Friday, 7 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education: Government Funding To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 187 citizens) and Collard (from 138 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law 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. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Primmer (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That as the assets test, 1. will cost the Australian taxpayer at least $30 million in the coming financial year, leaving less money available for pensioners, 2. is causing worry and apprehension amongst older people and their families, 3. will affect those people least able to alter their financial situation, and 4. is confusing many people about to retire after many years of paying taxes, that it be abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 306 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 2,249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That: the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your Petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first put to the people of Australia in a Referendum and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that: The slaughter of the wild horses in Queensland and Northern Territory is completely unnecessary and very much inhumane. Your petitioners humbly pray that every effort is made to find an alternative solution to this horrifying act. At the very least, try to ensure that the killings, if they are still to continue, be controlled and carried out humanely. There is no excuse for such barbaric attitudes towards life in this so called ' civilized' country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 297 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That the recent failure of the Federal Parliament to disallow the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance will contribute further to the erosion of moral standards in Australia. In particular, the Legislation increases the danger of the moral well-being of our children, by removing controls, at the point of production and importation of pornographic material. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Public Ordinance of 1983 will be repealed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 293 citizens). Petitions received. Consideration resumed from 6 September. The Bills. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —Senator Evans, I point out that you will need to seek leave to move the amendment to each of the Bills. You are allowed to move only one amendment at a time. You should seek leave to move the amendment to the several Bills at once. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(9.04) —I seek leave to move my amendment to each of the Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 4 and 9) Amendment Bills. Leave granted. Senator JACK EVANS —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments in the Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 4 and 9) Amendment Bills 1984: Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), proposed new paragraph 4 (d), line 8, leave out '10%', insert '2.5%'. I have already canvassed the reasons for this measure. We believe that it is inadequate for the Senate simply to slap the Government on the wrist with an amendment which says: 'Would it not be lovely if we took stronger measures?' We believe that we must make our views known to the Government. The majority of, if not all, honourable senators believe that a 10 per cent tax on the wine industry would have an immediate impact on that industry, which could result in the closure of some vineyards and will certainly result in a dramatic reduction in the production of quality wine and, therefore, put Australian exports at a severe disadvantage because vineyards will lose much of their base market in Australia-the quality wine market. Having lost that base market, vineyards simply would not have enough to launch into an export market. My amendment is designed to enable the wine industry to absorb the prospect of a sales tax on its products. It will allow the tax to be 2.5 per cent, instead of the 10 per cent that the Government had planned for the industry. The effect of my amendment will be to phase in the sales tax over a period of, I suggest, at least five years before the tax reaches that 10 per cent figure. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.07) —The Government will not accept the amendment. Senator Jack Evans said that most honourable senators believe that a sales tax of 10 per cent will have serious and damaging repercussions on the wine industry. I suppose that people can believe whatever they like. Last night, I put on the record very good theoretical reasons why those repercussions are not likely to occur. More importantly, there is empirical evidence in Victoria, where a tax of similar magnitude was imposed last year, that the effects on the industry were negligible. Therefore, the fears expressed by Senator Jack Evans are groundless. Of course, that is not the only issue that would have to be considered. There are serious revenue implications entailed in accepting Senator Jack Evans's amend- ment-$46m in a full year. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.08) —I briefly indicate that the Opposition will not support the Australian Democrats amendment. The Opposition made clear in the second reading debate and in the amendment that we moved to the motion that the Bills be read a second time its attitude with regard to the changes that have been made. We stressed our belief that the timing was wrong for this measure. This is the Government's Budget and this legislation is a measure of the Government's judgment on these matters. We have made it clear that we do not agree with that judgment. However, we do not feel that we agree more with the attitude of the Australian Democrats in rewriting the Government's approach to this measure. We believe that it is inappropriate for a party that is not in government to talk of striking and phasing in a rate of tax in an area where the Government anticipates raising close to $50m. Not because we do not understand that there will be difficulties for the industry but rather because this is our general approach to Budget measures, we do not, on this occasion, support the approach that the Australian Democrats are taking in trying to strike a new rate which may or may not have more effects than the Democrats have put forward. I do not know why the rate of 2.5 per cent has been chosen or why it should have support. We have a Budget Bill before us, and we have made our attitude to it clear. The representations that we have had from the industry have given us some concern about the measure's effect. I have noted what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said. The Opposition will not support the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.10) —I am disappointed that the Opposition cannot support the amendment. I will rehearse what I think is a reasonable argument. The argument was probably best put by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) in Opposition on 25 February 1982 when he said: The principled character of the Opposition from the ALP, which I have been at pains to endeavour to explain-- this was said precisely in relation to the Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill- built, as it is, around these concepts of survival as distinct from non- survival Bills . . . Honourable senators will remember that the amounts of money concerned with the Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1A to 9A) in the 1982 situation were larger than we are talking about at the moment. I am sure the Government would not see that principle as being breached. Senator Gareth Evans continued: . . . around these concepts of survival as distinct from non-survival Bills and around the concepts of mandate and merit . . . In other places he expands the concept of whether or not the Government can claim any mandate from the people. He said: So far as the question of a mandate is concerned, it has been said by speaker after speaker that, of course, it is the case that the Government can claim no mandate for this from the people. Using his criteria-the criteria of the spokesperson for the then Opposition, now the Attorney-General-this Government can claim no mandate for this proposition. This proposition was explicitly denied during the election campaign. So not only does the Government have no mandate, it explicitly put to the people the proposition that it would not do this. Senator Gareth Evans went on to the third concept, the concept of mandate, and the last concept, that of merit. Elsewhere, in explaining what he meant by merit, Senator Gareth Evans was at pains to point out the implications that such a Bill may have for the electorate . He said: If the Bills in question are manifestly unmeritorious and if they lack any kind of clear, electoral mandate from the people, then we have an obligation, as long as the Senate operates as it does and retains the powers that it has at the moment, to defeat them. I think that is a clear doctrine. It was spelt out clearly and it has to be one from which this Government cannot resile. At that stage the Government was willing to take the political position it did in relation to another Government' s Bill. I think that Senator Evans spelt out very clearly and precisely how he would expect future sales tax Bills to be dealt with. There is a very clear doctrine that the Government accepts in relation to these Bills. It is important that the Senate look at these Bills because the essential difference we are looking at is the notion of new policy items. I think it has been accepted for quite a period in the Senate that when one is looking at new policy items they are treated differently from ongoing policy items, particularly in the area of revenue raising. Hence I believe that we have to apply differing criteria to the propositions as to whether or not the item is one of continuing revenue raising to the Government or one of new revenue raising to the Government. I have put forward elsewhere the proposition that one solution to the problems that the Senate and the House of Representatives experienced in 1975 would be to limit the Senate's powers to new policy items so that any government could be assured of continuing policy items and would always have that revenue base. In other words, any government from year to year would know that it could rely upon the previous revenue raising base because it had been agreed to by the Senate on a previous occasion. This would mean, if adopted, that the Senate would have complete powers of review but the Government would have complete security in revenue raising up to the point of the previous Budget. That is at least one suggestion of how we might work. I believe it important to distinguish in a slightly more detailed fashion than the Opposition parties have done in relation to these Bills. I wish to mention one other item in relation to this; that is, the distinction that I believe must be drawn quite clearly between the Supply Bills, Appropriation Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) and revenue raising measures. The 1975 crisis occurred in relation to the Appropriation Bills; it did not occur in relation to revenue raising Bills. Indeed, there is a very clear distinction other than that one is handing out and the other is getting money in. The clear distinction is that the Government each year must get a renewed mandate from the Parliament to expend money. Governments are in no bind whatever in raising revenue because once a Bill to raise revenue has passed this Parliament it continues; it does not need a fresh mandate from this chamber each year to continue that type of operation. Hence I believe that in the parliamentary structure quite clear distinctions can be drawn between these various types of Bills and I do not think it useful to talk in general terms about Budgets. The crucial element of the Budget that we must look at and the one that in fact the Australian Democrats have pledged unequivocally always to support is Appropriation Bills (Nos. 1 and 2). This is extremely important because we will be asked to address other Bills in this Budget package. For example, we will have the assets test Bills. How those Bills will be dealt with, I think, depends again very much on the attitude the Opposition parties take to Bills connected with money matters. I believe it important to try to make more detailed distinctions in relation to these various Bills so that the Senate can exercise its undoubted powers of review in these areas. The proposition that the Democrats have put forward for a 2.5 per cent tax on wine is an attempt at a phase-in operation. It is a mechanism whereby the industry can adjust to those taxes. I believe it has a good foundation. If one looks at the way in which sales taxes historically have been introduced by governments one sees that they have been introduced at a low rate and then those rates have been raised over the years. That is an extremely important concept because in that way industries are not subject to very sudden fluctuations in decision making from governments. They have a far greater ability to absorb a small rise each financial year than they have to absorb a large rise in one financial year, particularly growing from no tax to a tax of 10 per cent. That is an enormous difference, even if in terms of the total amount of money on an individual product it may be quite small. Nevertheless, to the industry it is an important item that goes to the heart of its arrangements in projecting its own budgetary operations. Government always has a great deal of difficulty in balancing its books. Even with the enormous reserves available to the Federal Government and its great expertise, government still has a great deal of difficulty in working out its own budgetary arrangements for the coming year. The small businesses at the other end of the scale, whose operations we are affecting by our legislation, do not have those enormous resources or that vast amount of expertise. How much more difficult it must be for those small businesses to project their own budgetary arrangements for their survival. Bearing in mind the number of bankruptcies that has occurred in small businesses over the years-I am referring not only to the period of this Government but to that of the previous Government as well-one must be very much concerned that whatever measures we take here do not ricochet and send further small business to the wall. Not only would there then be a loss from that type of revenue raising operation, but also there would be considerable loss of revenue in income tax and increased expenditure in social security and in other areas. In other words, it makes eminent sense to ensure that revenue raising effects we put in place in this Parliament do not have a diametrically opposed effect on revenue. I believe that there is a very good case to suggest that this particular imposition will not net government revenue; that the whole effect of the matter in its totality, including the downstream effects, will be much closer to a break-even situation or possibly even result in a loss to the total revenue base of this country. It is beyond me why we should engage in such activities, but this Parliament has done it time and again. I issue a plea to soften that blow on that industry as much as possible if there has to be an imposition of that tax. I suggest the Government follows the type of proposition put forward by Mr Howard-namely that it was inappropriate to take this step at this time and that such taxes should be phased in. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.23) —I rise briefly to contribute to this part of the debate on the Sales Tax Amendment Bills. I believe that it is quite irresponsible for the Government to adopt its present attitude about the introduction of a sales tax on wine. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in the Budget presentation that the Government would set up an inquiry aimed at investigating all aspects of the structure of the industry, with a view to making recommendations to government to overcome the industry's economic and regional problems. Senator Mason —I hope you will support us on this. Senator JESSOP —No, I am not going to support you on this. It would be a simple exercise for the Government to set up the committee as a matter of urgency and to ask it to examine the Senate Standing Committee report on the wine industry. I had something to do with that aspect as I was responsible for having that matter referred to the Senate Standing Committee. Therefore, a lot of the work has already been done in describing the problems of the five sections of the industry, from the grape growers through to the multinationals, the big firms, the co-operatives, the small individual wineries and others affected by this tax . I think it would be a very simple matter, and would take a very short time, for a committee set up by the Government to go over the report of the Senate Committee, update it and come back to the Senate or the Parliament with a report on the economic consequences of this tax on the industry. I think that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government are extremely foolish in ignoring the high possibility that some small wine growers and small wine producers will go to the wall as a result of the premature introduction of this tax. In the debate last night I referred to an article in the Herald of 4 September which illustrates the problem as wine growers see it. The article stated: Dominique Landragin's excellent dry sparkling white has never been-could never be-called flat. No more than Viv Thomson's fine dry red has been or could be called sour. Yet both Mr Landragin and Mr Thomson and the scores of other small winemakers of Victoria, feel as though they've been knocked flat. And they all have a sour taste in their mouths. The article continued: 'At first we thought 10 per cent on the cheaper wines would not make them much dearer,' Mr Landragin says. 'But then we realised, of course, that we sell our wines between $7.50 and $9.50. They will now go up to $8.25 to $10.50. And once you break that $10 mark you strike a lot of public resistance. The reaction of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association to the Budget was- Senator Walsh —Hysterical. Senator JESSOP —Senator Walsh said that the reaction was hysterical. I think that the Association knows a bit about the fragility of the industry. It occurs to me that governments in the past have failed to take note of the expert advice flowing from these organisations. The Association pointed out that it was extremely disappointed that the Government had ignored the previously recognised plight of the grape growing sector. After all, the grape growers are the people we should be really concerned about. They are the fundamental part of the industry. They are the reason why the industry exists. The Australian Labor Party purports to represent the small grape grower and the small producer yet, in this instance, it is totally ignoring the problems that this tax could create for the industry. The Association was dismayed that the Government had broken the pre-election pledge given by both the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and Mr Kerin in February 1983 when they stated that they recognised the fragile state of the grape growing sector and that no sales tax or excise would be imposed on Australian wine during the Government's term of office. As has already been pointed out by economists the 10 per cent sales tax will be passed on to the consumers. The price of wine will have to go up by at least 10 per cent. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates-I know that Senator Walsh has been quite disparaging in his comments about the person who made the Bureau's estimate-that wine sales may fall 4.2 per cent in the short term and 13.5 per cent in the long term. I have pointed out-I reiterate it now-that the effect of this on grape growers in Australia could be an estimated 65,000-tonne surplus of grapes, which would result in a loss in income for grape growers of about $15.6m per annum. I felt that the Opposition's amendment, which was carried by the Senate last night , was reasonable and should be observed and acted upon by the Government. The amendment reads: At the end of the motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the impact of the Government's new tax on wine, when taken in conjunction with changes in the taxation treatment of imports of wine, unreasonably and unfairly disadvantages the Australian wine producing and grape growing industry at a time when imports of surplus protected and subsidised European wines are disrupting the Australian wine industry and when there is an inquiry proceeding into the future structure of the industry- at my request, we added: and calls upon the Government to delay the commencement of the tax subject to receiving and considering the report of the said inquiry'. If the Government chooses to ignore the Opposition's amendment, which was carried last night, I believe it does so at its peril because the grape growing industry, the wine producing industry and the brandy producers of Australia are still reeling under the effects of the discredited spirit tax on fortified spirit put forward by the discredited Treasurer and the discredited Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) who is at the table. While we talk about that, the recognition by the discredited Goverment that that was bad news for the industry and for the Government- Senator Mason —Where does the discredited Minister come from? Senator JESSOP —The discredited Minister comes from Western Australia, which is an area of Australia which is rapidly getting a reputation-not equal to South Australia-as a developing wine grape growing area. I am surprised at the attitude of the Western Australian senator, Senator Walsh, on this particular matter. The grape growing industry, the wine producers and everyone else will rise up against this Government in the next few weeks. They will be supporting the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party that have undertaken to repeal this tax in three or four weeks' time. When we return to the Treasury benches we will introduce some economic responsibility to the management of this country. I suggest that the Minister ought to beware of that. Before I sit down I would like to ask the Minister questions concerning the refund of moneys that have been collected from the industry with respect to the discredited tax on fortifying spirit: Has the Government taken any action to repay the money that has been collected by the discredited tax? Has the Government thought also of making some attempt to reimburse those producers who had to make overdraft arrangements and pay overdraft interest rates on that sum? When does the Minister expect the money to be refunded to the producers? Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.34) —I am greatly disappointed to hear Senator Jessop who is, of course, a senator for South Australia, say that he is not going to support the amendment of the Australian Democrats. I was most distressed to hear Senator Georges, who is no longer in the chamber but who I think is trying to reinforce a weak Government position, say that the Democrats are grandstanding on this issue. In other words, we are grandstanding on trying to protect an industry of importance in this country. I suggest to Senator Jessop that he ought to put his vote where his words are. Senator Peter Baume —You vote for every expenditure measure and against every revenue measure. Senator MASON —The honourable senator is, as I am, a senator for New South Wales . He understands, as well as I do, I think, the terrible problems of the Hunter Valley and Newcastle. I suggest that Senator Baume ought to give some regard to his constituents at this stage. The honourable senator is not just a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, he is also a senator for New South Wales. He is a senator who, among other things, represents the interests of the Hunter Valley , and he knows as well as I do the difficulties of that area. The Newcastle and Hunter Valley area is one of the stricken areas of this country. It has not been able to recover at all from the appalling consequences of the dropback in manufacture. The vineyards in the Hunter Valley have already been damaged by industry-there has been fluorine damage to the vines. I have been there and I have seen that. A lot of the small people are struggling now to keep their industries going. Senator Baume is now saying to me that we are grandstanding by speaking in their interests. I suggest to him that he should consider his duty as a senator for New South Wales. I appeal on the multi-party basis for honourable senators from South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales to consider what the Australian Democrats are saying. We are not saying that there should not be a tax on wine. All we are saying is that there should not be this arbitrary, brutal attack on an industry by applying on it, at one of its weakest stages, a 10 per cent tax without any warning or provision whatsoever. That is not a logical or reasonable attitude of any form of government. It is irrational and it is damaging. It will not raise revenue. It will drive a lot of Australian producers to the wall. Instead of paying this tax, they will be bankrupt. That will be the net effect of the tax and the Government ought to know that full well. If it came down out of its economic cloud cuckoo land and looked at the real facts of small businesses and of this industry it would understand that that is the case. I put as a serious proposition to Senator Peter Baume, as a senator for New South Wales, and to Senator Jessop that this is not a matter where one can say: 'How unfortunate for these poor people. What a terrible time they are having. But we will not help them.' Senator Jessop —Would it not be better not to introduce it until we get the report in a few weeks time? Senator MASON —The Government has introduced this measure. Senator Jessop has said to us that he will not interfere with this Budget measure. Fair enough. On that basis, I think we are going far enough by saying that at least the tax should be scaled down. We are not saying that the tax should not be there; we are saying that the blow to the industry should be cushioned. I think that is an entirely reasonable and rational point of view. I do not know whether any honourable senators have been to a wine shop to buy some wine recently. I suppose all my colleagues are too pure to do that kind of thing. When I go and buy my humble bottle of wine from time to time I notice that already there are cheap French wines in the wine shops. I have talked to the people running the shops and they say: 'This is the future. That is where our wines will come from'. Cheap French wines will now be able to compete with our smaller producers and drive them out. Who is bringing in that cheap French wine? I have heard that it is very big wine companies. Perhaps the Government is in the pocket of those big companies. Those companies can stand the tax but the small grower will be knocked about by it. In fact, that small grower is being knocked about already. I take deep umbrage at Senator Baume's suggestion. I have spent quite some time in the Hunter Valley; I know its problems well. Some honourable senators representing New South Wales ought to remember that they are not only representing Sydney. They should go and have a look around these other areas from time to time. I try to do that when I can. If they had a proper appreciation of the situation in those areas they would realise that this is an attack by the Government, probably because some silly bureaucratic decision has been taken: 'Will we have a tax on wine? Yes, we will have a tax on wine. Right, then we will bang on a tax of 10 per cent right from the start'. That is not good government. The Australian Democrats amendment is basically saying to the Government: 'Please take pause. Please bear in mind that what you are doing will not get you any money. It will drive people out of business, it will be bad for Australia, and it will encourage a flood of cheap imported wines into this country'. We put forward our amendment on that basis. We see no reason why we should not divide on this matter. We will divide on it so that all honourable senators can consider their duty and responsibility to constitutents against their party lines. We will be interested to see what happens. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.39) —I will reply briefly to some of the arrant nonsense I have had inflicted on me for the last half hour or so. The Australian Democrats seem to be in their usual state of confusion about the wine industry. I think last year they introduced a Bill to impose a tax on the advertising of alcohol which, to the extent that it would have deterred wine products from being advertised, would have had an adverse effect on the wine industry. They do not have any problem reconciling their actions in that instance with the arguments they have been putting today. Likewise, the usual state of confusion prevailed when Senator Mason mentioned the effects from the package of changes that are being made to the taxation of wine which will lower from 35 per cent to 23 per cent the effective rate of protection. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment which is now before the Committee, an amendment which would reduce from 10.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent the sales tax applicable to all wine, whether domestically produced or imported. But I guess to think through a problem as complicated as that is beyond the normal capacity of the merchants of froth and bubble who populate the Democrats' ranks. We heard a hysterical presentation from Senator Jessop of estimates based on obsolete data, the final outcome of which was that he said there would be a $13m decline in grape growers' incomes because of this measure. He went on to attribute a good deal of that to the correction of the breach of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules; which Australia had been breaching for 20- odd years. I ask Senator Jessop to note that if that breach of the GATT rules, of which GATT is now fully aware, had not been corrected, we would have placed in jeopardy not $13m of income but the billion dollar beef industry, our billion dollar beef exports, because we would have invited retaliatory action by other GATT partners against Australian beef exports, dairy product exports and others. Senator MacGibbon —You are doing nothing to support our traditional markets. Senator WALSH —What was that, Biggles? Senator MacGibbon —You are doing nothing to maintain our beef markets overseas. Senator WALSH —I am well aware, of course, in response to Senator MacGibbon, that the actions of the previous Government were characterised by noisy failure after noisy failure with respect to the marketing of beef. From 1978 until the previous Government was ignominiously removed from office in 1983, it presided over a steadily declining percentage share of the Japanese market being filled by Australian beef. So if I were Senator MacGibbon, I would not raise that question. Senator Jessop most remarkably said that the Opposition is pledged to repeal this sales tax on wine which is currently being considered by the Committee. I am often mystified by just where the Opposition stands, almost as mystified as I am about where the Democrats stand on a variety of issues. But given that Mr Howard said only last week that he would keep the wine tax, I do not know what value to place on Senator Jessop's pledge that it will be repealed. It seems to me that the most defensible deduction to be drawn is that one should place absolutely no credibility on Senator Jessop's pledge that the Opposition would repeal the sales tax on wine, in the unlikely event, of course, of its ever forming a government again. He did ask-and this was probably the only section of his speech which really deserved a reply-a couple of questions about the refund of the excise which had been paid on fortifying spirit last year. This excise will be repayable, of course, because if it were not repaid, the subsequent decision to impose a general sales tax would have effectively taxed twice some fortified wines. The answer is that there has been a regulation-Statutory Rule 1984 No. 219, if Senator Jessop wants the reference-issued in the name of Senator Button that applications for refund of the excise must be lodged with the Collector of Customs by 30 June 1985. Refunds will not be allowed on applications received after that date. I am advised that once the application has been received the payment should be made within a week or two. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(9.45) —I think just a couple of points need to be clarified. First of all, Senator Jessop indicated that the Opposition had moved a motion last night which would, if supported by the Government, given the industry the chance to survive. I agree with that. The Australian Democrats unanimously supported that motion and the Government rejected the proposal out of hand. No matter what we would hope, wish and pray for this morning, that proposal fell to the ground last night. To pretend that it is still there is a nonsense. It no longer exists as a proposition or as an alternative. The only alternative available to this chamber today is the amendment which I proposed this morning on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I put to honourable senators that there will be a big test for the Liberal Party in this chamber when we come to debate the assets test. Just where do its principles lie in terms of this Government's Budget and the inability of the Senate to interfere with it? The crunch test is around the corner and I suspect that this morning Senator Jessop has dug a huge hole into which the Liberal Party is about to fall. If Senator Jessop were to be consistent with the statements that he made this morning on this proposal, which would alleviate the problems of the wine industry in his area, he would be voting for this amendment . If he has left to him only the argument that he would not in any circumstances interfere with a government's budgetary measures, that argument will fall to the ground the day that he interferes with the assets test. Senator Jessop is in diabolical trouble. He either lets down his own State or the industry in that State this morning, or he will let down his own Party when the time comes for the assets test debate. I have great sympathy for his position because he is in a no win situation. That is why I can understand why this morning Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle made a scathing attack on the Democrats. She shares Senator Jessop's position. She is also in a very embarrassing position. If she does not support this move by the Australian Democrats to alleviate the tremendous pressure that will be put on the wine industry, she will have run out of excuses . I hope that the Opposition will reconsider its position. It needs now to support this Australian Democrats move to salvage the wine industry, to give it a chance to survive over the next decade and to build its base. Then it will provide sales taxes which will swell the coffers of future governments. But by imposing a 10 per cent sales tax now we will kill the goose that could lay its golden eggs for governments. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.47) —Like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), I have listened to enough nonsense this morning to feel that I must respond to some of it. For the Australian Democrats to say that they have brought forward what they call a unanimous view on this matter is to ignore the three different speeches that we have already heard from them. We heard Senator Jack Evans suggest that some sort of progressive introduction of the tax will be able to be tolerated. We have had Senator Macklin talking about the Government having no mandate to introduce it. If it did not have a mandate for a 10 per cent tax, it did not have a mandate for a 2 1/2 per cent tax, and to suggest that we are driving something to the wall progressively instead of instantaneously seems to me to be a rather peculiar argument to put. As for the Democrats and their approach to sales tax Bills, every time they get their hands on a sales tax Bill they do not want to put themselves into the column of having rejected something because of the nonsense they talk every time they go to an election-that they will not reject money Bills. Instead of putting themselves in the column of rejecting legislation they put themselves in the column of amending it, putting up amendments to reduce the revenue, putting up-- Senator Jack Evans —That is arrant nonsense. We rejected your sales tax Bill on the necessities of life. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — The honourable senator talks about our having a different view. We felt strongly about the Democrats' attitudes to that Bill and about the outdated homilies that they read to us this morning about the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, when he was in opposition, and about mandates and all sorts of things. We felt strongly about that and the Democrats will remember that their action in that matter resulted in those Bills being used as a double dissolution measure. On this occasion they do not want to do that, they just want to amend all the Bills. The Liberal Party and the National Party have made their attitude to those sales tax Bills quite clear. We put forward our amendment to the second reading motion. That is our approach to the matter and that is the way in which government really works. The Government will live with the measures that it brings in. The Government has to deal with the industry. The Democrats do not deal with the Government on these matters; they deal with every lobby group that comes to them about a sales tax Bill. We have another handful of the Democrats' amendments here-things that they recycle every time that they get their hands on a sales tax Bill. That is why I feel that we ought this morning just say to them that if they wish to deal with these matters, if the legislation is the disaster to the industry that they say it is, they should reject it and have themselves counted accordingly as having rejected a money raising Bill, as having tried to rewrite the Budget even though they have no responsibilities of government. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.52) —I cannot allow that speech by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle to pass unnoticed. It contained so many misrepresentations and errors of fact that it cannot be allowed to stay on the record. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle appears to have forgotten that the Australian Democrats did go to the wall and stand by their pledge to the Australian electorate on sales tax Bills. I refer to the sales tax on the necessities of life which the Fraser Government, in its foolishness, tried to impose on the Australian people and which, according to the polls, 80 to 90 per cent of the Australian people disliked. Members of the former Fraser Government would know that but, of course, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle told us, they never take any notice of what their constituents bring to them. So they used that sales tax legislation as a double dissolution issue and they were destroyed as a result of it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —Order! I would like you to speak to the requests rather than about history. Senator MASON —That is true. We are dealing with requests relating to those non- amendable Bills. I stand corrected by you, Mr Chairman. But the effect is the same. The Australian people supported us on that matter. It is quite wrong for Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle to say that we will not stand by our constituents to this extent. We will do it this time too. We are asking the Liberal Party to have the intestinal fortitude to do the same thing and not to take a gutless, whining retreat. It says that this is something we cannot touch, and then says to the electorate: 'But if you vote us in in the next election we will change it'. The electorate will not buy that one on this issue or on any other issue either. Question put: That the request (Senator Jack Evans's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. Townley) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Bills reported without requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 6 September. The Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.02) —I seek leave to move a series of amendments together. They are amendments Nos 1 to 5 which have been circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats. Leave granted. Senator JACK EVANS —I move: 1. Page 1, after sub-clause 2 (4), add the following sub-clause: '(5) The amendments of the Principal Act made by clauses 1AB and 1AC of Schedule 2 to this Act shall come into operation on 1 January 1985 and shall cease to have effect on 31 December 1988.'. 2. Page 4, Schedule 2, before clause 1, insert the following clauses: '1AA. The First Schedule is amended by inserting after the definition of ''aids to manufacture'' the following definitions: ' ''computer programs'' means sets of instructions capable, when incorporated in a machine readable form, of causing a machine having information processing capabilities to indicate, perform or achieve a particular function, task or result; ' ''computer software'' means goods in the nature of computer programs, including descriptions in verbal, schematic or other form of such programs, and including any material designed to aid the understanding or application of such programs;. '1AAB. Item 18 in the First Schedule is amended by omitting ''or sewerage'' in sub-items (1) and (1A) and substituting '', sewerage or air conditioning'' '. 3. Page 4, Schedule 2, after clause 1, insert the following clauses: '1A. Item 38A in the First Schedule is amended by omitting paragraph (a) and substituting the following paragraph: ''(a) that are put up and sold for use as substances to be applied to the skin for the purpose of screening out ultra violet rays; and'. '1AB. The heading of Division IX is omitted and the following heading is substituted: ''DIVISION IX-GOODS CONTAINING INFORMATION, PRINTED MATTER AND PAPER''. '1AC. After item 51A in the First Schedule the following item is inserted: '51B. Computer software and computer programs Nos. 1 to 4 and 9.''.'. 4. Page 4, Schedule 2, after clause 2, insert the following clauses: '3. Item 82 in the First Schedule is amended- (a) by omiting from paragraph (1) (c) '', fibreglass liners''; (b) by inserting ''or '' after ''tubing;'' in paragraph (1) (d); and (c) by omitting paragraphs (1 (f) and (g). '4. Item 82A in the First Schedule is amended by omitting paragraphs (1) (a), ( b) and (c). '5. Item 83 in the First Schedule is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (2) (f) '', fibreglass liners''; (b) by inserting ''or'' after ''pools;'' in paragraph (2) (f); (c) by omitting paragraphs (2) (h) and (j); (d) by omitting from paragraph (3) (c) '', fibreglass liners''; (e) by inserting ''or'' after ''pools;'' in paragraph (3) (c); and (f) by omiting paragraphs (3) (e) and (f). '6. Item 84 in the First Schedule is amended- (a) by inserting after ''liners'' in paragraph (1) (a) '', other than fibreglass liners,''; (b) by inserting ''or'' after ''slides;'' in paragraph (1) (b); (c) by omiting paragraphs (1) (d) and (e); and (d) by omitting from sub-item (2) ', duct work or channelling of a kind used in forced drought ventilation or air conditioning systems, or fittings, accessories or attachments for, components of, or goods designed to form part of, such duct work or channelling''. '7. Item 86 in the First Schedule is amended- (a) by inserting after ''liners'' in paragraph (1) (b) '', other than fibreglass liners,''; (b) by inserting ''or'' after ''solids;'' in paragraph (1) (c); and (c) by omitting paragraphs (1) (e) and (f). '8. Item 88 in the First Schedule is amended by omitting from sub-item (1) ''or fittings, accessories or attachments for, components of, or goods designed to form part of, such systems''. '9. After item 113E in the First Schedule the following item is inserted: ''113F. Retreaded or recapped tyres Nos 1 to 4 and 9'' '10. Item 123A is amended by omitting all words after ''item'' and substituting ''by a registered medical practitioner that certifies that the person's hearing is impaired to such an extent that the person is taken to be moderately deaf''. '11. After item 123A the following item is inserted: '123B. (1) Goods, not covered by any other item in this Schedule, for use as special aids, and not for sale for that purpose, by persons who are disabled or physically or mentally handicapped, in such cases or circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as are prescribed Nos 1 to 9 '(2) Parts for goods covered by sub-item (1) Nos 1 to 9''.' 5. Page 4, after Schedule 2, insert the following Schedule: 'SCHEDULE 2A AMENDMENTS OF THIRD SCHEDULE '1. Item 2 in the Third Schedule is omitted and the following item is substituted: ''2 Parts, fittings and accessories for goods covered by item 1''. '2. Item 11 in the Third Schedule is amended by omitting from sub-item (1) '', fibreglass liners''.' Senator JACK EVANS —I am willing to save the time of honourable senators by referring them to the speech that I made during the second reading debate on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill. I ask honourable senators, when voting, to consider the recommendations and the rationale for moving these amendments that I described in my speech. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.03) —Amendment No. 3 deals with making sales tax deductible the various agents in cosmetics for screening solar ultraviolet rays. I raised this matter last year, and I wish to raise it again specifically as a Queensland senator, because of the major problem of melanomas in Queensland. Unfortunately, because of the climate, Queensland has a great problem with various kinds of skin cancers. The Federal and Queensland governments spend a considerable amount of money each year through various health education programs , seeking to educate the public about the effects of the sun, particularly in the coming summer months. The community faces a considerable cost in dealing with this issue through not only preventative programs but also the treatment of melanomas that could have been prevented. Senator Peter Baume —It is solar hyperkeratoses, squamous cell carcinomata and basal cell carcinomata-the whole lot. Why just confine it to melanoma? Senator MACKLIN —Most decidedly. Senator Peter Baume may wish to speak later. We are looking at a range of problems which lay senators probably know as skin cancers. I was concerned about this problem last year when I made a move on this matter and, after speaking to pharmacists in Queensland, my concern has not gone away. There have been significant moves in the sale of various items. It is not possible to attribute those moves totally to the imposition of the sales tax. I do not seek to do so and I certainly could not prove that to be the case. However, I do believe that there is a market effect in that these are price differentials between various cosmetics. Manufacturers are very clear on this: The manufacturing of cosmetics which contain such substances does increase their base cost. Hence, I think it would probably flow fairly naturally that their retain cost to the consumer would rise. The point I made last year is still valid. Apart from the obvious ploy that was being undertaken by some manufacturers-I do not think it was necessarily a ploy; I think it was a loophole in the legislation-night creams that had various substances in them for screening out solar rays but were still sales tax deductible. I challenged the Government last year, and I do so again, to name other products which fall within that range. I think the suggestion is clear. There are no other products for which there is no need for tax deductibility because there is no need for the item to appear on the Schedule. The various make-up bases which contain a solar ultraviolet screening agent are very important for the prevention and lessening of the incidence of melanoma. The matter is not simply one of whether we will concern ourselves with cosmetics . In my State, and to a lesser extent in other States, it is a matter of life and death. The number of people who have died from this disease has risen quite alarmingly over the years. If we are undertaking a variety of education programs we should not at the same time put a disincentive on manufacturers for including such screening agents in their products thus disadvantaging people who use those various cosmetic preparations. This applies, of course, not only to females but also to males. A number of other types of lotions are available and are sometimes used for skin cleansing and the like. It seems a relatively small matter but again it is these types of matters which suggest that we in Australia are still hooked on a cure approach to health and not a preventive approach. I freely admit that the problem with the preventive approach is that we have to expend money to prevent problems but when those problems do not occur it tends to look as though it is not a good way of spending money. This is the problem one faces when one tries to prevent anything -for example, accidents. If one looks at the cost differential between prevention and cure one must always opt for the expenditure of money in the prevention area because that is so much cheaper than when one is dealing with the cure. This is a retrograde step from the point of view of how people operate in the community, and where they tend to gain these types of preparations, other than sun screen lotions. This would be one such area. The next matter I wish to address relates item 123A of the First Schedule. It was raised last year and the Government expressed its willingness to look at it. However, I believe very little has been done since then. Hence we wish to raise the point again to see what progress the Government has made in this area. Last year the Government expressed its sympathy for those people who are moderately deaf in respect of devices connected with television and the like. We suggested that the onus should be put on the person who is moderately deaf to gain a certificate in order to obtain a sales tax exemption for the purchase of the necessary device. I seek advice from the relevant Minister as to what progress has been made in this area and whether the various associations which are still campaigning on this matter are satisfied with the progress the Government is making. The last item to which I refer relates to the insertion of a proposed new item 123B in the Schedule. The matter has been the subject of a private member's Bill . I raise this because it is a matter on which I have received lots of representations and it is one about which I am concerned. I do not refer to those devices that are specifically designed for handicapped people but rather to those devices which can be purchased on the ordinary market and may be adapted in one way or another for handicapped people. I will give the example of a computer. A constituent came to me to discuss the problem of his young son who was born with his hands attached to his shoulders. He had the use of his hands but obviously he would be handicapped in a variety of ways, particularly when he went to kindergarten and primary school and when he wrote. His father sought assistance from the University of Queensland and was able to work with it to develop a divided computer keyboard for a small computer which enables the child to draw and write. That child will be able to go through an ordinary school and engage in the ordinary activities that children engage in. In this case, because of the kindness of the private firms which cut their profit margin to nothing, that person was able to purchase that computer. The firms took no profit; they gave the computer to that family at cost to compensate for the fact that the Government imposed a sales tax on that item. I do not expect this to be an open slather situation; I merely put the proposition that there is a simple way of dealing with it. The Government already has the mechanisms in place. Upon receiving a certificate from an acceptable person-it may be a physiotherapist or the local doctor-the sales tax exemption application is processed through the normal system. The Department of Social Security probably already has files on most handicapped people. It would take very little to ascertain the bona fides of such an application for a particular item. Thus, a variation could be made to the sales tax which is normally paid. This is a far better way of going about it than including a range of goods in this category. I am not talking about specific goods relating to disabled people. I am refering to goods which can be purchased by anyone in the community, which are used by anyone in the community, and which have special application and are of special assistance to those people who are handicapped. I do not believe anyone in the community wants us to impose sales tax on such items. The amounts involved are relatively small but they are large to those families. They may not be important to honourable senators who had a disabled child but they would be extremely important to people on low incomes with a handicapped child because cost would be the deciding factor as to whether they could purchase particular goods for the benefit of the children and their children's possibilities in life. It is a small matter; it is a matter which I have raised and one which I hope the Government has been looking at since the legislation was introduced. I raise it again now to see whether the Government has made any advance in this area and can offer any hope, particularly to low income families who would find it difficult to purchase any goods covered under this item. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.15) —The Government of course will not accept the amendments. I am advised that certificates for sales tax exemption will be issued for people in these categories: Somebody who has significant difficulty with normal speech; somebody who has significant difficulty in hearing loud speech; somebody who can understand only shouted or amplified speech; or somebody who has limited understanding even of amplified speech. Certificates will be given based on an opinion formed by a general practitioner. The Department of Health is in the process of printing relevant information for distribution to doctors. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.16) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) for that information. I think it is an excellent advance in that area. From the little the Minister said, I think the problem raised by the various groups will be solved. The Government is to be congratulated for making such a decision. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.17) —I was going to make a similar comment. We welcome what was said by the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh). I think it will be of great and valuable assistance. Some of the other matters raised-swimming pools, computer systems, retread tyres and sunscreens-came forward last year either in this form or in a similar form. I remember dealing with some of those matters in come detail at that time. We found merit in the representations that were made and hoped that the Government would be able to review them. Obviously that has not yet occurred. I still feel that anomalies in some of these matters were presented to us. I am unaware whether these amendments suggested by the Australian Democrats in some instances cover the problem raised last year. However, I simply commend to the Government for its attention those areas where there are anomalies and hope that it will look at the matters raised. We are not suggesting that these would create further anomalies, as so often happens when incidental changes are made to classifications for sales tax. I would think that attention to matters raised by people with serious problems in relation to classifications is an on-going process of government. If there is no particular reaction to these amendments, I would simply commend to the Government a progressive look at where the anomalies arise, as I know it does, so that it can bring forward amendments to them at the appropriate time. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) rad a third time. Consideration resumed from 6 September. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.21) —The Senate is debating the Patents Amendment Bill 1984. The Opposition will be supporting the Bill. It is an important Bill not only because of the detail of its contents but also because it highlights the task we in Australia face of developing an innovative and internationally competitive indigenous biotechnology industry. In a technical sense the Bill has a dual purpose. Firstly, it seeks to complement the existing patent law requirements relating to the patenting of new strains of micro- organisms. Since 1976 the Patent, Trade Marks and Design Office has regarded new strains of micro-organisms as capable of patent protection and applications for patents have required a written description of the new strain. Under this Bill the requirement of a written description is to be complemented by requiring an applicant in certain circumstances to deposit the new strain of micro-organism with a prescribed depository institution. The deposit requirements would be enforced if the particular strain of micro-organism subject to patent application was not reasonably available. If deposit of a new strain is required , that deposit would satisfy the requirement of a full description of a micro- organism. Secondly, the Bill provides for Australia's accession to the 1977 Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure. Upon the signing of the Budapest Treaty Australia will join 12 other countries as participants. Local inventors who adhere to the deposit requirements for new micro-organism strains will automatically satisfy the deposit requirements of patent laws operated by the other 12 signatories, and will have access through the Treaty to micro-organism strains deposited by foreign patentees. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) noted in his second reading speech, the changes sought by the Bill reflect the dramatic technology changes occurring throughout the world. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of biotechnology, an area in which Australia has tremendous potential to capture a substantial international market niche. There is a certain mythology at the moment that the present Government has for the first time brought this to the attention of the Australian people. In fact, priority areas for the possible commercial application of biotechnological research have been previously identified. I remind the Senate in passing of the symposium and workshop on this subject arranged by the Department of Science and Technology and held in November 1982 under the auspices of the previous Government. I also remind the Senate of the 1981 symposium sponsored by the Department of Science and Technology, the Bank of New South Wales and the Institute of Management, New South Wales Division, which examined commercial opportunities available in Australia for genetic engineering. I mention also that two significant studies on biotechnology were undertaken by the Australian Science and Technology Council-ASTEC-under the Fraser Government. The first was in November, 1982 and the second in December of that year. The second of those reports examined the specific opportunities in biotechnology, referring in particular to the lead Australia can take in adopting biotechnology to plant agriculture, animal husbandry, veterinary products, food processing, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and mining. We now hear about these matters often from the present Minister for Science and Technology, but under the previous Government studies were undertaken into such commercial opportunities in this country. The former Government recognised the importance of biotechnology as a commercially viable growth industry in Australia. In a sense, therefore, we are seeing the present Government carrying on from where the Fraser Government left off. Nevertheless, we in the Opposition are pleased to see the present Government taking up the challenge instituted by the previous Government. The key issue that still remains as to whether Australia's potential in this field can be realised appears to be whether we are able to seek the means to transfer our undoubted biotechnology research capacity into realisable commercial opportunities. The Senate is aware that this issue-albeit on a broader scale of high technology in general-has been the subject of a number of debates in this place over the last year or so. The need for Australia to seize economic opportunities provided by rapid technological change has, for example, been recognised during debates on general economic issues and on specific pieces of legislation aimed at encouraging wider and faster development of Australia's high technology industries. In particular, I remind the Senate of the industries incentives Bills passed by the Senate in December last year which provided for the establishment of management investment companies; an expansion of the industrial research and development incentives scheme to provide for grants to be paid to sunrise industries, and for an expansion of the capital base of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Each of those Bills was supported by the Opposition. In those debates I reviewed the many factors that lie behind Australia's poor performance in high technology to date which require resolution. I and other senators who participated in those debates offered solutions. The one factor which is particularly relevant to this debate as a major obstacle to Australia becoming a high technology leader is the research development gap. Clearly, that gap has hindered the transformation of our high biotechnology research capability into commercially profitable enterprises. As Dr Tegart, the Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology, said at a 1982 Canberra workshop on commercial opportunities for biotechnology in Australia: If it is to succeed in having a significant impact on our way of life, biotechnology must either achieve something new and presently unavailable by other routes, or replace some conventional processes by doing it more cheaply. The identification and selection of markets is of prime importance. If the product is not really wanted, there is no point in producing it, no matter how elegant the technique. In fact, our inability to convert high quality research into commercially viable developed products possibly ranks alongside, or is even ahead of, lack of capital finance as the major factor for Australia's relatively poor efforts in meeting the high technology challenge. I remind the Senate of an article in the Australian Financial Review of last June written by journalist Anne Flahvin. She argued just this point in an article which examined the dichotomy of Australian biotechnology research and development: Biotechnology is as advanced in Australia as in any other nation, but while overseas companies are capitalising on their research, Australians are doing it for free. She went on to say that the problem confronting the development of a successful biotechnology industry was in her opinion: . . . due partly to a lack of venture capital in Australia, but an even greater setback is the practice of researchers who announce their achievemnents to the world without patenting their inventions. She continued: Overseas companies smack a patent on a new technique developed in Australia, and the only reward local researchers receive is a pat on the back from their colleagues. It is also interesting to note the comments of biotechnologists, such as Dr David MacLennan, who for some years have now been at the face of biotechnology development initiatives. Dr MacLennan, who spent many years trying, unsuccessfully, to get industry interested in his research work for purposes of commercial application, went as far as to suggest that research funding which resulted in other countries patenting Australian inventions was simply money wasted. In the same Australian Financial Review article to which I have just referred, Dr MacLennan summed up Australia's approach to research and development with observations such as: All we are doing is researching for the Yanks . . . Academics in the US or Britain would not dream of giving a paper without first patenting their idea . . . If you make something that doesn't occur naturally, you patent it . . . Until that happens, Australian researchers are pouring money down the drain. While such comments provide us with a sobering reminder of the obstacles we have set ourselves in bringing research efforts to commercial fruition, at the same time recognition should be given to the fact that, despite such obstacles, significant initiatives have been undertaken by research institutions themselves to address the gap between the idea and its commercial application. I am pleased to refer to one outstanding example of such an initiative in the Biotechnology Research Enterprises South Australia Pty Ltd, or BRESA as it is known. In 1982 this company was established on the initiative of members of the Adelaide University Biochemistry Department under the Chairmanship of Professor Bill Elliott. The idea of the company, which is incorporated and wholly owned by the University of Adelaide, arose from the Biochemistry Department's development of original methods for making 32P or phospherous nucleotides, a required component for recombinant DNA research. As this compound had a very short half-life and was generally imported for the purposes of experimentation, on-site production not only saved the University some $50,000 to $70,000 per year but provided an opportunity for the Department to service the domestic genetic engineering market. That is a fine precedent that is worth putting to the Senate on this occasion. Although only one example, the history of BRESA indicates how good research in biotechnology can be utilised for commercial advantage. It also shows that researchers themselves are capable of perceiving practical applications for their efforts requiring only financial support and encouragement to take the step over what the Minister reasonably describes as 'the rickety bridge' between research and commercial application. South Australia in fact appears to be playing a major role in work aimed at bringing biotechnology ideas into marketable forms. We see, for example, that of the $1.5m allocated in 1983-84 under the national biotechnology program mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech, four of the seven approved projects are being undertaken in South Australia. Speaking as a South Australian Senator, I am pleased to advise the Senate of that. Under this program the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Plant Industry is collaborating with the Department of Biotechnology of the University of Adelaide and BRESA to develop the detection methods of virus-induced diseases in crop and pasture plants. Secondly, Professor Derrick Rowley of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Adelaide is working in conjunction with F.H. Faulding Company Ltd to develop live oral vaccines for gastro-intestinal disease control. Thirdly, Dr Heddy Zola of the Flinders Medical Centre is working with a company called Disposable Products Pty Ltd to develop a series of diagnostic reagents, procedures and kits based on monoclonal antibodies which will have a number of human and veterinary applications. Fourthly, Dr Dudley Pinnock of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute-a very fine institution-is working on a project related to genetic engineering for animal health. Initiatives such as the national biotechnology program are to be applauded. However, it should be recognised that by themselves such programs can touch only small components of biotechnology development. They are incapable of generating widespread developments in the market penetration of biotechnology products and greater co-operative efforts between research institutions and industry. The proper role of government lies in another direction. The most effective role for government in encouraging an improved research and development linkage was outlined to the proceedings of the workshop on biotechnology on appropriate areas for commercial exploitation in Australia held in 1982. The report of the proceedings stated: Businessmen themselves must ultimately decide on the commercial potential of biotechnology techniques and on the appropriate time scales for their introduction. The Government's role will be to continue to assist in developing a positive climate for emerging biotechnology-based industries. To amend the Patents Act to provide for more up to date arrangements for patenting of new strains of micro-organisms is one small worthwhile step for government to take in creating a more positive climate for the establishment of biotechnology-based industries. It does so because an expanded patent regime can offer to Australia's biotechnology industry a bridge from research to commercial exploitation. International monopoly protection for Australian biotechnology inventions provided for in this Bill can give the biotechnology industry the means to protect and encourage large investments for further research activity for the purpose of ultimate commercial application and profit. Additionally, biotechnology-based industry also has the advantage under this Bill of widening our access to other patented strains of micro-organisms which would otherwise have been denied. The importance of access rights of new strains of mirco- organisms was dealt with by Philip Thomas of the Australian Patents, Trade Marks and Design Office when he spoke at the 1981 Sydney symposium on commercial opportunities for genetic engineering in Australia. He made the point that there is more to the patenting of biotechnology inventions than the financial rewards which are supposed to flow from such protection. He stated: The other side to the incentive effect of patents is the dissemination of information. In return for a monopoly the patentee must disclose his invention so that the public, including industry competitors, can perform the invention when the patent monopoly runs out. More importantly, particularly in a rapidly advancing field such as biotechnology, the information disclosed in a patent specification will theoretically enable competitors to build upon the invention, even before the monopoly period expires, by doing further research. This will hopefully in addition to benefiting the person doing the work, also further the common good because more and more useful inventions are produced. Therefore Australia's accession to the Budapest Treaty will enable Australian biotechnologists and commercial concerns to benefit from access to international information and ideally build on the commercial opportunities their research endeavours have provided. For these reasons the Opposition supports this Bill and trusts that it will serve its wider purpose of contributing to the encouragement of the development of a viable and innovative Australian biotechnology industry. In conclusion, I wish to touch on one final matter which has a broad relation to this Bill. While I can easily understand the enthusiasm of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and members of the Government for this legislation, it is intriguing to note that the previous Government's efforts to introduce a system of plant variety rights was not equally supported by the Australian Labor Party. Essentially the concept of plant variety rights is no different from the concept we are debating here today. Both are concerned with patent rights for new inventions of living organisms. Both provide for mechanisms which ensure international monopoly property rights under international agreements. Both are justified as a means of encouraging greater research and development in their respective fields. It is therefore regrettable that the enthusiasm the Labor Party now exhibits for international patent protection as a means of encouraging biotechnology industry in Australia is not also carried over into the protection of plant variety rights. It seems a strange and disappointing inconsistency. In the opinion of the Opposition this Bill correctly addresses itself to ways in which Australia can find a niche in international markets. Biotechnology is recognised as having great potential to give Australia important, highly specialised export markets. Therefore, as I indicated, this Bill has the support of the Opposition. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.41) — The Patents Amendment Bill 1984 concerns the patenting of micro-organisms. Initially the Australian Democrats were concerned with the sort of thoughts that Senator Hill dealt with in the closing part of his speech-that the Bill may introduce the possibility of patenting micro-organisms in such a way that would raise delicate questions concerning the patenting of life in any form, possibly extending to genetic engineering. This is an area of concern for this Parliament and for the community which we have not looked at nearly closely enough. It is a fact that the Bill is concerned only with the rules governing the patenting of micro- organisms as set out in the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure. There are safeguards for instance against withholding new inventions. A point which concerned us initially was that it might have been possible to take something of enormous value not only to the community but also perhaps to the world, patent it and withhold it-as has been done with inventions in the past. However, we understand that that is not an initial danger with this Bill. Accordingly, it has our support. Withholding from the market is no problem under the Patents Act . In itself this legislation appears to be a good thing. It helps make research into the use of micro-organisms simpler and more efficient and it streamlines the patents procedure. However, it raises the question of care needed in framing laws to patent life forms. This is the area of new technology which is intensely sensitive and I suggest that the Government do more work. It is a fact that biochemistry is the science of the future. It has replaced physics in that role. It will bring forward many new and startling innovations which will take a great deal of community adaptation to deal with and, probably, some government intervention to control. Therefore, I suggest that any future work done in this area should be done with those thoughts very much in mind. The most bizarre possibilities are available to the biochemist. It is possible, for example, to create micro-organisms which can create foods. That raises the point raised by Senator Hill-on which I do not agree with him-concerning the similarity between plant variety rights and micro-organism development. The point about the plant varietal rights legislation is the opportunity it gives patentees to manipulate food sources. While human beings can do without new technology, they cannot do without food. That is the basis of that argument. As time elapses that may even be the case with micro-organisms. It is beyond doubt that in time micro-organisms will be devised commercially which will create new food materials. Biotechnology, which Senator Hill has mentioned, is working in the area of developing the most suitable yeast strains to create proteins and fuel alcohols. Again, that kind of research may well lead to a situation in which government supervision of private ownership of the products of biotechnology becomes essential. Speaking of PVR, the Australian Democrats were interested to find out that a patent has been granted to Adelaide Orchids Pty Ltd for the invention of cymbidium orchid cultivar, an ornamental orchid. Of course, we do not object to the application of PVR to ornamental species, but that is interesting in relation to the Democrats' reason for initially questioning the Bill we are now debating, the Patents Amendment Bill, because we were concerned that this Bill might somehow introduce a new power to patent micro-organisms and that might be a back door method of introducing the PVR legislation which the Government is considering introducing and which still has widespread opposition in the community for the very best of reasons, some of which I have outlined. I raise that matter as a point of interest and to let the Senate know that we will be waiting with interest for a reply from the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones) to a question which Senator Macklin has on notice on this matter . I suggest that is something we ought to have soon. The debate on this Bill is not the place for an exhaustive discussion of the ramifications of the patenting of life and genetic engineering. I will only say again that this whole matter is gradually gaining official acceptance without any real public debate on the issue and there ought to be a public debate on all the possibilities. In fact, on the whole, members of the public seem to be unaware of how far advances in this field can go and have gone already, and indeed what the possibilities are. We support this Bill with the stricture that we are concerned still that it deals peripherally with a subject which is not understood and which requires far more public debate and far more government attention. That has to be informed and enlightened government attention and specialist attention. In this regard I would like to comment-I think it is relevant to this Bill-on the Government's irresponsible and stupid decision to reduce Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation funding by an effective 8 per cent in the Budget and to downgrade science and technology generally. If this is a measure of the intellectual responsibility and foresight of the Government as a whole, before long the Australian nation will be in very bad trouble because, as I have said, biotechnology is the science of the future. These new developments are essential to any society which thinks it is going to maintain its position in the world of the future. It was of great interest to me in a recent visit to Japan to talk with members of the Japanese Government and find out that they have established 19 new centres which will be used as areas for new technology. New industries, a new centre of learning and a new housing centre will be built up as virtually a new situation which the Japanese call technopolises. The 19 technopolises, one of which, interestingly enough, will be near Hiroshima, will be up and running by 1990. The idea is to take Japan completely out of the heavy industry field. It is now so crowded and polluted that the Japanese feel that they cannot extend any further in that area and they want to move to the next step and make themselves excellent in virtually every form of new high technology industry they can find. As far as I could gather from my discussions, this extends from the most exotic and innovative computer controlled fish farming in the ocean to the development of ceramic engines. That is what is being done by one of our principal trading partners. I have had occasion many times to cross swords with the Government, as most recently as yesterday, over its absolute inability to understand that it must be with the times and ahead of the times on the growth of new technology. The amorphous silicon photovoltaic cells I mentioned yesterday are a piece of technology which the Government ought to take note of. That is not something one can say is not economic at the moment and we should look at it when it is. That just leaves us very much at the bottom of the heap. The only point I make there is that when we are considering those forms of electricity, it is not good enough for the Government to come up with the intellectual dishonesty of quoting figures of electricity supply at the source of production when it knows perfectly well that at the end of the long transmission lines in Australia often the cost to the consumer or the user is two or three times that amount because of the line loss. One has to count on average the cost of electricity to the consumer. That is the only realistic figure to use. Basically I do not think we are going to get much development in biotechnology. This whole Bill will be a pious effort which does not achieve much. It is more or less common knowledge that the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, was rolled by his more plebian and less intelligent colleagues in the Australian Labor Party on this matter. I can only comment that it is quite bizarre in this context that the Government has raised the budget of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, a discredited and useless form of technology in this country, by an effective 8 per cent, the same amount as it has reduced the other way. Senator Missen quoted Animal Farm about a week ago. I recall from that book a point of relevance to this discussion-the inability of the Government to make effective moves in any form of new technology. After the pigs had been in power for a while they had a dinner, as honourable senators who have read the book will recall, and other animals crept up to look in at the windows and they could not tell which were the pigs and which were the men. On this matter, as in so many other matters, the Labor Party is changing its spots, but it is even surpassing itself. It now has an even worse science policy than the Fraser Government, and that is saying something. We will now lose most of our most innovative and forward looking programs, with CSIRO being forced to introduce two to three per cent cuts in the funding of all non-priority research programs, according to my information. It is a fact, of course, that if there is going to be a cut in something like this it is always the most innovative and forward looking programs-the new technology and high technology, the very things the Patents Bill is concerning itself with and hoping will provide products. They will go to the wall first. I suggest that that will be an inevitable result of the consequences of this Budget. It will mean not only damage this year. One cannot damage, cut back and destroy programs of that sort and expect them to be started again at the press of a switch. We will lose overseas the scientists who are working on them and we will probably go back eight to 10 years in our research effort. The damage that is done is not damage that can be repaired easily or quickly. I suggest that is an absolute disaster as we approach the end of the century and the need to compete with our competitors more in these areas. Unfortunately, CSIRO is not the only research body to have had its funding severely restricted. The Australian research grants scheme has had its funds raised from $22.4m to $26m, barely enough to cope with inflation. It would need $65m to meet the demand from grant applications for 1985. This covers the area of young research scientists and is of enormous importance. This is where work can be done which is innovative and forward looking and which is not going to produce results or money for a time. Therefore, it does need subsidy and assistance from the Government. It is a proper and reasonable role of the Government to do what other people and nations have done. As I said, the Japanese Government is contributing very materially to the new technopolis concept in Japan and is giving a degree of assistance. These types of cuts have led already to lowered morale within the research community on top of the enforced financial inability to carry out the sort of research we must encourage if Australia is to have any credibility in this field of science and technology. Australia is being pushed further and further down towards the bottom of the heap in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in terms of new technology and the view of our economic future is appalling if this kind of government policy is allowed to persist. Finally, although the Australian Democrats support this Bill, which is unexceptionable, I think it is highly hypocritical of the Government to bring forward this legislation and presumably say that because it has provided a mechanism for the patenting of micro-organisms it is doing something to encourage that sort of thing happening in Australia because with one hand it is providing a piece of machinery and with the other hand it is destroying, as rapidly and permanently as it possibly can, the very foundations on which an effective Australian research situation are based. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.54) —The Patents Amendment Bill is potentially a very timely piece of legislation. I think we must all deplore the Government's lethargic attitude in not putting it through a lot quicker. Australia must be prepared to meet the challenges proposed by changes in technology overseas. Biotechnology research is a new and very important area. In fact, I look forward to the passage, in a similar area, of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's biological control Bill. The encouragement of a commercial realisation, one aspect of the developments in this area, is the reason for this Patents Amendment Bill. The Bill makes possible our accession to the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure. Patents, as such, cannot apply in the area of micro-organism biotechnology. Hence, the signatories to the Budapest Treaty agreed to the storing of a sample of viable cells as an authentic description and source. The Bill, which will amend the Patents Act 1982, will virtually enable such a procedure to suffice as a patent. In effect, it is a manipulation or an extension of patent amendment laws-a development of existing law. I think it is somewhat ironical that the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones), in identifying a lack of financial support for research and development from the private sector, did this in view of his Government's almost continual undermining of the private sector in favour of the public sector. I think this crowding out effect of the private sector was very vividly demonstrated in the recent Budget. It is also interesting to note that the principal loser in the last Labor Budget in terms of funds was the Department of Science and Technology. We must all recognise that the Minister, Mr Barry Jones, has done much within the community to demonstrate the benefits of research and development. He has told academics and laymen alike that Australia's future lies in these new developments. In retrospect, I think he must now acknowledge that some of his effort could have been better applied to convincing some of the members of Caucus, indeed some of his Cabinet colleagues, on the benefits rather than telling the rest of Australia. The Government has not realised that it can only expect private sector financing for what can be termed the 'risk development of technology' if it provides an environment in which incentives and rewards are adequate. This is not the case in Australia. In the Opposition's view, so far this has not been forthcoming. The Bill is welcome but it must be seen in a very limited context. The Government has tended to talk very much around the subject. While identifying the need to create an environment for high technology to develop it has not really provided the legislative framework or the finance to enable this to come about. As I have said, the Bill is welcome but it must be seen in a fairly limited context. It offers no method by which our rather poor performance in this area, when compared with smaller nations such as Switzerland, Austria and Sweden, can be improved significantly. Although the creation of a depository of micro-organisms in Australia would be handy, we have to acknowledge that it would be at great cost considering that there would be a small number of Australian users. However, it has been acknowledged that, in order to overcome the situation in the middle 1970s, there was pressure on the Commonwealth to sign and ratify the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms. But the slowness with which governments in Australia move is seen by the fact that three-quarters of the way through 1984 we are now debating a Bill to make possible Australia's accession to the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms. It has taken far too long. Basically, the Bill before the Senate today amends the Patents Act 1982 and sets out additional procedures for compulsory deposition of micro-organisms as part of a patent application. It is timely that we should give a warning. Community interest in this subject and the law is very much lagging behind the work of scientists in their development of genetic engineering and new forms of life. These developments create a whole range of moral issues with which I think the community must concern itself much more closely. The Minister for Science and Technology, in his second reading speech in the other place, lamented on the crises of Australian industries falling behind the rest of the world and he stressed the need to develop new technologies. I believe that he should adopt a much more positive approach rather than espouse the gloom and doom which he has tended to espouse since becoming a Minister. Additional resources and positive encouragement are required from the Government . For example, we need to see a lot more of the universities and the colleges of advance education setting up foundations or colleges to provide close links between university research and market needs. I am pleased to be able to say that the university in my State of Tasmania has recently set up such an organisation. These foundations or companies, which are attached to universities and colleges of advanced education, provide a facility for easier private sector access to all the work that is done in the academic area. I acknowledge that one pleasing aspect of the Budget was the financial support given to SIROTECH. I am surprised that so little emphasis has been given by Government speakers to the work of this organisation whose function is to promote commercialisation of academic research. I congratulate the Government for that boost in funding despite the paucity of funding going to science and technology in other areas. This Bill demonstrates the wider application to which patent law could be applied if we directed our minds to it. Although originally intended for manufacture in industrial applications, we now find the term 'manufacture' has a very wide meaning and has been interpreted broadly to give encouragement to national development. Living organisms can be patented; for example, methods of modifying reproductive processes in plants by using chemical agents or horticultural techniques, including genetic selection, are patentable. We seem to have lost sight of reality. Products containing living organisms, vaccines, yeasts and starter cultures for yogurt are also patentable. But the significant criteria must be an invention as distinct from a discovery. It is surprising that plant breeders have not moved into this area of patent protection rather than waiting for the Commonwealth to legislate for plant variety rights. Patent legislation is distinctly different from plant variety rights legislation. In patent legislation performance proof is a prerequisite prior to acceptance. When we consider the wide range of soil types, climatic conditions and the geography of Australia we can understand why people in the plant area are a bit concerned about making claims which would have to apply to the whole of Australia. Problems of litigation would inevitably arise. This biotechnology debate opens up a whole new contentious field of whether new life forms should be patentable. If legislators had the will to proceed further- here is the warning-all that would be required would be a widening of the term ' manufacture'. It could be done very easily if we are not careful. As legislators we have a responsibility to inform the community of just how easy it would be, if the Government desired to move into this area, simply by using existing law by widening the term 'manufacture'. Some scientists, for example, are already stating that the distinction between, for instance, a chemical reaction and a biological process is fairly nebulous. That is how far science is moving. The function of a patent system is to provide an incentive for people to devote resources to innovative activity. I think we must acknowledge that many economists dispute the value of the patent system, particularly in Australia. Some of our foremost scientists are disputing it. Compared with other countries, we must acknowledge that Australia has a low share of international patent property. This fact is to be deplored. In fact, most patents registered in Australia are granted to overseas inventors- again, a deplorable fact. Let us look at some figures. In the three years to June 1977, 92 per cent of patents sealed were issued to applicants domiciled overseas, and the figures since 1977 have not changed appreciably. They have improved somewhat, and the situation in 1984 looks like being very much the same . The Australian Industries Development Association research centre has reported that the proportion of sealed patents issued to foreigners reflected the flow of technology from the major industrial countries to smaller economies, and increasing international transfers. Unfortunately, Australia in 1982 imported $ 126m worth of technology, yet it exported only $22m worth, or one-fifth of its value. The gap between those figures illustrates the dangers of an over- dependence in this country on imported technology. While economic growth can be linked with transfers of technology, it appears that Australia places far too much reliance upon the importation of foreign technology. Let us examine our major exports. They do not require a great deal of patent protection. Some have argued, including the CSIRO, that as the country is a net importer of technology the patent system has served little purpose for Australia's export industry to date. However, if Australia is to press ahead with high technology industries, as recommended by all parties, a withdrawal from patents protection would have a major impact on the so-called sunrise industries. In fact, the new technological industries require a greater protection in this area than do the established firms. In the latter enterprises much of the research and development activity is given over to rendering more efficient the existing processes. However, to improve the potential in this area it is first necessary to change the direction of much of the university research. In Australia less than 5 per cent of domestic patent applications are made by government and higher educational sectors. These are the sectors that one would think would be putting in a lot of applications. Both of these groups-the universities and government- tend to concentrate on basic research, and this has been the problem. We have been a world leader in basic research, but much of this is not patentable. In regard to the CRIRO, which patents only its most promising innovations, about half of its lodged patents fail to attract industry attention and even greater numbers do not even reach the marketing stage. That is the big tragedy that Australia is facing. We are failing to grasp the work of our scientists and bring their work to commercial reality. Unfortunately, far too much of their work tends to find its way overseas. It is commendable, however, that the CSIRO takes the view that patents are not a reward for its own inventions, but are a community benefit. One of the major problems with the patent system in Australia is the inaccessibility of patent attorneys to small inventors, particularly those outside the large capital cities, and also the high cost and the time which is associated with patent registration. To overcome this, the Government of Ontario in Canada has set up an ideas corporation which, incidentally, is presided over by an Australian doctor of philosophy. I must acknowledge that some work is being done at Technology Park in South Australia, but I believe this sort of approach must be taken in Australia by a national institution. Let us look at some of the objectives of the Ideas Corporation in Canada because I think it is an appropriate time for us to model a national institution on a far-seeing development in Canada. The Ideas Corporation is a statutory authority established to encourage and finance the commercial development of technological development. In fulfilling those objectives, the Corporation has power to acquire, develop and deal in industrial property, including licences, inventions and processes, and the royalties and benefits flowing from such work. They are very desirable objectives. Industrial property covers all patents of inventions, copyrights, industrial designs and so on. I believe that this Canadian action is a very positive way of overcoming the rising costs of research and development. Government debt and high foreign ownership result in research and development effort being concentrated in the parent firms rather than the subsidiaries in Canada. All these factors are very similar to the situation in Australia. I think Australia's problems are very similar to those in Canada and we could well follow the Canadian initiative. Australia must develop mechanisms to speed up the slow diffusion of new production technologies . Again, to use the Canadian example, we find that for more than 50 years the Province of Ontario has operated a research foundation providing contact to research to industry. We have only recently, in the last 10 years, moved into those sorts of fields. From my background in industry I see very clearly the need to develop in Australia appropriate mechanisms to improve the diffusion of research into commercial application to meet market needs. There are a number of problems. One of the pitfalls confronting many organisations is that in top management's zeal to introduce new technology into an old organisational structure, the managers often fail to implement the necessary changes to the organisational framework of authority, communication and changed work responsibilities and patterns. Thus new technology, if it is not comprehensively planned, can be quite incompatible with the old organisational framework. The result can be a disaffected work force, industrial dislocations, loss of productivity, high labour turnover, increased accident rates, and personal resentment by workers and middle line management as a reaction to working within new and more specialised functions. But in these times of high unemployment the outward feeling of discontent could be restricted by the fear of loss of job. That insecurity and frustration could well manifest itself in other ways-the worker may take out the problems on his family rather than the working place. I therefore emphasise that adapting to technological change is not without a wide range of community problems for the employer, the employee and their families. For the employee there is the threat of job loss and adapting to new work patterns. There is a vital need for training. Responsibilities are often given without adequate training. The employer must ensure that there is a pay- back or adequate return for investing in the new technology. The impact of new technology presents both challenges and problems for industry, but those who adapt to recognise the potential will succeed in the market-place. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.16) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate and for their support. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILL: CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.18) —The Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 amend the principal Acts under which these institutions operate. Both of the Bills contain a number of amendments which have been requested by the institutions and about which I think there is no disputation. I think there will be bipartisan agreement and acceptance of the majority of the amendments that the Bills propose. We can put to one side very quickly the bulk of those amendments and I do not wish to discuss them any further. They will, of course, be supported by the Opposition. However, the main purpose of these Bills is really to delete provisions which were inserted into the Australian National University Act and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-the first Act having been amended in 1979 and 1981 and the second Act having been amended in 1979 only-to provide for voluntary membership of the student organisations at those institutions. The Opposition still supports strongly the principle of voluntary student unionism. It supports what was being sought in those amendments and will therefore oppose certain provisions of the Bills before us. Our support, is for a principle which does not apply only to the Australian Capital Territory. It is a consequence of our federal system of government that it is only in the consideration of the two Australian Capital Territory institutions that the wider principle of voluntary student unionism and voluntary membership of student organisations which is embodied in these two Bills can be dealt with. It is only in the context of considering the Australian Capital Territory situation that we can raise a problem which exists Australia-wide. The Opposition will oppose those clauses of the Bills which will serve effectively to reintroduce or to allow for compulsory student unionism. Further, the Opposition will seek to amend the Bills to extend the operation of voluntary student unionism on these campuses, to extend the principle of voluntarism. We will seek to amend the Bills to ensure that the non-retribution provisions in the Acts remain. At present, membership of a student association is voluntary. In addition to that, no part of the compulsory fee collected from students may be used to support socio-political activities on campus. I will mention later some of the socio-political matters which have been supported in the past and which have brought no credit upon some campuses in the context of the way in which they have allowed compulsorily collected student moneys to be used. At present the funds generated by the compulsory fee must be used to provide amenities and services. We will seek to amend the Bills so that the payment of all student union fees becomes voluntary. That is, we are proposing that those who do not wish to belong and who do not wish to pay should not have access to the services which are provided on campus. I will mention that later. The Opposition's support for voluntary unionism on campus is consistent with our commitment to voluntary membership of trade unions generally and associations generally but, more importantly, it rests upon our commitment to individual freedom, the individual liberty of free people in a free society. We believe that any move to coerce people to join or to belong, or to pay even if they do not join, infringes that principle. We believe that students, like other members of the community, should have the right to determine for themselves whether they wish to belong to and to contribute to a student association or union. The question which we really have to answer is: Why should it be compulsory for students to support social organisations, why should it be compulsory or necessary for students to support sporting organisations on campus and why should it be necessary for students to support political activities on campus, if it is not their desire so to do? I must say that most of the arguments have not dealt with whether it is right in principle but have rested upon the fact that it is convenient and practical as a means of taxing, of raising revenue, to impose this compulsion. As I will develop a little later, it is not part of the essential scholarly function of Australian campuses for this compulsion to exist. It is not essential to the function of a university that it should have fine sporting ovals or that students should necessarily be forced to contribute to providing facilities. I come back to our belief in people's right to determine for themselves how and where they associate. The freedom to associate or not to associate is one of the most fundamental rights in a democratic society. This right has to be a real one which people can exercise, not a right to which people give lip-service and then change for compulsion so that the students, while we may say they have the right , in fact have no freedom at all and must pay even for services which they do not wish to use and activities of which they disapprove. There is no freedom of association if students who decide not to associate are discriminated against. There is no freedom of association if students who decide not to join are forced to contribute. That, in fact, represents compulsory membership and compulsory association, perhaps through the back door. If students are forced to join because sanctions are applied to those who do not and because there is a fear that sanctions will be imposed upon them, that action infringes a right to associate or not to associate. Real voluntary membership on campus cannot be said to exist if a compulsory fee is levied, whether or not the students wish to belong to an organisation. That point is even more important if the funds that are collected by compulsion are given either directly or indirectly to organisations which a person not only does not support but finds morally or politically repugnant. I refer honourable senators to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Article 20 of that document sets out these points in very simple terms. It states: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. That declaration makes it clear that the principle of voluntary membership must be protected. The principle of voluntary membership counts for very little if there is compulsory collection of fees, if one is forced to pay into a student association whether or not one elects to be a member. It is like being told by some of the arrogant unions-I speak as a former trade union member-in my State: 'You cannot have a job unless you pay those dues'. It is a matter of whether those activities relating to students are consistent with that part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Australian National University Act, as presently contructed, seeks to preserve the right of students to belong or not to belong to an organisation. However, this Bill removes certain protections and seeks to leave that right in the hands of institutions. I put it to honourable senators that the only possible reason for making that change is the possibility that institutions will wish to adopt a different approach. The present legislation protects the rights of students not to belong to a union, and the Government seeks to remove that protection. This suggests that there must be a possibility that some institution will want to use its new capacity-if not now, then at some time in the future-to limit the right of students not to belong or not to participate in certain activities. We must address ourselves to the possibility of an institution wishing to act contrary to article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must acknowledge that, under the Bill now before us, that institution will have the capacity so to do. The collection of student fees is, of course, big business. Much money in involved. In 1983 the Australian National University collected $755,647 from students. The university actually disbursed $739,266 to organisations on campus. Of that sum, the Australian National University Union received $399,810, the ANU Sports Union received $217,881, the ANU Students Association received $98,046, the ANU Research Students Association received $12,354, the ANU Law Society received $1,175 and the Arts Centre received $10,000. Most of the money went to the ANU Union and the ANU Sports Union, while lesser amounts went to the ANU Students Association. Individual students on campus had no capacity to determine which organisations received the money or how much they received. Students were forced to belong to organisations that provided facilities on campus-social and sporting facilities and socio-political activities. The ANU Union operates at a loss. The fact is that it cannot, even with that subsidy, compete with the many clubs on the perimeter of the campus. Those clubs are, of course, unsubsidised and market responsive. This collection of money is inappropriate and ineffective. It is common knowledge that the organisations on the ANU campus are having difficulties in coping. Some students at ANU do not want to belong to those organisations. Some students at ANU do not want to use the facilities of the ANU Union and Sports Union. Those students go to the university for purposes which they perceive and which may be restricted to their scholarly activities. They do not want to have to pay for resources in which they are not interested, about which they do not care and which they will not use. To require payment by virtue of this type of disbursement policy is to require those students to contribute to things that they will not use and in which they have no interest. There is ample historical evidence from the recent past showing that student organisations have used money collected under compulsion from students in ways that many students have found offensive. Compulsory fees have been used inter alia to support the Christmas Island Workers Union, the Australian Labor Party, the National Overseas Student Services organisation, which was supporting political movements overseas and Melbourne radio station 3CR. Those fees have been used also to set up a Nimbin commune. Compulsory fees have been used to give money to striking power workers. What possible right is there to disburse money collected from students by compulsion to striking power workers? What a misuse of money it is to support the Asian Students Organisation and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. It is on record that at one stage money collected under compulsion was used to condemn world series cricket. What a great use of money collected under compulsion it is to give money to the Zimbabwe Liberation Front. When the AUS had a big budget 2 per cent of it was allocated to national affairs and 4 per cent to international affairs. There are many students on many Australian campuses who say: 'It is bad enough that money is being collected from us compulsorily but it is just too much when it is used for purposes like this'. I am aware that one justification for raising the money is that student organisations do have debts. I do not think it is sufficient to say that that makes the levies essential, except that it is a convenient way of taxing and revenue raising to help meet those debts. The facilities which are provided by the ANU and the CCAE are desirable facilities. I do not deny the provision of sporting facilities. But it is a non sequitur, in logical terms to say therefore that they should be paid for by a levy on all students including those who, either by virtue of their work commitments or their geographical isolation, may never be able to use those facilities. To say that all students have to pay for them is to make a statement which has no basis in logic. The students may not be able to use the restaurants and bistros; they may not be able to use the theatres. It may not be an area in which they have an interest. They may not wish to use the club rooms, the ovals, the swimming pools or anything else that is provided. The fact that the ANU Sports Union has a present loan balance of $308,253 is a matter between the Sports Union and the ANU but it is not a justification for requiring every student on that campus to help pay off that debt. There is a logical case for saying that those who wish to use these facilities should be prepared to play their part. There is no validity in saying that every student should have to pay. The same goes for the ANU Union's loan of $250,000 repayable over five years, up to 1987. That is fine. The debt is legitimate; it is the method of repayment which is not. I ask: What communal obligations do we believe attach to any person who wishes to enter a college or university? Their eventual aim is to become a member of a world-wide community of scholars, but what obligations attach to them when they enter that college or university and embark upon their education and training at that level? Certainly there is a central obligation which relates to their association with the community of scholars and their scholarly commitments. Scholarship is the central feature; scholarship is the obligation they undertake , an obligation to pursue whatever course of learning they are undertaking and to do that with dedication and drive. But the obligations do not extend, and never have, to the use of a whole range of university facilities, to the support of those facilities or to the provision of those facilities, whether they are commercial, social or sporting. No matter how desirable those facilities might be, it does not provide reason to make them compulsory upon every student. I am aware and I think honourable senators will be aware that the Australian National University Council has recently taken a decision in relation to compulsory student membership. In the short term it is a very desirable decision . It is a decision which was taken by the ANU Council on Friday, 11 May 1984 and says that the membership of various organisations will not be compulsory but the levying of the fee still will be compulsory. That decision, and a similar decision which I believe exists at the CCAE, will require the fees to be paid although it will waive compulsory membership. It is an extra educational tax and this Bill will provide for the organisations that the moneys collected from that tax can be used in wider ways than they can at present and without the protections which the amendments of 1979 and 1981 put into the Act. There is no justification in what is being proposed and there is no merit in it either. Not only is there no merit in this impost upon students but it is interesting to note the views of the Australian Labor Party. At a recent conference of the Australian Union of Students, before Labor came into office, the then spokesman on education, Mr John Dawkins, in speaking to the AUS, promised that Labor would work to have the AUS fee restored. Part of what Mr Dawkins said at the AUS annual conference in January 1982, indicating the way the Labor Party would proceed, was: To the extent that funds are made available for the purposes of particular tertiary education institutions in States Grants legislation, conditions could be imposed that related the funds to the absence of control by the State over the conduct of student unions or organisations; and this sort of condition could be linked to the provision of funds for the institution generally, rather than only to the provision of funds for the purposes of the student unions or organisations. He went on to state: In all cases where States Grants legislation is used to provide funds for tertiary education in the States, section 96 would enable conditions about the autonomy of student unions or organisations as part of the provision of funds. In other words he is saying that the Labor Party is quite prepared, unless it has changed its policy since this statement was made, to include as one of the conditions of the States Grants Act requirements about the ways in which universities allow student fees collected compulsorily to be used. Of course, that related to the capacity for the AUS to collect fees and to use them in any way it wanted. So there would be more support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, more support for Malaysian terrorist organisations and more support for the Christmas Island Workers Union, matters which have nothing to do with what goes on on campus, nothing to do with matters for which money is taken from students. I come back to the point that though this legislation relates to the Australian Capital Territory we have the words of Mr Dawkins in January 1982-just a couple of years ago-indicating quite clearly that the Australian Labor Party has as its goal a disposition to move all campuses in Australia back to a position in which the funds can be collected under compulsion and then spent on matters which may or may not have the support of the body of students. I believe it is the intention of the Government to see that kind of compulsion nationwide, if I can believe what Mr Dawkins has said. I return to my central point, the point I made earlier. This is a matter which goes to freedom of association, to liberty of individuals in one aspect of Australian communal life. It was Woodrow Wilson who observed that liberty has never come from government; liberty has always come from the subjects of government and the history of liberty is the history of resistance. Students across Australia have been resisting these levies and resisting this compulsion because they can see that they are unfair, that they limit their opportunities and that they require them to contribute to things in which they do not believe. At the Committee stage of the debate the Opposition will move certain amendments. We will move amendments to extend to these two universities and colleges the principle of voluntarism in the collection of moneys for purposes which are not central to the pursuit of scholarship or the function of universities and colleges. We will seek to make both union membership and payment voluntary to a greater extent than they are at present. We will seek to have retained in the Act a non-retribution clause which requires universities not to punish or take action against students because of decisions they may take in relation to membership. I want the Government to explain why it wants that non-retribution clause taken out. One must presume that if that is to be taken out there is a possibility of retribution once again against individual students . I understand also that there is an agreed amendment that the commencement date of certain provisions of the Bill needs to be changed. I indicate now that the Opposition will support the new commencement date, but we will still be pressing our amendments which go to freedom, liberty, a fair go and a separation on campus of those activities which are central to scholarship from those activities which are optional and extra and about which this compulsion is quite inappropriate and unnecessary. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(11.46) —I do not intend to go into the various convoluted and often contradictory arguments put forward by Senator Peter Baume, as I think most of them are not relevant to the topic and I am surprised that some of them seem to be possible of extension to support for a system of voluntary taxation which may be something that those opposite agree with. Senator Robert Ray —It is voluntary for them. Senator ZAKHAROV —That is exactly what I mean. However, I want to comment on those parts of the legislation which remove the very controversial and objectionable provisions of the 1979 and 1981 legislation which placed restrictions on the activities of student organisations at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. These Bills, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1984, reverse one more of the shameful actions of the previous Government, an action which in this case did not get the public attention which I think it deserved at the time, probably because it constituted an attack on a group of people who are seen at least as relatively powerless to influence the actions of conservative governments. This group was the student body of the ANU and the Canberra CAE. Yet at that time there was one group in that student body powerful out of all proportion to its members-those students were mainly members of campus Liberal organisations and other right wing groups. It should be noted that they were too few to muster the numbers for a petition to the ANU Council; yet they gained the ear of the then Liberal-National Party Government. That Government was clearly interested in having yet another piece of union bashing on the record, this time aimed at student unions, which have a record of campaigning on behalf of their members against the dismantling of Labor initiatives in education. It should be remembered that this repressive action was opposed at the time by the Council of the ANU, and university councils in my experience are not noted for their radical views. The 1979 and 1981 amendments to the relevant Acts were not passed in isolation. They were part of an orchestrated campaign against student unions and organisations in States which then had conservative governments. Evidence that this was a concerted campaign is to be found in the Senate Hansard of 1 June 1978 where the then Senator Carrick, as Minister for Education, is reported as stating: The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has now written to the State Premiers and has suggested similar legislation by those States which have not already acted along the lines proposed by the Commonwealth. Happily those States now have more rational and democratically-minded governments, and I am pleased to say that this is the last piece of such repressive legislation to be repealed. Although the previous Government's legislation was dressed up by arguments about non-compulsory membership of student organisations-and of course we heard a lot of the same sort of rhetoric from Senator Baume today-this was not the real issue behind the then Government' s actions. Students already had, as they have now, provisions available for genuine conscientious objection to membership, as was pointed out frequently in debate in this place at the time. So clearly this was not the real reason for introducing these measures. Rather, the purpose of the anti-student association legislation was an attempt to prevent students engaging in activities critical of conservative governments, and at that unhappy time we had a lot of them in Australia. The then Senator John Carrick even dressed up this attack as saving the poor students from themselves. In a prime example of really patronising paternalism he referred in debate to 'payments made by student organisations for purposes which perhaps a majority of students and their parents would have opposed'-not only very paternalistic and patronising towards students who overwhelmingly are adults but also very speculative. In particular, the 1979 and 1981 legislation was aimed at preventing student associations in the two Canberra tertiary institutions from maintaining affiliation with the Australian Union of Students which, in common with its predecessor, the National Union of Australian University Students, has a long history of achievement in defending and extending the rights of students. I remind the Senate that it was the National Union of Australian University Students which established the first tertiary scholarships for Aboriginals in Australia and campaigned for the abolition of the white Australia policy, both seen then as very radical policies but accepted today by all rational Australians. Senator Teague —There is no problem with those two. Senator ZAKHAROV —I was giving examples of what it has done. The Australian Union of Students and its constituent bodies throughout Australia have successfully campaigned on such issues as education funding; financial assistance for students; the reform of curriculum and assessment procedures; assistance for disadvantaged students; the provision of student services such as health, housing and legal advice, which were set up by student associations long before they were funded by anyone else; and student advocacy on campus issues, as well as providing student clubs and societies, student newspapers, food services, and so on. I wonder whether Senator Baume advocates that people be allowed to use these services who do not pay their fees to the student bodies. During last session Senator Baume spoke in this place about a case of discrimination against a student at Canberra CAE, a case in which a student was failed on other than academic grounds. I am glad that such a case was brought to public attention in this way, but I was surprised that Senator Baume, a former Minister for Education, seemed to believe that such an occurrence was unusual. I mention that in the context of this legislation because student associations and unions have been very active on this issue in recent years. The Australian Union of Students has campaigned strongly against sexual harassment on campuses, particularly the not infrequent cases where assessment is made dependent on compliance with sexual demands. Officers of the AUS and its constituent bodies have given much needed support both to victims and potential victims of this abuse of power, as it does to other groups of disadvantaged students. But the Fraser Government was not interested in the value of student unions and associations to their members. The repressive measures repealed by these Bills were designed to weaken student associations by preventing them from being part of the Australia-wide organisation of students which was mobilising student and public opposition to the cuts in education spending which were initiated by the infamous Fraser razor gang. The present Government unfortunately cannot undo all the damage done in that slashing of support for education. It cannot, for example, unscramble the college campuses which were forcibly amalgamated. But our Government is taking this step to restore the rights of students to expend their funds in accordance with their own democratic decisions without outside interference. The repeal of these abhorrent provisions may seem like a very minor matter to some in this chamber but, apart from having an effect on those students, it is symbolic in putting an end to one more attack by the previous Government on the democratic rights of Australian citizens. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.54) —The Bills before us today, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1984, deal essentially with the repeal of certain sections inserted in the legislation covering the tertiary institutions directly under the control of this Parliament. The issues alluded to by Senator Baume and Senator Zakharov have probably exercised the minds of people over a considerable number of years, and I am not sure whether it is useful any longer to engage in an extensive debate in this area. The hidden curriculum on this issue is related to the Australian Union of Students. The union has ceased to function as an organisation representing students in Australia and tertiary students are now seeking to establish a more representative body and, it is hoped, a more effective body to represent them at national level. I would have thought that it would have the support of every group in this Parliament that students would have such a body to represent them. It is important that the Government should be able to receive views from authoritative organisations when it is deliberating on legislation in this area. I believe any government, whether Liberal-National Party or Labor, would welcome the views of students in putting together legislation or seeking to amend it. Hence, everyone in this chamber will hope that the current events taking place in the tertiary student area will result in an effective, democratic and useful body to put forcefully to governments the needs and aspirations of tertiary students in Australia. There probably is not much point in going back over old history as to whether the AUS was or was not a useful body in that regard, or whether it was directing its funds to other than legitimate student interest purposes and the like. It might now be useful to direct our minds to the future in this regard. Senator Peter Baume —Except to the extent that we do not want it to be repeated. Senator MACKLIN —I take the point raised by Senator Baume. It is important to point out that regardless of what we do or do not do in legislation, presumably what students do or do not do in their association is up to them. The important thing for us to look forward to is that that association reflects the views of its constituents. In a democratic society this Parliament promotes the voluntary coming together of people to further the ends that are useful for the society. This chamber has always done that and I hope will continue to do so in the future. The point revolves around whether this legislation will or will not compel people to be part of the various student organisations. There are some problems in discussing this piece of legislation in the Federal Parliament. One is that there is not a homogeneity of student organisations in tertiary institutions throughout Australia. They tend to vary both in name and in activities. In some places student unions are the bodies which provide the representative function and the service function. In other tertiary campuses those functions are split. For example, at the ANU we have an ANU union, a sports union, a students association and a research students association. Each of those bodies performs functions that are not necessarily performed by appropriately and comparably named bodies in other campuses. The remarks I shall make are specifically directed to the organisations as they are represented in the Australian Capital Territory and not other organisations from other campuses throughout Australia. In terms of both the ANU and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, I think it is important to realise that there is support for the current Bills that are now before this chamber in the form in which the Government introduced them. The amendments foreshadowed by the Government certainly will be supported by us. Indeed, we indicated when these Bills were last before the chamber that we would be unwilling to pass them so that they would be applicable from the beginning of this calendar year. We felt it more appropriate that they start at the beginning of next calendar year, and the Government has acceded to that request. There are not only ideological reasons for that, but a pretty good accounting reason. Neither of the campuses was particularly fussed about going back to the beginning of this year. When the Government asked the bodies for their views, it discovered the correct position. It is not useful from an accounting point of view to change the rules backwards after the set of accounts has been operating for six months. The Government did not include in the legislation any additional funds to enable the bodies to do all of the books. I think it is better that it should start at the beginning of next year. There was also a mild retrospective element in that it would create certain contexts backwards for six months. Some students may have felt that would put them at a disadvantage. I refer specifically to the voluntary aspect because that is the hub of this discussion on these Bills. The Australian Democrats strongly support the notion of voluntary organisation. We believe that it is a fundamental aspect of any society that membership of any organisation, whether it be a union or political party or whatever, be on a voluntary basis. We believe that is a fundamental human right and a right to which the Australian Government subscribes in connection with the United Nations Charter. However, we also have as part of our policy a further concept which envisages fees for service. We have discussed this matter with the various unions and union bodies in Australia. We believe it is an important aspect of organisation of many groups in Australia that they provide services to their members. We believe that these services cannot simply be provided to their members but are, by the organisation of various Acts of this Parliament, provided to all people who work or who operate within certain contexts. To spell that out, unions are recognised before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They are required to appear before the Commission in cases dealing with pay and conditions. This Parliament has legislated for those bodies to appear. For example, one sees the importance of having deregistration proceedings operating against the Builders Labourers Federation. If the fact that they were registered or not was of no moment, there would not be so much concern about the BLF deregistration proceedings. It is important that we have these bodies and that they provide certain benefits to their members but also to others working in the industry. It follows, the Democrats believe, that all those working in the area who receive benefits from the operation of those various organisations should be expected to pay their fair share. I do not think anybody in this country is happy with bludgers and those who do not contribute are bludging on their fellow workmates or fellow participants in whatever area it involves. If services are provided-and distinct services are provided in putting a good case before an Arbitration Commission-it is fair to expect those people who benefit from the pay and conditions to contribute. However, we do not agree that those contributions should then be used for a political purpose. In our discussions with the trades and labour councils in various States and with their peak bodies we have always put the proposition that if a fee for service is established it will not be used in any way for a political purpose. Therefore, the money should be paid into a separate fund and it should be accountable in a public way so that everyone knows that the money is being spent only on those services and only on providing them. I say that in general, because that is the general philosophical and political context of the Australian Democrats. I wish now to apply that to the Bills. It has become somewhat difficult to do that because of the difficulty in finding information as to what actually is going on at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I must admit I have some concern that the types of propositions I would have hoped to see written into various statutes and regulations are not. I believe they ought to be. I believe it is a deficiency on the part of those organisations that they have not done that. However, on inquiry of both those groups and their peak policy bodies I have been assured on a personal basis by the responsible officers that there is no obligation to belong to those bodies. In other words, there is voluntary membership of those bodies. However, both the ANU and CCAE intend having compulsory general service fees if the legislation is passed. The point the university and college people have made to me in fact is totally in keeping with the policy of my Party. They say that people to whom they have provided services should be expected to pay their fair share for the provision of those services. I readily admit that not everyone attending one of those campuses will be using all of those services. I attended a campus and paid fees for a long time but I do not think I ever used the sports union-I suppose I should have, but I did not. I see that Mr Acting Deputy President is nodding his head in agreement. These types of provisions are made but one does not always take advantage of them. Nevertheless, they are put there for the use of all students and are generally accepted within the community as a reasonable provision of recreational facilities for students. In fact, I remember often exhorting my students to take recreation-although I was not doing it myself- because it is very useful that in a period of study people look after their health. Senator Watson —So should parliamentarians. Senator MACKLIN —That is true indeed. I hope that in the new Parliament House there is greater provision of those types of services than we have here. Over and above the provision of sporting facilities there is, for example, the provision of a refectory. I was lucky enough to be at a university at a time when one could take refectory honours. At that time one did not have to worry about continual assessment and could spend a fair amount of time discussing the state of the world. Unfortunately, those rather balmy times when we had to study only in the last term are long since past. That no longer is the case because students now have to study all year round. However, students still need to eat. I draw an analogy by saying that the dining room here is an extremely important part of this establishment; it manages to keep us going. I think we would feel it very odd if there were not such provisions in this place. I point out to honourable senators who will be voting on these Bills that such services here are provided from Consolidated Revenue and not from our pockets. Although we pay for our meals I do not think we pay anywhere near as much as the meals cost. It is obvious when one looks at the Estimates that Consolidated Revenue picks up a part of the tab. Senator Peter Baume —I think we should pay cost. Senator MACKLIN —I agree. I think that when we discuss these matters we should not draw up one rule for other people and one for ourselves. In the case of the university and college I think the provision of these services is important and a provision which the community expects on the campuses because of their size. I do not believe there is a case for saying that people attending those campuses should be exempt from paying fees. I point out that there are staggered fees for part time and external students and full time campus students. I think that is fair and reasonable. I quote from the Australian National University Council minutes of a resolution. The minutes state: The Vice-Chancellor reported that the Second Reading Speech of the Bill to amend the Australian National University Act by removing restrictions on the use by students of General Services Fee moneys was introduced into the House of Representatives on 9 May 1984, and he suggested that Council consider how it wished to proceed, on the assumption that the Bill would be passed some time this year. Having considered the advice of the Finance Committee, Council resolved that: (a) the provision in the Fees Rules for the levying of an annual compulsory general services fee for all enrolled students should continue; (b) it should not be compulsory for students enrolled or seeking to enrol in the University to become and remain members of any organisation of students as a condition of enrolment. I think that is a principle that one could accept. Senator Peter Baume —How does the repeal of section 32A fit in because that concerns non-retribution for people who decide not to join? Why should the Bill seek to repeal that particular provision? Senator MACKLIN —I accept that repealing the various sections of the Act involved probably goes further than is necessary. However, if one is looking at the wider context-my Party strongly supports the notion of autonomy of the institutions-I believe it is a matter for the institution itself to determine. Senator Peter Baume —Even retribution for non-membership? Senator MACKLIN —There will not be retribution. I think that it is very clear from the responsible officers of both the ANU and the CCAE that there will be no retribution and that there will be no compulsory element in the operation of these rules. Senator Peter Baume —Then the repeals are not necessary? Senator MACKLIN —I said that I think the repeals go further than is necessary. In the broader context, the point I am putting is that we would have a preference for the organisations themselves to determine the policy rules in relation to people within the institutions. Officers of those institutions have assured me that it is their continuing policy that there will always be those types of provisions and that there will be no compulsory payment as a condition of enrolment. To me that seems a reasonable stance on the part of those institutions. Indeed, without that assurance the Australian Democrats would not have agreed to vote for the Bills. I think that assurance is important. It puts on the institution itself the responsibility for its own rules and for conducting itself in a fair and reasonable way. I for one-certainly it has been my Party's policy consistently-would prefer that the institutions make those rules and enforce them themselves. I think that if there are no problems arising out of that we should desist from putting legislative encumbrances of whatever kind on tertiary institutions. I can think of many things that could happen to tertiary institutions in the future that I would not like to happen. I believe if such things did happen this Parliament would be forced to legislate to prevent them. However, I believe it is a fundamental principle to leave tertiary institutions as autonomous as possible until such time as we find they digress in a way that is not acceptable to the community. I do not see that in this case. I do not think the Parliament proposes to do it in this case. Hence, I believe, following that principle, that one should leave to the tertiary institutions the capacity to make their own rules in this area. After all, the governing bodies of these institutions are made up not simply of academics and some students; they are made up of eminent representatives of this Parliament and of this community. Those people cannot be said to be a radical bunch. They are-- Senator Peter Baume —How would that go down in a logic class? An appeal to authority? Senator MACKLIN —Quite frankly, they are a pretty conservative bunch. Indeed, it has been one of the geniuses of the organisation of tertiary institutions in this country to interpose between the community and the running of the institution a relatively conservative community-oriented body. This could be held up to many other countries which have tried similar operations. I think Australia has hit on a pretty good model. On the one hand it regulates the tertiary institution internally fairly well by keeping an eye on the community outside. On the other hand, it protects the community inside from the community outside in areas where the tertiary institutions tend-and they do tend on occasions-to move well beyond the accepted community norms of practice and discussion. It is important to look back at some of the history. Indeed, if one looks back at history-Senator Teague will be better on this than I-certainly in terms of the history of ideas, one only has to go back 300 years to discover that there were places where if a person stood up and argued for democracy he would have his head cut off. Senator Peter Baume —There still are. They still exist. Senator MACKLIN —There still are, yes, but not in our tradition. There are still parts of the world where, if a person tried that, he would get shot. But well within the western tradition and the university tradition there are places where , if a person stood up and said 'Democracy is the best way of running the country', he would have been beheaded for it. We need to make sure that people in our tertiary institutions are capable of expressing and fomenting ideas in the community. One of the reasons we fund them out of Consolidated Revenue is to provide us not only with our lawyers, doctors, teachers, pharmacists and agricultural scientists and whatever else, but also to provide us with ideas and to make us constantly look towards the future. I believe it is a very important principle that we do not impede tertiary autonomy unless it is absolutely and vitally necessary. I do not believe it is vitally necessary in this case. I believe that both of those institutions have publicly stated that they will not be requiring, as a condition of enrolment, any compulsory element, and that they will seek to abide by what is now accepted as the community norms-that conscientious object must be protected at all times. In other words, these intitutions are allowing voluntary membership. I believe that is vitally important. On the other hand, I do not believe that it is an encumbrance on students to have to pay part of the cost of services provided in those institutions for their well being. Indeed to use a phrase from another government, I would have thought it is a case of the user paying. The user is not paying a great deal, but the user is paying a little. I am not quite sure why we would be worried about that. I indicated that the Australian Democrats will support the Government on this legislation with the proviso that we support it only because those institutions have indicated that they will not be requiring compulsory membership. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.20) —Let us be quite clear about the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill. These Bills are not going to strike a terrific blow for student democracy or control of student affairs; rather they will return the student bodies at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education to the dark days of the mid-to-late 1970s when the bulk of students witnessed their student union fees being frivously wasted or expended on non-student-related activities and programs, or such things as overseas aid for Sandanista revolutionaries. That this Government is so concerned with repealing section 29A of the Australian National University Act and section 23A of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act is a sad reflection on its priorities. Of all the myriad of problems which are besetting our centres for higher education, this Government has decided that the repeal of those sections proposed by these Bills is of such fundamental and everlasting importance that it displaces everything else by its magnitude. Good Heavens! Is this Government so bereft of knowledge, compassion or common sense that it is unable to grasp and grapple with the enormity of the funding problems which is crucifying the life blood of academia in this country? What are these minor problems in our universities and CAEs which pale into insignificance beside the urgent need to repeal section 29A of the Australian National University Act? I think it will prove more than a little enlightening to many Australians if we spelt out what some of these so-called problems are. Let us look at the cost pressures on universities and CAEs. For a supposedly reformist government which prides itself on educational issues, especially tertiary educational issues, this Government's image has been tarnished, to say the least. The tremendous funding crisis now facing tertiary educational institutions does not sit at all well with the idea of the Australian Labor Party as the friend of the universities. The pre-occupation of funding research in the various research schools within ANU has meant that funds are just not becoming available for other universities and colleges. We recognise it as principally and primarily a research university. As a result, we find that facilities tend towards obsolescence in other areas which, in turn, makes such universities, et cetera, appear increasingly as unattractive propositions as far as higher research degrees are concerned. I will illustrate this point by just one example: The Budget allocation to the ANU in 1984-85 was $134.976m. The Budget allocation in 1983 was $125.788m. The Canberra College of Advanced Education in 1984-85 received only $23.788m and the year before it got $22.437m. Last year the funds allocated to the ANU were 5.6 times those allocated to the Canberra College of Advanced Education, yet this year it grew to a rate of 7.3 times the increase to the Canberra College of Advanced Education. What sort of priority is this Government giving to the important role of colleges of advanced education when we look at that sort of imbalance? The imbalance between the two is increasing at an extremely rapid rate and to the detriment of the colleges. The allocation of funds for universities and colleges is now so disproportionate that many of the smaller campuses are really being squeezed out of existence, even though their worth in many cases is as important as the larger institutions. Universities and colleges are dependent on government funding, but when increased funding barely manages to keep pace with the inflation rate their ability to absorb rising costs is undermined if not permanently retarded. Funding per student has been further reduced. Universities and colleges are being asked to extend their courses and facilities, yet the funding required to implement such expansion is just not forthcoming. Although the States have received only preliminary funding figures-the final figures probably will not be available until later this month-there is little doubt that funding per tertiary student has been cut in real terms. While the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who is absent from this important debate, talks blandly of increasing tertiary enrolments next year by some magical amount, no real effort is being made to ensure that such increases are workable and able to be absorbed. We cannot increase the student population without a corresponding increase in staffing levels. An increase in staffing levels is now urgently needed at almost every tertiary institution in this country. It is no simple exaggeration to say that increased work loads on lecturers and other staff, primarily brought about by a lack of adequate funding, are affecting both the health and the performance of a good many of them in a very negative manner. This Government has made much of its commitment to increase student numbers at the tertiary level. The Minister's rhetoric concerning her Government's guidelines for disadvantaged students has been eloquent and touching even if somewhat naive. But her eloquence has not produced its rewards in performance. Senator Ryan's guidelines stress the priorities that would be given to the young , to women, to Aboriginals and to those who live in the outer suburban areas of Melbourne and Sydney and in the remote areas of Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and my State of Tasmania. Elsewhere the Minister stressed the need for extra students in science and technology and in business courses. On the face of it there is nothing incompatible between these two aims. Indeed, if there were not such a general funding crisis they could be achieved with comparative ease. The Government, in bringing in a greater number of disadvantaged students, creates a need for increased funding of universities and colleges because of the increased attention such persons require. This has been overlooked. Similarly, science and technology courses are expensive in comparison with the arts. But funding is to be increased only marginally and, therefore, will be effective principally on low cost courses. High cost courses and high cost students, which I am referring to, demand increased levels of funding. This Government has chosen to deny the funding necessary to put its rhetoric into practice in a number of key areas. On examining the elements of a great university a number of things really spring to mind. Firstly, it is a centre of excellence. Large numbers of post- graduate students, full research facilities for a wide range of disciplines and large numbers of overseas students ensure equality of opportunity but not necessarily of outcomes. This is where Senator Ryan is very exposed. All except the last-the outcomes-are dependent upon adequate funding without which none is really achievable. All universities and colleges should be centres of excellence where equality of opportunity, not outcome, is promoted. That is something this Government seems unable to comprehend as it seeks to breed a generation which accepts mediocrity as not only necessary but also desirable in order to ensure an arbitrariness known as equality of outcome. What future will this country have if the Government adopts such an attitude? All these problems are besetting university life in Australia, so what does this Government do? Absolutely nothing, in a positive sense, in the educational area. Not one recipe for academic advancement has been proposed by Senator Ryan, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women and sometimes Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Twenty-five hundred years ago Isaiah wrote: The voice of one crying in the wilderness. In part, he may have foreseen the lone fight that the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has to wage in the party room of the Australian Labor Party in an attempt to shake his colleagues from their moribund state and awake in them the spark of knowledge and foresight that advanced research and development in this nation is in desperate need of government assistance. We would expect the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs at least to try to heed and acknowlege his cause. It must be said for poor Barry Jones that his cause so far has been a noble one but a losing one. Unfortunately it is likely to remain so. The Minister for Science and Technology has had to witness a funding erosion within his Department. To add to his woes he has had to witness also a funding erosion in science and technology courses at the tertiary level. The Minister has made much of his rhetoric concerning science and technology in the context of a national strategy for improving Australia's standing in this field. Funding at universities was to be the linchpin of this national strategy but yet again the rhetoric has not been supported by sufficient funding to enable it to become a reality. The funding crisis at university level hits at not only areas of study but also those trying to graduate, where it has the biggest effect. University students, those leaders of the next generation, have not been given any support or encouragement to endure the years of study, pressure and low standard of living. The tertiary education assistance scheme is still nowhere near the level of the unemployment benefit. This is indicative of the misdirected priorities of this Government which are sinking this nation. When young people can gain greater government assistance for being unemployed-even though in the vast majority of cases such a state is not of their own making-rather than being actively and purposely engaged in study and research activity at universities, there is something decidedly wrong with this Government's priorities. The subject of priorities of government leads me back to the Bill which we are debating. The people of Australia would be more than interested to know not only the content of the sections of the Act which it is proposed to repeal but also the reason for such a proposed repeal. In essence, some sections prevent a body of students-even if this body constitutes the elected Students Representative Council, it is elected by such a minority of the student population that it can quite justifiably be viewed as unrepresentative of the student body as a whole- from wasting the fees of those students. Section 29A (c) prevents the SRC of the Australian National University paying any funds to a national organisation of students, such as the Australian Union of Students. Moneys may be paid to such an organisation if it satisfies three reasonable criteria: Firstly, the encouragement of student sporting and recreational activities; secondly, the promotion of student interests in a particular educational, cultural or social field; and, thirdly, the promotion of the interests of post-graduate students. By no stretch of the imagination can these three criteria be said to be unreasonable in the students' interest. Similarly, by no stretch of the imagination can we claim that the existing national organisation-the Australian Union of Students-has as its principal objectives the achievement of those three goals. In actual fact, the AUS is under attack on all sides, with now only a small minority of universities and students belonging to this rather rabid organisation. The AUS has been savaged tremendously by the loss from its fold this year of Adelaide University and the University of Western Australia, and if the student body at Melbourne University had followed suit, AUS would undoubtedly have collapsed. I was a member of the Government that implemented those sections in the relevant Acts which are planned to be repealed. I believed, and I still believe, that the amendments our Government introduced were then needed. I am firmly convinced that if these Bills pass through this chamber and effect a repeal of those amendments, we in this Parliament will have made a retrograde step. The Australian Labor Party traditionally has an abhorrence of tertiary students paying for their education in any way. In effect it could be argued that the legislation before us today is a back-door method of compulsorily making students pay for some of their education. In other words, it is forcing a fee on students. It is imposing a levy, a tax, in an area where they have little ability to be able to be represented to say how their funds will be spent in the best and wisest manner. I recommend that these Bills be defeated for the sake of Australia's universities and the students who are enrolled at them. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.37) —In the second reading speeches of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1984 she noted rightly that these occasions facilitate useful amendments that are in the interests of the university and the college. The Opposition is glad to see the facilitation of these improvements to the Acts to meet the proper requests of the University Council and the College Council. Apart from these so-called minor amendments, the core of the Bills is the Government's proposal to remove the 1979 guarantees of voluntarism in membership of student associations and guarantees that moneys compulsorily raised will not be used or distributed to offensive organisations. They will not be offensively used, but will be used only for bona fide student educational organisations and organisations with like purposes. Much of the debate that has already taken place in the Senate has been to the effect that the purpose of placing those guarantees in the legislation in 1979 has been achieved in any event because the University Council and the College Council have, in an administrative set of decisions, agreed to the purport of the legislation anyway. By removing the 1979 guarantees, there will not be any grand offence to the high principles of freedom of association and non- compulsion, because the University Council and the College Council are entirely accommodative of those principles. Senator Baume rightly noted that it is the Opposition's argument that they should nevertheless be retained because they do not contradict any administrative practice of the university or the college, but that they do have the benefit of making it impossible in the future for any regression, for the University Council or the College Council to be pressured by members of the university or college to change their tack away from the present practice. The Minister in her second reading speech spoke of the 1979 guarantees being an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of the university. Very largely, I agree with her. At the time we acknowledged that that was so. We said: 'We do not prefer to gain these principles-freedom of association and the right use of public and compulsorily raised money-by legislation in these chambers'. We gave every opportunity for the University Council and College Council of the day to enact those decisions themselves. But the sorry story was that in 1979 and subsequently, they were not decisions taken within the autonomy of the university and the college. I see that the Minister is in the chamber. I acknowledge that I have always maintained that it was a disappointing intrusion to have added those amendments five years ago. However, we supported the amendments then because it was the only way, unhappily, that we could guarantee freedom of association for the students in the university and college. I am on record on many occasions as saying that I would like to see maximum autonomy for higher education institutions in Australia. I certainly welcome that within the bounds of that autonomy they have adopted the principles of the 1979 guarantees in any event. Long may they remain so, because universities and colleges are about free association, freedom to explore ideas, freedom to express ideas, freedom to study, freedom to teach, freedom to associate not only in lecture theatres and libraries but also in the recreational and more relaxed atmosphere where students can genuinely learn from other students any where an enormous amount of the purposes of a university are fulfilled. The Minister also referred to the University Council having been consulted about the present amendments that are before the Senate and to the fact that it has indicated that it welcomes the Government's undertaking. I understand that, and I acknowledge it. I can only add that the 1979 amendments have in their five -year life achieved their primary purpose, and that was to win these freedoms not only in the Australian National University and Canberra College of Advanced Education, but also by inference give signals to the other universities and colleges in Australia and the relevant State governments within their powers to take parallel action. I note that our legislation in 1979, which was amended in a minor way in 1981, has largely been effective. I prefer the legislation to continue, particularly section 32A in the ANU Act and section 23A in the CCAE Act, which provide the guarantee of freedom of association-that is, they expressly present compulsion in the membership of an association, and I will continue to argue that case in this chamber. I welcome what Senator Macklin has said on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and I hope that our amendment to retain those sections will be upheld by the Senate today. Whilst I prefer the retention of the guarantees in the legislation, I notice that the university has agreed to membership not being compulsory and that it has by its own authority agreed to continue the safeguards that we have urged and which were gained in the earlier legislation. However, if there is any regression, it is a fact of life that there remains the power in this Senate in the future-and, in particular in the Opposition when it comes to government-to review practices in the universities and colleges and in particular, of course, the ANU and the CCAE and, if necessary, to re-enact the 1979 guarantees. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General both in his own right and as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer the Attorney to the letter written two days ago by Mr Costigan to the Chairman and members of the National Crime Authority which is part of the correspondence tabled in the House of Representatives yesterday. Has he noted the final paragraph of Mr Costigan's letter in which Mr Costigan refers to the belief of the head of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, that failure to receive briefings from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union will not seriously impair the work of the Authority? I quote Mr Costigan's comment: I do not share that view nor do I understand how it could sensibly be entertained; you will not be able, without briefing, to take on my investigations, if that is your intention. Given Mr Costigan's great success in tackling organised crime in this country, as shown, for instance, by recent information that 600 charges have already been laid by Mr Redlich on material supplied by the Costigan Commission, will the Attorney and the Government support the views of Mr Costigan against that view expressed by the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, who apparently does not appreciate the need for direct and extensive briefings from the Costigan Commission? That is a view-I agree with Mr Costigan-which I do not see can be sensibly entertained. If the Attorney supports Mr Costigan's view, what action will the Government take to ensure that, even at this late stage, povision is made for adequate briefing of the Authority by the Commission so that the effective transition process which has been promised by the Government will be achieved? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has complete confidence in the competence, expertise and commitment of the new National Crime Authority and its members. We believe that there is obviously a story which has two sides. The exchange of correspondence, as tabled in the Parliament yesterday, amply sets out the perspective of the Authority members. I remind the honourable senator that the membership includes not only Mr Justice Stewart and Mr John Dwyer, QC, a Melbourne barrister of considerable reputation, but also Mr Max Bingham, QC, a former Liberal Tasmanian Attorney-General of recent favoured memory by the tories opposite. They have unanimously expressed the view that Mr Costigan's charges about inadequate receptiveness to offers of briefings-which may or may not have been workable offers in the time and place at which they were made- cannot be taken at their face value in the form in which they have been put into the public domain by those leaking this correspondence. There has been a willingness to work thoroughly and effectively in the transition process. The nature of the material in the Commission's possession, which we will be transferring to the Authority, with the staff who will be accompanying that transfer when Mr Costigan finishes writing his present report, together with a briefing that has already been done and a briefing that is proposed to be done in the future, will be amply sufficient to ensure that nothing is lost in the transition process. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Attorney express the same faith in Mr Costigan and his Commission that he has just expressed in members of the National Crime Authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —I and the Government have expressed on numerous occasions our belief in the worth of the work that Mr Costigan has been doing. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that prime interest rates have fallen again this week and that Treasury note tenders fell by one-half of one per cent? Do these continual falls in interest rates confirm that the Government's economic management, particularly in reducing the Budget deficit, is appreciated by the business community? Further, is there any indication that home mortgage interest rates will fall yet again in the near future? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the continuing decline in interest rates over recent months. I think Senator Richardson is justified in assuming that that fall in interest rates is very substantially attributable to the fact that since this Government was elected fiscal responsibility has again become a hallmark of the Australian Government as against the gross and culpable fiscal irresponsibility of the discredited former Government, particularly in its final desperate year. Senator Button —Interest rates and the popularity of the Opposition are both falling. Senator WALSH —Yes, that is correct. The figures Senator Richardson mentioned were applicable to short term government debt. There are sometimes substantial variations, at least in the short term, between movement in those rates and movement in other rates. Interest rates of various types have fallen at varying rates, but in general during the last financial year, 1983-84, interest rates have fallen from around 12.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent. That, of course, follows the peak of 13.5 per cent, which was reached during the final year of the discredited former Government. The trend on financial markets is certainly for further general reduction in interest rates, and one would expect to be incorporated in that reduction of housing loan interest rates associated, as I said earlier, with the widespread and correct perception of fiscal responsibility on behalf of this Government, in contrast to the fiscal irresponsibility of its predecessor, and associated also with the dramatic fall in inflation as measured by either the consumer price index or the implicit price deflator over the last 12 months. It is a fact that real interest rates have not fallen appreciably because the market has been a little slow to react to that dramatic fall in inflation, measured either by the implicit price deflator or the consumer price index. The fact that the fall in the inflation rate has been far more dramatic than the fall in interest rates would lead one to conclude that the market has yet to be fully convinced that the new and lower rates of inflation will be sustained. Because the wages policy is in place and is continuing to work there can be no doubt that that lower rate of inflation will be sustained, and when that is fully appreciated and spread through the market one can expect further pressures to reduce nominal and real interest rates. Senator JESSOP —Is the Attorney-General aware of the view of Commissioner Frank Costigan that the limitations of the National Crime Authority Act make it ' difficult, if not impossible' to draft references of matters left over from the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federal Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the new National Crime Authority? Is this task now being tackled within his Department or by the team of apparently part time lawyers headed by Mr Phillip Cummins, QC? In view of the painfully slow progress which appears to have been made and the stalled investigation of national organised crime, will the Attorney-General introduce, as a matter of urgency, an amendment to the National Crime Authority Act to facilitate the delivery to the Authority by way of the Inter-governmental Committee of all outstanding matters from the Costigan Commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the criticisms and the views that have been expressed about the Crime Authority by Mr Costigan over a long period prior to its establishment. I am not aware of any present rational foundation for criticism of the handover process of the kind the honourable senator has just advanced and I will not introduce any amendment along the line he is proposing. Senator TATE —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to reports that the Returned Services League National Congress has rejected motions calling for an immigration policy based on racial selection. Will the Minister congratualte the RSL on its moderate standing policy on migration, and particularly congratulate Sir William Keys, who as National President put his integrity above the pressures being applied by Mr Bruce Ruxton? Was the debate at the RSL Congress indicative of a more temperate stance on a wide range of issues by this important national organisation? Senator GIETZELT —All Australians are aware of the rather bitter debate that took place this week in Melbourne at the national congress of the Returned Services League. The congress rejected motions calling for an immigration policy based largely on racial criteria. In fact, it adopted a policy which could be described as a moderate and measured policy respecting average opinion in Australia. I think that that decision reflects great personal credit on Sir William Keys, the RSL's national President, in that the RSL has followed a responsible and temperate path in this matter. At the earliest opportunity I shall offer congratulations in that regard to Sir William Keys and to the organisation of which he is President. In recent years, numerous calls have been made to the Returned Services League from both within and without its ranks in support of a more forward looking, temperate and responsible approach to the issues of the day and in support of the need for the RSL to increase its concentration on issues of veterans' welfare in the context of the rapidly aging constituency of the RSL. Reference has been made to that fact by Sir Zelman Cowan at the 1981 conference, by Sir Ninian Stephen, who was the second Governor-General to do so, at the subsequent conference, and by my colleague, Senator Grimes, in his former capacity as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I referred to that point in my contribution on Monday. It is clear that the RSL is moving towards a less controversial and more welfare-oriented public role in response to the need for the organisation to cater for the needs of an aging membership throughout Australia. To that extent, I thoroughly applaud the steps in that respect that were taken at the congress. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Attorney-General a question concerning the Government's power to save areas such as the magnificent Daintree forest. I remind the Attorney-General of the photographs of the destruction at Daintree which he was good enough to look at in my office a day or two ago. Does the Attorney-General concede that the Government's power to act under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act is not restricted to areas nominated for or on the World Heritage List but that the Government could regulate now to declare that the property forms a part of Australia's natural heritage because of its universal significance? I think that the Attorney-General has already conceded that point. I would like confirmation of that. I admit that that action would be challengeable, but would not the effect be to halt immediately the vandalism that is slashing a 60-metre wide road through that priceless rainforest, burying the area's natural creeks and threatening the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Does the Attorney agree that for the Government to regulate now to protect the area, thus halting the construction of the road, would be sensible and prudent, given the fact that the fast approaching wet season will halt further road construction for some months, giving a breathing space for other action to be contemplated? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the honourable senator would appreciate that it would be, even for an adventurous and rash Attorney-General, unwise as well as against Standing Orders to give off the cuff opinions on a matter of that degree of complexity. I do not propose to do so, standing here without a brief in front of me. In any event, it is against Standing Orders. The simple fact is that two levels of legal criteria must be satisfied. First, we must ensure that the area can be the subject of Commonwealth action. Essentially, that depends on something about the land in question bringing it within the scope of the application of the external affairs power, that being the primary constitutional support for the legislation to which Senator Chipp referred. There are some lesser planks in that constitutional support structure which may or may not have applicability in the circumstances of the particular case and which may or may not survive constitutional scrutiny, as Senator Chipp acknowledges. The matter is a delicate and difficult one legally to establish. The second layer of legal criteria that must be satisfied relate to irreparable damage to the property in question. Again, it is a matter for nice judgment whether the construction of a road in this case would, legally speaking, constitute irreparable damage within the terms of the legislation and its regulations. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, has asked me in recent days to secure a quick opinion from my Department on that matter. Senator Chipp —He is hopeless. We are counting on you. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to the honourable senator for his confidence . I wish it were shared by others on his side of the chamber. I shall do my best in the circumstances to obtain a quick reply, because I appreciate very much the force of what Senator Chipp is saying. Certainly, it is alarming to a layman to look at some of the photographic material on the construction of the road in question, but the Government will have to give further consideration to whether that alarm can be translated into any viable legal foundation for Commonwealth action and whether it is appropriate in policy terms for that action to take place. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is certainly not my wish to trick the Attorney-General with a difficult question at Question Time . My question is exquisitely simple. The Attorney-General knows the answer as well as anything. Does not Article 3 of the World Heritage Convention make it clear that it is up to our national Government-not the World Heritage Committee or any other international body-to determine areas in this country that it believes are of universal significance? Does that not mean, therefore, that as soon as the Australian Heritage Commission believes that the area is of world significance something could happen within days, the Government could then act within days? Senator GARETH EVANS —Would that life were so simple. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Attorney-General to claims in today's National Times that there had been a clash between the Attorney-General and the former Special Prosecutor, Robert Redlich. I note that the article claims that there has been a number of complaints by the Special Prosecutor and that Mr Redlich had disagreed with the Attorney-General about a number of operational problems. Is the article correct? If so, what action has been taken to resolve these matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —The National Times article to which Senator Bolkus referred deals in a very selective manner with certain correspondence passing in confidence between Mr Redlich when he was the Special Prosecutor-until the middle of this year-and me. The original authority that was given to Mr Redlich under the Special Prosecutors Act related to illegal activities identified in the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union other than activities already referred to Special Prosecutor Gyles. The principal objective of the correspondence so far as I was concerned was to establish the exact nature of the tasks being carried on by Mr Redlich under that authority and to prepare for the following transition to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it being the Government's intention that the Director, as soon as possible after establishment of his office, would take over Mr Redlich's responsibilities. During the correspondence, certain misunderstandings occurred on the part of Mr Redlich, but those were eventually corrected and the assumption of responsibility by the DPP was finally smoothly effected on 5 June 1984 when the Melbourne office of the DPP took over Mr Redlich's responsibilities. In order to give extra weight to those assertions and to silence the red-faced scoffers on the other side of the chamber, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my original letter of 1 December, my reply to Mr Redlich's letter of 7 December, which was written and sent on 20 January, and a further letter of 25 January to me from Mr Redlich. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- Mr R. F. Redlich, Special Prosecutor, PO Box 21A, G.P.O., Melbourne, Vic. 3001 Dear Robert, Thank you for your letter of 29 September 1983 with which you enclosed a Schedule of matters that had been the subject of inquiry by the Costigan Royal Commission and were presently or potentially a matter for handling by your Office. The number and range of these matters are considerable. Your Office has undoubtedly, since its establishment, performed most effectively and the Government appreciates your very important contribution to enforcement of the law in these difficult and troublesome matters. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill will soon be enacted and, as you know, it will then be my intention that the Director of Public Prosecutions to be appointed under this legislation assume responsibility for the work now being carried out by your Office. To enable a smooth transition from your Office to that of the Director, it is desirable that the work of your Office should be kept to manageable proportions and readily identifiable areas. Matters within categories A and B in the Schedule do not appear to have reached the stage of being your Office's responsibility. As to matters in category C you have received some information but again these matters do not appear to have reached the stage of being your Office's responsibility. Your limited participation in matters in these 3 categories will need to be fully recorded so that the Director on appointment can readily decide what responsiubility, if any , he will assume in respect of these matters. I should be glad if you would let me know if you consider it necessary to take a more active role in any matter in these categories. Commonwealth matters in categories D and E in the Schedule appear at least in part to have reached the stage of being your Office's responsibility. There is a considerable number of matters in these categories and I should like to receive regular reports on progress in each case. As to the matters in category F, there is apparently a difference of opinion between Mr Costigan and yourself as to whether these matters have been referred by him to your Office. Given the wish I have expressed above that the work of your Office should be kept to manageable proportions and readily identifiable areas, I am disposed to query the need for your Office to concern itself in these matters. There remain the numerous matters of only State concern listed in the Schedule. I understand that you have received a brief from the Victorian Government to advise in relation to these matters. Having regard to the pending transfer of responsibility to the Director, I should like you to conclude your advising role in relation to these matters as soon as possible. Different considerations must of course apply where prosecutions have been instituted for Commonwealth and State offences. It would not, in my view, be appropriate for you to take responsibility for any further matters identified by Mr Costigan without reference to me. The views expressed above, are, I believe, consistent with the instrument dated 21 October 1982 signed by the then Acting Attorney-General specifying the matters for the purposes of paragraphs 6 (1) (a) and 6 (1) (b) of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 in relation to your original appointment as Special Prosecutor. As soon as I am in a position to say when the Director will take up his duties I shall let you know and more precise arrangements can be made for the transition. I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr Costigan. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Mr R. F. Redlich, Special Prosecutor, PO Box 21A, GPO, Melbourne, Vic. 3001 Dear Robert, I am sorry to read from your letter of 7 December that you see difficulty in giving effect to several of the requests contained in my letter of 1 December. As I said in that letter, your office has undoubtedly performed most effectively since its establishment and the Government appreciates your very important contribution to enforcement of the law in these difficult and troublesome matters. Nothing that I said in my earlier letter should be interpreted as suggesting any diminution of effort in these matters. However, there have been significant developments in recent weeks that we must now take into account. The Director of Public Prosecution Act 1983 has been enacted and I hope shortly to announce the appointment of the first Director. My present intention is that the Act will be brought into operaion on 1 March 1984. A small central office of the DPP will then be established and, as soon as practicable thereafter, branch offices will be established in the larger State capitals. Your present appointment will of course expire on the appointment of the D.P.P. and it is therefore necessary to consider urgently the future of your office. In principle, it is, I believe, clear that your office should, as soon as practicable, be absorbed into the office of the DPP. To enable decisions to be made as to how and when this should be achieved, I should like you to submit as soon as possible a report on the present activities of your office and how your present staff resources are being used. On receipt of this report and after consultation with the director designate, I shall let you know what is planned in relation to your office. I had in mind developments on these lines in suggesting in my previous letter that, to enable a smooth transition from your office to that of the Director, it was desirable that the work of your office should be kept to manageable proportions and readily identifiable areas. It is certainly not intended that your office should, pending the appointment of the Director, cease to co- ordinate certain investigations or handle prosecutions. However, pending assumption of office by the Director, a period for consolidation rather than expansion by your office would seem appropriate. You referred to a number of matters in category F which, in a previous letter, you described as matters as to which there was a difference of view between Mr Costigan and yourself on whether Mr Costigan had referred the matters to you. Your latest letter suggests that you are further advanced in dealing with some of these matters than you earlier indicated. However, before commenting further on your involvement in these matters, I shall seek Mr Costigan's views. In suggesting that you conclude as soon as possible your advising role in relation to matters of State concern only, I had in mind the difficulties that could occur in transferring responsibility to the Director, if your advising role was in a state of partial completion. I appreciate the desirability of co- ordinating investigations which involved breaches of both State and Commonwealth laws and the encouragement of co-operation with State agencies. However, in this area too, it would, I think, be wise to follow the principle that the period before the Director takes up office should be one of consolidation rather than expansion. Therefore at this stage you should seek to complete present tasks in this area and be cautious in taking on new ones. You next referred to the view expressed in my previous letter that it would not be appropriate for you to take responsibility in any further matters identified by Mr Costigan without reference to me. In my view, it is quite inappropriate and indeed contrary to fundamental principle that decisions as to the matters to be handled by a Special Prosecutor should be made by any person other than the First Law Officer. An exception could be justified only in special circumstances and for a very limited period. While I would myself think that the phrase 'alleged illegal activities identified' by the Costigan Commission in the instrument executed by Acting Attorney-General Brown on 21 October 1982 should be read as applying only to activities identified on or before the date of that instrument, I appreciate that the question is not entirely clear. One possible course would be for me to revoke that instrument and substitute for it an instrument 'expressly limiting your authority to matters identified by Mr Costigan up to a specified date. If either Mr Costigan or you see difficulty in complying with my wish in this regard, I propose to take this course. Nothing in this letter should be interpreted as a suggestion that the work of your office should now be wound down or phased out. However, as indicated above, you should, in the limited interim period, bear in mind that your office will in due course be integrated into the office of the Director and you should seek to avoid new activities that would complicate that integration or commit the Director to a particular course of action of long term significance. If you feel the need for further explanation, I shall be glad to discuss the above with you. I am furnishing a copy of this letter and your letter of 7 December to Mr Costigan with a request for comment on the matters mentioned in category F. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Sentor the Hon. Gareth Evans, 25th January, 1984 Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Dear Gareth, I have received your letter of the 20th inst. I am relieved to learn that none of the ''requests'' contained in your letter of 1st December were designed to result in ''any diminution of effort'' on the part of my office. Those '' requests'' undoubtedly would have had that effect. I am also anxious to obtain your views and those of the Director as to the role, if any, that the Director's office will play in investigations currently being co-ordinated or undertaken by this office. The course that I now follow on some of these investigations will be influenced by your respective views. Similar considerations apply to the '' civil remedies'' I am now exercising. As your letter of 20th January contains a clear direction that I not accept any ''new'' matters that are referred to me by Mr Costigan, I shall not undertake consideration of such matters without having sought and obtained your approval. Thank you for your kind words in our conversation of Thursday last. I shall do all I can to assist the Director in his new endeavours and to ensure a smooth transition. I hope to arrange a meeting with the Director shortly to discuss these matters. I note in concluding that no one from your Department has yet contacted me about any of these important issues, notwithstanding the ''shabby treatment'' that I have already drawn to your attention. Yours sincerely, ROBERT F. REDLICH Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Are there any other letters? Senator GARETH EVANS —That exchange of correspondence does not include Mr Redlich's letter of 7 December to me. There are two reasons for not giving that letter at this stage. One is that its terms have been amply set out in the National Times in relevant part. The second reason is that large parts of that letter deal with specific cases. There has not been time to edit that letter to remove those things that must remain in the realm of confidence. Should there be any desire on the part of the missionary zealots of the Opposition to pursue this matter, I would be only too happy to incorporate that letter in Hansard in an appropriately edited form. I simply mention for the oral record as well as the written one the terms of Mr Redlich's final letter to me in this exchange of 25 January which, in relevant part, reads as follows: I have received your letter of the 20th inst. I am relieved to learn that none of the ''requests'' contained in your letter of 1st December were designed to result in ''any diminution of effort'' on the part of my office. Those '' requests'' undoubtedly would have had that effect. The implication is 'had they been requests' because the word 'requests' is in inverted commas. It continues: I am also anxious to obtain your views and those of the Director as to the role if any, that the Director's office will play in investigations currently being co-ordinated or undertaken by this office. The course that I now follow on some of these investigations will be influenced by your respective views. Similar considerations apply to the ''civil remedies'' I am now exercising. As your letter of 20th January contains a clear direction that I not accept any ''new'' matters that are referred to me by Mr Costigan, I shall not undertake consideration of such matters without having sought and obtained your approval. Thank you for your kind words in our conversation of Thursday last. I shall do all I can to assist the Director in his new endeavours and to ensure a smooth transition. Any suggestion that at least as of 25 January this year relations between Mr Redlich and me were other than those of sweetness and light is utterly misconceived. Senator HILL —My question follows that asked by Senator Bolkus. I ask the Attorney-General: Is it true, as alleged by former Special Prosecutor Redlich in extracts of correspondence with the Attorney published today, that Mr Redlich was not consulted about the form and role of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions? Somewhat in conflict with what the Attorney has just said, does the Attorney agree with Mr Redlich that 'such shabby treatment is deserving of censure'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think that is a correct assessment of the situation. Mr Redlich does have a record on occasions in correspondence of referring to shabby treatment at departmental level. He has not yet made any such allegation at a ministerial level against me. From time to time there have been misunderstandings. Over the last two or three years there has been a somewhat volatile relationship between Mr Redlich and, I think, all sorts of people. I refer in particular to the relationship between Mr Redlich and Mr Costigan which was the subject of extravagant newspaper attention last year, and Mr Redlich's views about Mr Costigan's Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, as expressed in his report leaked, through sources that can only remain to be guessed at, a day or two ago in which a contrary view was put. These are simply the ups and downs of normal professional relationships in difficult and sensitive areas such as this. They are the product of occasional frustrations that do arise. I believe that Mr Redlich has been amply consulted on all the key policy, administrative and law enforcement questions that have arisen during his tenure. I have the greatest appreciation for his work and I think by and large that has been reciprocated. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Austin, has asserted that there is an aged care crisis in that State? Can the Minister state whether there is such a crisis and, if so, the reasons which have created such a situation? How does the Queensland Government compare with those of other States in the provision of services for the aged? What initiatives are planned by the Federal Government to help aged Queenslanders? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Reynolds says, Queensland Ministers, such as Mr Austin , frequently make claims of the type that he has made. However, they always ignore the fact that in the provision of facilities such as aged care there is a Commonwealth and a State responsibility. Queensland has as many aged persons homes and as many beds for aged people per population as any other state in Australia. It receives funding for this purpose from the Federal Government at the same level as other States. Dr Blewett, Senator Gietzelt and I are in the process of negotiating with the States for the introduction of a new package for aged care so that people can be cared for in their own homes much more than they are now. Thus we will have fewer people in nursing home accommodation. All the surveys that have been done throughout Australia, including Queensland, reveal that a far too high percentage of aged people are in nursing home accommodation, and as the honourable senator will know it is the most expensive form of accommodation. The success of the aged care program that the Government is negotiating with the States will depend on the co-operation of the State governments. It will depend on the Queensland Government contributing in line with the other States for the provision of services and co-operating with the geriatric assessment teams so that we can reshape the face of aged people's accommodation in this way. In the past the Queensland Government has always been loud and long in its complaints about what the Commonwealth does and does not do in its State. The simple fact of the matter is that the Queensland Government, as in so many other areas, such as child care, provides less assistance to aged people than any of the other States. Any fault in the distribution of aged persons accommodation in Queensland can lie largely with the lack of co-operation that the Queensland Government regularly shows with the Federal Government, whether it is a Labor government or a conservative government. Senator ARCHER —I refer the Attorney-General again to the reported correspondence between him and former Special Prosecutor Redlich. Why did the Attorney-General ignore Mr Redlich's plea for a continuation and extension of the excellent co-operation he established with the Victorian Government in the complex corporate matters arising from royal commission investigations? What matters under Victorian law which Mr Redlich was considering had to be dropped because of the failure of the Attorney to act on th suggestion that the new Director of Public Prosecutions should continue the co-operation pioneered so effectively by Mr Redlich? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that there is a certain inflexibility about the Opposition when it comes to its conduct at Question Time but I would have thought even Senator Archer would have appreciated that that is a question which I have both addressed and answered in the context of the answer I gave earlier. Senator Button —It depends on what happens when you hand the questions out-on who gets which question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the point that Senator Button makes is a perfectly apt description of the processes, mental and otherwise, that seem to occur on the other side of this chamber. The reality of the matter is that the answer to that question is amply set out in the correspondence which I have tabled and incorporated in Hansard. Senator McINTOSH —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the Government give an assurance that it is not considering supplying the Royal Australian Navy with a sea-based version of the cruise missile known as the Tomahawk, advocated by the Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral David Leach, as reported in the September issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not seen the item to which Senator McIntosh refers. I do not appear to have a briefing on anything to do with it, so I will refer the matter to the Minister and seek an urgent reply. Senator CHANEY —Since the Leader of the Government in the Senate has taken to answering questions directed to the Attorney-General, I will ask the Leader of the Government a question. I again refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the documents tabled by him on Wednesday which raise further serious questions about the Government's handling of the false Customs declaration by the Special Minister of State. In particular I refer the Minister to a three- page submission by the Comptroller-General of the Australian Customs Service, Mr Hayes, to Mr Black, QC, dated 13 August 1984 in which Mr Hayes stated that Mrs Young and her sister 'provided advice as to the purchase prices of the items' to a Customs officer which were accepted by him as accurate. Is the Minister aware that the documents tabled by him on Wednesday reveal that Mrs Young did not give any purchase prices and on the contrary told the inquiry 'I cannot remember what I have paid for anything'? Is he aware that she responded to Mr Black's question whether a lot of what she was saying was guesswork by stating: 'Yes, it just did not occur to me to try to remember prices' and that she had kept no receipts? As the valuation of the imported items was central to the decision to exempt Mr Young from prosecution under section 209 of the Customs Act, will the Minister explain why the Comptroller-General of Customs incorrectly advised the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration? Did the Miniser for Industry and Commerce know, or give his approval to, or participate in any way in the preparation of the Comptroller-General's submission. Senator BUTTON —There are all sorts of tendentious assumptions in that little speech just made by the Leader of the Opposition, but the answer to the last part of the question is no, I had nothing to do with the Comptroller-General's memorandum to Mr Black. I did not see it. I am not even sure that I have seen it now. I probably have in the course of looking at the documents subsequent to the Black inquiry. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Comptroller- General of Customs has an independent statutory role in relation to the administration of Customs and he was exercising that role in any report he put in to Mr Black. Of course, whether there is inconsistency in statements taken out of context out of transcripts and other documents is a matter about which I would not wish to give an answer without perusing those documents carefully. If Senator Chaney regards any of those inconsistencies as material to the central issue which Mr Black addressed himself to, it did not emerge from his question. The valuation of goods by Customs officers at the barrier-I think it was the same in Mrs Young's case as for anybody else-involves the passenger being asked to give estimates of what he or she paid for particular goods, and so on; and that process was followed. That has nothing to do with the assessments of duty which are made by the Customs officer. The passenger is not in a position to deal with those things. I really would commend the Opposition to a much more careful reading of the Black report than is apparent from any questions that have been asked to date, because the question of the valuation of goods by Customs officers in the circumstances in which it took place does not appear to have been understood by the Opposition at any time in questions that have been asked here. I will look at whether there are any inconsistencies in what the Comptroller-General of Customs did and what Mrs Young said in the course of the Black inquiry. If the Opposition thinks that is relevant to any conclusion which was ultimately drawn, we can debate that issue at a later time. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for saying that he will examine that matter in detail, which I agree he should. But I ask him: Does he agree that the question of value was relevant to the central question which was posed to Mr Black by the Government as to whether or not there had been a breach of the Customs Act by Mr Young? If he does agree with that, does he agree that an admission by Mrs Young that she could not remember what she paid for anything, that it did not occur to her to try to remember prices and that she had kept no receipts seems to be fairly central to determining whether a reasonable value was placed on these goods? Senator BUTTON —I am now asked whether the question of the valuation of the goods was central in this issue to the question of a breach of the Customs Act by Mr Young. I thought it was common ground in this chamber that Mr Young on 5 July, I think it was, admitted a breach of the Customs Act. That has been common ground, I think, throughout the whole Australian community except in respect of the Opposition in this chamber; that is to say, the declaration was not correctly filled in. That was admitted on 5 July. The question of valuation goes to how the matter is dealt with by Customs. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —I am being helped a lot by interjections in this matter, but the question of valuation goes to how the matter is dealt with by Customs. Senator Chaney —And the level of penalty. Senator BUTTON —The method of penalty. I think the method of penalty is more relevant to the honourable senator's question than the level of penalty. The method of penalty is of course of crucial importance because if the valuation for duty is in excess of $500 the matter has to go to court; there is no discretion in the Customs officer beyond that point. That is not denied in any way. That is dealt with in the Black report, and, of course, that question was at all times important. It is not a question of the level of penalty; it is a question of how the matter is approached under the provision of the Customs Act. Those things, I agree, are important. But it is not Mrs Young who makes a valuation of the goods for the purposes of the legislation; it is the Customs officers who do that. Senator Chaney —That is not what is said by your Comptroller. Senator BUTTON —I am not helped by Senator Chaney frantically brandishing in his efforts a document which he clearly has not read and I of course have not read. Senator Chaney —Here, read it. Senator BUTTON —I am not going to read it here. I told the honourable senator in the early part of my answer to this question that I would look at the inconsistencies which he alleges between various documents. Even if those inconsistencies exist, there is really no point to them in the context of what I think the Opposition is trying to establish. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to Opposition claims this week about the $5,600m provided in the Budget for interest payments. Has any of the Budget allocation for interest payments been made in respect of State government debt? If so, what is the amount of interest paid on account of State governments? How does the current proportion of public debt to gross domestic product compare with the position in Australia in past decades? How does the current Australian public debt to gross domestic product ratio compare with the ratios in other developed countries. Senator WALSH —There has been a fair amount of ill-informed and alarmist criticism on this question in the last few weeks. In particular, I remember implicit criticism, or criticism hidden away, in questions from Senator Townley and Senator Bjelke-Petersen which certainly fall into that category. The public debt situation can be summarised like this: Total Commonwealth and State government debt, using round figures because they will be more comprehensible, is $47 billion, of which some $7 billion is owed abroad. The rest is owed within Australia. State government debt totals about $23 billion, which includes $6 billion owed by the States via the Commonwealth. So the distribution of total government debt between the Commonwealth and the States is of the order of 50:50 . It is correct-I think Senator Maguire's question mentioned this-that the interest payment appropriated in this Budget for the Commonwealth Government is $5.6 billion. However, about one-third of that $5.6 billion is interest paid on account of the States. It can be deduced from the figure I gave earlier that the proportion of total public sector debt that the State and Commonwealth governments owe abroad is about 15 per cent or about $7 billion, which makes the analogy which has been drawn between, say, the Polish situation, the Argentinian situation or the Mexican situation, and Australia's situation quite misleading and false. Interest paid on a debt owed within Australia is not a social cost but simply a redistribution of money within a national economy. It is expenditure to governments; it is income to citizens. Interest payable abroad is, of course, quite different. I am not able to answer Senator Maguire's final question-how Australia's total public debt compares with that of other countries. I am not able to give the relative figures at this stage. I am able to cite figures in respect of total public sector debt, from some representative years over the last 50 years or thereabouts, expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product. If we go back to 1935, total public sector debt was 197 per cent of gross domestic product. In 1949 it was 111 per cent. Throughout the 1960's it varied between the low forties to the low fifties. It fell in the mid-1970's to below 30 per cent and has risen in recent years to 37. 7 per cent, which is a very low figure by historical standards if one goes back beyond 1970. Most of the increase in debt owed externally which has taken place in recent years is private sector debt and not public sector debt, an important fact breaking down the analogy that some will draw between Australia's financial position at present and Australia's financial position at the onset of the Depression of the 1930's. Incidentally, the figures I have given on public debt expressed as a proportion of GDP may be found in current year Budget Papers Nos 1, 7 and 8. There is that very important difference between the position in which we are now placed with respect to public sector debt and the position we were in at the onset of the Great Depression. A very much greater proportion of the public sector debt at that time was payable abroad. That imposed a crippling burden on the economy, particularly after the Depression. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is no doubt a most useful statement for the Senate to have, but it is a statement rather than an answer to a question. I ask you to ask the Minister to terminate his answer in order to give other honourable senators a chance to ask questions seeking information instead of the Minister taking this opportunity to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! The answer is one that is given in response to a question asked, but I ask the Minister to restrict his answer as much as possible. Senator WALSH —I make one final observation on the public sector debt incurred during the 1920s. It is correct that a great deal of the money borrowed was squandered on what Professor Shann and recently John Stone have called grasshopper projects. Having said all that, it is nevertheless true that the current interest payment of $5.6 billion is around 9 per cent of the total Commonwealth Budget, although, as I have said, one-third of that $5.6 billion is incurred on behalf of the States. Although most of it is money being recirculated in the Australian economy-six-sevenths of it falls into that category-it still does impose some structural problems in the formulation of the Budget and is not something that ought to be prudently ignored. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it follows on the fulsome answer that he gave to Senator Tate's question regarding the Minister's opinion on the views of the Returned Services League on Australia's immigration policy. Is the Minister aware of the RSL's views that the citizenship oath or affirmation of allegiance should retain a requirement to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia? Does the Minister agree that this view of the RSL is similarly, to quote his words, ' forward looking and temperate' and in line with its, again as he said, 'less controversial public role'? If not, what is the Minister's view of the RSL's policy on this subject? Senator GIETZELT —The Returned Services League has views covering a wide range of matters that are of public interest. That body is entitled to express its views. There are views with which I can agree and there are other views with which I can disagree. That comment would also apply to the Opposition and to the Government. I do not think it is my role as Minister for Veterans' Affairs to make comments about each and every issue that is debated at a particular conference. Senator Tate asked me a question relating to immigration. That is a matter on which I understood there was a degree of common interest on the part of the Opposition Parties and the present Government. There has been a desire to take the issue out of the area of public controversy. To the extent that the RSL conference generally moved in that direction, I think that was a very positive thing to do. Senator ROBERT RAY —I ask the Attorney-General whether it is the case, as alleged in the Age headline this morning, that Special Prosecutor Redlich was told not to pass on information about possible race fixing to the Victoria Police. What are the circumstances surrounding the matters reported in the Age article in question? Finally, will the Attorney request that police inquiries be initiated with a view to determine under what circumstances the report by Robert Redlich was leaked to the Age? Senator GARETH EVANS —This morning's Age on page 16 contains a story under the heading, as Senator Ray has said: 'Redlich was told not to pass on race fixing claim'. That headline is a gross misrepresentation of what is contained in Mr Redlich's report which will, incidentally, I hope, be tabled in this Parliament later today, of what is contained in a reply I gave last night to a question from the Age, and of the very story that appears below that headline which incorporates the substance of my reply. At no time was Mr Redlich told not to pass on any material to the Victoria Police. In fact, it appears that he was not told anything at all and that is the nub of his complaint. In his actual report quoted yesterday by Mr Peacock and others in relevant part Mr Redlich states that he wished to pass certain information on to the Victoria Police and he sought my direction as to how this could be done. He then states that at the time of writing his report he had not received advice from my Department as to how the matter should progress. It is true that he did not receive formal written advice, although it may be that he did have some oral communication from my Department. The departmental file indicates that a draft letter of reply from me was submitted to me. I directed certain revisions to it, expecting that it would be resubmitted, but apparently it was not for reasons which I will not now go into. The facts are that part of the material given to me by the Age on 1 and 2 February contained purported transcripts of telephone conversations involving one Robert Trimbole. As this part of the material might have contained material which, if authentic, could have been relevant to his functions, a copy was given to the former Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, on 24 February. On 2 April, Mr Redlich wrote indicating that some of the information in the transcript might provide a basis for further investigation by the Victoria Police in relation to State offences. He doubted, he said, whether he had the power to release the material to the Victoria Police and expressed his tentative view that to pass the material to others would constitute an offence under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, and he asked for advice on the matter. It was clear when the matter was looked at within the Department and by me that if the material given to Mr Redlich was in fact information obtained from the interception of telephone conversations, there was certainly no provision in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act which would allow him to pass the material on. What made the question particularly tricky, however, was that there was no solid foundation for ever believing that the material was authentic and, if it was not authentic, it would not have been illegal to pass it over, although it would have been quite worthless. While this conundrum was being contemplated by my Department in April, members of Mr Justice Stewart's staff informed my Department that he, Mr Justice Stewart , would be requesting an amendment to the Act to allow him to investigate essentially the same parts of the Age material. When Mr Justice Stewart duly wrote to me-I received his letter in late May-he indicated that his investigation would need to cover questions involving the authenticity of the material. In the light of the concerns that had been expressed by both Mr Redlich and Mr Justice Stewart at that time, we engaged on a major policy review of the legislation. It was too late then to bring the legislation forward because there were only a few days left of the last Budget session. In any event , Mr Redlich's own commission wound up soon thereafter. But we did untangle the policy issues over the recess and early in this session introduced remedial legislation to solve the problem. I should mention for the benefit of the sceptics, including Senator Chaney, that we had to wrestle with a number of quite difficult policy issues, and in particular-I do not know whether Senator Chaney has ever wrestled with anything like this-whether it is ever appropriate to allow illegally obtained material to be used for investigation purposes, or whether, by doing so and opening up the acceptability of illegally obtained intercepted evidence, this amounts to a dangerous encouragement to the obtaining of further such illegal intercepted material. The answers to those policy dilemmas are contained in the legislation we will be debating shortly in this place. In essence, the points we have adopted are as follows: Our proposed legislation authorises the transfer of all the relevant material to Mr Justice Stewart to enable him to test its authenticity, using the full armoury of coercive powers available to him; secondly, the legislation authorises the use by Mr Justice Stewart for criminal intelligence purposes of the material he can establish to his own satisfaction is authentic; thirdly and finally, the legislation authorises the communication of such material to law enforcement authorities for the purposes of investigation and prosecution of the offences of illegal investigation itself. That is a long explanation but I think it needs to be appreciated that there were all sorts of reasons why Mr Redlich did not get the answer he should have got as soon as might have been desirable, in the best of all possible worlds. Certainly the headline is wholly misleading, and once again one is left with the question as to who leaks these things. I have my suspicions. I have requested today that a policy inquiry take place into how it was-- Senator Chaney —Open government strikes again. Shoot the messenger. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a very clear idea in this instance of where the early manuscript version of the Redlich report came from. I hope that Senator Chaney will be appropriately embarrassed when that information comes to light. Senator HAINES —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by referring to his reply to a question on 15 June this year concerning the recent ban on importing the cancer therapy drug, iscador, a homeopathic drug available on prescription in New Zealand, in Britain under the National Health Scheme, and in a number of other countries. The Minister in his reply informed the Senate that an appropriate expert committee from the Department of Health would review the information on iscador when it was provided by the manufacturer. I ask: Has that information now been provided to the relevant sub-committee of the Department of Health? If it has, given that there are some 300 Australians who were receiving this therapy prior to the ban on importation and who are anxiously awaiting the Committee's findings, when will the review committee make its final decision on the availability of iscador in Australia? If the information has not been provided, what steps are being taken by the Government to have it made available to the relevant Department of Health committee? Senator GRIMES —I remember the question, which I think was asked by Senator Hearn , concerning iscador. I remember the answer but unfortunately I have no further information. I will seek further information as quickly as possible from the Minister for Health and give Senator Haines the answer. Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister for Social Security provide any information on the impact the changes in social security payments, announced in the Budget, will have on the disposable incomes of pensioners and beneficiaries. Senator GRIMES —Fortunately, I do have some information on the changes- Senator Walsh —Fortuitous. Senator GRIMES —Yes, purely fortuitously information on the changes in the real disposable income of various pensioners and beneficiaries which have occurred as a result of Budget changes. We made a number of significant changes in the Budget to direct much needed assistance to pensioners and beneficiaries, particularly those who are totally or largely dependent on their pensions or benefits for income support. We increased the single rate pension by $2.50 and the married rate pension by $4.20-an increase which more than compensated for the Medicare effect; we gave a $2 increase in the additional pension and benefit for children and the family income supplement and increased the mother's and guardian's allowance by the same amount. We gave a $5 increase in the maxium amount of supplementary rent assistance and an increase in the threshold for the special pensioner tax rebate from $5,429 to $5,534. At the same time we introduced a special tax rebate for beneficiaries from 1 July 1984 of $50 for single beneficiaries and $75 for married beneficiaries, which will ensure that beneficiaries wholly or substantially dependent on benefits will not have to pay income tax. These measures will provide a significant increase in real disposable income. I emphasise that the figures I am about to provide are real increases after taking account of inflation. In fact, the increase in money incomes is much greater. I also note that they exclude the impact of the $5 supplementary rent increase. For a single pensioner with one to four children there will be an increase of between 3.15 per cent and 3.65 per cent in real values. For married pensioners the increase is between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent. For beneficiaries, the single adult beneficiary without dependants will receive a 5.6 per cent increase in real disposable income; if the beneficiary has children the increase will be between 7.8 per cent and 9.7 per cent. Married beneficiaries will receive a 2.2 per cent increase, and up to 5 per cent increase if they have children. These figures demonstrate that there has been a real increase in disposable incomes of pensioners and beneficiaries as a result of the Budget. There has been a real increase in that disposable income when taking inflation into account. I noticed in an article in the Age the other day that figures used in this place have been quoted comparing the pension with the so-called poverty line. I find it interesting to hear people such as Senator Messner and Senator Chaney using poverty lines because when they were in Government they did not like them at all and said that we should not use them. Even in those figures they do not include the supplementary rent assistance, something which should be included, given that housing costs and the costs of rented accommodation are a very important aspect of poverty. When account is taken of the supplementary assistance, the picture is the opposite to that painted by the Age and by Senator Messner. Rather than a married pensioner couple being worse off in November 1984 compared with November 1982, they are better off. The figures in 1982 were 3.4 per cent below the poverty line; in 1984 they are now 2.4 per cent below the poverty line. Notwithstanding this, the major point is that increases in income security payments in the Budget will clearly be of major assistance to pensioners and beneficiaries and, in real terms, result in their being better off in 1984-85 than they were in 1983-84. The people who will benefit most are those who are most needy, in particular those groups of pensioners and beneficiaries who have children or who are living in rented accommodation. This was the group we intended to assist. We assisted them last year and we will continue to assist them while they remain the poorest group in the community. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, relates to a matter I mentioned on the adjournment the other day to which I indicated I would be asking the Minister to respond. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that uranium sales to France are contractually due to be delivered in October? Does the Government intend to allow those exports to proceed or will it be preventing them, in line with the Federal Labor Party Conference decision of a month or so ago? If the Government does intend to prevent the export of uranium and to breach contracts in that way, what arrangements is it making to compensate those companies which will thereby suffer loss? What arrangements are being made to protect Australia from retaliation in other areas of our exports to the European Economic Community? Senator WALSH —It is correct, as Senator Chaney stated, that a shipment of 100 tonnes of uranium from Queensland Mines Ltd is scheduled for delivery in October to Electricite de France. That shipment will not be made, in accordance with Government policy that uranium will not be supplied to France while it continues to test nuclear weapons at Muroroa. I do not know whether there was criticism implicit in Senator Chaney's question of the Government's policy that uranium should not be supplied to France while that country continues, in my view in an arrogant and irresponsible manner, to test nuclear weapons at Muroroa. However, I am confident that it is the belief of a significant majority of Australians that the French behaviour is below the standards that ought to be expected from a country with many centuries of civilisation behind it such as France. Whether Senator Chaney approves or not, the shipment will not be made. On the other points that Senator Chaney raised-I think it would be imprudent for me at this stage to make any definitive statements-discussions have been held between QML and the Government and, although the Government has not been involved in these, I understand that discussions have also been held between QML and Electricite de France. I hope that within the next, say, two weeks I will be able to make a definitive statement about the outcome of those discussions. I do not believe it would be wise to speculate about them at this stage. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and relates to the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking by the Australian Federal Police and New South Wales Police Force. Has this force been effective in dealing with major drug offenders in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Answering on behalf of the Special Minister of State, I can say that despite the glib assertions one so often hears, particularly from the new-found moralists on the other side of this Parliament, that the fight against organised crime has not been successful or has been allowed to wind down, the contrary is in fact the case. The achievements of the Joint Task Force are ample demonstration, among many others that one could offer, of that fact. The annual report of the management committee on the operations of the Task Force demonstrates that the operations of the Task Force have been very successful and reflect great credit on the individuals involved and their parent forces, including of course the Australian Federal Police. The annual report cannot be released because it contains quite substantial amounts of confidential information. However, I can inform the House that the Task Force, since its commencement in 1982, has been responsible for the arrest of 180 persons, against whom 315 charges have been laid. Of these, 30 arrests and 90 charges occurred during the year under review in the annual report. The Task Force has been responsible for the breaking of 14 major and seven minor drug trafficking groups. Of those convicted of offences as a result of charges brought by the Task Force, 40 received prison sentences in excess of five years. Acting on information provided by the Task Force, the Australian Taxation Office has instituted 26 investigations resulting in a total of $4,728,239 being recovered as understated income and/or additional taxation penalties. In addition to the amount received by the Taxation Office, $297,800 has been recovered as a result of forfeiture of bail and other cash seized. In all, Joint Task Force activity to date has resulted in the recovery by the Commonwealth and the State of a total amount of over $5m-$5,026,039. Many other initiatives and activities are occurring in that area, but that particular success story deserves to be appropriately heralded. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented in the headlines of newspaper articles which have appeared recently in major newspapers. In the Australian Financial Review on 14 August 1984 an article on secondary boycotts legislation was headed: 'Democrats won't oppose repeal of 45D'. The article contained the following statement: The Democrats are taking the stand of agreeing to the principle of shifting secondary boycott provisions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but are reserving their position on the details of what the Government proposes. In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald a headline on the same subject is headed : 'Democrats likely to back repeal of boycott ban'. The article states: The Australian Democrats appear certain to support the Federal Government's move to repeal the sections of the Trade Practices Act which prevent secondary boycotts by trade unions, thus ensuring the legislation will be passed by the Senate. This is false. It later states: Senator Evans said the support of the Democrats depends on the effectiveness of sanctions the Government says it will insert in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to replace the Trade Practices Act provisions. In both articles the content of the report gives the lie to the headlines. I have said consistently that the Australian Democrats decision will be arrived at in the normal Democrats manner; that is, firstly, we want to see the proposed legislation and, secondly, we want to hear and consider the views of those affected by the legislation as to the likely repercussions of the Bill. For those reasons I have consistently informed journalists that the Democrats are willing to consider the transfer of secondary boycotts provisions from the Trade Practices Act to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but only on the condition that the powers and safeguards provided to small businesses under sections 45D and 45E are maintained under the proposed legislation. Judging from discussions I have had so far with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) these safeguards will not be included in the new legislation and the Democrats, therefore, will not agree to the repeal of those sections. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is exceeding a personal explanation . Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Sibraa be discharged from Estimates Committee E; and (2) That Senator Primmer, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 9B (2) of the Public Service Act, I present a report on the operations of the Joint House Department for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of Commonwealth and family courts, Perth, Western Australia. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The Committee concluded that leased accommodation in Perth for the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia should be replaced with a Commonwealth-owned building with adequate room for expansion. The proposed building, to be located adjacent to the Commonwealth Centre in Perth, has been carefully designed to harmonise with the existing environment of the area. The court rooms and hearing rooms to be provided will meet the requirements specified by the users for at least 20 years . Additional space could be made available later by relocating non-court activities. A child minding centre will be provided for the Family Court and the Committee has concluded that its size, design and staffing should accord with State Government requirements. I commend the report to honourable senators. [COGNATE BILL: CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.10) —I am glad to be able to continue my contribution to the debate on the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill. Prior to Question Time and prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was making the essential point that the 1979 legislation, in establishing guarantees for freedom of association and providing that membership of student associations was not compulsory, has been effective. It has achieved that situation in the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education and it has indirectly encouraged that situation in some other universities and colleges. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) maintains that this legislation is no longer necessary because of that de facto situation, it being upheld anyway by the University Council and by other administrative decisions of those higher education bodies. We maintain that such guarantees could well remain on the statute book to ensure that there is no relapse in the future. If there is a departure in the decisions of the Councils of the university and the college it would be a matter of review for this Opposition, on coming to government-indeed for the Senate at any time-to ensure that these fundamental guarantees of freedom of association are maintained. I hasten to add that whether we are dealing with the legislation of the last five years or the present regime of decisions in the university and college, there is still an offence which many students object to. We have enabled students not to be forced into becoming members of an association but nevertheless they are still levied a fee equivalent to that payable by other students. I will come back to the positive aspects of that matter a little later. One of the negative aspects is that when that fee is the full fee and it finances both the non-controversial aspects of student associations and student unions as well as the very controversial ones, those students dissenting or opting out would say that, in financial terms, their decision not to become a member has still led to a grant in their respect being paid to those controversial activities of the university or the college; that is, the political and social policy areas that are offensive or controversial to them in the activities of a student association. I, like Senator Macklin, want to reflect on the nature of student unions in universities and colleges. I want to argue along lines similar to those put by Senator Macklin and other honorary senators in the past. Universities and colleges in Australia differentiate between, on the one hand, those uncontroversial and positive aspects of student union facilities and activities and, on the other hand, those controversial, contested, political and social policy activity areas of student unions and student associations. I happen to think both are important. But I believe that while universities rightly should provide for the former, the latter should be provided only on the basis of voluntary association linked with voluntary financial contribution-I emphasise the last words 'linked with voluntrary financial contribution'. This has not been the case and it has offended many students not only in the ANU and the CCAE but also in other institutions of higher education. I would see student unions now and for many years into the future as having four activities, the first two of which I would put in the non-controversial area. I would like to see university budgets directly provide those two areas through moneys appropriated each year by this Parliament. I would like to see the other two areas provided for by way of direct voluntary membership linked only to direct voluntary financial contributions. The four areas are first of all, the commercial activities of a student union, university union or college union-for example, the provision of dining facilities. I believe that these activities ought to be self-supporting. As these services are located in a student union there may be some capital contribution towards the cost of the meals provided. However, the on-going annual costs should be covered fully by the consumers. I think that has become almost uncontroversial. Students of all kinds would now support a user pay principle for commercial activities carried out by unions. There are banks carried out in union buildings, shops, and various commercial and travel activities carried out. All of these directly commercial and indirectly commercial activities should pay their own way. I regard the second area as the non-controversial and positive contribution of students; that is, the community, recreational, sporting and educational activities that are entirely bona fide. Senator Peter Baume —But some students cannot use them for various reasons. Senator TEAGUE —I agree with my colleague Senator Peter Baume that some students do not use them. However, by and large, someone who may not be active on the sporting field could well be fully participating in debating activities or, indeed, in other non-sporting activities such as drama. The provision of a theatre, for example, with all the technical equipment and back-up staff to maintain lights, sound and prepare sets, may be to their advantage. I am conservative to the extent that I believe these kinds of quite uncontroversial community, recreational and sporting activities can be funded by a direct and properly accounted for set of grants from a university or college. Nevertheless, the organisation of that activity would lie with a body such as a student union that is close to the users and is answerable to a union council and advisory committees on those activities. It is to this area that the Minister refers in the concluding remarks of her second reading speech when she said that the Bill: . . . embraces a broad concept of the nature and value of a university education . If we turn to the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill we see a similar set of words: . . . a broad concept of the nature and value of a college education. I quarrel with that part of the Minister's statement because by omission she has not directly referred to the matters that offend in student union activities. I agree with the principle that she espouses there and I apply it to recreational, sporting, educational and community activities. The cost of the provision of these rooms, the cleaning of them, the power and lighting and the staff that are involved I believe ought to be properly funded by universities. I reiterate that students at colleges and universities ought to learn partly from staff and experience researchers, partly from their exploration of books and other resources and partly from other students. I do not think students in higher education should learn only from lecturers and tutors. They should genuinely be expected to learn from one another. A lot of activity of enormous educational worth is carried out in club-like recreational areas, on the sporting field or in the preparation of a piece of drama or music in a theatre. It is in that context that we have in the past seen reference to rubbing shoulders-law students learning law in the context of medical students learning medicine, engineering students learning engineering and arts students learning politics, German or whatever. The associations, friendships and ideas that rub off from student to student are an essential part of higher education and, of course, the Minister has acknowledged that and referred to it. What she has done, though, is use that positive umbrella too widely and somehow by omission she has seemed to put these controversial activities into a positive light. These are the two activities which I think can look after themselves: Commercial activities financed by the user and the community, recreational, sporting and educational activities financed by the university. So far there would not need to be a student union fee. If those activities were funded from the direct budget of the university and college, they can be gained by appropriate adjustment through this Parliament from the grants made to universities and colleges. We now come to the third and fourth areas of student unions that I believe ought to be fully funded by a student union fee or student association fee which is entirely voluntary. Not only do we have the de facto situation at the moment- whether by the former legislation or university council decisions-that students are not compulsorily to be members; they are not compulsorily to pay any levy in respect of the two activities. The first of these is what I would call student organisations. They ought to be entirely autonomous associations, full of self- expression, and not accountable to anybody except their members-those who subscribe the appropriate fee that is determined by that membership. Rightly, they should include associations that are entirely involved in political discussion and even political action. I believe it is entirely appropriate at a university that students be involved in social change or in debate, discussion and action that relates to what they feel to be positive social change, but that they should do so on the basis of voluntary membership and voluntary subscription. The public would not be offended by this and I believe no one in this Parliament would be offended by this. If a particular association promoting a certain political view or a certain policy on social change wants to gain members, it should have to win them and it will be all the stronger for doing so by using its own resources. I think it is quite inappropriate for the compulsorily levied student union fee to be paying for these kinds of activities, and I would not have any grey area, such as a student union newspaper. I would make sure that that was a part of the provision that is made by voluntary membership. The greyest area for me is the production of a student newspaper. I happen to think it is essential for any higher education student body to have an ongoing student newspaper which provides a mature, adventurous, even radical, forum for ideas about Australia, the world and all kinds of matters. But it should have a properly elected editorship and full and free democratic access to contribution and so on. It ought to be as far as possible funded by voluntary subscription. If the Minister or any other advocate of total funding of all student activities were to come back at me on this grey area, I might give way and say that one might be able to detect some non-controversial area of an establishment cost, such as the provision of a room for the editor and the press, but the actual cost of printing a paper and the distribution of it, I believe, ought to be in the hands of students paying its way. The fourth area which I think in a similar way is entirely legitimate but which ought to be on the basis of voluntarism is the subscription to a national association of students. I believe it is greatly advantageous that there be a properly democratic and responsible national association of students. My criticism of the Australian Union of Students over the last 10 years has been on the basis that it has failed to live up to the importance of being responsible and democratic. Because I believe that it did not represent the broad mass of students, I have been saying for years that there need to be drastic reforms. The AUS has now been abolished at the hands of students themselves, and they will seek to replace the AUS with a body that is more soundly based and more responsive to meeting the needs of students. I wish the students of Australia well in formulating that new body. I used to be a member of the National Union of Australian University Students and am proud of that membership. Senator Zakharov referred to certain reforms advocated by that national union of students, such as the abolition of the White Australia policy. I am not sure what was the other reform that she referred to, but I include the growing provision by Australia for the independence of Papua New Guinea, the encouragement of educational and cultural exchange between New Guinea and Australia, the development of Aboriginal scholarships and the encouragement of Aboriginal Australians to have more opportunities to complete secondary education and go on to tertiary education. Those were matters within the NUAUS with which I fully identified myself. I have no regret that they are activites that ought to be included in a national association of students. But I argue, because of the experience of the last 10 years, that that be on the basis of a national student association, on a voluntary membership basis and a voluntary subscription basis. I believe that it undermines the integrity of the advice that is given to the nation, the Government and this Parliament by such an association if it is formulated on the basis of dragooned money and universal membership of every student. Let it, by its own resources and with its own arguments, appeal to students to join a body that is seen to be democratic and responsible and to have positive goals. In brief, my attitude to student unions, which I commend to the Senate, is similar to that which I heard today from Senator Macklin. Quite apart from this legislation, which the Government feels duty bound to enact to fulfil a political purpose of keeping faith with undertakings made to the radicals in the AUS, I urge the Government to see that this restructuring of student unions takes place and to make financial provision for the first two of those four functions through direct grants to universities and colleges. I conclude by referring to those two matters in the Bills to which I object most and which I believe that the Senate ought to amend successfully this afternoon. The first relates to the non-retrospective aspect of the Bills. I am glad to see that the Government has agreed to do this and that there is an amendment on the table to ensure that the financial aspects are not backdated to 1 July this year but rather begin on 1 January 1985, and that the other provisions are not backdated to the beginning of the year but will also have effect, if they operate, from 1 January 1985. As to my other objection, I believe we should retain section 32A of the Australian National University Act and section 23A of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act. Regardless of the arguments that have been put by the Minister, she has not in any respect in the second reading speech referred to this and, I might add, neither has the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. It is attempted in the Bills before us to remove these provisions which are totally inoffensive. They provide only for voluntary membership of students associations. Putting aside the other matters in the Bills, I urge the Government to accept our amendment to the effect that these sections be not removed. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.32) —in reply-The debate has been very wide-ranging. I appreciate the expressions of support that have been put forward for the Government's amendments. As the Bills cover several amendments to the Australian National University Act and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act, it is important that I draw the distinction between those amendments which have been supported by all honourable senators in the debate and those which are opposed by Liberal senators. The main ground for opposition to aspects of this legislation revolves around the issue of voluntary membership. I remind honourable senators that we are seeking in this legislation to remove restrictions on the capacities of institutions and student unions to manage their own affairs. Senator Peter Baume and Senator Teague made comments about compulsory membership of student unions as if that were the central feature of the legislation. However, I believe that the point has rather been missed. The Government's amendment Bills are not directed against voluntary membership as such. The whole point of the legislation is to restore to the institutions themselves the right to deliberate on such matters. They are supposed to be autonomous and not have their internal student affairs dictated by governments. A great deal has been said in this debate about democracy and the need to have democratic institutions. I remind honourable senators, particularly those Liberal senators who seem not to have acknowledged this, that the amendments that the Government has brought forward for the removal of the Fraser restrictions have been supported by the councils of both institutions. So we are acting not only in consonance with our commitment to democratic institutions by doing what is a long- standing commitment of this government in response to a long-standing campaign by students but also at the request of the councils of the institutions. I think that honourable senators who are opposing some of our amendments will seek to speak in the Committee stage and at that point I will be able to give the Government's response. I just say in conclusion that the amendments moved by the Opposition are not acceptable and that it is the Government's intention to return to the councils of each of the institutions the obligation to ensure that discrimination does not occur against students in respect of such matters as admission, academic progress, conferring of awards, et cetera, as an aspect of their responsibility for the management of the institutions. I remind the chamber that the ANU has already adopted procedures based on the voluntary membership principle. All students are required to pay fees for amenities and services because all benefit from these services. Enrolling students can indicate whether they wish to become members of the student association, union or sports union and, of course, the great majority of them elect to do so. So the question of voluntary membership is accommodated in our legislation within the practices of the institution. Senator Peter Baume —It puts no obligation on them; it takes obligations away. Senator RYAN —Obviously there will not be agreement between the Opposition and the Government on this but it seems very clear to me that we are not attacking the principle of voluntary membership. We are handing back to the institutions and the student bodies the right to manage their own affairs. We are removing restrictions which we and many people in the community regarded as being a totally unwarranted interference in the affairs of institutions. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.36) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 11, leave out ''1984'', insert ''1985''. (2) Page 1, clause 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ''be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1984'', insert ''come into operation on 1 January 1985''. I understand that the amendments are acceptable to the Committee. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.37) —The Opposition was unhappy with the form in which the Australian National University Amendment Bill first appeared because of the retrospective element and because of the commencement date which was included in clause 2. We are pleased that the Government has now acknowledged, I think in response to Australian Democrat and Opposition concern, that that was not acceptable to us. I make the point that this piece of legislation, which came before us in the middle of 1984 and which we are considering only now in the Budget session of 1984 in the last weeks of this Parliament, sought to have as its commencement date 1 January this year, some eight or nine months ago. I think, had there been no words of objection from the non-government side of the Parliament, that is the way in which it would have gone through. Not only is it a piece of legislation which we think is inappropriate and incorrect but also it is a piece of legislation which would have had as its commencement date 1 January this year-some eight or nine months ago. It could have been applied by the institutions back to the first day of enrolment this year. I must say that I am grateful to the Government for making this amendment. I cannot undestand why, in introducing this legislation during 1984, the Government sought to give it a commencement date that was so clearly inappropriate. Among the amendments that have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition is one that goes to clause 2. I want to make it clear that we are unhappy with the Government proposing and introducing legislation which is clearly defective. The Government is deeming things to have come into operation on 1 January. In fact, the Bill removes protection and certain conditions that could affect the position of students who enrolled this year. In view of the Government's acknowledgment of its error in this matter, it is now unnecessary to move amendment No. 1, which has been circulated on behalf of the Opposition, to the Australian National University Amendment Bill. If the Government moves similar amendments to the Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill, we will not move amendment No. 1 to clause 2 of that Bill. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.42) —I commend the Government for a sensible amendment. The removal of these retrospective clauses is entirely to be commended by the Senate. Whether it is because I am in a generous mood this afternoon or because I am always generous, I want to commend the Government when something sensible has been done. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Statutes). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.44) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move : Page 4, clause 16, after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraph: ''(ba) by inserting after 'fees' in sub-paragraph 1 (o) (ii) 'the payment of which shall be voluntary and which are';''. That amendment is the first of the amendments the Opposition wishes to press. In speaking generally to the clause and before addressing myself specifically to the amendment, the Opposition finds proposed section 27 (1) (o) (i) to be satisfactory. We have no objection to that proposed section, nor do we wish to raise any objection to it. There is no worry about that matter. This is the first of the clauses that bring up some of the issues raised during the second reading debate. I cannot believe that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is basing her argument and her case on the fact that she is seeking autonomy for tertiary institutions in Australia. Any tertiary institution hearing that would burst into laughter. This is the greatest joke of all time. Tertiary institutions need look only at the guidelines that have been issued recently to know the Government's view on autonomy. They need look only at what has been stated about the kind of admission policy they should employ, the kinds of employment policies they should pursue and the kinds of course structures they are being told to encourage and promote. In the light of that kind of statement and the Minister's statement that the Government sees education as one means of achieving the social and philosophical goals of the Government-I think I used the Minister's words precisely-the Government cannot expect us to believe that it is just promoting autonomy on campus and autonomous behaviour by institutions. That is the case particularly when I note the words of Mr Dawkins when in Opposition, which I have quoted: 'We have methods'. He was referring to using section 96 of the Constitution to force institutions to adhere to what might be the Government's policy on student organisations. There could be nothing more inaccurate as a description of the way in which the Government is proceeding in its approach to tertiary institutions. That argument is being used because it is the argument to hand. Clause 16 seeks to amend section 27 of the principal Act. It is one of the amendments affecting the funding of student political bodies. My amendment is to proposed section 27 (1) (o) (ii) which enforces payment to the political students' association and to the service facilities on campus-that is, to the Australian National University Union and the Australian National University Sport Union. It is the policy of my Party and, I understand, of Liberal students ' organisations to allow for complete voluntary student unionism and complete freedom of association. I have set out the reasons during the second reading debate this morning. We argue that students should not be forced to fund activities and services which, to use the words of the Act, are not of an academic nature. In the amendment we are considering, we are seeking to ensure that students are not forced to fund activities or organisations that are not of an academic nature. There are objections to what is being proposed by the Government's amendment. The amendment appears to run counter to the concept of people being able to receive a universal free education. The educational institutions provide education free, but then require the payment of a general service fee. If the Government has its way, it will restore the capacity to impose punitive sanctions. Whether or not Senator Macklin is correct in saying, 'However, we have assurances from what appears to be a responsible council of the ANU that it will not happen,' the point is that the capacity is restored to the university to impose punitive sanctions if someone refuses to fund or belong to political bodies such as the students' association. I remind the Committee that, although I have confidence in the present council the ANU-- Senator Peter Rae —I am glad that you do. Senator PETER BAUME —While I am aware of the debate that was undertaken by people who were members of that council-such as Senator Peter Rae-in trying to resolve this question, I do not know the council's composition next year or five or 10 years hence. Senator Macklin knows that the argument he put up this morning was an appeal to authority based upon his assessment of the present membership. The fact that it is a good council does not, in logic, address the question of what are the proper provisions to have in this Bill. One must construct one's amendments and one's Bill in a vacuum to see what kind of effects they will produce. We believe that what is proposed is not consistent with the widest concept of freedom of association, especially in the case of the Students Association, which is overtly political in the way in which it is structured and the way in which it operates. It is separate from the Student Union. As I said this morning , we find it difficult to say that this measure is entirely consistent with article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It appears quite incongruous to us that we have in the principal Act a declaration and preservation of freedom of religion-it is explicitly provided for-but we have no preservation of freedom of association or, as the United Nations declaration provides, freedom of non-association. I think that the words we propose to add regarding the voluntary payment of fees would make it necessary for those organisations wishing to receive the fees to be responsive to the students from whom the fees are being collected. Although the money is collected under compulsion there is no need for them to be responsive except insofar as an annual election goes. In terms of the organisations' day to day operation they do not have to meet the needs or requirements of students provided that once a year they can have the confidence of students at an election. That is the only answerability they have at present. I have moved an amendment which provides that the payment of fees shall be voluntary. This would have the effect of introducing a choice for the students. If the student associations and the student unions were worth supporting they would be supported; if they were not worth supporting they would not be supported. There is some merit in supporting this amendment and I commend it to the Committee. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.53) —I support the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Peter Baume. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) has appealed to two principles. I accept the principles, nevertheless I go on to quarrel. The principles which she puts forward are good principles; that there ought to be real autonomy in higher education institutions and that there ought to be a broad concept of the nature and value of a university or college education. Both are good principles but the Minister is using such high ground to defend what is nevertheless a direct political pay- off given in undertakings, particularly to left-wing students in universities, that Labor would overcome the amendments the Fraser Government introduced in 1979 and 1981. This is a political undertaking. All who have spoken in this debate have said that as of 1985 it is likely, given the responsibility and stability in the university and college involved, that it will not make much practical difference. The only difference arises if there is a relapse or a regression. Whilst I welcome the two principles of this high ground the Minister seeks to stand upon, the Government is blinking the eye at the real intent, which is the political objective of living up to an undertaking given to left wing students in universities and colleges. The requirements of this Minister and this Government for funding to be received by the universities and colleges in Australia deny that the Minister is on high ground. There are various incursions on the autonomy of higher educational institutions of which we have seen evidence in the last 18 months which are dictating to universities the requirements of this Government. The argument put by my colleague is sustained by all of us in the Opposition. We implore the Minister genuinely to take up the high ground that she affects to in this debate. I look constructively to how funding for these matters may be treated in the years ahead and I will make a distinction with what my colleague Senator Baume said. I agree with him, and of course with the words in this amendment, in that any fees which are levied ought to be voluntary so that student unionism is entirely voluntary. However, I reiterate what I said in my speech in the second reading debate on this matter, that the provision of facilities for community, recreational, sporting and educational activities should be provided for directly by the university and college budget. This would mean that the second principle to which the Minister has alluded, that of universities and colleges maintaining a broad concept of the nature and value of a university education, will not be put in jeopardy. If there is a small difference with Senator Baume-- Senator Peter Baume —There is not really a difference. Senator TEAGUE —I am glad to hear that he thinks there is not a difference. There would be the provision of grassed ovals and changing rooms for sporting activities but the costs of a hockey club or football club would be provided by its membership; the facility would be provided and maintained by the university' s budget. I take this opportunity in the debate at the Committee stage to look ahead, even to the next Budget, and to appeal to the Minister, if she is still in her present portfolio-and to my colleague Senator Baume or anyone else who is in that situation-to change the structure of funding facilities so that it takes into account what I have argued here. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.58) —The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I think all of the arguments have been rehearsed because this is the fundamental area of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. However, I should say a couple of things for the record. It is the case that our Government is committed to and will support the autonomous management by universities of their own affairs and this legislation is in line with that important principle. At this stage I do not want to enter into a wide-ranging debate on the meaning of university autonomy. Perhaps it is a debate we could usefully have in this place on some other occasion rather than at 4 o'clock on an afternoon when we are about to adjourn. Quite clearly, from the Government's point of view, to have policies about the role that universities can play within our society, the economic and social implications of the existence of institutions and people's access to them, is in no way in conflict with our view that in their internal management universities and colleges ought to be autonomous. Senator Teague referred to this legislation being a pay-off for left wing students. That is a rather extraordinary way to describe our fulfilment of an existing commitment. I remind Senator Teague-I think he acknowledges this-that the councils of the institutions involved want this provision. So the Government is acting in consonance with the democratic governing bodies of these institutions. Another thing I should point out for the benefit of those honourable senators and perhaps members of the public who might not be aware of this is that only in the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education do such restrictions now exist that Senator Baume and his colleague are seeking to maintain. They do not exist in any other university throughout Australia. There were similar restrictions for a period in Western Australia, introduced by the former Liberal-National Party Government; but they have been withdrawn by the Burke Labor Government. We are seeking here to give our institutions in the Australian Capital Territory, our national institutions, the same freedom from these restrictions that all other institutions enjoy. There does not seem to me to be any justification at all for this Parliament, this Government, to restrict our national institutions in the way in which institutions in the States are not restricted. I remind the Committee also of the remarks I made about the arrangements which the ANU has already instituted to ensure voluntary membership of clubs and associations and to ensure that there will be no discrimination against students who do not wish to join. The question of the fee, however, is one on which we disagree, and the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.02) —I will be brief because I understand we want to get this amendment to a division. I want to pick up a point made by Senator Teague to make it quite clear. I have no objection to any institution around Australia-I think Senator Ryan was saying this-making a decision about facilities that should be provided. I regard that as a proper exercise of institutional autonomy. What is at issue is the way in which that provision should be funded. That is what it is about. It is about the compulsion in funding. We can get it quite clear: There is no objection to the provision of whatever facilities are thought appropriate for that institution in its own setting. The argument is about funding and about the decision of institutions, for convenience and using their superior force, to raise a tax on every individual irrespective of whether that individual can, wishes to or will use the facilities provided. It is about this convenient taxing capacity which the institutions want to use and which the Minister, by opposing these amendments, will make it easier for them to use. I therefore press the amendment in our name . Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator K. W. Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Colston, M. A. Collard, S. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Hamer, D. J. Jones, G. N. MacGibbon, D. J. McClelland, DouglasMessner, A. J. Primmer, C. G. Rae, Peter Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Progress reported. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I table the annual and final report of former Special Prosecutor Redlich for the year 1983-84, and make the following statement: The annual and final report of former Special Prosecutor Redlich for the year 1983-84, although dated 12 July 1984, was not received in my office until 31 August 1984. The time that has elapsed to date has not permitted the preparation of an appropriate statement of the Government' s position in relation to the report and, indeed, I am not required by the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 to table this report until the fifteenth sitting day after receipt of the report. Further, I note that the report is lengthy; it makes nearly 60 recommendations covering a wide range of matters, many of which raise issues requiring very careful and deliberate consideration. However, because of the selective and misleading leaking of portions of the report by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Government has decided to table the report forthwith so that it may be read in its entirety. I shall make a more detailed statement responding to the report generally next week. At this point, I shall make only one observation as to the contents of the report. It relates to Mr Redlich's recommendations for significant amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Shortly after receipt of the report, I gave a copy of it to Mr Ian Temby, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the person charged with the direct responsibilities under that Act. Mr Temby's office and my Department have, in fact, been engaged in recent times in discussions as to the Director's role in civil remedy and pecuniary penalty matters and all concerned are, I understand, satisfied with the recent progress of discussions on this subject. Need I observe that it would be irresponsible to consider amendment of the Act without first obtaining Mr Temby' s views. Mr Temby today advised my Department that he will provide those views next week. Senator Peter Baume —Are there copies of the report available? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe copies have been made available and will be circulated to honourable senators in the usual way. I have no reason to believe to the contrary. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I note that this is really a preliminary statement and that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be responding generally to the report next week. On behalf of the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, I indicate that the Opposition will hold any further comment until it has had the opportunity of seeing that further statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senate adjourned at 4.13 p.m.