocos Island residents-Australian residents now-in the Northern Territory. I thought we canvassed the matter fairly widely. Although speakers in the debate took almost an hour to say their piece, I was restricted to less than a quarter of an hour in order to have the second reading dealt with by the luncheon break. I indicated then that the Government's concern was that having brought the Islanders into Australia as Australian citizens, having brought them into the Australian democratic process of elections, the only course of action available to us at this time was to associate them with either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. The Government's judgment was that for ethnic, social and other reasons, their interests would be best served if they were part of the Northern Territory. I indicated that, if the Government feels disposed to take on board the view of the Senate, I felt that the Islanders' first taste of our democratic processes would be when the representatives of the Northern Territory visited them and talked with them. I said that if an expression of opinion subsequently came to the Government the Government would be prepared to look at it. But to take on board at this stage the Opposition's propositions would be to deny the Islanders that elementary right; that is, the right to vote in the first election to be held once they made that very important and formal decision to seek Australian citizenship, to be incorporated in the Commonwealth of Australia. To that extent I believe we canvassed the arguments fairly well in the second reading debate. I do not think there is much point in developing a long argument in the Committee stage when the Government's view has been accepted by the Australian Democrats as being the only course of action available to it at this time to enable the residents of the Cocos Islands to participate in the elections. If subsequently a case is made out that they want to be incorporated in one of the electorates of Western Australia, I have indicated that the Government's advice will be that that will require not only the consent of the Western Australian Government but also a referendum on the question. The constraints which the amendment seeks to impose upon the Government will disadvantage the hundreds of new electors who have now decided to make themselves part of the Commonwealth of Australia. We want to give them the opportunity to vote in the next Federal elections. So we will oppose the amendments. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.21) —I have one question I wish to ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt): Will the Government be putting to the Remuneration Tribunal some additional entitlements possibly for an annual charter flight from Darwin to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.22) —Yes. The Australian Democrats did make a request to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). They suggested that there was a case for the elected representatives, wherever they be, but certainly if they are the Northern Territory representatives, to have ready access to charter provisions. To that extent the Minister said he was prepared to recommend to the Remuneration Tribunal that additional facilities be made available for the elected representatives. On behalf of the Government, I give Senator Macklin the assurance that we will not, in any way, want to disadvantage the representatives or the citizens. An opportunity will be provided to them to meet their elected representatives. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984 be debated cognately with the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation Equity) Amendment Bill 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.23) —The Opposition is happy to debate the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill cognately. I must say that the Bills are not entirely similar, but in view of the pressure of work this week we are happy to consider the Bills together. The first three Bills seek to provide supplementary amounts of money for schools assistance, tertiary education assistance and for the participation and equity program. The Opposition will not be opposing the provision of this extra money for education. It is provided to take account of the effects of inflation upon the education sector. The amounts, as set out in the legislation, cover the cost increases due to inflation. I understand that there is a further appropriation in the Bills of just under $10m for schools, of something like $62m for tertiary institutions and a bit over $1m for the participation and equity program. In relation to the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill, I indicate now that in the Committee stage we will be proposing an amendment to the Bill seeking to provide for certain designated places on the new Curriculum Development Council. I would like to take this opportunity to address myself to several issues which are raised by these Bills on education funding. The first matter I wish to raise relates to the participation and equity program referred to specifically under this legislation. We have had occasion previously to draw attention to what we believe is the inequitable distribution of funds under PEP-the participation and equity program. Honourable senators will be aware that this program is not being funded on an enrolment-driven basis, but that the Government has determined that smaller amounts of money will go to non-government schools for their share of the participation and equity program than to schools in the government sector. I remind honourable senators this program arose out of, and has subsumed, the school to work transition program. We are very happy to wish the participation and equity program every success, to see it develop and we hope that it can realise the high hopes that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) has had for it. We believe that it is not being assisted by the decision to press forward with a quite unequal and inequitable distribution of funds such as we have seen. We are concerned because the majority of children within the non-government sector are in Catholic parochial schools. These schools are poor and their resources needs are great. It will be interesting to know whether they are getting what would be considered their fair share under PEP. In relation to that, I have sought, and been provided with some figures from the Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia. The Commission told me that Catholic schools are getting less under the participation and equity program than they were under the school to work transition program; they are getting even less now than they were under a program which was smaller in amount and narrower in concept. I will give the figures to the Minister so that she can have them available. In 1983, under the transition education program, the Western Australian non-government school allocation was $264,000. The allocation to the schools under PEP is a bit more than that, but the amount of $357,000 is far less than they would have expected on an enrolment-driven basis. The concern that they have is that they are not able to undertake the activities which they are supposed to undertake to examine the effects of increased and increasing retention within this program and they are not able to undertake the activities adequately to assess the implications of retention in relation to the need for new and improved facilities within the schools. My concern is merely that the allocation under PEP should be equitable. I believe that the Catholic system, particularly where resources are poor, should get as much money pro rata as it could have expected under the school to work transition program. The allocation should have increased by the amount that PEP has been increased in global terms. The second matter I wish to raise is a rather more significant and substantial one. This relates to the Government's approach to the question of academic salaries in Australia. These salaries are determined by an independent tribunal. The tribunal is headed by Mr Justice Ludeke who sits to determine academic salaries. The Australian Labor Party policy covers the approach that it would take in government to academic salaries as determined by the tribunal. The Labor Party policy issued on 16 February 1983, at paragraph 6.3 states: The Commonwealth would be bound by the decision of the tribunal. The Labor Party undertook, before it came into government, not only that it would accept, but also that it would fund decisions of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. What has happened? Before the election the promise was made to academics that the Government would accept and fund these determinations. The case has now been heard. It has gone to the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The Government put a case to the Tribunal, it argued an economic case and initially it lost. The Tribunal awarded an amount of money and the Government has chosen to go back to the Tribunal to put fresh argument. Of course, the Tribunal has now determined that it will set that decision aside. I accept the umpire's decision but I am criticising the fact that the Government did not accept the umpire's decision first time round. Thousands of academics around Australia have quite clearly in their minds the fact that the Labor Government, contrary to the promise it made before the election, has cheated and reneged on them and has denied to them a salary increase to which they are entitled. We are to see now in Australia the Federation of College Academics calling its members out on strike for the first time in this country in protest against this action. The Government, using its special position of privilege, did not honour- Senator Macklin —I don't think it is the first time. Senator PETER BAUME —The newspaper report states that it is the first time. Senator Macklin has questioned whether it is the first time they have gone on strike. I merely quote from the article in the Age newspaper which states: College academics will stop work nationally for the first time in Australia . . . I took that statement in good faith. Nevertheless, the point is that college academics will go on strike to protest not at the action of Mr Justice Ludeke but at the action of the Government in seeking, when it lost the first time round, to use its privileged and special position to go back, contrary to its promises, to have this decision set aside. This is but one more of the many broken promises of which this Government has been guilty during its term of office. I put it to the Government in the best of faith that it has lost the confidence of the staff associations over this action. What is now required from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, is a commitment again to deal fairly and decently with college academics in relation to their salaries to give them an assurance that the Government, having argued and lost its case, will never again go back to use its special position to have the decision set aside. I suggest to the Minister in good faith that she really needs to restore the relations with college academics through the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations or through the FCA which have been so seriously damaged by what has occurred recently. The third matter I wish to raise under these Bills concerns the Australian scholastic aptitude test, which is a moderating test used in the schools in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. Money under these Bills will go to the support of education in those States. I wish to draw attention to this test and to some extraordinary events which occurred in the Australian Capital Territory last year when the Minister, Senator Ryan, in the most blatant act of sex discrimination in education which has ever occurred, intervened to upgrade the marks of every female student- Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator is seriously misleading the Senate. The decisions about modifications to ASAT were decisions of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority; they were not decisions that came about as a result of intervention by me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It is not a point of order; it is a matter for debate. The Minister will have a chance to debate the matter when she speaks. Senator PETER BAUME —Last year in the Australian Capital Territory the marks of young women were increased solely on the basis of their gender. The marks of young males were decreased in relative terms solely on the basis of their gender . That decision was defended in Parliament by the Minister as being necessary to correct what she calls 'sex bias'. It was, of course, a fiddle on the moderating marks in the Australian Capital Territory on the basis of sex discrimination. It was as discriminatory an act as could be imagined. It was not made on the basis of good evidence. It has now emerged that that decision was badly based in fact. This is supposed to be the last week of the sitting of the Senate. Honourable senators would be interested to know that last year the Minister set up a committee to look further at the sex difference in the ASAT scores. That committee has met and produced a report. The report is ready and has been printed but it has not been made available to the Parliament and it will not be released until next week when it is expected that the Parliament will not be sitting. This report establishes that there was no good basis at all-- Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister wants to gag this discussion. Senator Ryan —The matters raised by Senator Baume are clearly out of order. These Bills do not relate to the Australian Capital Territory school system. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The ASAT which I am discussing is used within the State school systems of Queensland and Western Australia. Money under these Bills will go to supplement those school systems among others. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, further to the point of order, the justification given by Senator Baume is no justification whatsoever. The matter he is raising now concerns the administration of the school system in the Australian Capital Territory. These Bills do not relate to that system at all. The honourable senator clearly is out of order. I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to instruct him to cease this irrelevant activity. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, insofar as you are discussing the Australian Capital Territory system, you are out of order, but you may relate your remarks to the State systems covered by the Bills. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Deputy President, I accept your ruling. What has occurred in the Australian Capital Territory has implications for the use of the ASAT test in other parts of Australia. The findings in the Australian Capital Territory, which I was about to set out, are findings of a study which involved the school systems in other States. The findings are part of a co-operative study which examined any sex differences. This is a matter which has implications in two States as well as the Australian Capital Territory and it is only in that sense that I am raising the matter. I just indicate that I am talking about the ASAT and sex differences now. The report which Senator Ryan has not yet chosen to release while the Parliament is sitting contains a summary chapter which begins at page 101 and goes through to page 110. I will quote just briefly in relation to ASAT generally from pages 108 and 110. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Baume is now flouting your ruling. He is now reading from a report-the existence of which I am not aware of-which he alleges to be a report of decisions made by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority in relation to ASAT. If that report is what Senator Baume alleges it to be he is entirely out of order because it applies solely to decisions that were made by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. Mr Deputy President, you have already ruled those matters out of order in this debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have ruled that Senator Baume is not at liberty to discuss the matters directly concerning the Australian Capital Territory education system. He is entitled to draw deductions from what might be relevant to the Bill in anything that has happened in the Australian Capital Territory. Insofar as he does that he is in order. Senator PETER BAUME —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have just been looking through the sections I intend to read. I do not believe that they relate to the Australian Capital Territory. They talk about the ASAT which is used in some of the States. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, on a point of order, I ask you to clarify what Senator Baume is doing. Senator Baume is now claiming to quote from a report, the existence of which I have no knowledge of. I have no way of saying whether it is a report or some fabrication or invention of Senator Baume's mole in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Baume is claiming to quote from a report which he alleges deals with the decisions made by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority relating to the application of the ASAT in the Australian Capital Territory. It has no implications for Western Australia or Queensland because those States are responsible for their own school systems; they are responsible for how they apply this method of testing within their own school systems. There is no budgetary implication in what he is saying. Insofar as what he is saying has any legitimacy at all it would have legitimacy only in relation to matters concerning the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Deputy President, you have already ruled those matters out of order. Senator Baume obviously has another little political stunt which he is trying to bring on at this late stage of the session. I ask you to bring him to order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ryan, you are making a number of points which are legitimate debating points but which are not relevant to a point of order. I will repeat what I have ruled: The subject of the Australian Capital Territory education system is not relevant to this debate. However, if Senator Baume can relate events in the Australian Capital Territory to what is relevant to the Bills, he is in order. I do not want to hear any more repetition of that ruling; I hope it is quite clear. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Deputy President, I do not believe that I will mention the Australian Capital Territory again. I will quote what is stated on page 108 of this report, under the heading 'Implications for Policy': This study arose out of a need to investigate thoroughly the observed difference between the performance of males and females on ASAT. This difference was labelled a 'sex bias'- Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I wish to have clarified what document Senator Baume is now-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order. Senator Ryan —If it is a document that relates only to the Australian Capital Territory school system then it relates to your ruling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ryan you may ask, in due course, for the document to be tabled if that is what you wish, if Senator Baume is quoting from it. Senator PETER BAUME —I would be perfectly happy to table the document. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —However at this stage it is not a point of order to ask for the document to be identified. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ryan you are taking a lot of points of order. Senator Ryan —I ask that the document from which Senator Baume alleges to be quoting be tabled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may repeat that request at the end of Senator Baume's speech. Senator PETER BAUME —The report continues: This difference was labelled a 'sex bias' against females undertaking the test. Evidence from this report has suggested that students are not advantaged or disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, after variables such as confidence in success, hours spent studying mathematics and assessments in English were taken into account. However, females as a group were found to have a lower mean score on ASAT largely because they showed much less confidence in success than did males. The report goes on to say that this had some implications for the sample studies . On page 110 it states: Since the major conclusion of this investigation was that a student's sex had no significant direct effect on performance on ASAT it would appear questionable to adjust the scores of individual students for bias in ASAT. They are the only parts I wish to quote. This report should give confidence in ASAT across Australia as it has been used and it would give no grounds for anyone anywhere to have adjusted people's scores on the basis of their sex alone as, of course, occurred in one part of Australia. The other matter I want to mention in relation to these three Bills concerns participation in tertiary education. In 1983 many institutions increased participation in tertiary education, partly as a result of increased completion rates through year 12 and partly as a result of a deliberate program to seek increased participation in higher education. But the institutions took extra students on a promise of funds to come. They were promised that there would be full funding for the extra places of students whom they took. I am told by the institutions that they were informed that 1983 was to be the year of schools and that 1984 was to be the year of higher education. At graduations across the country to which the Minister was invited, as Ministers are, she was at some pains to tell people that they should watch for the new triennium and for the arrangements to be announced under that. A very serious matter faces higher education across Australia. Institutions cannot continue on with funds frozen at their present level and they cannot continue taking people at the marginal costs only, which the Minister has offered them for 1984. This year extra numbers have been taken on only at what the Minister and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission have determined as marginal cost. Even then, some strange things can happen. This year we had the extraordinary situation at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which discovered in 1983 that it was 6 per cent over its allowed number of equivalent full time students. The Institute took steps to reduce that over- enrolment, as one would expect it to do, and brought the numbers down to 2 per cent over the allowed number of students. So its number of enrolments came down by several hundred. The Minister then announced that she wanted people to enrol extra students and announced that $10m would be available to provide, I think, 3 ,000 extra places at marginal cost. The Western Australian Institute of Technology said that it would do its part and provided places for 55 extra students. However, it was then told that because its enrolments were less than they had been the year before-so they should have been; it was over-enrolled the year before-it would get no money. I say to the Minister: There is a system of fair play between her and the institutions. There is a degree of fair play which will have to be observed if the institutions are going to be able to meet her requirements of extra participation and do so fairly. The 1982-84 triennium allowed, I think, a cost of $5,360 per student place, on average. I have been given a figure of something like that. If the institutions could get back in real terms to the marginal cost that applied at the beginning of the triennium for the 1985-87 triennium, it would be okay for the institutions to try to carry on. I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that right across Australia higher education authorities are waiting for the decision on the CTEC report. They are scared that this Government will announce that there will be no triennium; that this year will be taken out of the triennium. That is the argument that is being put to me. I am not able to say that that is what the Government is going to do but I plead with the Government to announce the triennium and to announce it with funds adequate to meet the needs of higher education authorities across Australia. In the same way, in relation to government and non-government school funding across Australia, I remind the Minister that the arrangements she announced for 1984 were arrangements outside any formula. Here again the Government faces fundamental decisions which have to be made in relation to the way in which it will go about this funding. There is now no formula which allows educational institutions, government schools and non- government schools, Catholic schools and Catholic school systems to know in advance how much money they can expect. The amount announced last year was not derived from any formula; it was an arbitrary amount. We have heard talk about a community standard but so far we have seen no community standard. We cannot allow this kind of drift. I again ask the Minister: Can she assure us that a formula will be announced when the guidelines come out that will contain some predictability so that school systems will know the kind of funding which they can expect. Since this is a cognate debate I will refer briefly to the other Bill, the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984. This Bill sets out to re- establish the Curriculum Development Centre in ways which the Government has announced as part of its policy. It sets out to abolish the Curriculum Development Centre as a statutory authority and to re-establish it as a Curriculum Development Council to vest the property of the Curriculum Development Centre in the Commonwealth and to provide that the Council will work closely with the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Bill makes some minor updating provisions and it also provides that the Commonwealth Schools Commission may now inquire into and report on matters affecting pre-school handicapped children. The Opposition supports all those aims of this Bill. We give it our full support. The only matter on which we have any concern at all is a matter which goes to the composition of the Council which will be established for the Curriculum Development Council. Because curriculum development matters are so important and because they go across systems we have thought it desirable to try to reserve places, make sure there are places, on that Council for representatives of government school systems and non-government school systems. I have asked that an amendment which we will move at the Committee stage be distributed in the Senate. We will seek to achieve the amendment at the Committee stage. In the moments remaining to me I want briefly to return to the three supplementation Bills. I refer to the attack that has been made upon the Catholic school system, particularly by Mr Van Davy, in relation to the question of maintenance of effort. Maintenance of effort can be measured in several ways, but the way that matters most, it seems to me, is to look at the cash inputs by parents and to ensure that those cash inputs by parents keep pace in real terms and increase in real terms as the years go by. What we cannot have in the non- government schools system is a situation in which cash private inputs by parents decrease in real terms. What Mr Van Davy has been arguing is that the parents have to pick up the costs of the conversion of the staff of Catholic schools from religious staff to lay staff and pay proper wages. In January this year the Commonwealth Schools Commission prepared a table No. 5 .6 which shows quite clearly that between 1976 and 1981 the private cash inputs in private schools at primary level increased by 11.9 per cent. They have not gone down. While the cash inputs are increasing it is not fair for Mr Van Davy to argue, or for the Australian Teachers Federation to argue, that the system is ripping off the taxpayer, because it is not. Catholic education is the most needy section. The private cash inputs into Catholic education at the secondary level between 1976 and 1981 increased by 32 per cent. This does not allow the Australian Teachers Federation to make the claims it does about Catholic education. If one combines the two one will find that, overall, private cash inputs have increased by 15.6 per cent. I return to the beginning and say that we support all these pieces of legislation. We have many concerns about the way in which this Government is administering its programs. We are concerned that cash inputs under PEP to non- government schools, particularly Catholic schools, should be maintained in real terms so that they can do their jobs. We are concerned also that in relation to universities and non-government schools some certainty should be given as soon as possible as to their future and the possibilities of their planning. Having said that, I will move my amendment at the Committee stage. The Opposition supports the Bills. Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I remind you that I have requested that Senator Baume table the document from which he quoted. Senator Peter Baume —I am delighted to do so. Senator Ryan —I thought you said it was a report. Senator Peter Baume —The document from which I quoted is the document you are getting. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Does the Senate grant leave to Senator Baume to table the document? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(3.54) — Most of us who have been members of the Senate for some time almost expect some of the outlandish claims which are made by Senator Baume in debates such as this. Therefore, some of the claims which he made came as no surprise. I am sure that when the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) responds in this debate she will reply to many of the claims that Senator Baume has made. However, I wish to mention one matter before I move on to the topic I wish to discuss this afternoon; that is, it should be remembered that Senator Baume is a former Minister for Education. It is because of his and his Government's administration that this Government inherited many of the deficiencies in the education system of Australia with which it is now grappling. I intend to use the debate on this legislation to outline to the Senate some matters in relation to the use of corporal punishment in schools. I consider that my comments will be in order because one of the Bills will authorise payments to the States for educational purposes. Most of the States have educational practices which permit school children to be corporally punished. This afternoon I shall be mentioning something about the Australian Capital Territory and its school system. As I move forward it will be seen that the comments that I make are germane to the whole topic which I will mention this afternoon. On a number of occasions in Senate Estimates committee hearings I have raised the matter of the use of corporal punishment. It is no secret that I have campaigned and will continue to campaign for the elimination of this archaic and brutal practice from our education system. In a recent Senate Estimates committee hearing I was gratified to learn of some progress, however small, in this vexed area. I learned that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority had this year collected statistics on the incidence of corporal punishment in schools under its control. Some of the figures were alarming. One secondary school reported that physical punishment had been used on 79 occasions in 1983. Of 27 secondary schools in the Australian Capital Territory, 13 used corporal punishment last year. The incidence of infliction ranged from one to 79. Of 73 primary schools, 16 administered corporal punishment in 1983, ranging from one to 18 times. An added dimension to the disturbing nature of these statistics is that they came from within a system which urges the avoidance of the use of corporal punishment. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority's guidelines on the use of corporal punishment state, in part: The Authority urges schools to work towards the abolition of corporal punishment. Many alternatives are available which are preferable and which are more likely to result in development of healthy social skills and the learning of adequate personal behaviour. Despite this, on 372 occasions in 1983 students were physically punished in the Australian Capital Territory, with no right of appeal or redress. I trust that the Authority will continue to collect these statistics and make them available to the public. This will facilitate a more rational debate on the abolition of this practice. At this stage I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard data on the incidence of corporal punishment in Australian Capital Territory schools. I have shown this table to the Opposition Whip. I think that it will be acceptable. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CORPORAL PUNISHMENT-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN A.C.T. 1983 North Canberra- North Belconnen- Ainslie Primary 11 Kaleen Primary 5 Campbell Primary 1 Charnwood High School 79 Lyneham Primary 5 Kaleen High School 25 Campbell High School 10 Melba High School 7 Lyneham High School 43 Watson High School 16 South Belconnen- Cook Primary 7 South Canberra- Higgins Primary 7 Narrabundah Primary 2 Latham Primary 2 Hughes Primary 4 Scullin Primary 18 Deakin High School 2 Weetangera Primary 1 Telopea Park High School 1 Canberra High School 5 Ginninderra High School 64 Woden Valley- Pearce Primary 1 Tuggeranong- Torrens Primary 8 Mt Neighbour 2 Village Creek Primary 1 Weston Creek- Kambah High School 3 Weston Primary 3 Wanniassa High School 14 Holder High School 25 Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. Against this background, I spoke on the issue of corporal punishment in Queensland last weekend. The principal matter which I stressed was that education departments should follow the lead of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and publish statistics on the incidence of corporal punishment in schools under their control. I also outlined , almost as an aside, that in Queensland the regulations about corporal punishment are discriminatory. They permit boys to be caned but not girls. I quote from what I said last weekend: In these days of equal rights, how do you explain to a boy who has just been caned why girls cannot be similarly assaulted? There should be a ''hands off'' rule for all-not just for girls. Imagine my surprise and the surprise of many Queensland parents when the Courier -Mail ran an article on its front page on Monday headed 'Cane plan for ''rude'' schoolgirls'. Part of this article read: Girls in Queensland state schools who grossly misbehave or persist with rudeness and insolence soon could be caned. The Education Minister, Mr Powell, is having a close look at the use of corporal punishment, and sees considerable benefit in extending its use to girls in cases where their behaviour warrants such action. Following this comment Mr Powell was strongly condemned for his statement, and rightly so. As an indication of some of the comments that have been made I will quote from part of a letter which was written to the editor of the Courier-Mail about Mr Powell's statement: Corporal punishment degrades both pupil and teacher. It is a form of violence even outlawed in our penal system, but which can still be inflicted on our children with no form of appeal. Mr Powell would do well to read the recently prepared discussion paper on corporal punishment in schools issued by the Human Rights Commission. If, after reading the arguments for both sides, he can support an extension of corporal punishment in schools, he should be relieved of his portfolio. If Mr Powell does nothing else at least he will have highlighted an undesirable aspect of education in Australia. I must admit that I thought a Minister for Education would not be so conservative or so lacking in ideas that he would consider that shortcomings in the education system that he administered could be overcome by assaulting children. Yet not only did he suggest the continuation of corporal punishment; he advocated its extension. The more he talks like this the more the public will be aware of the deep shortcomings in his Department. I also trust that the more he talks the more the public will regard corporal punishment as unacceptable. Mr Powell and his fellow apologists for the continued use of corporal punishment should realise that Australia is one of the few countries that clings to the idea that school-children can be caned. Nowhere in mainland Europe is it permissible to use physical punishment on school-children. In Ireland it is banned and many education authorities in England have prohibited its use. Corporal punishment is no longer used in Victorian state schools. The practice was discontinued there 18 months ago. Perhaps education systems need more counsellors to assist children with behaviour problems. Perhaps educational administrators and teachers should look at the nature of schools to see whether behaviour problems are a function of the setting which students must compulsorily attend. Perhaps those who cane do so out of a bad habit picked up years ago. If teachers fail to question why the students have behaviour problems and if they fail to remove the cause of those problems, they have no right to treat the symptoms by assaulting their students. What professional group, other than teachers, has the right to inflict physical pain by way of punishment on children? What would happen to a doctor, a psychologist or a nurse who acted in this way? They would be deregistered, and rightly so. I have just referred to teachers as a professional group. However, no teacher who clings to the idea that corporal punishment has a place in the school system can regard himself or herself as a professional. I could advance many reasons why corporal punishment should not be used in schools, however, I mention just a few this afternoon. Firstly, the use of physical punishment lends official endorsement to the view that problems between people may be resolved by force. Surely this is not an attitude that we should be developing. It is an irony that some education systems allow the teaching of peace studies but also allow corporal punishment to be used on school children. This must be the ultimate contradiction. Secondly, physical punishment conflicts with modern educational principles which place emphasis on the development of self-discipline, self-motivation and an enthusiasm for learning. Thirdly, the deliberate threat or infliction of pain can harm children, the more nervous child in particular. In the same way it harms the deprived and maladjusted child who is already living under stress and who is in need of greater understanding and guidance, not violent rejection. Fourthly, physical punishment, intended ostensibly to promote an orderly atmosphere in schools, is in fact a common method of camouflaging inadequate and irrelevant curricula and incompetent teaching. Finally, in what is a short list of reasons why corporal punishment should not be used, there is the point that physical punishment will occasionally be carried out to brutal excess as long as it is permitted at all. I will not stop in my efforts to see the abolition of this practice, but in the meantime I call upon all education authorities to publish on a regular basis statistics on this archaic practice. When it can be clearly seen by all that our children have less protection against physical punishment than dangerous criminals or domestic animals, perhaps society will demand a change. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —Mr Acting Deputy President, to be sure that I do not mislead the Senate I seek leave to clarify some figures I gave. I will only take a minute. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. When I was discussing the funding of the participation and equity program for non-government schools I quoted some figures I had received from the Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia. I think I had the figures wrong and I want to make sure I give them correctly. Under the school to work transition program the figure was $264,000 in 1983. Under the participation and equity program in 1984 the figure was $357, 000. I think the figure of $264,000 in 1983 would be equivalent to about $290, 000 in real terms in 1984. I take it that the figure is a 20 per cent increase, the program of course increasing by close on 40 per cent. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.07) — The Australian Democrats will support the Bills in this package-the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 , the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984. I wish to raise only a few items since the Senate still has on its program an enormous amount of work to complete before the end of the session. First of all I would like to make a comment about where I believe the Commonwealth is going in terms of the allocation of funds to the States, be it for schools or for tertiary institutions. If one reads through these Bills one is struck by the fact that larger and larger amounts of money are being tied up as programs which were started by way of innovation or assistance become entrenched and become part of the system. Hence, the only way to get additional movement within the system is by increasing to a marked extent the funds which have to be provided by the Commonwealth. As everyone knows, there is ultimately a limit to that amount of money, although certainly compared with the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries Australia has by no means reached that limit . Indeed, it has a relatively poor record, and always has had, in terms of its regard for education and the worth of education as an economic incentive within the totality of the social structure. But I think that is an argument for another time. I am concerned that the Commonwealth is losing room to move in both the school and tertiary areas. It is rapidly losing the possibility of becoming an innovator in these areas by providing funds for those programs which are over and above the standard programs which need to be offered through all schools in Australia. I believe that that really will remove from the system a useful irritant, as it were-a useful element-particularly in terms of the schools, for which at least one government in Australia would have funds at its disposal to redirect into areas of need as they arise rather than have the vast bulk of its funds tied up in continuing programs. I have expressed concern on a number of occasions about the participation and equity program. From the monitoring of that program that I have been able to do I must admit I am still not sanguine that it will in fact achieve the types of results that one would hope for it. I think that necessarily that type of program will not be able to achieve this. I think that is probably inherent within the structure of the program. I have discussed this on previous occasions and I do not intend to do so now. One item I wish to raise in relation to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 is the problem that has arisen in recent times in terms of academic salaries. I think it is important to rehearse precisely what occurred in that situation. An independent body sits as a sole judge-in this case it is Justice Ludeke, who has done this work for many years now-to inquire into anomalies with regard to academic salaries. It was recognised by the Government and, indeed, by the previous Government when the wages pause was first introduced that anomalies could occur. The relevant academic bodies went before Mr Justice Ludeke and argued that such an anomaly existed. Justice Ludeke handed down a judgment of a 5 per cent increase for academics to be delivered immediately. The Government-and I do not think that this is closed knowledge-was concerned as to how this might be prevented. One possibility which I am sure would have been used was to move in the House of Representatives for the disallowance of that determination. The Government could have used its prerogative and sought to vary that determination in a way that it had argued before Justice Ludeke. Senator Peter Baume —Unsuccessfully. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. The response of the Government to this was to go back to the Academic Salaries Tribunal and argue that there needed to be a staged introduction of that 5 per cent increase. Basically, the Government argued that it be three-fifths of 5 per cent in the first year and two-fifths of 5 per cent in the ensuing year. The academic bodies, which basically represent academics at universities and colleges, were supported in their opposition to the Government' s new proposal, as they had been supported in their initial proposal, by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In other words, the ACTU had accepted that the approach that the academics had made was acceptable under the accord that the unions had established with the Labor Government. So it could not be argued that that determination would have upset the accord that, I think, everybody accepts as being vital to the economic recovery of Australia. Justice Ludeke varied the determination in accordance with the argument put by the Government. So the Government can say now that it is accepting the umpire's decision. I am not quite sure what would have happened if the umpire had not changed his decision, but I think I can guess. I believe this is a pity because a discussion has now been brought into this area which I do not think was needed or required. I do not wish to argue the merits of the case one way or the other. This is basically a matter for determination by the Tribunal although I understand that the relevant bodies are looking at further legal action in relation to that. I have no comment on that either except to say that some of the arguments that were proposed at the time were blatantly absurd. They ought to be seen as being absurd and ought not to be raised again in such a discussion . One of those is that in some way there is a connection between the salaries paid to academics and the amount of money that will be provided to upgrade tertiary institutions. This type of connection would not be made, and ought not be made, in other areas of employment. I am quite sure that no Government member would make such connection in the main stream employment areas. I do not think it is beneficial to make such connections for specific areas. I wonder also whether, as a result of what has happened, the Academic Salaries Tribunal is of much use. It seems to me that as a result of recent court decisions, teachers unions and academic unions at the federal level will have access to the normal arbitration and conciliation process. We would not have to treat as a special case people who work in tertiary institutions. I am of the opinion that that may be a way in which we can now move. This move may well be acceptable to academics in tertiary institutions. Another item I wish to raise concerns the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984, which is concerned almost totally with the winding up of the Curriculum Development Centre and the establishment of the Curriculum Development Council. The method by which the Government has chosen to react to the problems set by the previous Government, which sought to destroy the Curriculum Development Centre, had been widely predicted in educational circles. Nevertheless, I still do not believe it is the best way to go. I believe that ultimately the legislation could contain the seeds of some considerable disharmony, particularly at a staff level. If the Curriculum Development Council is to be as successful as the Curriculum Development Centre was, presumably its size will eventually be such as to overwhelm the Commonwealth Schools Commission . Indeed, we may have a tail which is much larger than the dog. I hope that will eventually be the case. I hope that the Council is as successful as was the Centre in international terms. Although the Centre existed for only a short time it gained an enviable reputation in educational circles around the world. I believe that it provided a long needed stimulus to curriculum debate in this country not only by the variety of its production in terms of curriculum material but also by its excursions into curriculum theory, particularly in the core curriculum debate. I am concerned about the structure of the Council. I do not have the concern raised by Senator Baume which I will discuss during the Committee stage. My concern, however, is that the Council will not have a Director who will function along the lines of the Chairman of the Curriculum Development Centre. I am not at all sure that this is a wise move. The person who obviously will be the media profile and, I would imagine, the stimulus for the activity within the Centre, will be the Chairman of the Council who will also be a full time Schools Commissioner. From my reading of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill the commissioners to be selected do not necessarily seem to me to be the types of people whom we would need to head up a Curriculum Development Council which could rival the previous body. Professor Skilbeck, who was certainly a controversial character in the time that he headed the Curriculum Development Centre, nevertheless was also a driving force and an internationally known expert, and acknowledged as such, in the area of curriculum theory and development. I would have thought that we would be seeking such a person to head this body. However, he will have to come in via the Schools Commission. That seems to be a very cumbersome way of dealing with that problem. If it is not intended to do it that way, it is very odd that the person who presumably will be filling a similar role does not even appear on the Council. I am not sure how the Council would operate if the person with the expertise is not even on the governing body. That I believe, will also cause a reverberation through the Curriculum Council as it goes about the work. The work , of course, is very similar to the work of the Curriculum Development Centre. I understand some of the background. I believe that the Council will have the support and the best wishes of everyone within the education community and hopefully that it will fulfil those types of roles that the previous Curriculum Development Centre fulfilled in Australia. It will be a stimulus to curriculum. It will be an innovative body in the production of curriculum materials. However , I raise my concern that its structure may very well hamper that development and, certainly, will hamper the possibilities of the new Council gaining the type of international reputation that the previous centre gained. I hope my prediction does not come true because we sorely need such a body in Australia. In the last few years the Curriculum Development Centre has floundered along and got itself subsumed into the Department of Education and been the subject of numerous attempts to kill it off. I think that has meant that it has not been able to contribute the types of things that it could have contributed. I hope my prediction proves to be false. However, I indicate that I will be interested in the comments of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) as to why the structure is that way. But that might more appropriately be done in the Committee stage when we are discussing Senator Baume's amendments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.24) —The Senate is debating, cognately, a package of Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984, the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 and the States Grants ( Education Assistance-Participation Equity) Amendment Bill 1984. The Government has introduced these Bills to supplement funding to schools and tertiary institutions throughout Australia. It has also introduced an amendment to the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act which provides for the re-establishment of the Curriculum Development Centre. In response to the points made in the course of the debate, I must express my sincere regret that Senator Baume yet again has chosen to avoid a serious and constructive discussion of educational issues and chosen, instead, to engage in some wildly untruthful and irrelevant allegations during this debate. It is a matter of concern to the Government and to the education community generally throughout Australia that, at a time when we are all-all, except Senator Baume, I would say-seeking to come to grips with the many problems that beset our education system and sincerely seeking to create better educational opportunities and better educational outcomes for children so that they might better progress to the next step of employment, Senator Baume chooses to use his opportunities as Opposition spokesperson on education to engage in the lowest and the most trivial kind of political point-scoring and, as usual, uses totally untruthful claims and allegations in that exercise. It is no wonder that Professor Dame Leonie Kramer has chosen to join the Malcolm Fraser think tank and has specified education as an area on which the Opposition is failing lamentably and which needs the input of somebody like Professor Kramer who understands educational issues and who will be able to make the contribution from a conservative perspective which Senator Baume is clearly unable and unprepared to make. Senator Baume raised a number of issues during his contribution. One of them was the claimed inequity of funding of the participation and equity program. I simply repeat-this matter is on record and Catholic education authorities have discussed it with me at length and understand it-that the purpose in the first year of the participation and equity program was to enable those schools which had not been able to retain their students through to the end of secondary schooling to bring in some improvements and some changes so that the children would have better opportunities and would be motivated and assisted to get the benefits of full secondary education. For that reason the money for the program was not distributed on a simple per capita basis because many schools do not have such problems. Many schools are able to keep children through to the end of secondary schooling. It was, instead, to be allocated, particularly in the first year, to those socio-economic regions and those schools which had particular problems in providing a suitable program for students through to the end of secondary schooling. Therefore, it was weighted towards the public sector because there were many neglected secondary schools in the public system, particularly in the poorer areas of our States, which were not able to provide what was needed and which needed assistance. Similarly, in the area of the non- government school sector, those schools, mainly the Catholic schools serving the poorer communities, were to get the greater part of the assistance. That funding according to need and the putting of a priority on giving assistance to the areas which are serving students which most need assistance are our Federal Government's approach to the question of school funding generally. I have checked during this debate the particular issue of the funds available to the Western Australian Catholic Education Commission. I must place on the record that neither the Schools Commission nor the Department can recall any complaint from the Western Australian non-government school bodies about their share of the participation and equity funds. The Commonwealth Schools Commission had an inquiry from the South Australian Catholic office about how the sharing was calculated, but there has been no complaint. It seems that Senator Baume was doing his usual trick of trying to whip up discontent when none really existed. During his speech, he corrected the figures that he had initially used in making the point. Let me pass to the question of the Academic Salaries Tribunal, the Ludeke decision, and the Government's response to it because that has been raised by Senator Baume and by Senator Macklin on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I must say by way of introduction to this point that Senator Baume's crocodile tears over the circumstances of students and academics are really very hard to take. If we looked at what happened to higher education funding during the period the Government of which Senator Baume was a part was running higher education in this country, we would see a very sorry picture indeed. We would see that funds for capital and equipment in higher education from 1976 to 1983 were reduced in real terms by 50 per cent by the Fraser Government. Yet, a representative of the same political party now has the hide to complain about the current difficulties faced by people working in higher education and by students. Similarly, total enrolments in higher education from 1979 to 1983 rose by some 26,000 in number. However, recurrent funds were reduced by some $4m. That is a reduction of 5 per cent per student. So, both in terms of capital-that is, the buildings in which academics have to teach and students have to try to learn-and in terms of the capacity of institutions to employ academic staff and tutors to assist the students, there were serious reductions in the period of the Fraser Government. Yet Senator Baume has the hide to weep crocodile tears about the current difficulties being experienced, as a result of the build-up of disadvantage, cuts and defects carried out during the time that the Fraser Government was in office. Let me explain what the significance of the Academic Salaries Tribunal is. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) tabled in the House of Representatives on 6 June two recent reports by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. They were tabled together, as Senator Macklin might have noticed. They were the report of 17 April 1984 following the inquiry by the Tribunal into academic salaries and a subsequent report of 5 June 1984 concerning an inquiry into the phasing in of the 5 per cent salary increases determined and recommended in the report of 17 April. The Tribunal, following the second inquiry, accepted the Government's proposal that the salary increase of 5 per cent for academics should be phased in by two instalments. The first instalment of two-fifths of the 5 per cent is to be implemented from 17 April 1984 and the second instalment of the remaining three-fifths of the 5 per cent will be implemented from 17 April 1985. The Tribunal determined and recommended on that basis. I emphasise that the Government has accepted the report of the Tribunal. While the Government accepts the Tribunal's determination and recommendation that an increase in academic salaries is justified in order to create a firm and equitable base for the operation of indexation, we are pleased that the Tribunal has recognised the Government's submission that the increase, in the public interest, should be phased in in two instalments. Academic staff will continue to benefit from the operation of indexation. Funds will be made available at once through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to enable the first instalment of this increase to be paid by the institutions. An additional $11. 41m will be required for this purpose for 1984. The Government places importance on the role of the Tribunal as an independent body constituted to conduct inquiries into academic salary rates that should be used as a basis for funding universities and colleges of advanced education and confirms its policy that funds will not be provided for academic salaries paid at levels above those recommended and determined by the Tribunal. It should be clear to everybody concerned that the Government has accepted the decision of Mr Justice Ludeke and that phase in does not involve a rejection of the determination. The phase in has been endorsed by Mr Justice Ludeke and all academics will benefit from that decision as from 17 April-a date which has, of course, already passed. I turn briefly to a matter which I think was improperly raised by Senator Baume during the course of this debate. Since it was raised and since he has placed some wildly dishonest claims on the record, it must be addressed and the correction must be made by me. Senator Baume claimed that he had a report and accused me, the Minister, of having had this report and having wilfully and for some sinister purpose withheld it from the Senate. All of those claims are deliberately dishonest. I say to honourable senators at this point that not only the Government and me but also the entire education community are becoming heartily sick of Senator Baume pursuing the education debate in terms of wildly untruthful allegations against me. It is not only an irritation to the Government; it is an irritation to all of those people in the education community who actually care about what is happening to their children in schools , who actually have aspirations for improvements in their children's education. Yet all we get are wildly untruthful, ridiculous claims and stunts from Senator Baume. The truth of the matter, as I have just been advised by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, is that the report of the Australian Council of Educational Research-the one which Senator Baume claimed I was concealing-was to be presented to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority's accrediting agency today and that agency will advise the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority at its meeting next Monday. The agency's technical advisory committee has had access to a draft of the report in order to evaluate it from a technical viewpoint. Until that process has been completed, obviously the matter is in the hands of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. To claim that I have had the report and have been deliberately withholding it is one of the wildest inaccuracies and one of the most dishonest statements which Senator Baume, who has become extremely notorious for his dishonest statements, has made . The Schools Authority stated that it is planned to release the report on Monday, 18 June, after it is formally received by the Authority. To facilitate discussion of the report the Schools Authority intends to distribute a copy to each secondary college and upper secondary school, together with multiple copies of the statement prepared by the Director of the ACER, Dr J. Keeves. Interested parties will be invited to put their views to the agency in time for consideration by the agency in early August, and the Schools Authority on 20 August. I understand from advice I have been able to get from my Department that Senator Baume sought to get a preliminary copy of the report. I have been advised that he did ask Dr Keeves for a copy of the report but was told by Dr Keeves-- Senator Peter Baume —What? Senator RYAN —This is advice that I have had-that it was not available. In the light of that, Senator Baume has pursued his usual course of action of trying to get a leaked copy of the report and to use it for entirely dishonest purposes. Senator Baume claimed to have the report and said he would agree to table it. As a result of the tabling exercise, we have a few rather badly photocopied pages which may or may not have been taken from the report. I have not had time to look into this point. He chose to quote one short paragraph from the report. He did not choose to quote the final paragraph-if indeed, it is from the report- which states: Drawing causal inferences from non-experimental investigations involves many problems and it is only when particular findings have been replicated that one can have confidence in their validity. Many of the results reported in this study are tentative until further investigations have been undertaken. However, such further intensive investigation should prove rewarding. I do not want to detain the Senate on this matter but it was necessary. Given this now typically, I have to say, dishonest behaviour of Senator Baume, this typically dishonest claim that there was a report that I had withheld when the facts are quite to the contrary, as I have just placed on the record, it was necessary to correct those wild untruths and also to correct them for the sake of the ACT Schools Authority which properly, under the ordinance under which it operates, has responsibility for managing these matters. It is extremely unfortunate that the level of education debates in this chamber has had to be reduced by Senator Baume's persistent dishonesties to this stage. I can only repeat that I have no difficulty in understanding Professor Kramer's disappointment at Senator Baume's performance and her feeling that there is a need for some educational input into the thinking of the Liberal Party. As to the question of the membership of the Curriculum Development Centre, both Senator Baume and Senator Macklin have indicated that they wish to say more about it during the Committee stage. When we get to that stage, I will explain why the Government has chosen to reactivate the Curriculum Development Centre in the form that we have chosen and which is contained in this legislation. With regard to Senator Macklin's contribution, I must say that it was a welcome relief, after having to endure Senator Baume's stuntsmanship, that Senator Macklin at least contributed in terms of educational issues. Senator Macklin remained pessimistic about the overall success of the participation and equity program. I assure him that I do not share his pessimism. The early reports from teachers in the classroom and parents that are available to me suggest that the program will do what it set out to do-that is, to provide more and better opportunities for students in their upper secondary years, particularly those who in recent years have dropped out and have found that they have no alternative other than the dole. That is the preliminary objective of the participation and equity program. Of course, it is too soon to say that we have succeeded. But I think Senator Macklin's pessimism will prove to be unfounded. I am sure that in that event he would be as pleased about that as I would. He also expressed high hopes for the success of the Curriculum Development Council. I share those aspirations, as does the education community generally throughout Australia. Clearly, there is a need for a national curriculum function. Although the States have the major responsibility for developing curriculum and seeing that that curriculum is implemented in the schools-the non -government schools also play an important role in curriculum development-there is a need for national action and national back-up and support on curriculum questions of national significance. I believe that the reactivated Curriculum Development Council will be able to do that. I should explain briefly that the reason why the Curriculum Development Centre has been revised in a form which integrates its activities quite thoroughly with the activities of the Schools Commission is so that we can achieve the kind of co-operation between the work of the two agencies which was not previously achieved. That is not to detract from the success that was achieved. But at a time when we have many needs in education which are investigated by the Schools Commission, and many of those needs lead to the need for a new kind of curriculum, it is very important-and I think Senator Macklin would agree-that there be a close correlation between the efforts to upgrade the resources of schools, in which the Schools Commission is involved, and the way in which those resources are used in terms of curriculum and professional development of teachers, which will be the concern of the Curriculum Development Centre. I do not foresee a situation of the tail wagging the dog, because I do not see the two institutions in terms of a leader and a follower. I see the two agencies coming together in a very constructive partnership to develop improvements to education in the interests of all Australian children. Because of the co- operation and partnership character that we wish to create, we have made the decisions about the composition of the Schools Commission and of the Curriculum Development Council which are set out in this legislation. Senator Macklin expressed some concern as to whether a person who is a full time schools commissioner would also be appropriate to chair the Curriculum Development Centre. I do not share his reservations about that, but quite clearly it is my responsibility and the Government's responsibility to ensure that we have available to us as a full time commissioner a person who is capable of offering leadership in the area of the Curriculum Development Centre. If we fail in that responsibility, it will be quite clear to Senator Macklin and to everybody else, but we do not intend to fail. I conclude the second reading debate, because the other matters which have been foreshadowed by Senator Baume and Senator Macklin will be dealt with in some detail in the Committee stage. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.44) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 7, clause 23, proposed paragraph 14B (2) (c), line 28, leave out '5', insert '3'. (2) Page 7, clause 23, proposed sub-section 14B (2), after paragraph (c), insert the following new paragraph: (ca) 1 member to represent the interests of non-government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing non-government schools, and 1 member to represent the interests of government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing government schools;'. Both amendments seek to amend clause 23 which deals with the composition of the Curriculum Development Council. As Senator Macklin has stated during the second reading debate, the new Council is different in many ways from the Curriculum Development Centre when it existed as a statutory body. It now has a chairman who is a full time Commonwealth schools commissioner; it previously had a director. It now has three members nominated by the Minister, those members being Commonwealth Schools Commission members; I believe previously there were two such members. It has such number of further members nominated by the Minister, not being more than five as the Minister determines, the number was previously between four and nine. It now nominates four members from the Australian Education Council, that is the Commonwealth-State ministerial body or its representatives; there were previously three. One member is to be permanent head or Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs; that is unchanged. The Council as it is proposed provides places as of right for the Commonwealth Schools Commission both for a full time commissioner and for three other Commission members. It provides places as of right for members of the Australian Education Council, some nominees having expertise in curriculum development matters for schools and two other members from the Australian Education Council and it provides a place as of right to a senior member of the Department, either the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. The Opposition has no argument with those provisions, but because issues of curriculum development involve everyone in the area of education, and particularly those across all schools, we would like to see that representation is provided as of right for representatives of both government and non-government schools. To do this, the two amendments which we propose are necessary. We propose that instead of an extra number not being more than five, that number be not more than three, thus providing two positions. We would then allocate, as stated in the terms of the amendment: 1 member to represent the interests of non-government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing non-government schools, and 1 member to represent the interests of government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing government schools. We believe that it is desirable, as of right, in the same way as the Minister has seen fit to provide places as of right for certain bodies, that there should be places on this Curriculum Development Council for those representing government and non-government school interests. Matters of curriculum development are important, as all honourable senators will agree. We would like to see the Council constituted in such a way that all those who are likely to have a working interest in curriculum and a desire to see curriculum implemented in their own sectors have a place on the Council. Of course, it is possible for the Minister to appoint people from these sectors, but they are not provided with places as of right. We believe that if the Minister is going to have these people on the Council anyhow, she has nothing to lose by acceding to our amendments which merely provide that there will always be someone on the Council representing government and non-government school interests. The two amendments seem moderate and reasonable and I commend them to the Committee. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.49) — The Australian Democrats will not support the amendments moved by the Opposition, not because we do believe that non- government schools should not be on the Curriculum Development Council. Indeed, I imagine that they would have to be on the Council and that one of those selected by the Minister or chosen from the Australian Education Council would undoubtedly be from the non-government sector since the non-government sector at the school level has a very large input to curriculum development in Australia. Senator Peter Baume —How can you be sure? Senator MACKLIN —Perhaps I may develop my argument. The concern that we have is that a body such as the Curriculum Development Council ought to have people on it who are not representative of interests, but who are experts in their own right in relation to the task that is set. It would be necessary for the Council to have an input from a representative of the non-government schools to cover the applicability of the curriculum to that particular sector. While accepting that an expert from the non-government school sector would be required and would be necessary for the smooth functioning of the Council, we do not believe that that person ought to be there to represent the interests of any particular group . Rather, that person ought to represent the interests of all Australian pupils in terms of the expertise that the person can give. The amendment is framed quite specifically to suggest that one member should be there to represent certain interests as though it is a combatant operation. We do not see it as a combatant operation. I have never accepted that the Schools Commission ought to be established in the way that it is, but the politics of it are that it is established in that way. Nevertheless, there could be some argument mounted that the Schools Commission is dealing with the allocation of funds and, therefore, may be much more politically sensitive. The Curriculum Development Council, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the best type of curriculum materials and a variety of other items which are included in the functions contained within the clause 14K of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill. It is for those reasons, not because we do not believe that people from government schools and non-government schools should be on the Council-I am quite sure that they will be there-that we oppose the amendments. We do not believe that that body will be enhanced by having interests represented in such a way that people will feel that they must be combatant in terms of those interests rather than expert in terms of curriculum. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.52) —The Government cannot accept the amendments moved by Senator Baume, for reasons very similar to those just given by Senator Macklin for the Australian Democrats finding them unacceptable. It is not that we do not appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments, but the amendments would change the character of the Curriculum Development Council as we have determined it would be. In considering the most effective means of reactivating the CDC within the framework of the Schools Commission, the proposed membership received a great deal of close attention. It was considered, following consultation and consideration of the role of the Council, that it should be an expert rather than a representative body. That is not to say that representatives cannot also be expert; but clearly, if people were appointed on representative grounds to represent sectional interests, the opportunity for the Council to work in a way that is in the interests of curriculum development generally could be hampered from time to time. Given that the Curriculum Development Council is now part of the Schools Commission and that the Commission itself has sectional interests represented, it seemed to us not to be necessary to recreate a representational character in the Centre but, rather, to provide the opportunity to look for the best people who are able to make the best contribution to the development of curriculum in this country. Clearly, the Government wants the Curriculum Development Council to succeed. In order for it to succeed, its work must be acceptable to all sectors of education . For that reason, we have a very high representation from the States, and we have co-ordinating representation from my Department. Clearly, if I were to make appointments which were not acceptable to the government and non-government sectors, the work of the Curriculum Development Council would fail. We do not wish it to fail. We wish it to succeed. So, of course, I shall be aware of the wishes and feelings of both the government and non-government sectors in this matter. To do otherwise would be inviting disaster. I remind Senator Peter Baume of the composition of the Interim Council. It has a number of members who are directly associated with government schools, including three directors-general of education. It has two members who are directly involved with the non-government sector. They are Mr Peter Gebhardt, the headmaster of Geelong College, and Mr Vin Faulkner, the senior planning officer of the Catholic Education Office in Victoria. I believe that both of them will make a very valuable contribution. They were appointed because of their expertise and their past record in appropriate areas. I am sure that they have the confidence of the non-government sector. It seems to me that it is sensible to retain some flexibility with regard to the kinds of appointments that are made. There are areas that we have nominated as priority areas for the work of the Curriculum Development Council, and we wish to appoint people who are able to advise the Government on those priority areas. It would always be the case, I believe, that there would be people drawn from the non-government and the government sectors. To do otherwise would be folly. But they are not being appointed because they represent a sector, in the case of the CDC; they are there because they have an outstanding track record in areas closely related to the work of the CDC. For those reasons, therefore, the Government will persist with the legislation in its present form and not accept the amendments moved by Senator Peter Baume. Senator Macklin raised a matter concerning the Director of the CDC. I should like to explain, for the honourable senator's benefit, why the director will not be a member of the Council and why the Council will be chaired by a full-time member of the Schools Commission. Under the previous arrangements there was a part-time chairperson of the CDC, and the director was a statutory appointment. The senior person acting as adviser to the Commission on policy and administration matters with responsibility for implementing its decisions is a senior officer of the Australian Public Service. Similarly, it is proposed that the person acting as adviser to the Council have a similar role and status to that of the officer serving the Commission. It would be expected that a very close working relationship will exist between these officers to ensure that there will be co-ordination of school level education activities at the Commonwealth level. I firmly believe that the Curriculum Development Council will be a strong, creative and effective body and a very well co-ordinated body, and that the proposed membership and servicing arrangements will assure this. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.57) —I am grateful to Senator Macklin and Senator Ryan for the way in which they indicated that they will not support the Opposition, but we intend to persist with the amendments and to press them. We have received no assurances. Senator Ryan says that she would expect that there would always be representatives of government and non-government schools, but she is not willing to give an assurance that that will always be so. To be quite certain, that is the very purpose of the amendments. There is no reason in the world why one cannot have on the Council those with expertise in curriculum matters, a Senator Macklin has suggested. There is no reason in the world why, from the government and non-government sectors, one cannot insist that people have that kind of expertise. It exists in every sector . To ask for people coming from those sectors in no way implies that we want people other than people who have expertise in curriculum development and curriculum matters. To say that this Council is not representational simply does not accord with what we see about the way in which the composition is laid down, where representation is provided as of right for several designated classes of people by virtue of their membership of other bodies. It is representational to a large extent. All that we are asking for is that that be extended to take in representatives of government schools and non-government schools. Representatives of those systems are concerned to know that they will have a place on the Curriculum Development Council. That is why the amendments have been moved, and that is the reason we shall press them. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.59) —I can only repeat that the body is not a representational body. The provision of places for directors-general of education is not that they have a representative role but because they are the people who will be implementing the curriculum changes in their systems, and they are there for that reason. We want to have a very close co-operation with the State governments and with the non-government Schools Authority. Having the four directors-general there means that the work of the Curriculum Development Council will be attuned to what State governments see as curriculum needs in their schools and what they are prepared to implement. There is no point in having the most wonderful curriculum materials in the world if State governments do not want to put them into their systems or if non-government school authorities do not want to use them. I hope that I did not say that there will always be representatives from government and non-government schools appointed. What I said was that there would always be people drawn from both of those sectors, because if there were not, there could be resistance from either of those sectors to accepting the work of the Centre. Because we want it to succeed and because we understand that the materials have to be acceptable to both government and non-government sectors, I will always appoint-I believe that any Minister for Education will always do this-people who have the confidence of those sectors but who are not restricted and obliged to behave in a representative fashion in the work of the Council. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Grimes, D. J. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertArcher, B. R. Tate, M. C. Jessop, D. S. Reynolds, M. Rae, Peter Haines, J. Missen, A. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 May. The Bill. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.09) —It will be remembered that at the end of the second reading debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) the Bill was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Senate has had a brief discussion on that Standing Committee's report. Following investigation by that Committee, members of the Opposition are still of the opinion that we are unable to accept the retrospective element in the Bill and we remain of the view that we expressed in the earlier debate. It will also be recalled that at the time of dealing with this legislation a private member's Bill from Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats did have the support of the Opposition. Amendments will be moved to the Government's Bill in the Committee stage. These will have the effect of removing the retrospective element and I indicate that the Opposition therefore will be prepared to accept those amendments when they are so moved. For these reasons it is simply a restatement of our earlier view that the retrospective element is not acceptable and we therefore have no other alternative but to reject the Government Bill, unless the Government accepts the amendment circulated in the name of Senator Jack Evans. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.10) —The Australian Democrats were very keen to have the effects of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations . That Committee interviewed representatives from the Australian Taxation Office . As a result of the deliberations of the Committee following those interviews the Committee brought down two recommendations. The first recommendation states: In view of the fact that identified cases of abuse of the taxation law using cherry picker schemes have occurred at least since 1978-79, and that the largest case identified so far occurred in that year, the Committee concludes that retrospectivity is justified and recommends that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 be passed by the Senate. That recommendation coming out of that Committee, if it were to stand on its own , would provide the justification for retrospective legislation without any further action and would imply that the retrospectivity of this Bill is justified as perceived by the Finance and Government Operations Committee comprising representatives from both sides of the chamber. However, that did not happen. In fact, that recommendation was supported by only half of the members of the Committee-the Government's representatives on the Committee. Recommendation No. 2 reads: If recommendation (1) is rejected by the Senate then the Committee recommends that the Bill lie on the Table for a period of not less than 12 months to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to pursue the matter of taxes avoided by the use of section 23F superannuation funds through the courts using the existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That second recommendation was supported by all six members of the Finance and Government Operations Committee-the three Government members, the two members from the Liberal Party of Australia and myself, representing the Australian Democrats. I believe that that unanimous support is not just an expression of the opinion of the members of that Committee but puts very fairly the result of the deliberations of the Committee based on the evidence presented to it. That evidence makes it very clear that the case for retrospective legislation in this instance is not yet proven. It does not say that there is no case; it says that it is not yet proven-the old Scottish verdict, which I am sure Senator McIntosh will appreciate. That verdict tends to leave the case up in the air but that is very important at this stage because it was recommended that the decision be left up in the air for only 12 months; it was not recommended that it be left dangling for ever. The whole point of the recommendation was to find out whether the suggestions put by a number of illustrious Queen Counsel in this country were correct. They suggested that the Commissioner of Taxation did in fact have the powers to pursue these tax avoiders or tax evaders, that the Taxation Commissioner had been a little negligent in the pursuit of the tax avoiders and evaders and that there needed to be pressure put on the Taxation Commissioner by the Parliament to have him follow that path. Understandably the Taxation Commissioner having been knocked back time and time again each time he attempted to use section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, was starting to get a bit battered and browbeaten and to feel that it was all a waste of time. I believe that situation has changed. We now have a different High Court of Australia composition and a new enthusiasm to get at the tax evaders in this community. This is an enthusiasm shared by everybody in this Parliament. Senator Walsh —I do not think so. Senator JACK EVANS —At least everybody claims to support the campaign against tax evaders. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —We do have the tax law too. Senator JACK EVANS —As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said, we do have provisions, including amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act, which will give additional weight to any cases brought before the courts against the tax evaders under the cherry picker or section 23F scheme. I think it is important for honourable senators to take cognisance of recommendation No. 2 of the Finance and Government Operations Committee. Following the second reading of this Bill the Senate agreed-I think it was unanimously; I am not positive about that- Senator Coates —No. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry, not so. Nevertheless the majority of the Senate agreed to refer the matter to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I believe that Committee has the appropriate standing in this Parliament for its recommendation, which is unanimously supported, to receive the endorsement of the Parliament now. Therefore, I believe that the endorsement is mandatory, certainly on senators on this side of the chamber. I believe it is also mandatory for those honourable senators in the Opposition who supported the recommendation of the Finance and Government Operations Committee. Mr Chairman, I wish to move for the adoption of that second recommendation of the Committee and I seek your guidance as this is a cognate debate. The CHAIRMAN —No, it is not a cognate debate, Senator Evans. You may move your amendments if you wish or other procedural matters might flow from rejection in the Committee stage of any part of the Bill. The cognate debate exists only in the sense that the report of the Senate Standing Committee is relevant to this Committee stage debate. Any of the matters raised by the Committee would be relevant to the debate but at the moment all you can do is to move your amendments, or oppose clauses or oppose the whole Bill. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I take your advice and notify the Committee that I wish to withdraw the amendment circulated in my name in favour of an adjournment motion which would have the same effect as recommendation No. 2 coming from the Finance and Government Operations Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, again you cannot move an adjournment motion but you can, if you wish, move that progress be reported and seek any date you wish for the resumption of the debate. At the moment all you can do is move that progress be reported and seek leave to sit again, if that is what you wish to do. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. If that has the same effect then I will move that the Committee report progress with the objective of resuming the debate 12 months hence. The CHAIRMAN —That would have to be a matter for the Senate. Senator Evans, the motion you may move is to report progress and to seek leave to sit again. Senator JACK EVANS —I move: That the Committee report progress and seek leave to sit again. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.19) —I think it is optional whether I speak now or after progress has been reported and the question of the resumption of the debate comes up. However, I have decided to speak now. The Government will not support Senator Jack Evans's motion for the reason that the time required for adequate testing in the courts of the Kelly and similar cherry- picker cases under the existing taxation Act is a good deal more than 12 months. I am advised that three years is a more realistic time in which cases brought under existing law could be expected to be finalised. Therefore, the Government sees no point in deferring this Bill for 12 months. If a majority of the Committee supports Senator Jack Evans's motion, that is beyond our control, but the Government's view is that the Senate should deal with this Bill today. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.21) —I draw the attention of the Minister and of the Committee to the fact that the reporting of progress, which would have the effect of delaying consideration of this Bill for 12 months, does not mean the end of legislation to combat cherry-picker schemes. There is a Bill in identical terms currently before the House of Representatives which received the unanimous support of the Senate and which is now simply awaiting the resolution of the House of Representatives for it to become law. So, in agreeing to this deferral, we would not stop action against cherry-pickers; such action would be effective from December 1983. That needs to be stressed. We already have effectively a Bill dealing with cherry-picker schemes which can be implemented very quickly. The deferment motion is simply to give the Commissioner of Taxation the opportunity to go down the path to which I referred earlier of pursuing these matters through the courts and, if in 12 months time it is discovered that he lacks the power to collect those taxes which have been evaded, the Senate would reconsider this Bill when it came before the Senate once more. I stress again that Senator Mason and I hold firm in our belief that the Government's search and thrust to recover taxes which have been avoided is undiminished. We will support the Government at every opportunity in its endeavours to pick up that avoided and evaded tax. The deferment motion does not mean that these people would escape through the net. It simply means that the Commissioner would, for the next 12 months, pursue them through the courts, following which the Senate would reconsider the powers that may be needed to be added to the Commissioner's armoury to pick up that lost tax. The CHAIRMAN —To avoid confusion on this matter, the motion before the Chair at the moment is that the Committee report progress and seek leave to sit again. The question of when that debate is resumed, if ever, is a matter for the Senate when the matter has been referred to it. There is no motion before the Chair about the length of time before the Committee considers it again. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.23) —As I am Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I thought I should enter this debate briefly. I made my main remarks at the time that the Committee report was brought down, but I think I should put the Committee's report in a little more perspective. It needs to be emphasised that the Finance and Government Operations Committee's recommendation was that retrospectivity is justified in this situation. Certainly, that was the view of the majority on the Committee. Recommendation 2 was a unanimous recommendation purely because that was a fall- back position for Government members on the Committee. It would be misleading to emphasise too much that that unanimity was a major factor in the Committee's report. It needs to be emphasised that the Commissioner of Taxation indicated to us that something like $16m was involved in cases since the 1978-79 financial year, and possibly earlier than that, and that that financial year 1978-79 included the biggest case which involved about $7m. Certainly, to my mind, retrospectivity is very much justified and I disagree with Senator Jack Evans in his assertion that the case for retrospectivity is not yet proven. It is very much desired in these cases of particularly blatant and fraudulent tax avoidance . I should say that the reference to the Committee was in some ways a waste of time. At least one member of the Committee, and other members of the Opposition, made it clear at the time and since then that they had no intention of considering anything other than opposing the retrospectivity. They did not really look at the matter with an open mind. I believe this is one clear case where retrospectivity is justified. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.25) —I support Senator Jack Evans's motion that the Committee report back at this stage. This is a very complicated and difficult matter which has engaged the attention of the Senate before. As Senator Evans has said, both he and I believe that, if there is an investigation into this matter by the Commissioner of Taxation and it is found for some reason or other that the Commissioner is genuinely not able to obtain recourse against these people who I firmly believe have been the most unconscionable rippers-off of the taxation system through these superannuation schemes, the retrospective element must apply. It has always been my view in this matter, as in others, that the principle of tax equity takes precedence over the question of retrospectivity. Of course, that has been the experience in other parliaments. They have come to the conclusion that with such tax schemes that is necessary. However, I am one of those senators who voted for the reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. It is important that the Committee has studied this legislation. It is very important that all six members of the Committee agreed that it is a reasonable thing to ask the Commissioner of Taxation to try to use the existing law. Indeed, it is a fact that the principle of retrospectivity is sufficiently abhorrent for one to have recourse only as a last resort. I feel sure that the Minister and anybody on the Government side would agree with that as a matter of principle. The point is that those members of the Committee have at least acknowledged the point that it is reasonable to ask the Commissioner to attempt to use existing law. It is necessary that that attempt be made, and certainly that is what I would like to see happen. At the moment we seem to be in a bit of a procedural hassle about how this should be done. I see no reason why this matter should not come on again, perhaps even at a later hour this day. But at the moment we are considering our position. We want to have some time to move. In such an important and decisive matter, I believe that is a good reason for the Committee to support Senator Evans's motion. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.27) —I think perhaps I should explain that procedurally it seems to me that the tidiest thing to do is not to oppose the motion to report progress. If that motion is carried-since the Opposition has remained silent I presume it will support it-I will move that resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I expect that Senator Jack Evans will then move an amendment to that. It is at that stage that the Government's effective opposition will be demonstrated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Resumption of Debate Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.28) —I move, by way of amendment to the Government's motion: Leave out the words 'on the next day of sitting' and insert in their place the words 'on this day twelve months'. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.29) —I wish to mention briefly that the Senate may not be sitting in 12 months time. It may have risen for the winter recess by 13 June 1985. But, more importantly, the Government sees no valid reason to defer consideration of this Bill. Firstly, the reason given, that is, to give the Commissioner of Taxation and the courts time to test the full potential that some people believe the existing Income Tax Assessment Act has, is not valid because 12 months is not sufficient time for that full potential, whatever it may be or some people believe it may be, to be tested. Secondly-I am unsure of the precise legal ramifications of this-it is possible that the Government may choose to reintroduce a Bill identical to this Bill at some time during the Budget session. The existence on the Notice Paper of a deferred debate on the same Bill could be an impediment to that. As it is possible that the Government may want to introduce the same Bill during the Budget session, we would rather that this Bill be dealt with on the next day of sitting so that any possibility of there being an impediment to the introduction of an additional Bill would be removed. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Jack Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Harradine, B. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Ray, R. F. Collard, S. J. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Tate, M. C. Jessop, D. S. Reynolds, M. Rae, P. Robertson, E. A. Missen, A. J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Consideration resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.37) —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 main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to allow for changes in excise duty rates beyond the number of decimal places in the excise duty rates that existed prior to 23 November 1983. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 introduced new provisions into the Excise Tariff Act which have the effect of automatically indexing certain traditional excise duty rates in February and August of each financial year. These provisions had effect from 23 November 1983. They do not permit, however, a variation in the number of decimal places in the excise duty rates that are subject to indexation. The amendments as proposed by clause 4 of this Bill will enable the Government from time to time to introduce a tariff proposal which intentionally changes the number of decimal places in an excise duty rate and which at the next application of indexation will not be automatically rounded to the number of decimal places that existed prior to 23 November 1983. The Government considers it necessary that the flexibility in the excise duty rates as proposed by this Bill be in place prior to the next indexation alteration which is to occur in August this year. The opportunity has been taken to incorporate in this Bill two other amendments to the Excise Tariff Act and thus avoid the need for additional amending legislation. One is to incorporate Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1984) which increased, on and from 1 January 1984, the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $48.57 per kilolitre to $49.23 per kilolitre. This alteration followed the determination of a new average price for LPG by the Minister for Resources and Energy in accordance with Government policy. The other amendment is of a technical nature and inserts a standing provision into the principal Act which covers the imposition and application provisions usually included in Bills amending the Schedule to the Act. This will avoid repeating the provisions in each future Bill proposing to amend the Schedule to the Act. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill have no direct financial impact. The increase in the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas will result in an estimated increase to Government revenue of $600 ,000 for the remainder of the 1983-84 financial year and $1.2m in a full year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.38) —Mr President, before speaking on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1984, may I confirm that we will be dealing cognately with that Bill and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants ) Amendment Bill 1984? The PRESIDENT —Is it so agreed? There being no objection, it is so agreed. Senator CHANEY —The Opposition will not oppose these Bills, but I will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas ( Grants) Amendment Bill. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill seeks to do three things. It will eliminate the rounding of excise duty rates for those goods which are automatically indexed every six months. It provides for the insertion of a standing provision in the Excise Tariff Act covering the imposition and application provisions which are normally included in Bills amending the Schedule to the Act. It also enacts the excise tariff proposals No. 1 which alters the excise duty rate on liquefied petroleum gas from 1 January 1984. I think it is fairly widely understood in the community-although it may well sink from the public consciousness-that the Government has changed the approach to excise duty and has introduced indexation, which means that there is a biannual adjustment of excise, which is of course an adjustment upwards, although if we get negative inflation it might be an adjustment downwards. Hence the Government has ensured that it takes increasing amounts of taxation through the excise system. That is a fait accompli. One of the deficiencies caused by what has been put in place by the Government is that there is no rounding provision in the Act to ensure a rounding up of the adjustments made under the automatic indexation regime. That provision would have ensured that the Government would collect very large sums-tens of millions of dollars-in additional revenue. That rounding might have brought the Government some satisfaction because, as was reported in the case of beer alone, the Government would have collected another $20m. The Opposition regards the Government as behaving correctly in seeking to amend that arrangement to ensure that the rounding does not occur and that there not be additional imposts on consumers. I make it quite clear that there is still an additional six-monthly impost on consumers. It is just that the additional amount which was effectively cribbed by the rounding up provision will no longer be collected, and the Opposition supports that change. The second Bill, the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill, causes the Opposition more concern. I foreshadow an amendment which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition which, at the end of the motion that the Bill be read a second time, proposes to add the following words: . . . 'but the Senate condemns the dishonest approach of the Government in failing to reduce the price of liquefied petroleum gas in January 1984 by $50 per tonne in line with the then-existing policy in order to mask the removal three months later of three-quarters of the former subsidy.' The purpose of this Bill is twofold. It sets a new pricing formula for liquefied petroleum gas which places the major emphasis on stability of prices rather than parity with import or export prices and will over time ensure that the price of liquefied petroleum gas falls below the export parity price. The second purpose is to alter the subsidy arrangements for LPG by immediately reducing the subsidy from $80 per tonne to $20.31 per tonne and to set in place a mechanism that will reduce and eventually eliminate the subsidy. These new arrangements will apply until 31 March 1987. The changes in the arrangements effectively shift the funding of the subsidy on LPG from the Government to the producers. The Opposition believes that the Government's handling of the LPG pricing and subsidy arrangements smacks of the political sleight of hand we have come to expect of this Government in these matters. The Government kept the price of LPG artificially high between 1 January of this year and the end of March because of its refusal to make the adjustment which was required to take account of the changed export parity price of LPG. In other words, if the Government had applied the policy which was in force at that time, there would have been a substantial reduction in the price of LPG on 1 January. By the Government's action for just about three months, consumers of LPG generally were paying at least $50 per tonne more than they would have been paying for LPG had the then current policy been applied. The reason for doing this is quite evident. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) used the then continuing reduction in parity prices-by March, on the applicable formula, the price should have been down by about $60 per tonne-to mask the removal of three-quarters of the former $80 per tonne subsidy. The politics of that action are pretty obvious and I suppose it can be seen to be quite a smart move. Consumers in receipt of an $80 per tonne subsidy were likely to be rather cross when the Government allowed that subsidy to disappear and the price of the product they were using to rise substantially. But the actions of this Government ensured that the price reduction which the consumers should have received because of the operation of the parity pricing policy was not given until three-quarters of the subsidy was removed. That meant there was a stability of price and effectively the Government masked the effect of its actions. I draw attention to the fact that the Government's actions were both very carefully timed and highly political because the Minister did not announce this change until late in the afternoon of the day of the New South Wales State election. A matter of some interest in country areas was what the Government would do about the subsidy arrangements. As I noted at the time of the Minister' s announcement, he was careful to make it when it would be too late for New South Wales consumers to register any disapproval they might have felt through the ballot box at the New South Wales State election. This exercise, I am sure, has effectively masked for many members of the consuming public the actual decision which has been taken by this Government. I suppose in a sharp political sense the Minister and the Government are to be congratulated for that, but in terms of giving the public some understanding of the rules which are being applied and the actions of the Government itself, I do not think it was a very admirable way to go about it. The Government has left in place a subsidy of about $20 per tonne, and it has introduced in this legislation a mechanism which will cut what is left of the subsidy every six months until it is eliminated. When this will happen is a function of how well parity prices behave. It could happen as soon as October this year if world parity prices continue to fall as they have for the past 12 months. But if it does not happen then, it will certainly happen later. Whatever justification the Minister may have for holding up the price for those consumers who are subject to a subsidy, and I concede the raw politics of the way the Minister went about it, I must say that it is hard to see any justification for his actions with respect to those consumers who form the unsubsidised sector of the market and who likewise were entitled to a reduction in price from January 1984. The failure to cut the price in January meant that LPG consumers were slugged with about an extra $6m for the LPG. There were a couple of rather critical articles in the Age newspaper at the time the changes were made. I will refer very briefly to them. Mr Terry McCrann noted in the Age of 27 March 1984 that these consumers would be excused if they digested Senator Walsh's generosity with a considerable dose of salt especially when he chose to end his statement at the time by emphasising that the new wholesale price was equivalent to about 3c a litre of automotive LPG. Automotive LPG is the major unsubsidised consumer of LPG and the approximately 3c per litre cut that the Minister so generously announced in March is a cut which, under the rules that had applied, he could have announced in January. So the consumers in fact paid a higher price during that period. Again, Mr McCrann in an article on 28 March argued that this legislation achieved the unique distinction of being unfair to both LPG producers and consumers. Of course, this is only a reflection that the legislation, as with all recent measures announced by Senator Walsh relating to the oil industry and related industries, shows that the Government's major objective is to safeguard or increase its revenue. The Minister has made great play of what he says are the advantages of the changes which will be made by this legislation, namely, the expected price stability in the future. The Opposition would agree that the fluctuations in the price of LPG have been an annoyance to consumers. Consumers are generally more annoyed by fluctuations up and down. I do not think there would have been loud complaints at the cut in price on 1 January but there has been an instability in price which has made things more difficult for consumers and for the industry. I think it is important to look at how the Minister has achieved this stability and at whose expense. The basic mechanism, as explained in the Minister's second reading speech, is as follows: The Government has set a March 1984 price of LPG at the export parity price ruling at that time. Every six months the price will be adjusted on the basis of the average of the monthly export parity price from 1 April 1984 to the month preceding the new price date. The choice of 1 April may mean that the Minister thinks he has made a fool of everybody, the producers and the consumers. The increases in the wholesale price, resulting from increases in parity prices when they occur, are not allowed to exceed the increases in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index for the six months prior to the adjustment date. This will tend to smooth out fluctuations in price as the Government claims but it is a double-edged sword because, in a situation of falling prices, which is what we have experienced in the last 12 months, the price will be held artificially high. A lot of consumers have been hit or potentially hit in three ways, at least in the short term: The subsidy has been cut, the price decrease was three months late and, if prices continue to fall the new mechanism will hold prices artificially high. The Opposition admits that many consumers will probably benefit in the longer term if the Government does not change the rules again. In essence this new mechanism limits the rise in the domestic wholesale price of LPG to whichever is lower, the increase in the world parity price or the increase in the fuel and light component of the CPI in the immediately preceding six-month period. As the rises are non-cumulative over time the rise in the domestic LPG wholesale price will fall below the cumulative increase in both the world parity price and the fuel and light component of the CPI. This is all very good in providing an implicit subsidy which will eventually help replace the Government subsidy. But the question has to be asked: Who pays the subsidy? In direct terms the producers pay as they are forced to sell the LPG at a price lower than they could sell it on the world market. However, in the long term we all pay due to the misallocation of the resources implicit in this fiddle which has been engineered by the Government. With the domestic price of LPG falling below the export parity price we will soon reach a situation where producers will prefer to sell their LPG overseas rather than supply the domestic market at an artificially low price. This could lead to shortages unless the Government introduces a system similar to the crude oil allocation system. We should, if possible, try to preserve Australia from any further bureaucratic intervention in these areas. The prospect of having to force suppliers to provide for the Australian market is not one which charms the Opposition. The only winner, of course, is the Government. The Government has substituted the subsidy that the industry has to fund with a subsidy that the Government has to fund. It is another case of the Government putting its short term revenue objectives before the long term interests of the country. The hypocrisy of the Government's position is exposed not only by this fiddle with subsidies but also by the way in which the Minister's Press release and his second reading speech have described the benefits of the new policy. He said 'Many consumers will pay less and no consumers will pay more than they do under the existing arrangements '. Senator Walsh —That is true. Senator CHANEY —As the Minister has said, that is true. Indeed, Mr McCrann, whom the Minister was critical of a moment ago, notes in the articles that I mentioned earlier that, as a matter of objective fact, this is completely accurate, but he fails to mention that if the existing arrangements had been properly followed by the Government on 1 January, all consumers would have paid substantially less for their LPG for the three months ending March 1984. The many consumers who will pay less should have started paying less three months earlier and would still be paying less. The no consumers who will pay more also should have paid $50 per tonne less for the three months from 1 January to 31 March. Although it is true that they are now not paying more, they are paying more than they would have had to if the old system had been continued. This whole exercise should be an object lesson to all taxpayers. It should be carefully studied by everyone as an example of the sleight of hand of this Government in its approach to taxation measures and any other measures that affect its short term revenue objectives. I repeat: The Opposition commends the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill as a measure which properly restores some justice to consumers. It says of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill: The Government has achieved price stability at a cost to industry and consumers in a time of falling prices. In any event it has done it in a way which ensures that whatever cost there is it will not be borne by the Government. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.56) —in reply-The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, in his opening comments on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984, the second Bill that is being discussed, said that there was a requirement to adjust the administered price for domestic LPG on 1 January this year. There was no requirement in any formal sense to do any such thing. The Government chose not to make an adjustment at that time because the previous legislation on the LPG subsidy was due to expire at the end of March and the Government wanted to review the entire LPG policy at that time. That is what has finally happened. We also had a desire , for very good reasons, and for reasons put to us by local government associations in particular, to change the dates upon which prices were adjusted in the future from the January and July dates used by the previous Government to April and October. Senator Chaney's hypothesis about what the Government did and why overlooks, among other things, the fact that the export parity price of LPG, as it happens, fell between the end of December and the end of March. It need not necessarily have fallen between the end of December and the end of March; it could have gone in the opposite direction. In general there is absolutely no doubt that the new LPG pricing arrangements adopted by the Government have been extremely well received. The Opposition appears to be a little unhappy about them. Premier Gray wrote to me the other day complaining about them and I will mention that again in a moment. Just as an example of the other types of comments which have appeared and which have been passed on to the Government, about six weeks ago I received a letter from the honourable member for Hume, Mr Lusher, passing on to me a letter from the Council of the Shire of Cowra. Mr Lusher had been asked by the shire of Cowra to pass that letter on to me. I am sure that the shire would not mind my referring to that letter. The Council said: Council was recently advised, through the Local Government Association of New South Wales, by the Under-Secretary of the Department of Resources and Energy that the Commonwealth Government had reviewed its policy in respect of pricing and subsidy for LPG. I advise that Council is most satisfied with the decision taken by the Government in this matter. Council request you to convey to the Minister for Resources and Energy Council's congratulations and appreciation for his decision in respect of the matter of pricing and subsidy for LPG. We have received many communications, formal and informal, along those lines. The people I have mentioned who are directly affected, apart from Premier Gray and the Opposition, are happy. I cannot remember anybody actually complaining about the new policy. Premier Gray wrote to me the other day and put the view that it was essential that a subsidy of $80 a tonne be paid on LPG used for certain purposes regardless of what the price of LPG may be. I suppose that is a view which the Premier is entitled to hold. He also told me that he would be writing to other State Ministers for energy with a view to orchestrating a campaign to force the Commonwealth Government to apply an $80 a tonne subsidy regardless of what the administered price may be. I will be replying to Mr Gray telling him that if he or any of the other State energy Ministers believe, as Mr Gray says he does, that it is absolutely essential that a subsidy of that magnitude be paid there is absolutely nothing to stop State governments-I particularly commend this course of action to Mr Gray's Government-paying the subsidy themselves. If Mr Gray believes that really ought to be done I suggest that is what he should do. I do not intend to delay the passage of this legislation any longer. I thank the Opposition for its support and wish this legislation a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.02) —I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate condemns the dishonest approach of the Government in failing to reduce the price of liquefied petroleum gas in January 1984 by $50 per tonne in line with the then-existing policy in order to mask the removal three months later of three-quarters of the former subsidy'. I have noted the response which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has made to the matters which I raised in the second reading debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. I also noted his inability to pick which way the market was moving in January of this year. I believe that it was obvious to the Government that the price reduction was due in January and the decision to delay it was obviously related to the decision which was going to be made on the subsidy in March. With respect to the fact that the Minister has had only a couple of complaints about the matter, I can only say that that confirms the success of the sleight- of-hand that I referred to in my speech in the second reading debate. The Minister has had signal success in masking the removal of three-quarters of an $ 80 per tonne subsidy, a subsidy for which there was considerable enthusiasm in the country. The fact that he was able to remove three quarters of the subsidy without apparently affecting the price has, I am sure, masked the fact that the subsidy has even gone in the way that it has. As I have said, that confirms the view which I put about the way Minister went about it. It was extremely cunning. It certainly achieved the political effect the Minister sought but it is a less than admirable way of ensuring that the electors know what is going on. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.04) —As it is obvious that all parties in this chamber agree with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 I refrained from speaking earlier in the second reading debate. I believe that the amendment moved by the Opposition is justified. I think that the evidence provided by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) is valid. I do not accept the explanation given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). The Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.05) —The Government, naturally, will oppose the amendment. The substance of Senator Chaney's argument is that for a period the Government allowed an 'excessive' price to be charged to Australian consumers by Australian producers. Given the way that Senator Chaney has defined his terms, that is a reasonable comment and he said that that is unfair. However, by the same yardstick which he has used for what is a proper price-that is the export parity price-it is also correct that over the three previous years Australian consumers of all types of liquefied petroleum gas were receiving an implicit subsidy from Australian producers because the pricing arrangements applicable at that time kept the price artificially low, that is, below the export parity price at the time. This occurred because there was a linkage to crude oil prices and consumer price index movements. I forget the precise details. I am advised that over that period there was an implicit subsidy of about $35m from Australian LPG producers to Australian consumers, assessed again on the pure opportunity cost principle of export parity. In the three early months of this year, according to the analysis which Senator Chaney has decided to use, there was a subsidy in the opposite direction-I do not have it quantified-of, I think, the order of $12m. So over the long term it can still be argued, given Senator Chaney's assumption that the export parity price is the right and proper price to use and the price which should be charged , that Australian consumers have still received some small concession at the expense of Australian producers. For that, among other reasons, the Government will oppose the amendment. However, in view of the time constraints and since the Australian Democrats have expressed their support for the amendment, it is clear that it will be carried and I shall not be calling for a division. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.07) — The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 are before the Senate because, some three quarters of an hour ago, a motion was moved to change the order of business. I do not have my file on this matter with me but I do want to take up a couple of the matters that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, mentioned about the lack, as he put it, of complaints that had been received about the Government's arrangements-if one can grace it with that term-concerning the liquefied petroleum gas subsidy. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has mentioned, it could well be that the sleight of hand that the Government was involved in lulled the general public into the belief that the Government was delivering some goods when the real situation was as has been described by the Leader of the Opposition. I also support the amendment which has been moved because I believe the Government's approach was dishonest. In January 1984 it failed to reduce the price of LPG by $50 a tonne in line with the then existing policy and it did so in order to mask the removal three months later of three quarters of the former subsidy. I remind the Senate and the Minister that on 29 March of this year I raised this matter in the Parliament. I directed a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I indicated that my question related to the Minister's announcement only the weekend before of a new pricing formula which reduced the price of LPG by about $60 a tonne on the then current price. At the same time he reduced the subsidy from $80 a tonne to $20.31 a tonne. I pointed out that the Government's decision meant no extra cost to the consumer but a saving of $21m to the Government. I also pointed out that there is an added freight cost of $94 a tonne on LPG going across Bass Strait. This is an important matter to many people in Tasmania. I then asked the Minister whether consideration could be given to transferring some of that money saved and applying it as a subsidy in areas such as Tasmania which are remote from LPG refineries and which have no natural gas. I believe that is a matter which the Government ought to address. It is an issue which clearly is of concern for the people of Tasmania. We are at a disadvantage. We do not have the alternatives that are regularly available in various parts of Australia. Of course, we do not have natural gas. I believe the matter should be taken on board by the Government. If it is not, I am sure that those consumers in Tasmania who are substantially affected will voice their opinion and viewpoint and make representations through their elected representatives in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. I believe it would be wise for the Government to recognise that there is concern. It is not true that people are not concerned. It is all very well to read out a letter from a shire in Cowra. It is good country around Cowra. I have been there. As a matter of fact I have addressed a meeting at Cowra. But that is small comfort to the people of Tasmania who are concerned. There does not happen to be a Bass Strait to cross between Sydney and Cowra. I remind the Government that there is LPG in Tasmania and in some other outlying areas of Australia, but it is costly because of the added freight cost. Many consumers regard it as a very convenient and efficient method of heating, cooking and so on. Of course, LPG is used very widely within Tasmania in industry. So there is a question of employment also. I hope that the Government will take up this matter. I wonder whether, if the Government cannot tackle it at this stage, it may be an appropriate matter for consideration by the Inter-State Commission. I would prefer, of course, for the Government to transfer some of that $21m saved as a subsidy to offset the added freight costs across Bass Strait, but if the Government is unwilling to do that at this point in time perhaps the matter ought to be the subject of a proper inquiry and perhaps the vehicle for that inquiry would be the Inter-State Commission. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILLS: AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY POLICY COUNCIL BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY SELECTION COMMITTEE BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —May I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that it would suit the convenience of the Senate if there were to be a cognate debate on the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984, the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live -stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1984 , the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 and the Live- stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.18) -At the outset I indicate that the Opposition does not seek to delay the passage of this primary industry legislation through the Senate. However, we do propose two amendments, one to the second reading of the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill and the other to the second reading of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill. Both of those amendments indicate a view which we hope, and perhaps believe, the Government will accept. It is a view that is relevant to the general view of the industries concerned. We believe the amendments can only improve the legislation that we propose to support in the Senate tonight. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Scott, at this stage the only amendment you can move is the one to the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. The other one will have to be moved later when we come to the second reading debate of the appropriate Bill. Senator SCOTT —Are we debating only the pig meat and chicken meat legislation at this stage? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The chicken meat and pig meat Bills are the only ones before the Chair. The other ones are being debated cognately and they will come before the Chair later. You may move your amendment then. It is quite simple. You can discuss and foreshadow those amendments but you cannot move them yet. Senator SCOTT —Mr Deputy President, I take your word for it that it is quite simple. In spite of that I shall confine my amendment on this occasion to the pig meat Bill and take the opportunity to move an amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill at a later time. Is that correct? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is correct. Senator SCOTT —The Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to amend the Pig Meat Promotion Act with a view to doing a number of things. For instance, it will change the name of the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to the Pork Promotion Committee. It seeks to bring about some significant differences in the financial circumstances of the Committee, it streamlines the Promotion Committee's financial and administrative operations and it incorporates some changes of a machinery nature. The pig meat legislation does have the general support of the industry. It is not highly controversial legislation, but it does concern itself with a very important element of primary industry across the board. That is the element that relates to the capacity of the industry to promote itself and, more particularly, its product. This legislation concerns the Committee of four-it will now become the Pork Promotion Committee-which is financed by the pig slaughter levy that applies to pig slaughtered for human consumption in Australia. That levy produces something like $2.5m annually. The contributions are not matched or subsidised by the Government. That money is used in the promotion of the pig industry. I believe that insofar as this legislation transfers the pig promotion trust fund moneys to the Pig Promotion Committee and directs the pig slaughter levy directly to the Pork Promotion Committee, it simplifies the financial circumstances behind the promotion of this industry. It also identifies where money may be invested if it is not immediately required. According to this legislation the Committee may spend only the funds previously approved as estimates by the Minister for Primary Industry. Other machinery matters, such as reducing the quorum from a full committee of four to a committee of three, will probably make the Committee somewhat more effective in its operation. Generally speaking, the pig industry in Australia has recently had a relatively quiet time. This affects those industries that are directly involved with it, such as the grain industry, the feed industry, the milling industry and so forth . However, the pig meat industry has a significant opportunity to expand, I believe, in the foreseeable future. Australia has a great many climatic advantages for this industry. There is also a wide range of feed available for it, which could be even wider if we had plant variety rights legislation. The control of such things as the disposal of effluents in this industry is significantly less difficult in this country than it is in many of the densely populated countries of Europe. Over and above these natural advantages we have potential and actual markets in the many millions of people to our north. Those markets need to be exploited and encouraged to become fundamental to the expansion of this industry. Countries such as Japan and Singapore to our north represent significant market possibilities for the pig industry. With those few words and with the determination to support the legislation, which is basically supported by the industry, I move: At end of motion, add 'but in relation to the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 the Senate is of the opinion that the marketing of all meat products is interconnected and calls on the Government to support aggressively the marketing of Australian meats'. The important word in that amendment, which I assume the Government is prepared to accept, is 'aggressively'. We live in an age when we have to promote our products aggressively-particularly the wide range of primary industries in relation to which we have to find markets for anything from between 35 per cent to 95 per cent of what we produce. We need to get into all the possible, and in some cases quite exciting, markets around the world. That is certainly a need that has to be recognised and accepted. So I believe this amendment is necessary . It has been highlighted in recent times with the rather disastrous position of the beef market in Japan, the losses in the Korean market and, of course, the loss of a relatively small market, in terms of tonnage, such as Singapore. That market is much more significant to primary industry than many people imagine, because Singapore is indeed one of the crossroads of the world. If the enormous number of people who travel to and through Singapore every year find themselves consuming an Australian product, that is one of the best forms of advertising and promotion of Australian products. Every market, large or small, is of great significance. I now turn to the other Bills which are being debated cognately. These again relate to changes to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. This package also includes a Bill to establish the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee, together with three slaughter levy Bills, including collection and charge provisions. As I said earlier, it is not the purpose of the Opposition to delay the passage of this legislation through the Senate, but there are one or two things that ought to be said about these industries. The proposal to re-form the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation has the general support of industry. I believe there is significant reservation about the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill. That reservation is overcome in the present circumstances by the determination of the industry, the Government and the Opposition at least to see them put into effect at the appropriate near date and to try a significant change which people hope will be successful. We do have some reservations about that, and perhaps I will refer to them when I continue my remarks. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator SCOTT —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. Before I turn to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bills perhaps I should briefly refer in passing to the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984 which also, of course, is supported by the Opposition. The Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill proposes a slight change in the present situation. The Bill, which has the support of the industry, identifies the financial arrangements of the Chicken Meat Research Committee, which gives advice on the expenditure of funds in the economic and technical research areas within the industry. The Committee is financed basically by a levy on chicken meat production which is matched by the Government on a dollar for dollar basis. That provides one source of funds. The other source comes from the sale of assets and from penalties for late payment of levy and that sort of thing. In the past those two lines of finance have been kept basically separate. This Bill will enable the matched fund to be used at the same time as the unmatched fund. This arrangement will significantly increase the capacity of the industry in the field of research and consequently it deserves the support of this chamber, as it has the support of the industry itself. I turn to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984 plus the livestock slaughter levy Bills. In a sense it is a pity that we should be confronted with these primary industry Bills so late in the session because they probably will not get the consideration in time and thought that they deserve. They deserve considerable consideration because they relate to an industry which across the board is still by far the most significant export earner in the Australian economy. Primary industries right across the board such as the beef, sheep, meat and grain industries suffer from a considerable number of problems. They suffer from a comparatively extraordinarily high internal cost structure that is added to not only by the level of protection in this country but also significantly by the level of wages, the labour input. This puts primary industry as a whole at a disadvantage in terms of international competitiveness. We have to find a place for an enormous proportion of our production on the open world competitive market in respect of which our competitors are significantly protected. We are confronted, in almost every field, by subsidised surpluses from various trading blocs around the world and this, naturally, throws an enormous pressure on Australia's primary industry and certainly on the industry which is under discussion tonight, the beef and meat industry. It is with a view to those things that I will move this amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate is of the opinion that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill should be amended at the first possible opportunity to provide for consultation between the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and various industry bodies, including specifically the Cattle and Sheep Meat Councils of Australia, on a mutually acceptable basis' . I feel sure that the Government, when it has a look at the proposition contained in that amendment, will agree that it is a sensible and responsible amendment because, as I understand it, there is considerable concern within the industry. I certainly have the concern that there could well be a chance that the introduction of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council will significantly divorce the Live-stock Corporation from the basic roots of the industry in the production area, whether we are referring to the processing exporter or to the producer who, after all, must be considered, although all parts of the industry are relevant. The production of livestock must, in the final resort, be regarded as significantly basic to the whole range of industry that is involved. Concern is felt about there being a capacity for the industry itself at the grass roots, as it were, on the base productive end, and the Corporation, which is the body responsible for marketing the products of this industry around the world, to be able directly to consult and to discuss the problems of marketing and the basic overall problems of policy in this industry. The need for the industry and the Corporation to have a close and easily attainable communication , regardless of the statutory body in the centre, is surely an essential part of this package if it is to become a successful package. Clearly, it has the advantage of the industry seeking to, as it were, give it a go and because it seeks to give it a go, to give the newly formed and newly structured Corporation a go. The Corporation has certain powers of very great significance. It has the power to act as a loan marketer. It has the power to issue licences and to charge for them. It has certain increased powers in the financial field. So it is with a great deal of expectation and hope that the industry looks for performance from this Corporation, a Corporation which may well comprise a much wider range of abilities and capacities which one would hope will be relevant to the marketing and development of the industries that it represents. I believe it is important that the proposition we put tonight should be seriously considered by the Government on this occasion. As I said earlier, the matters that concern this meat industry in Australia are significant and quite numerous. They relate to its high internal costs and, of course, to the subsidised competition that we suffer. They also relate to problems in the industrial relations area because significantly on some occasions our markets have been jeopardised and sometimes lost because of a failure to deliver. That is a problem that confronts not only the producer but also in the final resort the trade unionist on the labour side of this great industry because they must rise or fall together; they must succeed as a team or fail to succeed individually. Of course, the other matter that concerns this great primary industry is the unpredictability of our climate. Regrettably we have seen the results of that unpredictability very significantly over the past few years and particularly in 1982 when there was a drought, but as it happened, thank goodness, it was the prelude to something of an economic recovery. That particular drought had disastrous effects on numbers in the Australian livestock industry. The numbers of cattle have fallen in 10 years from 33 million to 22 million. In the same period, or a little longer, the numbers of sheep have fallen from 180 million to 133 million. The drought, together with world market circumstances, has contributed to that very significant fall in the livestock population. It has not only been a problem with regard to numbers but also it has had a significantly adverse effect on quality. That, too, besides a capacity to deliver the quality, is relevant to the sort of market that one can attract and hold. The beef industry is the one which is chiefly concerned with this legislation. It is estimated that it will produce in Australia in 1984 something like $2.4 billion of export earning capacity and that is a very significant sum in our economy. We must find no less than 35 per cent of our market for beef overseas. Regrettably, in recent years, and particularly more recently, we have lost significant markets. One must wonder whether it will be necessary to change the emphasis of production. It may be necessary to design a program which will meet the actual type of demand that occurs around the world. Consequently, we should perhaps be looking at the reintroduction of lot feeding in the beef industry. If there is a significant market for lot fed beef, Australia must surely supply it. I do not propose to address these questions at any further length. I merely reiterate that the industry is extraordinarily important and that the sort of basic changes in this legislation are held to be well worth a try. I believe there is significant doubt as to how successful certain changes will be. I believe that these doubts are held by the industry as well as by those on this side of the House. There is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the establishment of an industry policy committee which is divorced from the Corporation. There is some doubt as to whether that committee will act, as it should, as a total and absolute liaison, or whether it may well be something of a curtain between the producer and the ultimate marketing authority. These matters will be revealed as the legislative bodies start to operate. A determination of the industry, I understand, is to seek the operation of these bodies from 1 July and to observe the effect of the various new entities that will appear as a result of this legislation. There is significant doubt, which I certainly share, as to whether it is necessary to make the Industry Policy Advisory Council a statutory organisation. I have significant doubts as to whether that is essential. I think that at rock- bottom the industry too has a very significant concern in that area. However, I believe as I said earlier that the propositions of this legislative package in the primary industry area are certainly worth giving a try. With the reservations and determinations of the amendment that we moved to the second reading of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, I wish the passage of these Bills good speed and I hope that the legislation is as successful as the industry and the rest of us would hope that it would be. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.16) —We are discussing in a cognate debate eight Bills concerned with primary industry. I will make a brief comment on each of these Bills. I hope that comment will suffice for the Committee stage as well. The first Bill is the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has raised a problem with regard to clause 2 of this Bill. That clause specifies the date on which the Bill will take effect. It shall be deemed to take effect on 1 July 1969, which must be the most retrospective Bill we have had before us. However, there seem to be no problems with retrospectivity in that area. The penalties which were collected-I believe they were of the order of $4,000 to $5,000-were collected legally. The problem seems to be that they were paid into a research account and there has been no statutory support for that payment. This Bill seeks to provide that support. This clause provides an interesting illustration of the view that some of us have tried to get across that distinctions must be drawn in relation to retrospectivity. In this instance, no material penalties are imposed on any individual and nobody suffers any detriment. It is one area in which there seems to be no problem with retrospectivity. The Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill deals with an industry and seeks to suggest some reorganisation within that industry. At the current time the industry is going through some fairly severe problems. By way of illustration I will outline the cost structure of what could be considered an average family farm. If the producer had an 80-sow unit farm and sold 16 pigs a year, which would be fairly average for a small operation, the gross margin over feed would be about $25,000. I have done some costings on that, which I think are reasonable. For example, a farmer with living expenses of $8,000, repayment of interest on a modest debt of $8,000, general production expenses of roughly $10, 000 and incidentals of $2,500 over a 12-month period would have a negative return of some $3,500. In other words, without any charge at all for labour, an efficient family farm-and producing that number of units per year, it would have to be efficient-is in a loss situation, even if the expenditure, as I have suggested, is cut to the absolute minimum. There is a difficulty that has to be faced. On top of that particular problem, we have the problem of export inspection charges. Currently in Australia about 99 per cent of domestic pig production is consumed domestically. In other words, we are looking only at one per cent of meat produced in this area for export. Yet in almost every case pigs are slaughtered in export abattoirs and the producers are charged the export levy. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, I understand, is preparing a High Court challenge in regard to this matter. If that Council does not take the matter up, the Australian Pork Producers Federation will certainly do so. Basically, the problem is that they are being charged for 99 per cent of their production that goes into the domestic market and ought not to bear those inspection charges. This matter has been bouncing backwards and forwards between the producers and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for quite some considerable time. Indeed, it goes back to the previous Government. No action has been taken to alleviate that particular cost on an industry which is currently suffering some fairly difficult cost squeezes. I can illustrate the point by referring to the pig price-feed ratio, which is the ratio which expresses most clearly the difficulty that producers would be having. At present, this is 6.36, and this compares with an average over the last 10 years of 8.8. It has risen as high as 11.3 on some occasions and it has fallen to 6.7; but we have dropped below that. In other words, the industry is in severe difficulties. I believe that the Government could very simply exclude pork from the export inspection charges. I do not conceive that there would be any problem in that regard. The administration of it would be relatively simple. Governments have been constantly unwilling to cut back such charges because that would mean a loss of revenue. But if the impositions on this particular industry are maintained, there may not be an industry around worth noting from which to get any income. Another concern of the industry is the Interim Inspection Policy Council. In his second reading speech on a later Bill in this package, the Minister indicated that the Government is looking at moving it to a statutory level. It seems to have contained within it an as yet unpublished report about export inspection charges. The Australian Pork Producers Federation is particularly concerned that its industry may again suffer at the hands of policy changes. I hope that the Minister will inform the Senate as to when the Government will finalise its consideration of that Interim Inspection Policy Council's report and when it will be made public. It would have been very useful indeed for this debate if we had had that in our hands now. In regard to the Opposition's amendment on the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill, we shall be supporting the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. I turn to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. I raise an item that I think is of some concern and there ought to be a simple way of satisfying concerns in this regard. I refer to requests from the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia for consultation between themselves and the newly constituted Meat and Live-stock Corporation. One way of doing this would have been for us to move an amendment to make that a requirement but the councils feel that the top priority must be to get the Corporation in place by the beginning of next month and to enable that to take place we have not moved any amendment to this Bill. I believe it would be simple for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give us an assurance that the Minister for Primary Industry would instruct the new Chairman of the restructured Corporation, Mr Richard Austin, to consult with the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council with a view to coming out with a mutually agreeable set of arrangements for future consultation between those bodies. I realise that the Corporation is now much more likely to be concerned with technical matters and that the policy matters will be contained within the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council; nevertheless, there are many items that the councils will want to discuss with the newly structured Corporation and an assurance from the Minister to the Senate would go a long way towards satisfying the concerns that the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council have that they may be excluded from arrangements which will affect them very closely. I indicate also that the Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendment that the Opposition proposes to move to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. I turn now to the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council Bill. Again the industry itself has some concerns in this area but I am heartened by the fact that it intends to work effectively with the new Council, to test it out for a year or so to see whether or not it is the type of body that the industry has been looking for and whether or not the Council will fulfil the types of functions that the industry has been requesting. The industry's major concern has been that it was looking for a somewhat more flexible arrangement and a statutory organisation was not quite the type of organisation it felt was needed at this time. However, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, when discussing this matter in the House of Representatives, in response to a number of amendments moved there by the Opposition, I felt gave a reasonable answer-it certainly satisfied me-that the statutory organisation, the Corporation, will assist that body, the Council, or give it status with regard to other statutory bodies. Such a move will enable the Council to deal effectively with various industry experts and will enable the establishment of specialised groups. I think that everybody connected with the industry hopes that the Industry Policy Council will be an effective statutory body. One concern I have is that the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council-that is , the industry sector representative organisations-will be pushed out by the Policy Council and will not have the type of direct discussions with the Government that they have had in the past. While I understand that the Policy Council certainly has an important role, I think there will still be a role for the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council to have discussions with the Government over a number of matters that will be of mutual benefit. I hope that the Minister will continue to allow mutual benefit. I hope that the Minister will continue to allow that direct access to government and will not seek to diminish or take away the role that those sector representative organisations have fulfilled in the past. Of course, they are included on the policy body and hence would have an input through the Policy Council. However, I still believe that over and above that, access to government is necessary in this area, particularly in response to rapidly occurring changes in markets, particularly within our export markets. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill is merely a consequential Bill required because of the changes to the Corporation, as is the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. The only other item I wish to raise is in regard to the last Bill in the package of eight, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill which again has a retrospective element to 1 July 1978. Here again it is an attempt on behalf of the Government to regularise what may have been an irregular situation in terms of payments to the Northern Territory post-1978 because the Bill itself states that payments can be made only to States. Whether the Northern Territory is indeed a State is of some consequence. I am quite sure that no honourable senator would be willing to disallow that Bill on the basis that it is retrospective. The retrospectivity confers a significant benefit, as it has done, since 1978, on the Northern Territory. I believe that this package of Bills will assist these areas-particularly the meat and livestock area-to re-organise themselves. I hope, as I believe everybody does, that the newly constituted Policy Council will be given a fair run and will be an effective organisation in the promotion of that industry both here and overseas. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(8.32) —I thank the honourable senators who have spoken for their general support of this legislation and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I especially thank those such as Senator Scott who, whether one agrees with them or not, make a thoughtful contribution and reflect a very genuine concern for and deep knowledge of these matters. I make only a couple of comments about particular matters raised by honourable senators. The first point relates to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation's consultations with industry. I point out that the new arrangements will enable the Corporation to take up operational problems quickly with industry groups on a more flexible basis. I think it was Senator Scott who raised the question of frequency of meetings. There is no departure in relation to frequency of meetings from the existing legislation under which there is no requirement for regular meetings. I am instructed that there has been industry dissatisfaction with the work of the Meat and Live-stock Corporation's existing consultative groups. In general, the regular meetings organised by the Corporation with these groups have been less effective than they should have been. This has led to evident and extensive criticism of the organisation as being unresponsive to industry needs. Some of the measures in this legislation are designed to rectify that situation and, in a sense, I think it is recognised , even by Opposition spokesmen who have spoken on these matters this evening, that probably there needs to be a little time to see how these arrangements work out. It may well be that the possible improvements foreshadowed by Opposition spokesmen here tonight may well prove to be correct but the Government believes that the arrangements will provide a great improvement in themselves and will work satisfactorily. On the question of the Inspection Policy Council and reports on inspection charges, I make the point that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has this report under consideration at present. I would like to take on notice Senator Macklin's query and direct it to the Minister. I will also direct to the Minister's attention one or two other matters which he raised in his speech. There are two amendments to this package of Bills, one of which relates to the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. That is a clarion call to the Government, which I suppose has been echoed down the centuries, or decades at least, to pursue aggressively the marketing of Australian meat. We do not mind as a Government being urged to be aggressive in marketing, whether it be in respect of meat or other products of other industries. I can perhaps best deal with the amendment by saying that we hear the call and will not seek any division on that amendment. Similarly, in relation to the amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, before indicating an attitude to that, I draw the Senate's attention to the consultative arrangements which have been suggested. That Bill provides for the Corporation to make arrangements for consulting persons and bodies representative of different sections of the industry for the purposes of considering any matter relating to the performance of its functions, and for the Corporation to meet costs and expenses reasonably incurred in respect of those consultations. In the second reading speech of this Bill, I indicated that the intention is to give the Corporation the greater flexibility it requires to develop a more direct and meaningful consultative process with producer and processor-trader organisations, according to its actual operational needs. In dealing with this question in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, pointed out: . . . currently consultations between the AMLC and industry consultative groups are a matter for agreement between the AMLC and the groups. This situation will remain . . . I am sure that . . . consultation will take place naturally and will be realistic and constructive. Honourable senators will recall the legislative requirement for the AMLC to produce a five-year corporate plan and an annual operating program and that such programs are subject to ministerial approval. I am informed by the Minister for Primary Industry that this arrangement will provide a further safeguard to ensure the arrangements for consultation are satisfactory. The amendment moved by Senator Scott seeks to express the opinion that the legislation should be amended at the first possible opportunity to provide for consultation between the Corporation and various industry bodies, including specifically the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia on a mutually acceptable basis. The intent of the legislation and the Minister's attitude indicate the Government's position on the amendment, namely, that we do not think it is necessary. However, it is not a matter in respect of which we intend to go to the barricades. But in terms of the reference in the legislation to the earliest opportunity for amendment to the legislation, we ask Senator Scott to bear in mind that perhaps the consultative arrangements to which the Minister has referred can be made to work satisfactorily and in that circumstance the legislative amendments would be of no help if the arrangements, as the Minister put it in the House of Representatives, work naturally, as we hope they will. As I say, we will not seek to go to the barricades on the amendment and we will not divide on it. Again, I thank honourable senators for their support of the legislation and I commend the Bills to the Senate. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.42) -I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate is of the opinion that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill should be amended at the first possible opportunity to provide for consultation between the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and various industry bodies, including specifically the Cattle and Sheep Meat Councils of Australia, on a mutually acceptable basis' . While I am on my feet, I make a very brief comment, as a reflection perhaps, on the comments of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) who indicated that he did not intend to oppose this amendment. I appreciate exactly what he was saying about the capacity of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to consult. However, the real problem, if I can talk of it as strongly as that, related to the capacity of the industry organisations themselves to seek consultation on their own behalf with the Corporation. That is specifically identified in the latter part of the amendment which states: . . . including specifically the Cattle and Sheep Meat Councils of Australia, on a mutually acceptable basis. The position is that the industry organisations want to talk to the Corporation. They know that the Corporation can talk to them. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 7 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.45) —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- LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live -stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to allow for the changed process of consultation with respect to live-stock slaughter levies under the restructured administration of the meat and live-stock industry. Honourable senators will recall that I earlier outlined the role of the Annual General Meeting under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. An important feature is the provision made for the AGM to examine Corporation proposals for any increases in levy charges, and to decline any proposed increases in levies which fund the AMLC. This will replace the present responsibilities of the AMLC's Consultative Groups which are to be abolished. This is consistent with the principle underlying the establishment of the AGM to represent all those who pay the levy, and therefore contribute to the finance of the Corporation's activities. Under Clause 4 (2) of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1984 the Corporation is to be required to put to the AGM any planned variation to levies before any recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry is made. To allow for the situation where a variation to the levies is necessary before the first AGM is held, Clause 4 (1) requires the Corporation to consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, the Council of Australian Public Abattoir Authorities and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia before any change is made. These are the constituent members of the present producer and meat exporter and abattoir Consultative Groups of the AMLC. Clause 4 (1) also requires the Australian Meat Research Committee to be responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on any variations to the rates of levy for research purposes, after consultations with the Cattle and Sheepmeat councils of Australia, and the four organisations representing meat processors, exporters, meatworks and public abattoirs and meat traders mentioned earlier before any change is made. Past practice has been for the AMLC to be responsible for such recommendations. This approach has been followed as a consequence of the arrangement whereby the AGM will review proposals for changes to levies that fund the AMLC. It is inappropriate for that AGM to review research levy proposals. It is envisaged that the AGM of the proposed Research and Development Corporation would carry out this function in due course. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 There is a need to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964 for reasons not related to the proposed restructuring of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Collection Act to provide for payments to the Northern Territory from the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account. Section 10C of this Act provides for moneys standing to the credit of the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account to be expended, with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, for payments to the States or to meet Commonwealth costs to eradicate diseases of cattle that are endemic in Australia. After achieving self-government in 1978, the Northern Territory assumed responsibility from the Commonwealth for animal disease control in the Territory , and has received payments from the Trust Account as if it was a State in its own right. Subsequently the Government has received legal advice that this practice is invalid. This Bill will retrospectively validate past payments to the Northern Territory and provide due authority to continue payments in future. Payments to the Northern Territory since February 1983 have been made pursuant to a special interim agreement with that Government which will expire on 30 June 1984, or on enactment of this Bill. The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964 sets out various administrative and appropriation arrangements relating to the levy imposed on the slaughter of cattle, sheep, buffaloes and goats. The Amendment Bill will have no effect on the rate of levy or on total levy collections. The amendment to validate past and future appropriations to the Northern Territory for cattle disease eradication purposes will not commit the Commonwealth to any particular level of funding for this purpose. Annual appropriations to the Northern Territory and the States will continue to be subject to agreements negotiated from time to time. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live -stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, is to amend the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 to allow for the changed process of consultation with respect to the rates of charge under the restructured administration of the meat and live-stock industry. Honourable senators will recall that I earlier outlined the role of the Annual General Meeting under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. Under Clause 4 (2) of the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1984 the Corporation is required to put to the AGM any planned variation to the rates of charge before any recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry is made. To allow for a situation where a variation to the rates of charge is necessary before the first AGM is held, Clause 4 (1) requires the Corporation and the Australian Meat Research Committee to consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Live-stock Exporters Association before any change is made. As in the case of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, clause 4 (1) of this Bill also requires the Australian Meat Research Committee to be responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on any variations to the rates of charge for research purposes after consultations with the Cattle and Sheepmeat Councils of Australia and the Live-stock Exporters Association before any change is made. Past practice has been for the AMLC to make such recommendations. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests or debate. Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.49) —The Public Service Reform Bill 1984, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1984 make a number of reforms to Public Service legislation. Any major reforms to Public Service legislation or to the Public Service in this country are a matter of some significance and importance. I am pleased to say that the Opposition supports the measures in the Bills, with perhaps varying degrees of enthusiasm. I must confess that my enthusiasm for these reforms is somewhat tempered, having studied them to some extent for the purpose of this debate. I say that because I had read a good deal about the reforms that the present Government was going to introduce to the Public Service . I think the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who is the Minister at the table, had some grand words to say at some stage of his career about the Public Service and the new dawn of administration that would be ushered in by the election of a Labor government. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —A blueprint for government. Senator DURACK —A blueprint for government, was it? It is an apology for a blueprint for government. Certainly we have heard a great deal from the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, who has responsibility for the Public Service. In that capacity he has been getting a lot of headlines, I suppose mainly in the Canberra Times, about the great reforms that the Government will be making to the Public Service. So it was with some sense of disappointment, when I read the fine print of this legislation, that I discovered that really the reforms contained in it are nowhere near as grandiose or as significant as we would have been led to believe by the rhetoric of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and, no doubt, others who have contributed their bit to the so-called significance of this matter. Indeed, the rhetoric has even been transferred to the draftsman-perhaps I should say the drafter, in this age of sex discrimination, affirmative action and so on. We have a Bill which is nothing more than a very complicated amendment of the Public Service Act and some related legislation, hailed as a Public Service Reform Bill. This Government is trying to catch on to the rhetoric of 1832 and so on. One would have thought that at least a Public Service Reform Bill would be a new code to express this 'new dawn' or this 'new blueprint' for this Government's administration of the Public Service. But, as I have said, all we find is a thoroughly complicated, probably unnecessarily complicated, piece of drafting which would be better described as a Public Service Act amendment Bill. That is all it is. There are some benefits contained in this legislation. The provisions that it makes in relation to secretaries of departments are welcome. It undoes some amendments that were introduced by the Fraser Government in relation to the way in which permanent heads, or what are now called secretaries to departments, are to be appointed. The Fraser Government's amendments created, in a sense, two classes of permanent heads in that either one was an established candidate or one was an outsider. I think that amendment was introduced by the Fraser Government only because of the politicisation of the Public Service by the former Whitlam Labor Government which had made some very highly political appointments to the positions of heads of departments during its period. Prime Minister Fraser was concerned to try to put some brake on that. One of the claims of this Bill is that it changes that situation. Nevertheless it also introduces the concept with which the Opposition agrees. It is certainly creating again two classes of secretary-one who is appointed from within the system and one who is appointed from outside the system on the basis of a five- year contract or a fixed term of five years. It is not a contract in any sense of the meaning of the word 'contract' as I understand it. The Attorney and I have had a little discussion recently about what is a contract and what it amounts to. Maybe he has another view on it; I do not know. The fact of the matter here is that a person who is appointed from outside the Public Service to a fixed term position as a secretary or a head of a department can have that position terminated without any trouble at all. I do not know how we will induce people of any merit to take on jobs of that kind when such jobs can be terminated as easily as that. The concept contained in this legislation in relation to secretaries or heads of departments is, I think, a beneficial one on the whole. It certainly provides an easier method of getting rid of an unsatisfactory head of a department than does the old legislation, although it can be done only if there is a report from the Chairman of the Public Service Board. The main problem will be whether the Public Service Board is prepared to bite the bullet and do its duty in relation to secretaries of departments and permanent heads of departments who are unsuitable but who cannot be classified in such a way as to be totally inefficient, incompetent or incapable in the very narrow senses that one has to define those words. So although there is certainly an advance it may be only a theoretical one. I hope that is not the case. I hope that the Public Service Board will exercise its responsibilities in this area and will, as I have said, bite the bullet in respect of permanent heads, or secretaries as they are now to be called, who are manifestly not up to the job but in other respects cannot have their appointments terminated. As I have said, this new procedure is to be welcomed. Whether or not it will be beneficial depends on the way it will be administered, particularly by the Public Service Board. The notion of review of the position of secretaries every five years is also good in theory but will it really work in practice? Again it will depend very much on the people who are administering it and how far the permanent heads are going to abide by the spirit of the legislation. Of course there will be secretaries of departments who have highly specialised qualifications who cannot just be shunted off to another department. I would have thought that the time-worn methods of handling these problems by sending them off to be an ambassador here or a high commissioner there, or whatever, will still prevail. Another matter which I think is of some benefit is the abolition of appeal rights for officers who are members of the Senior Executive Service, which is another name for the Second Division. We are supposed to have been very impressed with the creation of a senior executive service. When one looks at the fine print it is virtually the same as the former Second Division although there is some rhetoric in and about the legislation which would suggest that it will be something significantly different from the existing Second Division. Again we can only hope that that will be the way it will work. But the way the legislation is drafted does not give us very much hope that it will be. For argument's sake let me refer to a document that was issued in May this year called 'An Overview of the Australian Public Service Reforms'. I suppose this is a sort of precursor to the second reading speech. It obviously has a little more information in it than the second reading speech has. It talks about promotion in relation to the SES-the Senior Executive Service-and states: Power to promote a person will rest with the Board, after a vacancy has been advertised, applicants have been assessed by a selection committee, and the Board has received a recommendation from the Secretary of a Department. This new Service will be one in which the Board has a major concern, control and inspiration. The Board will ensure that we have a high powered, new look managerial Service in which people can be moved about, picked out of one area, put into another and so on. There is nothing terribly new about that. That is probably the way in which the Public Service Board and the Public Service have to a large extent operated anyway. Under the heading 'Promotions to Senior Executive Service offices' it is stated that new section 49B will read: The Board may, in writing, promote an officer to a vacant Senior Executive Service office. It continues: The Board shall not exercise its powers under sub-section (1) in relation to an office in a Department except in accordance with a recommendation in writing made by the relevant Secretary. If one looks at the old Public Service Act one sees that it states that appointments to the Second Division or any other division are to be made by the secretary. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Big deal. Senator DURACK —Is it not a big deal? The Attorney-General, the author of the blueprint for this new administration, is more interested in talking to somebody else in the back of the chamber than in listening to the debate. If he is absorbing this debate through the back of his head perhaps he will be able to explain what the difference is between the old and the new. We have, I think, a classic example of the very considerable difference between the rhetoric on this subject and the translation of it into the nitty-gritty of legislation and, I fear, administration. This is a classic example-I have pointed them out on many occasions-of the Government's yawning gap between promise and performance. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is, of course, the master of that art. I fear that the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, and the Attorney-General are not bad performers of that art themselves. It is incumbent upon the Opposition to point out these huge discrepancies, these yawning gaps, and to expose them to the public for what they really are. There is also a great deal of rhetoric in relation to the proposals, which we have heard a lot about, such as industrial democracy, equal opportunity, staff mobility, the merit principle and so on. The merit principle was adopted by the previous Government. Indeed, the previous Government had legislation passed which abolished the old divisions of the Public Service and so on. So really there is not much new in the proposals in this legislation. As far as equal opportunity is concerned, the Public Service has had an equal opportunity unit for some time. What has that equal opportunity unit been doing all this time in the Public Service? It is hard to see what new policies and what new administration will result from anything that is contained in this legislation. One of the most important aspects of the legislation is the approval it gives to and the ability it provides for permanent part time work in the Public Service. I believe that is a really new, significant and important provision that is introduced by this legislation. It is very important because it is something we would hope to see translated into industrial conditions generally. Legislation of this kind could well give encouragement to employers and industrial tribunals in the private sector to provide for this opportunity. If we are really talking about the elimination of discrimination-particularly sex discrimination, discrimination in the area of employment of women and the opportunities for women-the creation of permanent part time employment is of great significance. But it is not just limited to women. There are other people in the community who would benefit considerably by the opportunities afforded by part time work on a permanent basis. I do not want to give the impression that there is nothing of any great significance in this legislation-I have mentioned two or three matters that I think are of significance-but I do complain and protest about the extent to which this Government has created a notion that it is bringing in some completely revolutionary reforms of the Public Service of this country. If it had been really serious about the reform of the Public Service it would have tackled some of the serious difficulties in the Public Service. There is no mention of the problem of tenure in the legislation, which is one of the major matters that has to be tackled if the Government is seriously to deal with the question of reform of the Public Service. Whether that should be introduced and dealt with is perhaps another matter. I do not want to debate it tonight, but it is something of fundamental importance to the Public Service. One matter which I do think should have been tackled in any legislation that pretends to be a major reform of the Public Service is the problem of doing something adequate about contract employment. There is provision for the engagement of consultants by Ministers and members of parliament; it is welcome and I think it will have some benefit. The Opposition certainly sees it as beneficial. When we return to government we will want to make use of it. As has been pointed out by the Minister some document mentions the Valder report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review which made similar recommendations. I thoroughly approve of those proposals, but they do not go anywhere far enough. We badly need to have far greater facilities for contract employment and a far more favourable attitude to contract employment in the Public Service than has been traditional. I really see nothing in this legislation which is going to provide any significant difference. Senator Gareth Evans —Senator, is that the view of your Party? Senator DURACK —The Attorney-General and I had a discussion in an Estimates committee recently about the problem created by this matter. The Attorney- General asked: 'Is that the view of the Party?' One of the real reasons for creating the office of Special Prosecutor was to enable experts to be taken on a contract basis for relatively short periods to do specific jobs. The Attorney- General set up the new office of Director of Public Prosecutions, which the Opposition strongly supported. I found when we came to discuss the problems of the transfer of people from the Public Service to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a real difficulty was faced because unfortunately the legislation did not provide adequately for the employment of people by the new Director on that basis. I got lost, as I always do when I listen to the endless technical explanations from officers of the Department of why things cannot be done. I hope that the Attorney-General is sympathetic to the need for something to be done about this. However, I have given the example of a most important new office of Director of Public Prosecutions which will give the Commonwealth a much more efficient prosecuting arm. Yet I cannot find anything in the Public Service Act or this legislation-perhaps the Attorney-General will be able to tell me that there is something-that will enable a problem of this kind to be overcome. I can find no reference to anything that will enable people with expertise in particular areas to be employed readily to do a particular job without going through all the technical rigmarole and so on required to do something directly which ought to be able to be done indirectly. As I said, the legislation has some merits and the Opposition welcomes it for that reason. However, it certainly would be wrong to see this legislation as carrying out reform by major surgery on the Public Service of this country. Nevertheless, we should be thankful for what it does and, as I said, the Opposition supports it. I am just sorry that this Government simply does not seem to be able to do anything or introduce anything in this Parliament without indulging in an enormous amount of rhetoric, without building it up as something far greater than what it is. I suppose we should be used to the way in which this Government approaches matters of reform. It likes to think of itself as a great reforming government. The Attorney-General likes to think he is going to be a great reforming Attorney-General. We know what a disappointment he has been to many people who believed his rhetoric. This seems to be something which is quite familiar now with this Government. I thought this practice applies only to the Attorney-General but it seems to be endemic to this Government and its Ministers. This piece of legislation is no exception. In fact, it is a very good example of the extent to which the rhetoric just simply is not matched by the performance, the legislation or the administration which is said to give effect to it. The Opposition has some relatively minor amendments that it will move during the Committee stage. I do not propose to deal with them now. But we will give this legislation our support and hope that the Senate will give the legislation a speedy passage this evening. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(9.14) —Having heard the grudging acknowledgment of the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, of the initiatives of this Government, I cannot avoid making the comment that after 16 months we have at least moved towards some long overdue reforms of the Commonwealth Public Service, reforms which apparently were impossible to make in the previous seven years. I would like to speak very briefly on just a few of the many excellent and progressive features of the Public Service Reform Bill 1984. Apart from the restructuring of senior positions, which are of immediate concern to highly placed incumbents of whom the vast majority are males, of course, most of the provisions of this Bill are of enormous importance to the less well-known workers who staff the myriad of departments and who are in literally hundreds of classifications, many of them the equivalent of not particularly well-paid workers in the private sector. A previous speaker asked: 'Well, what has the equal employment opportunity division been doing over all these years?' I would like to suggest that the equal employment opportunity division of the Public Service Board has been doing a great deal. In view of the extremely unsympathetic climate in which it functioned, I believe it did extremely well to survive. In the lower classifications in the Public Service there are, of course, a disproportionate number of women and in the Public Service generally disadvantaged minorities have traditionally been poorly represented. Initiatives to address those imbalances have been gradually introduced, the first being the admission of women to the clerical administrative structure in 1949, followed by the removal of the marriage bar in 1966. Age limits which precluded older workers from applying for positions as clerks and typists were removed in 1973, allowing women returning to the work force to enter the Public Service. That is an excellent example of indirect discrimination which, although it appears to be gender neutral in action, is not gender neutral in effect because of the nature of the work involved, and, of course, the vast majority of people applying for clerical and typist positions would be women. In 1975 the Public Service Board established an equal opportunities section. This was announced during the Women in Politics Conference in Canberra in August of 1975, one of the important and successful events of International Women's Year. At the same time it was announced that the unit would be headed up by Gail Radford, who has headed the Division and, more recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau with distinction. The section was to have had the dual role of developing and implementing equal opportunity programs and also investigating and conciliating cases of employment discrimination. The section was upgraded to branch status in 1978 and renamed the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau. Its activities, over the years, have included facilitating the employment of the disabled, migrants and Aboriginals into the Public Service and statutory authorities. By the late 1970s, training programs to meet the special needs of special groups were accepted by the Board as sensible public administration, not as a positive discrimination. A public statement was made to that effect. That was a milestone in the Public Service approach to redressing that type of imbalance. In April 1978 a special conference of departmental heads was introduced to this concept. Subsequently, departments submitted implementation plans to the Board. Further measures were introduced in the early 1980s to strengthen the national employment strategy for Aboriginals, particularly, and on that occasion, the Aboriginal services recruitment program and the Aboriginal undergraduate studies awards were put into place. They allowed for full time study by Aboriginals for undergraduate degrees and also full time study for those who were more appropriately catered for at Aboriginal task forces and in bridging courses under a staff sponsorship program. A 1979 study of career patterns for women in the Australian Public Service revealed that there were no women in the First Division and only 1.8 per cent of Second Division officers were women. Projections at that stage suggested that, without intervention, women would hold only 5 per cent of positions in the Second Division by 1990. When the marriage bar had been removed it was thought that women would now have the same opportunities as men to advance to senior positions. However, cohort studies carried out by the Board in 1979 suggested that other factors were still impeding women's careers. Cohort studies of officers appointed to the base level of the Third Division after the removal of the marriage bar showed that, of those who remained in the Service, non-graduate men were more likely to reach the more senior positions than non-graduate women and the same trend could be seen amongst graduates. A further study in 1980 showed that the proportion of women in many departments was still low, between 11 and 24 per cent, and that 14 departments employing 53 per cent of the Service had no Second Division women. In addition, occupational segregation was breaking down faster and with less assistance for men than for women. There were still 20 designations where no women were employed, but none where no men were employed. In 1980 the National Labour Consultative Council, as a result of a great deal of work, put together a set of equal employment opportunity guidelines. These were drawn up by representatives of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government. They were widely distributed, having been designed to apply to both large and small enterprises and designed also to apply to both government and private employment. By 1981 the Public Service Board had announced a program to introduce voluntary equal employment opportunity programs for women in departments and authorities staffed under the Public Service Act. These voluntary programs had two goals. One was to introduce more women into senior management within the Public Service and the other was to increase the number of women in jobs which had not traditionally been filled by women. The implementation of these goals was based on the actions advocated by the National Labour Consultative Council's guidelines on equal employment opportunity for women. In 1981 the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau conducted seminars in Canberra and in all State capitals to explain the guidelines and how to develop equal employment opportunity plans in different work areas such as recruitment, training, staff development and personnel. In the second phase of the program in 1982 the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau provided a consultancy service to those departments that had decided to establish an equal employment opportunity program. I have been a great deal more generous than the previous speaker, Senator Durack. It will be realised that what I have described over the last five minutes has been the move, slowly but steadily, within the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau during the years of the Liberal conservative Government. In 1983 the Board carried out an evaluation of the program. The Chairman wrote to permanent heads seeking information about progress of the equal employment opportunity programs in departments and authorities. Accomplishments were highlighted in the Board's annual report for 1982-83. I feel sure that there are many senators who, like me, looked to that part of the Public Service Board's annual report to see which of the departments were actually implementing anything in relation to equal employment opportunity. Strangely enough, only the Department of Transport and the Department of Housing and Construction had well developed equal employment opportunity programs for women. Others had issued equal employment opportunity policy statements and appointed officers who either worked full time on EEO activities or combined that with other duties. Others were in the process of appointing officers, developing data bases and preparing programs. The remaining departments pointed to action, such as non- discriminatory selection procedures for recruitment of women to positions which had been traditionally male, and increased nomination of women for training courses, especially senior management courses. Some departments had recorded significant increases in the number of women in senior positions. Overall, it could be seen that the results of the Board's strategy of encouraging a voluntary program approach to EEO had been disappointing. Although action by the Board had clearly resulted in an increased awareness of and sensitivity to the issue of equal employment opportunity for women and disadvantaged groups in the service, the number of staff allocated to EEO duties was clearly inadequate. A number of departments have now appointed EEO officers. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs and the Department of Defence have finalised details of their programs and others, including Defence Support and Employment and Industrial Relations, are actively developing programs. These programs include initiatives for women, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities and people from immigrant ethnic backgrounds. Additionally it was recognised that effective integration of women into management depends upon the acceptance of women by senior managers as well as on the competiveness and readiness of women themselves. As a result of this report, the Board began preparing in 1983 a series of training packages. Other issues which are of crucial importance in providing equal opportunity for women in the Public Service as well as in the work force at large, as has been previously stated, are the provision of permanent part time work and the introduction of maternity leave and flexible working hours. We need a great deal more awareness among senior members of our Public Service and some of the policy -making parts of our own Government. But in these short 16 months a great deal more has been achieved than in the seven years previously. This Bill provides the legislative backing for equal employment opportunity in the Public Service promised by the Government. Responding to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) who urged departments not to wait for the legislation, a number of them have moved as I have described. I briefly introduce one other issue during this discussion, that is, the position of those who work in the offices of members and senators. At long last under this Bill these workers upon whom we depend so heavily are to be employed under proper written contracts of employment and will have the same access to arbitration as other Commonwealth employees. It gives me great satisfaction to acknowledge our collective indebtedness to those who assist us in our electorate offices and to acknowledge the fact that this Government is providing these workers with proper industrial protection for the very first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.28) —The Public Service Reform Bill, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill and the Merit Protection and Review Agency Bill contain some of the most comprehensive proposals for change in the Public Service since its inception. The record of service that the Public Service has made to Australia has been exceptionally good, but over the years obviously the need for reform has developed. This package of Bills introduces a series of changes. The major change is the creation of a Senior Executive Service which is aimed at being more mobile and open and at attracting people from outside the Public Service. Other changes include: The rotation of department heads every five years; appeals regarding promotions in the Senior Executive Service are to be abolished; the Public Service Board is to be charged with centralised direction of the reformed Public Service; and Ministers are to be able to employ consultants for projects outside normal Public Service arrangements. In addition , permanent part time employment is to be a permanent feature and industrial democracy plans and equal opportunity management plans are to be required by legislation. A Commonwealth employees grievance appeals and rights protection authority is to be established and merit principles against which the SES staff will be judged are to be put into the Public Service Act. This series of reforms, I hope, will vastly improve the operation of the Public Service and therefore has the support of the Australian Democrats. We also commend the Government for its consultative process with all the various parties involved. I think that has assisted the development greatly. Despite our overall acceptance of these changes, we had three main concerns. The first concern was that the advertising of the SES positions be carried out in the open Press, and not just in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.. The second concern was that the staff representative of the SES should be involved in appointment procedures and promotions and transfers involving the Service. The third concern was that the remuneration package be improved for people in the SES. These were our final concerns after a thorough examination of all the Bills and after detailed discussions with staff associations. In our representations to the Minister on these matters we have been given guarantees with regard to these items that all promotion and appointment selection committees will have at least one representative of the SES staff on them. This reflects our concern that the opening up of the SES should not be detrimental to existing members of the Second Division. The changeover operations with regard to any reforms are always somewhat difficult. Our hope is that this mechanism will assist in that changeover operation. We believe that the situation guaranteed by the Government to us on this matter will ensure that the current staff of the Second Division will have their rights protected while the flexibility that the Government is seeking will not be threatened. To be fully open and free from any political influence, as the merit principles contained in the Bill call for, all SES positions, when advertised, will need to be advertised in the open Press and not just in a select corner of the Gazette, which, with all due respects to the Gazette, is not exactly one of the most widely read documents in Australia. We believe that the wider advertising will ensure that potential applicants will start off on an equal footing. The other item, the remuneration for the SES, is vital if we are to have the capacity to attract top quality people to that Service. Although there are constraints currently in place in relation to the national wage guidelines and through the accord, we believe that the development of some attractive executive packages in this regard will assist the area greatly. The packages, for example, which were recently proposed for the directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation seem to fit the bill adequately. These packages could include expense of office allowances, payment of telephone bills, improved transfer conditions, provision for family travel, and the like. Such a remuneration package will attract quality applicants for these responsible positions. As these items, which were the last of our concerns, have been met by the Government's guarantees in discussions, it is not our intention to support the Opposition's amendment to retain the present appeal structure for two years. Also, we shall not be supporting the other Opposition amendments. However, I shall discuss the two Opposition amendments circulated in the chamber this evening during the Committee stage, as that is probably more appropriate. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.34) —Senator Giles tried to give the impression that the Liberal Party and the National Party are uncaring about people in the Public Service. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people in this country, unfortunately, come to meet only the junior people in the Public Service. Many of them are very dedicated people who work hard. Likewise, those of us who have to deal with the senior people within much of the Public Service recognise just how hard and at what length many of them work. When I heard Senator Giles speaking I would not have been at all surprised to hear her say that the Liberal Party was uncaring. That seems to be a good Labor word as are the words 'reform' and 'initiative'. Senator Giles certainly used the words ' initiative' and 'reform'. Whenever I hear these words spout forth from the Austraian Labor Party benches I become worried. I do not think the public of Australia is that easily hoodwinked. The public recognises that whilst the Liberal-National Party Government did try to keep the numbers of the Public Service down, it was done for a very real reason, and that is that the country cannot afford unbridled expansion of the Public Service. Perhaps I should go into that matter another day. Tonight I want to deal with a couple of issues. The first concerns the Public Service Reform Bill which is really what I was talking about just a moment ago. Senator Durack said that the Public Service Reform 1984 and cognate Bills are significant Bills but really should not be named reform Bills; they should be called Public Service amendment Bills. I think that would be a much better name. There is one area of the Public Service that I believe the public is very cynical about. The public is cynical about the many appointments that appear to be jobs for the boys. I do not think the Public Service Reform Bill does much to stop that situation. I remind the Senate that the Bill is a fairly complicated one. Without the Schedules at the back of the Bill it is 94 pages long. The explanatory memorandum, explaining the bits and pieces within the Bill, is 54 pages long. So the Bill is fairly complicated and one which I have been informed has a few bugs for those people trying to work it out. I believe that in regard to appointments from outside the Public Service-a matter dealt with to a certain extent by Senator Durack-a lot of the senior positions should be subject to parliamentary disallowance. I think that would apply a brake to any reckless government. I believe that we should try to effect amendments to the Bill, now or at some future stage, to subject to parliamentary review and possible disallowance a number of Public Service appointments. First of all, I think the appointment of secretary or permanent head of a department, covered by proposed new section 36, should be subject to disallowance. I believe that special outside appointments to senior executive level, covered in proposed new section 43, are to be subject to parliamentary disallowance. Ordinary outside appointees to the Senior Executive Service, covered by proposed new section 42, should have their appointments subject to parliamentary disallowance as should public servants promoted to the Senior Executive Service, covered by proposed new section 49B. Honourable senators will notice that of all these types of appointments only one is now thought to be deserving of parliamentary review. This is the special appointments under proposed new section 43. I have some amendments, which I do not intend to move, which would put some teeth into this review. However, at the same time they would reduce the number of sitting days on which a parliament could act, down from 15 to 5. I think that would probably be a fair trade-off. Honourable senators undoubtedly would know that the power of parliament over government appointments is not without precedent in the Western world. The United States and Canadian parliaments have the power to refuse or disallow certain government appointments. Indeed, our own Public Service Act already provides that the Governor-General may remove members of the Public Service Board on an address being presented to him by both Houses of Parliament in the same session. Many of the appointments that I have mentioned I understand would meet with no criticism at all. I am completely in agreement with those. It may be the case that the Senate should set up a committee similar to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in order to draw the Senate's attention to appointments that might be considered questionable. If that kind of thing were implemented in a Bill of this kind it would protect the present Government and any future government from public criticism and would restore some of the reputation of the Australian Public Service as an impartial bureaucracy ready to serve the public and the government of the day. It would remove from the Executive that unbridled power to provide jobs for the boys that all of us in this country have heard a fair bit about over the last few years. With the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill, I believe we should aim to protect the taxpayer. That is the first thing that this Parliament always should do. At a meeting I attended the other day it was pointed out that certain people within an organisation were not looking after other people's money as well as they should be, and that we as members of parliament should aim to protect the taxpayer of this country from two things: Firstly, the overexpansion of the staff of members of parliament and, secondly, the rate of their payment. We should protect against the number of people members of parliament can have on their staff and the rate of their payment. This Parliament is to be increased in size and the number of staff of members of parliament will also increase. It is not a question simply of additional members of parliament. They have to be provided with accommodation, facilities, telephones, typewriters and things of that nature which add quite considerably to the cost of running this Parliament. Yet in this Bill staff appointments for members of parliament will be at the whim of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I believe it should have been left with the Remuneration Tribunal. Otherwise, we are setting up a situation in this country in which a Prime Minister obviously can curry favour with an individual or a group by allowing that individual or group extra staff, or staff at a higher rate of pay. Honourable senators should not think that I am asking for extra staff; I am not. But there is the obvious ability for a Prime Minister, who has the right to decide how many members of staff a member of parliament- perhaps one of his opponents-shall have and the rate at which they will be paid, to allow special deals for his mates; I suppose that would be the word we would use in respect of the current Prime Minister. I am not saying that the current Prime Minister is doing that. But under this legislation it would be possible for the Prime Minister to curry favour with people who do what he wants done, or with groups that he may want to persuade one way or the other. No doubt when the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) replies, he will say that that will not happen. Before he does so, I tell him that it has been done in this place, and I have seen it in the time that I have been here. I have seen it done by two Prime Ministers, and it can obviously happen once again. I do not want to go into detail about it, but I have seen senators and members given facilities better than those of other senators and members. The Remuneration Tribunal has been at pains not to do that. It has always taken great care to treat members of parliament and senators equally. Clause 20 (2) of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill states: The power conferred on a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives by sub-section (1)- that relates to the hiring of staff- is not exercisable otherwise than in accordance with arrangements approved by the Prime Minister, and the exercise of that power is subject to such conditions as are determined by the Prime Minister. That gives the Prime Minister a pretty open hand on what he can do. It is not a situation we should be going back to. This Bill is a step backwards in this regard. A tribunal was set up, to which I will refer in a moment, yet we are going to a situation in which the Prime Minister can allow staff appointments subject to such conditions as are determined by him. If we read a little further we find that section 21 sub-section (3) on page 10 of this Bill states: The Prime Minister may by writing determine that the terms and conditions of employment of a person employed under this Part . . . are varied . . . as specified in the determination. It just needs a letter from the Prime Minister to say what the situation of my staff members or of somebody else's staff members will be. I do not believe that is at all a good thing. It is open to patronage and should not really be contemplated by the Government. It is better done by the Remuneration Tribunal. For the interest of the Senate I will just run through a little of the history of the Tribunal. Until now the Tribunal has always been able to make the determination on members' entitlements to staff but it has seen the pay and conditions of those staff as falling under the control of the Public Service Board. I suppose the Minister will say that the Prime Minister could direct the Tribunal in certain ways. But at least it has been a little bit removed from his direct influence. The present Bill gives it right to him on his desk. He does not have to do anything other than write a letter to determine what a person's staff numbers or the salaries of those staff members will be. As a result of a 1974 amendment to the Remuneration Tribunal Act the Government has been able to request the Tribunal to determine on these entitlements. Prior to that amendment the Tribunal made recommendations on the subject but did not make determinations of its own volition, despite its having the power to do so. Since that amendment the Tribunal has made determinations regardless of whether it has been requested to do so by the Government. I come now to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. Power for the Tribunal to inquire into staffing entitlements flows from section 7 of that Act. A 1974 amendment added a section which provides for the Tribunal's consideration of this matter at the request of the Minister as well as on its own initiative. So it has been trying to get into the act for a little while. In the Tribunal's first report, prior to the 1974 amendment, it assessed a variety of submissions and recommended that the Government consider providing research staff to members of parliament. The Tribunal made further recommendations the following year after having been advised ex post facto that the Government proposed to take a new initiative in that area. On 4 March 1976 the then Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, wrote to the Chairman of the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to inquire into and determine a variety of matters. These included entitlements to staff. The Tribunal made a determination on this subject for the first time in Determination No. 1976/6, but it noted that the Public Service Board had the responsibility for pay and conditions. Similar determinations were made in response to letters from the Minister in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. No specific referral on staff was made by the Government in 1977, 1978 and 1983, but the Tribunal continued to make determinations in any case. If any honourable senators would like the particular pages or the determination numbers I would be only too pleased to supply them to them. Basically I come back to the fact that I believe the Tribunal should be empowered to continue making these kinds of decisions. If the Prime Minister or one of his Ministers has the right to determine the number of staff and their wages, as I have said, this situation is open to patronage. Although it might be good for the Prime Minister to be able to have that kind of power it is not good for the Government or the governing of this country. I am sure that the public outside this building would recognise only too well just how easy it would be to use the patronage that is implied in this Bill. There are errors and omissions in this Bill. When the Whips look through the legislation they will see some reference to honourable senators and honourable members. When the staff of office-holders are referred to no reference whatsoever is made to the Whips. I want to know who will look after them. They work hard and obviously they have been omitted somehow from this legislation which appears as if it has been rushed through in the dying hours of this session. I think too that the position of the President's staff is open to doubt . Who will look after that matter? The President of this Senate, the Speaker, or some committee under their auspices should determine how many staff members of parliament are entitled to. It certainly should not be the Prime Minister and his group. I referred by way of interjection to another situation when Senator Giles was speaking. Superannuation is different; different groups are covered by this and other legislation. Some people will be immediately eligible for superannuation while I am advised others will have to wait for one year and then prove they will be employed for a further three years. That is one example where I think there is trouble in this legislation. There are other areas such as redeployment but I think I have said enough to point out that this legislation is not good legislation. I would love to know when it was proposed to bring in this kind of legislation and how long the draftsmen had it because I feel quite confident that the period would not be very long. It certainly seems that it is rushed legislation and as I have said before in this place rushed legislation to a very large extent very often is proven to be bad legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.53) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contribution to this debate, varied though the respective contributions may have been in their understanding appreciation of the scope, the force and the effect of this legislation. Honourable mentions should be made in relation to the contributions of Senator Giles and Senator Macklin. Perhaps an only slightly less honourable mention should be made to Senator Townley whose contribution to the debate, along with the usual amiable banalities and excursion through his current whims, fancies and preoccupations only marginally germane to the subject matter of the legislation, did, nonetheless, offer some thoughtful comments on a number of matters of interest. As to his remarks about parliamentary disallowance of office-holder appointments of any significance, this is something that will appeal to a number of people, particularly on the basis of analogies drawn from the procedures in the United States of America where some very senior office-bearers do have to withstand very considerable parliamentary scrutiny, taking the form, essentially , of disallowance proceedings-to apply Australian terminology to them-before they can be confirmed in their offices. A couple of things should be said about that and its application to Australia. One is that it is very much an exaggeration to think in terms of congressional scrutineers having universal application to the otherwise patronage appointments of United States administrations. It is only the very tip of the iceberg that is dealt with in that way. Certainly one would not contemplate the kinds of Public Service appointments that Senator Townley seems to want to embrace in this procedure as being caught up in it in the United States. Secondly, of course, it should be said that the situation which there prevails, involving a very strict separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, is not the system, for better or worse, under which we operate here and, again, procedures of that kind, derived essentially from United States experience and a different constitutional system, can be thought of as having application to this country's procedures only with a very great deal of caution. Be that as it may, it is an interesting thought and one that perhaps needs to be further contemplated, particularly in the context of major office holders in the future. Senator Townley also raised the question of the appointment of staff of members of parliament. I say only this: It is certainly contemplated by the Government that the Remuneration Tribunal will continue to have a role in this process in that it should be able to consider the matter and make recommendations to the Government even though it is certainly anticipated that the Government, as at present, will retain the final responsibility for deciding the allocation of staff. Any disposition towards churlishness on this point by Senator Townley or anyone else on the Opposition benches should be tempered by the realisation, if they are in any fairminded frame of mind, that this Government's treatment of members of parliament in terms of their staff entitlements has been infinitely more generous than that which was meted out to the then Opposition in the days of the former Government, particularly to front benchers. I believe that our performance in his respect has been characterised by both a spirit of generosity and an understanding of the needs of parliamentarians. I would not like Senator Townley's innuendos to the contrary to go unchallenged or unanswered in this debate. Undoubtedly, the most fascinating contribution to the debate, however, was that of Senator Durack who presented himself tonight as some kind of alert, wide-eyed , athletic radical, aroused to almost a fever pitch of expectation, his adrenalin pounding, by my announcements and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Dawkins in respect of our proposals in the Public Service area. He further presented himself as reduced to almost desolation by what he now sees to be the torpor, the inadequacy, of the final product. All this from the man whose contribution to public administration in this country was to develop bottom drawer bureaucracy to its highest art form since Federation; all this from the man whose contribution to the bottom of the harbour scandal probably did more to discredit the administrative credibility of the Fraser Government than any other single event in the lifetime of that unhappy Administration; all this from a man whose inability, well intentioned as he may, undoubtedly, have been and undoubtedly still is, to move legislation, litigation, paper or anything else became legendary in his own ministerial lifetime; and all this, moreover, from a member of a former government whose contribution to public administration, apart from the industrial relations disasters of the Commonwealth Employees ( Employment Provisions) Act and the Commonwealth Employees (Retirement and Redeployment) Act, was one of endlessly repeated non-response and inactivity to a series of very major and far reaching reports. The Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, an initiative of the Labor Administration of Prime Minister Whitlam, reported in 1976 but produced practically nothing by way of legislative or any other response from the Fraser Government. The Bland Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee reported in 1976 with similar results. The search and destroy mission of the razor gang in 1981 produced all sorts of havoc and devastation which we are now gradually unwinding area by area but did nothing in the way of constructive reform of the basic elements of the Public Service itself. The Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration, analysing as it did wide scale managerial deficiencies, again was unmet by anything in the nature of constructive, let alone swift action. In a similar bag was the Connolly Committee, the Public Accounts Committee report No. 202, drawing attention, as it did, to numerous other inadequacies. The approach of the present Government has been totally different. We thought long, carefully and thoughtfully in opposition about the problems of public administration in this country. We carefully analysed the Coombs report and all the other reports. We drew the best from them and drew up a working blueprint to the extent that one can in opposition. We produced working papers, policy papers and White Papers very early on in the life of this Government and produced, in response to that, legislation at the earliest opportunity which now comes before this Parliament. Very important and far-reaching legislation it is. We had some sort of grudging and belated acknowledgment from Senator Durack that there are two or three matters of significance. He deigned to identify as deserving this appellation the provisions relating to the appointment of secretaries of departments, provisions about part time employment, the creation of the Merit Protection Review Agency, and the separating out from the traditional Public Service Board the function of grievance hearing and redress which is, of course, of enormous significance to those working at the coal-face within the Public Service. These are major changes on any view of the legislation, but they simply assume their place as major changes among many others in this package of legislation. I refer, for example, so far as the Public Service Reform Bill is concerned, to the establishment of the Senior Executive Service which was acknowledged by Senator Macklin certainly and just about anyone else who has looked at this as a major contribution administratively and structurally towards getting that mobility, that flexibility, in the senior levels of the Australian Public Service which is so desperately needed, in circumstances where the expectation of our senior administrators is of flexibility, mobility and of the need to perform in their particular jobs rather than being able to waddle along cheerfully in the backwaters of the administration that has been the situation in the past. A whole set of administrative arrangements for resource management is provided for in this legislation. There are provisions empowering the secretaries to create, abolish and reclassify offices within departments in accordance with classification guidelines developed by the Board and within number and salary profile controls administered by the Department of Finance. There is a very considerable degree of devolution in the way in which departments can be organised and reorganised to meet the particular exigencies of the moment. The dinosaur is beginning to move with the legislation. The way in which it creates new procedures, new structures, enables it to move with a much greater degree of dexterity and sensitivity than has been the case before. The legislation contains, again, a very clear statement of merit principles and prescribes forms of unjustifiable discrimination. Associated with that there is provision for the departments and prescribed authorities to formulate equal employment opportunity programs in a whole series of other interrelated measures and make non-discrimination and merit as the key criterion, the real working principle, on which our Public Service operates. It is not marginal or trivial stuff. It is absolutely central and absolutely important to effective public administration in this country. The provision for departments and prescribed authorities to prepare industrial democracy plans to further genuinely participate in decision making within departments was derided in a very grudging fashion by Senator Durack as just some kind of trendy capitulation to the forces of modernisation, but it is of absolutely crucial significance to the men and women who really have to make our Public Service, our public sector, work. That is not deserving of the kind of churlishness which was expressed here tonight. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill contains provisions which rationalise the restructure not only of the rules governing the appointment of staff of members of parliament, which I have mentioned already, but also ministerial consultants. The legislation creates, for the first time, a proper framework for the use rather than the abuse on key projects of people who can bring to government relevant specialised or technically advanced skills, which is the sort of thing that Senator Durack seemed anxious in the abstract to encourage in his talk of contracts and contractual arrangements and greater flexibility but which he cannot recognise when he falls over them in terms of the legislation now in front of him tonight. What we had from the Opposition spokesmen tonight was churlish, silly, grudging stuff-a performance which shows all too clearly why it is that the previous Government lost control of its administration and, in the process, lost the confidence of the Australian public. Senator Macklin, by contrast, was absolutely right when he described this legislation as the most comprehensive package of proposals for reform of the Public Service since its inception in this country. That is the way to describe it; that is what we have here tonight. Let me finish by simply repeating publicly to Senator Macklin and the Australian Democrats the assurances and undertakings that were given by Mr Dawkins, as the Minister in charge of these matters, during the discussions leading up to this debate on the three particular matters identified by Senator Macklin as being of concern, understandably, to his Party. First of all, as to the advertising of the Senior Executive Service vacancies, it is the case that in addition to notification in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette the normal arrangement will be to advertise all vacancies in the Senior Executive Service in a block in appropriate newspapers. In some cases display advertisements will be used and executive search services engaged. Secondly, as to the question of staff representation on selection committees for the SES, it is the case that promotion and appointment committees will be very carefully chosen, always including a representative of the Public Service Board and at least one member of the SES. On the third matter that concerned Senator Macklin and the Democrats -remuneration for the SES-it is the case that to assist in the recruitment of staff from outside the Service the Public Service Board has had aspects of the remuneration package under review, particularly those where reimbursement for expenses incurred are involved; for example, relocation expenses. The Government has also decided that fixed term appointees should be able to be covered by an endowment superannuation policy as an alternative to normal superannuation coverage. So we have acted, and will continue to act, in a way that is sensitive and I hope responsive to the very legitimate concerns that have been expressed in this area. There are many other ways in which one could sing the praises of this very far- reaching, progressive and clear-sighted legislation, but the hour being as it is and the state of the program being as it, I do nothing more than commend this very important legislation to the House and wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.08) —Two amendments have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition but I am not proceeding with the first one because I am persuaded that the matters that are dealt with in that proposed amendment would in fact be taken into account in the earlier provisions of the legislation . The object of the amendment in relation to clause 31 of the Public Service Reform Bill is to delay the effect of the removal of the appeal rights in respect of the appointments of officers to the Senior Executive Service for a period of two years. That would obviously enable a phasing in period or adjustment period for this new proposal. The Opposition thinks there is some merit in the matter being phased in in this way. I therefore move: (2) Page 41, clause 31, proposed section 49E, leave out the proposed section, insert the following new section: ' ''49E. (1) The provisions of Division 5 (other than sections 51AA, 51A and 52 ) do not apply in relation to a promotion or transfer to a Senior Executive Service office. ' ''(2) Sub-section (1) has effect only in relation to promotions or transfers occurring after the expiration of the period of 2 years commencing on the day of which section 31 of the Public Service Reform Act 1984 comes into operation.''.' . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.10) —Confronted with that wholehearted approach to the amendment, I am almost lost for words! However, the amendment is thought to be undesirable by the Government as the provision of appeals, even for a limited period would, in our view, break up the cohesion of the new system for promotion in the Senior Executive Service which itself places very strong emphasis on natural justice and a full and proper consideration of the claims of all candidates. It may take some time to introduce the staff appraisal aspects of the scheme but that has always been envisaged as being really helpful in its working rather than being essential to it. The amendment is really unnecessary in so far as the new system for promotion in the SES really will be much more objective and thorough-going than the existing system. Even when one allows for the removal of appeals, one has a situation in which the Board is in a sense riding shotgun on the process and will be able to suggest additional candidates before evaluation is commenced and will be represented on all selection committees. After the selection committee process, secretaries to all departments will report to the Board for its consideration. In all cases the Board will be looking to see that proper processes have been followed and adequate search has been made and will be able to ask the departments to make another report. So from that point of view, in terms of guaranteeing the credibility of the results, one would not seem to need the appeal process in order to trigger the attention of the Board, as has really been the case in the past. All selections will now be more thoroughly considered in departments and they will all be considered again by the Board, whereas now the Board usually examines selections in only a very small number of cases where there are appeals. As to some sort of additional layer of protection for staff members who allege there is some discrimination or other improper practice, now they will, of course, immediately from the operation of this legislation, be able to approach the Merit Protection Review Agency for assistance in those situations. So for all those reasons, approaching it from the point of view of both the quality of public administration and from the point of view of the position of staff members affected by it, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary and that it would, as I began by saying, break up immediately the effect that really this whole statutory new procedure is designed to achieve, and that is an integrated and cohesive new procedure. Amendment negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Senator Durack, do you wish to move your other amendment at this stage? Senator Durack —No, it is consequential. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.14) —I wish to ask a somewhat innocuous question . Reference is made in clause 3 on page 2 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984 under the heading 'interpretation' to the definition of 'relevant office'. Paragraph (f) refers to a recognised political party. What is the definition of 'a recognised political party'? Would a recognised political party include one that is registered pursuant to the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.15) —I am not sure that this is here used as a term of art to pick up the new definitions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There, as I recall, 'registered political party' rather than ' recognised political party' is the terminology. So I do not think the new Senator Brian Harradine Group, new party extraordinaire, is likely to derive much nourishment from the language of clause 3, paragraph (f). I do not think Senator Harradine, although it is in the category of 'good try', will really get much help by way of immediately acquiring large bundles of extra staff under the procedures here set out by virtue of his new found status or intended new status as a political party. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.16) —It is not in the nature of a good try. The Attorney-General would be well aware that there are avenues that I am currently able to pursue which I have deliberately not pursued so that I do not get perquisites which I would otherwise be entitled to. I have not pursued those avenues. I am fully aware of them, but I have not pursued them, because everybody knows the reason for the registration of the name. However, I simply wanted to know, and I think the Committee is entitled to know, if it is voting on this legislation, what is meant by a recognised political party. I think the Senate would be entitled to know whether 'recognised' includes a registered political party, registered pursuant to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Are those parties all then reliant on the good offices of the Prime Minister? Senator Townley raised that question in the debate on the second reading. He mentioned some of the problems that could arise. I am not saying that they would arise under the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but they could arise under some future Prime Minister in that some duress may be exercised for some benefit on an office holder of a recognised political party. I believe it is fair for the Committee to know what is a recognised political party. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —I am not sure that I can give Senator Harradine much more help than saying that, in the construction of the phrase 'recognised political party', undoubtedly a court or someone else whose job it was to apply it would obviously have close regard to whether or not the body in question was a registered political party within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Whether one would be able to apply the rest of these provisions which talk about leaders and deputy leaders in a situation where the registered political party in question consisted of one person without discernible followers in the chamber in question is another matter. That would be a matter for argument at the time. Senator Harradine has always been able to survive conspicuously well in Assyrian bazaar aspects of negotiation for staff members around this place. I have no doubt that his dexterity in these matters will serve him well in the future. I do not think he is the sort of person, or even now registered political party, who will need the statutory support that is here provided for, albeit in a discretionary way. However, beyond that I really cannot be more precise. It is clearly not the same terminology being employed with exactly the same effect as in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. But equally clearly, the new provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act will obviously be of significance in applying and giving force and effect to these provisions here . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.19) —I want to make it very clear that at half past 10 tonight I could make a formal announcement here that I am the leader of the Senator Brian Harradine party. Instantly I would receive another $17,000 a year, plus a number of perquisites. I do not intend to do that. That is not contained in this legislation because of the operations of the Remuneration Tribunal. I am not concerned about that sort of business. I am concerned about any future situation that may arise, not so much in my case as in other cases, with regard to office holders being office holders of recognised political parties and being dependent upon the good offices of a Prime Minister. All I wanted was at least an explanation of that, and I think I have received it: The person concerned would have regard to the relevant provisions of other legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.21) —I would not want to give Senator Harradine any encouragement that he could haul himself up by his own boot straps and simply, by describing himself as the leader of a political party, become qualified. Hotspur or whoever it was in Shakespeare could call spirits from the vasty deep. But the question in issue was whether they would come. The honourable senator can call himself a leader to his heart's content, but for the purposes of the application of this provision if he were here simply as a solo flyer or an independent, albeit flying under some party banner, that would be a matter for proper construction and application of the legislation as to whether he is entitled to whatever it is that this legislation talks about. But that is a matter for discussion at the time rather than something that can be predicted in advance from the language that is before it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.22) —I support Senator Harradine's expression of concern. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you starting one, too? Senator PETER RAE —No, and I am not joining the Senator Harradine Party either, strange as that may seem. But I remember over the years the times when we had the Australia Party and Senator Turnbull and the Liberal Movement and Senator Hall. We have had all the problems associated with an executive buying votes and giving to some people special benefits-double offices, extra staff and other forms of recognition. I say to Senator Robertson that I am not suggesting that this has been the exclusive preserve of any particular government at any particular time. I am just suggesting that over the years of which I have knowledge, which are only the last 16, I have a recollection of some occasions on which these sorts of questions have arisen. I believe that Senator Harradine' s questions are reasonable, that the responses from Senator Gareth Evans are not as precise as they could be. We do need more definition; otherwise the game of politics can be confused more than it should be by, shall I say, Executive fiat- I think that would be the best way that I could attempt to use the term. I do not wish to delay the proceedings. I support the concern expressed that there is a legitimate question to be raised. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.24) —I have another amendment of which the Committee is perfectly aware to clause 31 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984, which was the subject of a considerable amount of debate in another place concerning the information to be provided in regard to consultants employed by Ministers. This proposal, in terms of conditions of employment under which a consultant is employed, was moved in another place and was not accepted by the Government for reasons which I am sure will utterly fascinate the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the great apostle of freedom of information. As a matter of fact, my attention was diverted from the proceedings of the Committee because I was reading the views of his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins. They are a total denial of any principles of freedom of information. As I said, we do not object to the employment of consultants by Ministers as provided for in this legislation. We think it is a good principle. But certainly the terms and conditions of consultants' employment should be known, as are those of public servants, judges, members of parliament and indeed, Ministers. But for some extraordinary reason the Minister for Finance gets very coy about providing any information on the terms and conditions of ministerial consultants . We propose to pursue this matter by way of this proposed amendment. It will be interesting to see how the Attorney-General who, as I said, is a great apostle of freedom of information handles this proposed amendment. The most extraordinary feature of the attitude which has been taken by the Government is that although it objects to disclosure being a requirement under this legislation the Minister in another place indicated that the information may be obtained at hearings of Estimates committees. Of course, that is so. We do obtain a great deal of information by the process of questioning at Estimates committee hearings. I would be very surprised if this information was ever refused at Estimates committee hearings. Certainly the Attorney-General when he was in opposition was very anxious to get information about private matters. He always wanted to know to the last cent what counsel were paid. Senator Peter Rae —He has been less expeditious in government. Senator DURACK —Yes, there has been a considerable change in attitude since he has been in government. The arguments advanced by this Government in opposition to this proposal just do not hold water. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Page 15, clause 31, paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (iv), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(v) the term and conditions of employment under which the consultant is employed of the kind referred to in section (5),'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.27) —I am sorry to disappoint Senator Durack, but there are good arguments for the Government taking the view that it does. Essentially it is that the provision would be unnecessary to the extent that senators and members are able to seek the information at Estimates committee hearings and very rarely to my knowledge are they denied it, although there are circumstances, much insisted upon by Senator Durack when he was in government, in which it may be inappropriate to so supply such information. Equally, members of the public have access to it, quite properly, in the overwhelming majority of instances through the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. What it means, however, not to have a blanket statutory provision creating an automatic obligation to lay all this out is that privacy in those very few situations in which that conceivably could be relevant and commercial confidentiality in those few situations in which it is likely to be relevant could then be protected, could be the subject of a claim of exemption, where this was desirable and the particular case could be argued out in a way that is impossible when there is a blanket statutory obligation. A further argument is that the consolidation of information of the kind that would readily be available where there is a statutory obligation to report about it might tend to set a floor, as it were, for these terms and conditions and prejudice the ability of the Commonwealth to get the best deal it can in all cases. That might be thought to be a fairly robust employer view of the situation, but it is one which I think Senator Rae would particularly appreciate as a rigorous exponent and advocate of the art of clean, swift, streamlined administrative management in this area. Although I readily accept the principle that in only the most exceptional cases should this information be withheld, I argue that there are exceptional cases and the statute ought not to override that circumstance completely, particularly so far as commercial confidence is concerned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.29) —The Australian Democrats accept the views put by the Government in relation to the terms and conditions of consultants. We feel that the guarantees that have been provided in the Members of Parliament ( Staff) Bill in relation to finding information, while enabling the confidentiality of commercial operations to be maintained unless overriding reasons can be provided, are adequate. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I thank the Committee. I just want to take the point that under the new principles of statutory interpretation, I am delighted that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has given the explanation that he has given. I emphasise the point that that explanation has been given: That only in the most exceptional circumstances would the provisions objected to be relied upon, and that, in other words, the onus of proof would be very strongly on those who are endeavouring to prevent the information being made available. I well recall the debates at a time when I was chairman of an Estimates committee, when Senator Gareth Evans was an enthusiastic member of that committee and the present shadow Attorney-General was the Minister in charge of the debates which took place about the release of this information. It is important that this information should be available unless there are the most exceptional circumstances to the contrary. I am delighted to know that the Attorney-General agrees that only in the most exceptional circumstances would the information not be available. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.32) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) did not finally respond to the question of the recognised political parties. It is important for the Committee to note that there is no definition in this legislation. It is most unusual for a piece of legislation not to have a definition of a key term within it. That should be recognised by the Committee, although, in fairness to the Government, I understand that this matter arose from an amendment moved by the Opposition in the House of Representatives; so I suppose that lets the Government off somewhat. It is a little unfair for us, as a House of review, to be considering legislation coming up from the House of Representatives but not having a key term such as 'a recognised political party' defined in the legislation. I might add that what I was talking about when I said that if I were to announce that I was the leader of a registered political party was that that would set in train certain events. Those events are not associated with this Bill. Those events are associated, of course, with entitlements under the Remuneration Tribunal's decision. I mentioned that I had specifically refrained from mentioning that fact so that the consequences of that announcement would not flow. I make that perfectly clear to the Committee at this stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.34) —I note the points that have been made by Senator Harradine about the definition. In the event that there proves to be any practical difficulties in the implementation and application of it, the Government will give consideration to further amendments to the legislation at the appropriate time. Amendment negatived. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.35) —I am pleased that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, is in the chamber tonight because I know that the matter I want to raise is one about which she is informed. I hope the Minister will use her influence to see that what I am going to talk about comes about. I am talking about a swimming pool for Malkara Special School. Malkara Special School was opened in 1970 to serve the educational and social needs of moderately and severely intellectually handicapped children aged from three years to 16 years resident in south Canberra. There are at present about 73 pupils at Malkara, which has the largest population of primary age moderately to profoundly intellectually handicapped children in the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, it is the required school to attend for such children who live on the south side of Canberra. For three years now the school has sought funding from the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority but has not yet been successful in obtaining money for the hydrotherapy swimming facility. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) raised the matter in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1983 and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) responded with an answer he had obtained from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The answer stated: I understand that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority will consider the provision of a therapy pool for Malkara when priorities are being determined for the 1984-85 financial year. The advantage of such a swimming facility in educating handicapped children is, I believe, well documented. I do not think that tonight is the time to canvass the literature. However, I refer particularly to 'A Practical Guide for Teaching the Mentally Retarded to Swim' by the Council for National Co-operation in Aquatics and the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation 1969, and also Lawrence and Hacketts 'Water Learning'-A New Adventure'. It is clear that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has recognised the need for such facilities by supplying hydrotherapy pools to two special schools on the north side of Canberra. The Hartley Street Centre, opened in 1972, got its pool two years later in 1974, and the Cranleigh School, opened in 1974, got its pool five years later in 1979. At present there are slightly fewer pupils at both of those schools. As I have indicated, Malkara has been in operation for 14 years and still does not have a pool. At the very least I suggest that that would be a highly desirable facility. I suggest that it is an essential facility that ought to be provided for the children who are attending that school. It has been suggested in the past that there are other pools nearby and available. For example, there is a hydrotherapy pool at Woden Valley Hospital and this school uses it. I ask honourable senators to contemplate the difficulty of getting handicapped children out of their natural school environment to the hospital to use the pool on a limited basis and returning them to the school. The Woden Valley Hospital pool is extensively used. In fact, there are some limitations placed on the people who are able to use it. The pool is designed and regulated principally for use by geriatric and rheumatoid patients. It is really too deep at its shallowest point and much too hot for the children of Malkara Special School. There are other problems with that pool as well. The Phillip pool is the closest but in fact services the schools in Weston, Woden and Tuggeranong and is extensively used. The Deakin pool presumably is the second closest. It was used by the school but it was excluded from using it during the time that the Institute of Sport was using the Deakin pool. Since then the entrance fee has become prohibitive. The Erindale pool, which is also used by Malkara, is some 25 minutes away by bus. It is not heated sufficiently in the winter for it to be suitable for the handicapped children at Malkara and certainly it takes much of the day to get there and back. There are other problems. There are certain requirements of a pool for children who attend Malkara. I will not go into them all tonight, but they have been documented. The case for the Malkara School has been adequately placed before the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I suggest that now perhaps an even greater use could be made of a pool in that Hartley Court has been built next door to the Malkara School. It will have handicapped children in residence and it is without doubt possible that a pool at Malkara could also be used by the people living at Hartley Court, certainly in the summer and at weekends. As I have said, I am glad that the Minister is in the chamber. I hope that together we can perhaps influence the Schools Authority to include this facility in the forthcoming Budget. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.41) —I am very sympathetic to the issue which Senator Reid has raised on the adjournment tonight. I certainly do not need any persuading of the merits of water therapy for a whole range of learning difficulties, and certainly not for the range of learning difficulties experienced by children in the Malkara Special School. As Senator Reid has pointed out, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has acknowledged the importance of water therapy for children in special schools by its decision to provide pools in some of the special schools in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not know what priority the Schools Authority is according to the Malkara swimming pool project at this stage. I hope it is a high priority. I presume that the only problem is a budgetary one, which of course is something that the Government is attending to at this stage. As I have said, I need no persuading of the virtues of a swimming pool for the Malkara Special School. Although I am a person who regularly advocates community facilities for community use, and the integration of members of the community into community provided facilities, I can see that in the case of the Malkara Special School the difficulties involved in using community facilities would be very great and would detract to a large extent from the benefits that the children would get. I take up in a very positive spirit the remarks made by Senator Reid tonight and I will certainly convey her views, and support them with mine, to the Schools Authority shortly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 697) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) How many deaths have been recorded in Australia over the past 10 years at: (a) coal-fired power stations; (b) hydro-electric power stations; and (c) other power stations. (2) What were the causes of death in Australia over the past 10 years of people working in: (a) coal-fired power stations; (b) hydro-electric power stations; and (c) other power stations. (3) How does the number of recorded deaths and causes of death in Australia over the past 10 years compare with the number of deaths and causes of death in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Canada and the United States in: (a) coal-fired power stations; (b) hydro-electric power stations; and (c) other power stations. (4) How many deaths have been recorded over the past 10 years at nuclear power stations and what were the causes of those deaths in: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) France; (c) Germany; (d) Japan; (e) the United States. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)- (a) 26 (b) 1 (c) 1 (2)- (a) Asbestosis 2 Asphyxiation 2 Crushing 1 Drowning 1 Excavation Accident 1 Explosion 3 Falls 7 Heart Attacks 3 Lathe Accident 1 Lung Pulmonary Infection from Solvents in Silicone Grease 1 Scalding 1 Struck by Objects 3 Total 26 (b) Fall 1 Total 1 (c) Heart Attack 1 Total 1 (3) Information on the number of deaths and causes of deaths in power stations in these countries is not readily available. (4) The Nuclear Energy Agency has advised that to the best of its knowledge there has not been to date a radiation-induced death or serious radiation- induced injury at any nuclear power station in Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development member countries. There have been a few fatalities due to non-radiation causes, for example, falls and steam burns. However, the Agency has advised further that it does not keep statistics on these 'non-nuclear accidents' and it is therefore not in a position to provide detailed information on the number and causes of such accidents in nuclear stations. (Question No. 739) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What Federal Government grants have been awarded to the in-vitro fertility research program. (2) Do these projects include research into the prevention of infertility; if so, what proportion has been allocated to this area. (3) What projects have been specifically funded to research the causes and treatment of infertility. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Federal Government provides a majority of its medical research funds through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC). These funds are allocated by NH and MRC on the basis of scientific merit as assessed by a peer review system. A project grant application which is proposing to conduct experiments on humans must be approved by an institutional ethics committee before NH and MRC will award a grant. The NH and MRC has not earmarked specific funds to the in-vitro fertilization research program. Instead it has received applications from members of the research community who are pursuing research related to the in-vitro fertilization process. Grants awarded for such research are listed below: NH AND MRC SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH RELATED TO IN-VITRO FERTILISATION AND INFERTILITY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1. Lopata Dr A. 10,502 5,180 2,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Monash University The action of Luteinizing hormone on the onset of meiotic maturation in explanted rat oocytes. 2. Lopata Dr A. . . . . . . 14,931 13,914 15,154 . . . . . . Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Monash University The ultrastructure and differentiation of pre-implantation human embryos. 3. Trounson Dr A. O. . . . . . . 18,090 20,242 22,889 . . . . . . Nayudu Dr P . L. Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Monash University Qualitative changes in protein synthesis in the mammalian ooccyte during maturation, fertilization and pre-implantation embryo development and differentiation 4. Trounson, Dr A. O. . . . . . . . . . . 17,484 18,861 24,270 . . Leeton A./ Professor J. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology A study of male infertility by in-vitro fertilization 5. Lopata, Dr A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,944 41,805 46,648 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology University of Melbourne Fertilization in the human: its regulation and outcome 6. Trounson, Dr A. O. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,762 26,036 29,446 Mohr, Dr L . R. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Monash University Cellular aspects of cryopreservation of mammalian embryos 7. Hyne, Dr R. V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,722 38,859 Lopata, Dr A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology University of Melbourne The regulation of fertilising capacity in spermatozoa 8. Jansen, Dr R. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,415 Fertility Laboratory Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Human fallopian tube secretory cell function in organ culture 9. Temple-Smith, Dr P. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,922 Teichtahl, Dr H. Department of Anatomy Monash University Ciliary function and its relationship to respiratory disease and infertility 10. Daunter, Dr B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,208 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology University of Queensland Cervical mucus glyco-syltransferases in fertility and infertility 11. Quinn, Dr P. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,174 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Adelaide University Factors affecting the viability of human gametes and embryos 12. Brown, Professor J. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,209 Lopata, Dr A . Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology University of Melbourne FSH thresholds during follicular maturation in the human and rhesus monkey (2) Research associated with most of the above projects bears either directly or indirectly on infertility problems. It is not possible to indicate a proportion of funds allocated to the prevention of infertility. (3) As mentioned above, the NH and MRC has not earmarked specific funds to the in-vitro fertilization research program neither has it earmarked specific funds to research the causes and treatment of infertility. It is for members of the medical research community to initiate this research and seek funding from the NH and MRC in the normal way. Of the projects listed above, those numbered 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 would be related to research on the causes and treatment of infertility. (Question No. 811) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) Are widows under 45 years of age and without dependants able to receive the widow's pension. (2) Is it departmental practice for officers of the Department of Social Security to advise such widows to apply for unemployment benefits. (3) Does the Minister for Social Security recognise that such women may be without a vocation or without employable skills or may be caring for children aged over 16 years who may themselves be unemployed and that, as a consequence, unemployment benefits are not a real alternative for these women. (4) Does the Minister have any specific measures in mind to assist widows who find themselves in this situation. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes, a widow's pension may be payable to a widow under 45 years without dependants during the 26 weeks following the death of her husband if in the opinion of the Director-General of Social Security she is in necessitous circumstances during that period. (2) If the widow without dependants is not qualified for pension, or is without assistance when the pension ceases, it is the practice for officers of my Department to advise her of the other benefits available. Unemployment benefit is generally appropriate but if the widow is in ill health or other special circumstances exist, invalid pension, sickness benefit or special benefit may be appropriate. (3) and (4) I am aware of the difficulties that these widows may experience when faced with the prospect of having to enter or re-enter the workforce. However, I do not agree that unemployment benefit is necessarily an inappropriate form of assistance for them. Nor do I agree that the answer lies simply in extending eligibility for Class B widows pension. In my view there is a strong case for considering measures which have regard more directly to the individual's capacity or potential to support themselves. A committee of inquiry is currently undertaking a major review of the Government's labour market programs. Among other things, the Committee will be reviewing the adequacy of existing programs in facilitating the training and entry or re-entry of individuals into the labour force. The outcome of this review should be particularly relevant to the consideration of measures to assist women in the circumstances described. (Question No. 817) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) How many people receiving lump sum superannuation payments in the 1981-82 financial year received amounts in the following ranges: (a) Under $5,000; (b) $5,000-$10,000; (c) $10,000-$15,000; (d) $15,000-$20,000; (e) $20,000-$25,000; (f) $25,000-$30,000; (g) $30,000-$35,000; (h) $35,000-$40,000; (i) $40,000-$45,000; (j) $45,000-$50,000; (k) $50,000-$60,000; (l) $60,000-$70,000; (m) $70,000-$80,000; (n) $80,000-$90,000; (o) $90,000-$100,000; (p) $100,000 and above. (2) Are figures available for any later years; if so, can they be provided according to the same divisions. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Available income tax statistics as to lump sums in respect of which 5 per cent is assessable relate mainly to superannuation payments but also include amounts in respect of long service leave accrued prior to 16 August 1978 and certain other payments made on termination of employment. The relevant statistics are not classified by size of lump sum, but some information has been obtained from a sample of returns of taxable and non-taxable individuals for the 1981-82 income year that included lump sums assessable as to 5 per cent of the payments. The expanded results of the sample showing the numbers of taxpayers in each range are as follows: Number Grade of lump sum payment of people $ $ '000 under-5,000 159.1 5,000-9,999 19.3 10,000-14,999 10.4 15,000-19,999 4.7 20,000-24,999 3.9 25,000-29,999 3.2 30,000-34,999 1.6 35,000-39,999 1.7 40,000-44,999 1.3 45,000-49,999 .6 50,000-59,999 1.9 60,000-69,999 1. 3 70,000-79,999 1.3 80,000-89,999 .5 90,000-99,999 .6 100,000 & over 2.4 Total 213.8 The results should be interpreted with caution because of the smallness of the sample on which they were based-2,876 returns out of a population of 212,514 taxpayers (with lump sum payments totalling $1,785m) whose returns were dealt with under the computer-assisted assessing process. (2) Similar figures are not yet available for later years. However, it is mentioned that there has been significant growth in the number of taxpayers with lump sum payments in the 1982-83 income year. Based on data from returns assessed to the middle of May 1984 it is estimated that the comparable numbers for the 1982-83 income year will be 270,000. (Question No. 901) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: Were minutes or transcripts made of the National Conferences of Social Security Appeals Tribunals held in Brisbane on 16 and 17 July 1983; if so, could a copy of the transcript be provided to me. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (i) Yes, a transcript was made of the National Conference of Social Security Appeals Tribunals held in Brisbane last July. (ii) I have provided the honourable senator with a copy. Senator Walsh —On 17 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2760) Senator Watson asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Since the last increase in the number of Taxation Boards of Review was in 1950 and there has been a significant increase in the number of assessments, the complexity of taxation law and the number of objections since then, will the Government give consideration to appointing additional boards of review to handle the backlog of references awaiting decision by the three three-member taxation boards of review? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is aware of the significant increase in the complexity of the taxation law and the increase in the number of objections since the creation of Taxation Board of Review No. 3 in 1950. Consideration has been given over the intervening years to an increase in the number of Boards of Review but no decision has ever been taken to do so. I draw the honourable senator's attention to Report No. 17 of the Administrative Review Council. It deals with the review of taxation decisions by Boards of Review. The report is presently being considered by officials of the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Taxation Office for the purpose of making appropriate recommendations to the Government. The question of additional Boards will be considered in the light of the recommendations. I have been informed by the Commissioner of Taxation that procedures before the Boards of Review are being streamlined so that the Boards now have the capacity to review more cases and to review them more quickly. Senator Grimes —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1626) Senator Richardson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the closure of the Ciba-Geigy pharmaceutical plant at Smithfield. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: In the news release concerning closure of its pharmaceutical manufacturing plant at Smithfield, Ciba-Geigy Australia Limited stated: The Company wishes to assure the community that there will be no disruption to the supply of products currently sourced in Australia. Discussions have been held between Ciba-Geigy and the Department of Health to ensure the smooth transition from products manufactured locally to imported products in order that patients in this country will not suffer from a lack of drugs produced at Smithfield. Closure of the plant at Smithfield is part of a general restructuring of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which has also seen in recent times the opening of substantial new pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Victoria and Queensland with resultant job opportunities at those plants.