Monday, 8 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Wynyard Airport, Tasmania To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 77 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 or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 140 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 we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes ; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/ discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 32 citizens) and Sibraa (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Teague (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We 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. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The Australian Capital Territory Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jack Evans (from 294 citizens) and Macklin (from 294 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. 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 Scott (from 23 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 Australian Capital Territory 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 Watson (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March 1985, and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament 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 1,847 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the reported comments of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran ( which reports have not been denied by him), relating to the evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge of the Chairman of the Board of Stipendiary Magistrates of New South Wales, Mr Clarrie Briese, which in the view of the Senate are intimidatory of Mr Briese and pose a threat to the independence of the courts of New South Wales; and (b) condemns the Premier for those comments. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) having regard: (i) to the desire of all people to live in peace and freedom and to enjoy basic human rights, including the right to self-determination, (ii) to Australia's membership of the United Nations and regard for the principles of its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by its General Assembly on 14 December 1960 by Resolution 1514 ( XV), and the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement, and (iii) to the fact that, whilst the Australian people have acquired these rights and freedoms, other peoples are deprived of them; and (b) taking note: (i) of the Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) adopted on 13 January 1983, (ii) of the fact that the three Baltic States were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations during the years 1918 to 1940, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union in consequence of an agreement between the then German Government under Hitler and the Soviet Government under Stalin (the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), (iii) of the fact that the occupation of these States by the Soviet Union still continues, but that in accord with other democratic governments the Australian Government has not recognised de jure their incorporation into the Soviet Union, (iv) that the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being denied many basic human rights (as indicated in the unanimous Report of the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Human Rights in the Soviet Union', presented in November 1979), but that they have not given up their struggle for self-determination and freedom, and (v) that an intensive process of Russification is taking place in these occupied countries aimed at elimination of the indigenous languages and culture; and (c) resolves: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States, (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a priority topic under the agenda item 9 entitled 'The Rights of Peoples under Colonial or Alien Domination', and (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this resolution. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern that Repetitive Strain Injury is caused by repetitive work, and is increasing at an alarming rate, particularly amongst keyboard operators; (b) expresses concern that Repetitive Strain Injury is an exceedingly painful and debilitating injury, which if neglected, may ultimately restrict such commonplace tasks as dressing and opening doors; (c) is extremely concerned that over 3,000 cases of Repetitive Strain Injury have been reported from Government offices; (d) is informed that people-usually women-contracting Repetitive Strain Injury working in Government Departments and Statutory Authorities, are frequently either sacked, re-deployed to menial monotonous tasks, or end up unable to work, often with a compensation rate of about $70 per week; (e) recommends that preventative action be immediately taken in all Government and Statutory Authority offices in liaison with staff and advisors, regarding adequate working conditions and siting of equipment; and (f) establish a committee of inquiry to investigate the extent and severity of Repetitive Strain Injury both in relation to personal suffering and functional efficiency in Government and Statutory Authority offices. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Qantas Airways Limited-Annual Report 1983-84. 2. Outlook for the Aviation Industry-Information Paper. 3. Department of Science and Technology-Annual Report 1983-84. 4. Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants and Queen's Fellowships-Report of Grants Approved and Fellowships Awarded for 1983-84. 5. Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Reports for year ended 30 June 1983 and 1984- Pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. 6. Government Purchasing and Offsets Policies in Industrial Innovation-Report by ASTEC-Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978. 7. Repatriation Review Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 107V22A of the Repatriation Act 1920. 8. Directing the Australian Public Sector-A Consultant Paper prepared at the request of the Minister for Finance on the Design and Direction of Commonwealth Business Enterprise. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to my question to him last Tuesday concerning the desirability of having the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union tabled in Federal Parliament. I remind the Minister that he was not able to give a definite answer as to whether , if the House of Representatives were dissolved for the election, the Costigan report would be tabled in the Senate. As the whole of Australia now expects the House of Representatives to adjourn this week for the election, I again ask the Minister: Will the Government undertake to table the Costigan report in the Senate? Senator BUTTON —No. It is the Government's wish that as much as possible of the Costigan report should be made public. That view has been expressed on a number of occasions by Government spokesmen. Senator Missen —Do they mean it? Senator BUTTON —I can answer that question afterwards. The Government, of course , will have to be in the position of exercising a discretion as to whether all parts of the Costigan report are tabled. Senator Chaney —I agree with that. I am not quarrelling with that. Senator BUTTON —Yes. I just make the point that the Government has offered to make available to the Leader of the Opposition a full, unexpurgated version of the Costigan report. That will be done. But the decision on whether it is to be tabled in the Senate if the House of Representatives is not sitting is a matter which will have to be addressed in the context of the time of publication. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to an article in the Age newspaper of 18 September headed ' Equality and excellence-can education have both?'? It quotes Professor Tony Klein in a graduation address at Melbourne University as saying: The voices of unreason are clamouring for more equality. Equality of opportunity is no longer good enough; they want equality of outcome. Will the Minister explain, with the voice of reason, the meaning of 'equality of outcome' and the steps that the Government is taking to encourage tertiary institutes to work towards this aim? Senator RYAN —My attention was drawn to the article quoting Professor Klein and his criticisms of the use of the notion of equality of outcomes. As mine has been one of the voices asking that we should have more equality of outcomes, I suppose that I should explain what I mean, and what the Government means, by this. But I should point out that it has been absolutely typical of conservative forces in this country to hop on the bandwagon of denigrating concern with outcomes as if we were simply educational Luddites. Every time a Labor government, a reformist government, points to the inequalities of outcomes and to their socio-economic basis, points to the fact that, about 25 per cent of teenagers were on the dole when we came into government because they were inadequately prepared by the education, system for any further steps and points to the fact that, whereas some children who attend schools serving poorer communities drop out of school at 15 or 16 and therefore have a relatively small amount of public money invested in their education, other children are able to continue through six full years of education and then go on to four or six years of higher education, and often further by way of post-graduate degrees, we are accused of being educational Luddites who want everyone to leave school illiterate at 15. This is a very mischievous and very destructive way of approaching what is, for all serious thinkers about education in Australia, a serious problem. We are concerned with equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity has been a policy in place at Commonwealth and State levels for very many years now. By the policy of equality of opportunity we have meant that governments ought to try to put resources into education, starting from pre-school, which strive to give children equal chances; but we cannot stop there. We cannot say, 'We have spent a certain amount on education; government schools in the western suburbs of Sydney have had an increase in the resources spent on them; we have no responsibility for what happens after that'. We must address our attention to outcomes. Senator Teague —Adjustments-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator RYAN —It is quite apparent that the Opposition has no serious interest in the fact that some children are not receiving a satisfactory standard of education, that the outcomes of education for children, particularly children from socio-economically disadvantaged areas, are not satisfactory by any standards. This is a serious phenomenon. But our Government and Labor State governments with which we are working very closely, and teacher unions and parent organisations, are all very properly and legitimately concerned. We cannot be sanguine in the face of the dreadful inequality of outcome which was prevailing when we came into government. We want to create a situation in which all children receive a satisfactory education, according to their abilities and aspirations, and in which we are able to say to the electorate at large that the education dollar that we are investing in Australia's youth is being properly and efficiently invested. If we were simply to preside over a situation in which a large number of children and children in poorer areas, perhaps even the majority of children, were leaving school without adequate standards of literacy, numeracy, communication skills, knowledge of Australian society, knowledge of the Australian economy and knowledge of the role of the trade union movement and other matters that we consider to be essential for every child, we would be failing in our duty not only to those children but to the Australian taxpayer who, after all, pays for the education of all Australian children. Our concern is to assist State governments and non-government school authorities, both in terms of increasing resources and of improving the preparation and the in-service of teachers in the development of new, better and more effective curricula so that we may achieve more equal outcomes of standards of education achieved, and the quality of education available to all children, preparation for further education or training and access to the job market. These are goals which I have stated clearly and persistently since we came to government. They are goals which I believe we are starting to move towards but which we will not achieve in the short term. We will achieve them over the longer term by co-operation with State authorities, teachers, parents and others -unfortunately, apparently, not the Opposition-who are genuinely interested in achieving quality of education for all Australians. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to an answer he gave to a question asked by Senator Chaney last Friday, 5 October, about the administration of justice and law enforcement in New South Wales in which he said: It is the case that the New South Wales Government is acting with considerable expedition, dispatch and competence in dealing with these allegations as they are made, one at a time. It is a matter of waiting for the processes of the court system to work themselves out before making strident and over-confident assertions of the kind we hear so often from the other side. Those processes are working themselves out. I ask the Attorney whether he has read reports of statements made by Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, in Europe over the weekend concerning Mr Briese' s evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge in which Mr Wran is reported to have said: Obviously a very large question mark must now be hanging over him and his position as Chief Magistrate. I ask the Attorney: Does he agree that such a statement by the Premier of New South Wales is a grave threat to the processes of the court system of New South Wales and clearly undermines the very foundation of that system, namely, the independence of its judiciary? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not accept that the statement necessarily has those consequences at all, although it must be acknowledged that the Premier's response to Mr Briese's evidence, given that that evidence was not yet complete before the Senate Committee, was one that perhaps it might under all the circumstances have been better not to make at that point. Before one leaps rashly to conclusions, either about Mr Wran's statement constituting a contempt of the Senate or in any way constituting some breach of the kinds of principles to which Senator Durack referred, there are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account. These are the intent with which the statement was made , the likely effect of that statement and the public interest considerations that are involved when one is dealing with questions, as these are, which go to the administration of justice in a particular State for which the person in question has executive responsibility. I do not think, from either of the two perspectives I have mentioned, that it is appropriate to draw too quick or rash conclusions on this matter. I think some of the language that has been employed by Opposition spokesmen in reaction to the Wran statements is not justified in all the circumstances of this case as they are known to me and the Government at this stage. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a report in last week's Courier-Mail which reveals that the Queensland State Budget has approved $4.5m for a dam on the Mackenzie River near Duaringa which benefits the Bjelke-Petersen family company? Is he aware that the dam has never appeared on any list of priorities for water resource projects in Queensland, yet the residents of Karumba on the Gulf of Carpentaria have never enjoyed the basic benefits of a regular supply of fresh water to their town and are still awaiting the same amount of $4.5m needed to ensure a decent water supply for the people of Karumba. Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of the Brisbane Courier-Mail report to which Senator Jones referred, which evidently was based on disclosures made in the Queensland Parliament by Mr Casey, the member for Mackay. The factual situation, in brief, is that the Queensland Government announced with its State Budget that it was constructing a dam on the Mackenzie River at a cost of just over $4m. Some 35 kilometres downstream from the proposed dam site a company called Ciasom Pty Ltd owns some 30,000 hectares of farm land. In that company there are 20 $1 paid-up shares, 15 of which are held by Florence Bjelke-Petersen, two by her son John and one by each of her three daughters-who are also, of course, children of the Queensland Premier. Some 18 or 19 days before that announcement was made in the Queensland Budget notices appeared in the Queensland Government Gazette of applications, in two instances, to pump from the anabranch and the Mackenzie River and, in the third instance, for the installation of an 18-inch pump, I believe it was, in a water hole of the Mackenzie River itself. I am advised that a pump of that size would, in a matter of a few days, have emptied the particular waterhole in the Mackenzie River unless the river was flowing. The river does not flow at a significant rate all year round. Therefore, quite clearly, unless there was some means of replenishing the water in the hole for which the application to install the 18-inch centrifugal pump was lodged there would be no point in installing a pump of that size. Of course the construction of a dam somewhat upstream from the area in which the application to install the 18-inch pump was lodged would ensure there was water to replenish the waterhole for which the proposed pump was to be installed. It is a matter of speculation-although fairly pointed speculation-whether there was prior knowledge by people who lodged that application, the Ciasom company, of the fact that the Queensland Government proposed to construct that five metre concrete weir somewhat upstream on the Mackenzie River. The other aspect of Senator Jones's question concerns whether an application has ever been made by the Queensland Government for funding for that weir on the Mackenzie River. The answer to that is an unequivocal no. In neither this year nor any previous year has the Queensland Government submitted any proposal for Commonwealth funding for the construction of that weir. However, the Queensland Government did, in its most recent application, have as priority number nine an application for a similar amount of money for a water supply for the town of Karumba, thereby implying quite clearly that in the Queensland Government's view Karumba should take priority over the weir which it now proposes to build on the Mackenzie River. I think the implication of that is fairly obvious; the Queensland Government, which just a few months ago gave priority to funding a water supply for Karumba, has now abandoned that priority and decided instead to construct a weir on the Mackenzie River which, coincidentally or otherwise, happens to provide the necessary water supply for the applications for pumping lodged by Ciasom Pty Ltd, the Bjelke-Petersen family company. I suggest to Senator Jones that, as a conscientious senator representing the State of Queensland and therefore the town of Karumba, among other areas, he should suggest to the people of Karumba that they approach the Queensland Government with a view to having these funds diverted from the construction of the weir on the Mackenzie River to the supply of water for the township of Karumba, since that was the priority which, implicitly at least, the Queensland Government had given when it made application for Federal funding. I also emphasise two points in case they were not taken the first time. Firstly, I state unequivocally that no application has ever been made by the Queensland Government for Federal funding for the dam on the Mackenzie River but an application was made for the funding of a water supply for Karumba. Finally, it does not encourage the Commonwealth Government to make provision for water supplies in any State if suddenly particular projects which will benefit particular people, which had not even been in the queue beforehand, can suddenly be bumped to the top of the queue, as was the case with the Queensland Government and the proposed construction of a dam on the Mackenzie River. Senator MASON —Did the Minister for Resources and Energy see a letter in the Australian Financial Review of 4 October from Mr D. G. Hill, as Acting Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation which dealt with the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power? Did the Minister note especially the comment quoted in that letter from the official weekly review of Electricit'e de France, which clearly stated that the plutonium produced in the new Superphenix nuclear power generator will be used to produce nuclear weapons? Will the Government consider the implications of that, and indeed also reports that the United States Government is preparing to use plutonium from nuclear power generators to produce nuclear weapons? In view of the growing evidence available to show that plutonium produced from nuclear power generators is being used, and will continue to be used, for the production of nuclear weapons, how can the Government justify the continued mining, milling and export of Australian uranium? Senator WALSH —The final part of the question asked by Senator Mason contained the assertion that there was evidence available to show that plutonium produced from nuclear power generators is being used, and will continue to be used, for the production of nuclear weapons. I am aware of no such evidence. I am aware of a number of assertions to that effect, including an assertion in the letter to which Senator Mason referred. Perhaps I should say that Senator Mason was good enough, at about 12.30 p.m. today, to give my office notice of the fact that he intended to ask this question. In that limited time I have not been able to check out all the details . For example, I have not been able to check out the identity or status of L. Lammers, nor have I been able to check out the reference in that Lammers letter to the Congressional Record of the United States showing that the Reagan Administration has plans to divert eight tonnes, I think, of plutonium derived from both British and United States civil nuclear industries. The fact, assuming it is a fact, that such a reference appears in the Congressional Record is no guarantee of its accuracy. What appears in the Congressional Record is, firstly what any congressman or woman says, and, secondly, voluminous amount of material which a congressman or woman may have incorporated into that record, which is not necessarily authentic. Leaving aside the inability to check out the authenticity or credibility of the two comments or allegations or assertions made in Mr Hill's letter, I will outline the things which I am able to answer and which are relevant. Australian uranium will not be supplied to France, of course, at least for the time being. That has already been stated on many occasions by me and by other people representing the Government and the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, Australian uranium would not be used for that purpose even if the French did intend to produce from fast breeder reactors weapons grade plutonium. Moreover, I am advised that the Euratom arrangement would prevent Australian uranium being used for that purpose, even if it were being supplied to France. In regard to the United States, that country-irrespective of whether there is any substance at all in Mr Hill's second or third hand claim-could not use Australian uranium for that purpose unless it clearly breached the bilateral safeguards agreements between the two countries. On the final part of the question-and I shall endeavour to obtain more technical information on this-as to the potential or the greater potential, if any, of fast breeder reactors to produce weapons grade plutonium as against either Magnox reactors or enriched uranium reactors in any configuration, I am not sure about the technical position and I shall endeavour to find out. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Can I take it from the Minister's reply that the Government is at least doing some active monitoring of the situation, or is it leaving it entirely to the other instrumentalities to do the monitoring? What would the Government's reaction be if it found that Australian uranium was being used in nuclear weapons? Senator WALSH —I am not sure what Senator Mason means by monitoring. I might say that, at least as far as I am concerned, the Australian Conservation Foundation is not regarded as the most reliable source of information on this matter or, for that matter, on a number of other matters. Yes, the Government continues to monitor, insofar as it is able to, what is going on in the nuclear industry world wide, in particular in those countries to which Australia has supplied in the past or will continue to supply uranium in the future. No, I had not read the letter to which Senator Mason referred and which was published last Thursday -I had one or two other things to do last week-until he gave notice of asking this question but, its having been brought to my attention now, I have already indicated that as far as both the assertions and the underlying technical implications are concerned I will endeavour to get whatever information it is possible to get. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns Commonwealth funding of private welfare organisations. Is the Government satisfied with the present methods of funding welfare organisations and the programs and management accountability of groups funded? Does the Minister foresee more rigid methods of accountability being introduced? To what extent does the Department of Social Security, when allocating funding, co- ordinate the range and balance of services to be provided by funded groups? Senator GRIMES —I think I can say that in general the Government is satisfied with the present method of funding welfare organisations, particularly in the case of children's services and aged persons' accommodation and in the area of handicapped people. We have got away as much as possible or are in the process of getting away from relying almost entirely on the submission model and we are looking at a planning model of distribution of funds. In other words, we are looking at where services are needed and where regions or districts are short of services rather than relying almost entirely on submissions which come from those areas. Secondly, as to the methods of accountability, in general one cannot be absolutely satisfied with the accountability for the many millions of dollars by the many hundreds of thousands of organisations which are funded by the Federal Government. Every now and again, no matter which Government is in power, organisations will not satisfy the accountability provisions that we have. We should bear in mind also that in some cases organisations, through lack of experience, lack of knowledge and sometimes lack of care, do not handle public funds as well as they could. To this purpose we have established in this year's Budget an appropriation whereby we will set up a body which will assist organisations receiving Commonwealth funds to be more efficient managers of those funds and of the functions which they perform. Finally, because we are moving more towards a planning model, one of the things that we take into account before allocating public funds is the existence of services already provided by other voluntary organisations, by State governments and, indeed, by Commonwealth bodies in the various districts to ensure as much as possible that there is no duplication and that we are fulfilling the needs that are there. I would like to see as much as possible the priorities for funding and for establishing these community services in various districts to be the decision of the local communities themselves, taking into account national standards and national parameters. I believe we can best develop a more comprehensive system of community services-although we will more and more take into account the range of services present and, therefore, indirectly co- ordinate the services that are available-by co-operation with State governments, local governments and non-government organisations rather than by edicts from Canberra. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government concerned about the reports of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's lack of budgetary controls, understaffing, overcentralisation in Paris and inappropriate resource allocation? Does the Government intend following the lead of the United States of America and Great Britain in writing letters of concern to the Director-General of that organisation? Is the Government of the view that UNESCO today holds the same world respect that it did, say, 10 years ago? If not, and if corrective measures are not taken, would Australia consider withdrawing its support? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has expressed concern at some aspects of UNESCO's performance. Some comments were set out, for example, in an answer to a question on notice from Senator Jones which was answered back on 27 March. This included concern at certain inadequacies in the Organisation's budget and administration which have detracted from its overall effectiveness and some aspects of staffing policy which were less than fully satisfactory; in particular there was a tendency to leave large numbers of permanent positions unfilled with long delays in the normal recruitment process. However, at the same time Australia does believe and has strongly expressed the view that UNESCO continues to play an important role in advancing international co-operation in the sciences, education, culture and communications. We are certainly not intending withdrawing from the Organisation. We are, as I said in answer to another question from Senator Coleman back in May on this question, concerned at the consequences of the proposed United States withdrawal from UNESCO at the end of this year. Apart from depriving the Organisation of a major practical and intellectual input, the loss of the United States contribution could mean severe cutbacks in UNESCO's programs of assistance which benefit developing countries, including those in our own region . The announcement of the United States decision to withdraw has prompted a number of wideranging reviews of UNESCO, as no doubt it was partly intended to do, and several proposals for change have been developed. These are being discussed at the September-October meeting of UNESCO's executive board. It is the Government's hope that necessary reforms can be achieved, although a complete agreement will obviously not be possible on all matters. Finally, Australia has participated actively in the review process which the Government hopes will lead to a more efficient Organisation and will enable, hopefully again, the United States to reconsider its decision to withdraw. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the report in last week's Age that a group from the newly created Kanak Socialist Liberation Front in New Caledonia has travelled to Libya for what appears to be military training? In the light of Mr Hawke's statement that ' Caledonia is a destabilising factor in the Pacific due to a lack of help obtained by the then Independent Front and the Kanak people for decolonisation', will the Government express Australia's concern to the French Government over the decision not to set down a clear timetable for New Caledonian independence? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of Press reports that a group of young men connected with New Caledonia's newly created pro-independence Kanak Socialist Liberation Front have recently gone to Libya for training. Reports of contact between independence movement elements and Libya circulated prior to the recent South Pacific forum meeting in Tuvalu. These reports certainly caused some alarm among forum member countries. Australia certainly condemns the soliciting of any support which might entail the use, or threat of use, of violence and terrorism to achieve what would otherwise be legitimate political objectives. The Prime Minister conveyed Australia's condemnation of any such move during discussion on New Caledonia at the Tuvalu forum, and that remains Australia's position. Australia supports the peaceful evolution to independence in New Caledonia, determined in accordance with the wishes of the people there and free from outside influence. The Foreign Minister in his address to the United Nations General Assembly a few days ago, on 3 October, called on France to ensure that the transition to an independent, multiracial New Caledonia is achieved speedily and peacefully in a shorter time scale than has been previously envisaged. Senator MISSEN —Is the Attorney-General aware of complaints by lawyers regarding the restrictive security measures introduced at the Parramatta Family Court and, in particular, to concerns about the scan search that all persons, including lawyers, must undergo upon entry to the foyer of the building? Does the Attorney -General agree that, while all necessary security precautions should be exercised to protect judges and court officers, citizens of this country should have full, free and unfettered access to the courts and that lawyers should not be hindered in their access to a Federal court? If so, I ask the Attorney- General: First, has the Government addressed itself to the problems of principle which these security measures appear to present? Secondly, will the Government, as an alternative to the present scan search system, give consideration to introducing a vetting system for lawyers so that they might be issued with a pass which removes the necessity for hindering their actual access to the courts ? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of all sorts of complaints by lawyers, rational or irrational, but mercifully this complaint has not yet come to my ears. It seems to me that there are no greater issues of principle involved in requiring that everyone going into a Family Court building, such as the one at Parramatta, be scanned than there are issues of principle involved in requiring that everyone going on an aircraft be subject to scanning by metal detectors. It may be that there is a case for giving accredited lawyers some kind of pass to get themselves in and out of buildings without the indignity allegedly associated with submitting to a scanning, but I would have thought that that is likely to be a practical impossibility to administer in such a way as to give everyone associated with the Family Court system confidence that security would be genuinely maintained. My inclination would be not to do anything to respond to complaints of that kind except to chastise the lawyers in question for yet another demonstration of the insensitivity for which my profession unfortunately has become all too notorious. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to reports in the Queensland Press that contaminated material from a Lincoln aircraft used in cloud sampling activities associated with Monte Bello British nuclear tests is buried at Amberley Royal Australian Air Force Base, Queensland? In view of the importance of such claims and the current Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia, can the Minister provide any information which would clarify this matter? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report on 2 October or thereabouts, published in the Queensland Press. I do not seem to have the report with me but I think it is to the effect that a Lincoln aircraft had been buried at Amberley. Some time prior to that, I think on 26 September, Mr Garran, from my Department, wrote to the Secretary to the Department of Defence inquiring about a memo received from the Department of Defence on 12 December 1980 which provided comment on a letter which had previously been written to Senator Sir John Carrick. I am not sure whether the writer of that letter wants his name mentioned so I will not mention it, but apparently it was a substantial letter. Mr Garran from my Department sought advice as to whether the Department of Defence had any other information on the burial of contaminated items at Amberley. On 4 October the Department issued a Press statement saying: The most heavily contaminated RAAF Lincoln bomber used in the 1953 British atomic tests at Maralinga is buried in a tip at Amberley air base, the Defence Department confirmed yesterday. There is absolutely no question, in my view, that that is in quite severe conflict with the advice from the Department of Defence in December 1980. I might add that Senator Sir John Carrick was told that this question was going to come up, and I want to make it quite clear that I am not reflecting in any way on the manner in which he handled the matter. The blame, if any, clearly rests with the Department of Defence. Providing information which at best was inadequate and at worst misleading and which was provided to Senator Sir John Carrick is, in my view, clearly the responsibility of the Department of Defence and is no reflection on Senator Sir John Carrick. To get back to the Department of Defence Press statement of 4 October this year , there is another error in the first paragraph. It refers to the 1953 British atomic tests at Maralinga. There were in fact no tests conducted at Maralinga in 1953. The tests were conducted at Emu. I expect that this information will be sought by the McClelland Royal Commission and possibly followed up further. I would table all the letters and memos except that I am not sure whether the writer of the original letter to Senator Sir John Carrick dated 9 July 1980 would like his name to be published at this stage. Otherwise, I would be quite happy to table all the documents to which I have referred. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it true that the Government is considering a tax on assets to be applied to all Australians and that the Australian Taxation Office computers are being programmed for the early application of such a tax? Senator WALSH —No. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and follows my question last week regarding discrimination in local government funding allocations against the western shires of Queensland by the Queensland Grants Commission. Can the Minister also say whether Federal road funds are being equitably distributed by the Queensland Government and whether any pressure can be brought to bear on that Government to pay more attention to the appalling conditions of roads in those isolated communities? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the question asked by Senator Reynolds of me last week about the manner in which funds were being allocated to local government in Queensland. Today she has asked a question about road construction specifically, which is the responsibility of the States. I am aware of the criticisms of the condition of roads in the remote areas of Queensland and acknowledge the poor condition of many such roads. For example, if we look at the Mulligan Highway to Cooktown, which is that town's sole connection with the south of the State, we find that towns along it literally live off the back of trucks and yet the highway remains nothing more than a goat track, the only work to be done on it in recent times being federally funded construction work by the Commonwealth under the Australian bicentennial road program. The criticism made by Queenslanders generally of the Queensland Government is that road funds are concentrated in the more favoured and settled areas in the south-east corner of Queensland. For example, there is evidence that funds allocated for beef roads and other special allocations, including funds allocated by the Fraser Government, are syphoned off by the present Government in Queensland to favour certain regions in that State. However, as Senator Reynolds asked me a question about what the Commonwealth could do, all I can say at this stage unfortunately is that, with the legislation inherited from the previous Government by this Government, the Federal Government is not able to determine priorities for the allocation of its road funding. Apart from the allocation to categories of roads and works done on the national highway system, all we can do is review the current difficulties being expressed in many parts of Queensland with a view ultimately to bringing in some amending legislation. I think I indicated that the Commonwealth has very dramatically increased road funding by some 46 per cent since the Labor Party came into office. This means that in Queensland the figure of $180m which was allocated in 1982-83 has grown to $259m this year. The State Government has, under current arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State, the prime responsibility for local roads in Queensland. The Queensland Government's dismal record in this respect should be sheeted home to it. The effect of the bicentennial road program was to assist both local government and the State road construction authorities to bring about a more even development of their road programs. That is not taking place in Queensland principally because of the attitude taken by the Queensland Government. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Government's refusal to release some of the documents and papers it provided to the Australian Council of Trade Unions prior to the Budget . I also refer to the Government's stated reason for the refusal which was that the release of the material would be against the public interest and should remain secret so as not to jeopardise the confidential basis of discussions between the ACTU and the Government. Why was it not in the public interest to give the information to the public but in the public interest to give it to the ACTU? Secondly, why was the ACTU given Budget information denied to other groups in the community? Thirdly, was the ACTU sworn to secrecy? Finally, is freedom of information being subverted by Ministers? Senator BUTTON —I do not suspect that even Senator Walters would expect me to begin with a confession that freedom of information was being subverted by the Government, so the answer to the last part of the question is no. Insofar as the earlier parts of the question are concerned, I will have examined the question of whether the material, if any, which was provided to the ACTU was refused general release on the grounds of public interest. I am very doubtful whether information which was given to the ACTU was not given to other bodies which were engaged in Budget consultations with the Government. I will obtain further details in relation to the specifics of the question and give Senator Walters an answer in due course. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am sure that Senator Button would know that Mr Howard applied for the information under the freedom of information legislation. Senator Button has indicated to the Senate that he is not aware that Mr Howard was refused that information. It is for that reason that I wonder whether Senator Button will now answer why the information was refused under the freedom of information legislation. Senator BUTTON —I will not answer that question. Mr Howard has the rights of redress, of course, by way of appeal against any refusal. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As I have received many representations from people in isolated regions in New South Wales regarding the difficulties they experience in gaining access to the services of the Department, can the Minister take steps to facilitate access for these people not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that many hundreds of aged veterans living in remote regions not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia are prevented from being reached by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and therefore are unaware of the range of services that the Department can provide for them. The difficulty, of course, is to find the means by which we can communicate to them the range of services that are provided. In recent times the Department has taken steps to extend the six regional offices that we had previously established in Darwin, Townsville, Wollongong, Newcastle, Ballarat and Canberra, for the purposes of moving them from an inquiry-type office to a more regional office capable, therefore, of reaching a greater number of persons. The Secretary to the Department has had an experience this year which indicates, in co-operation with the veterans' organisations, the value of going into some of the small rural towns with a view to providing at least a communications link with the veterans. That is an experiment which we shall continue. In addition to that, we are having discussions with the Department of Social Security with a view to establishing a pilot scheme so that we may use the extensive network of regional outlets of that Department for the purpose of providing, again, a single officer moving through such a network with a view to reaching the aged veterans. In addition to that, we have established the 008 telephone service, which provides that at the cost of a local call, and wherever veterans may be throughout Australia, they can ring direct to a State branch office or one of the regional offices regarding their claim or their benefit, or to discuss whatever problem they may be having about, say, a pharmaceutical benefit, or what have you. So, generally speaking, we are taking as many steps as possible, in this period of economic restraint, to reach those people who live in the remote areas. I believe that those steps will prove successful in realising the objective of providing accessible services for all entitled to such benefits. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. It relates to the Minister's espousal of means towards more equal outcomes of education. Has she seen the suggestion attributed to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission that the higher school certificate marks of certain disadvantaged students should be augmented artificially? That is a matter rather similar to the exercise carried out under her portfolio in 1983, when women students in the Australian Capital Territory had their marks augmented solely on the basis of their gender. Will she assure the Senate that whatever steps are taken to facilitate the entry of the disadvantaged, whether this be by mature age entry or other special entry, or enclave programs, et cetera, there will be no artificial non-academic adjustment of student marks obtained in an examination as important as the higher school certificate? Senator RYAN —I do not know why Senator Peter Baume asks me to give those sorts of assurances, since he will be very well aware that it is not the role of the Commonwealth Minister for Education to undertake assessments of students for entry into colleges of advanced education or universities. As he knows very well , those institutions establish their own entry criteria, and it is not our Government's intention to change that situation-which does not alter the fact that public debate and discussion about who gets into university and who does not get into university, and whether the present arrangements are equitable and make the best use of our available talent, can go ahead. Of course those subjects can be discussed. There seems to be some fundamental opposition to any genuine discussion or debate about legitimate issues in education in this country on the part of the Opposition. I am not surprised, since in the present Opposition's period of office it showed absolutely no capacity for policy development or reform in any of the areas of great concern to the public. The other very interesting thing about the stance that Senator Baume likes to adopt publicly when discussions about entrance criteria or assessment criteria enter the public domain is the stance that everything is absolutely fair and equal the way that it operates now. Senator Baume seems to think that there is an absolute, unavoidable, irresistible objectivity about the fact that one student might get a certain tertiary entrance score in the higher school certificate examination in New South Wales and another student might get another . He seems to think that there is total objectivity prevailing when one student from out in the western suburbs of Sydney from a disadvantaged background, perhaps from a non-English speaking family, scores 365 marks in the HSC and a student up on the North Shore of Sydney, where Senator Baume lives, who has been to one of the best resourced schools in the country and comes from a middle- class family with all the support and back-up that such families are able to provide, gets 365 marks. Senator Baume seems to think that the two outcomes are totally and absolutely equivalent. Those of us who have given a little more thought to the social circumstances in which education can flourish know that that is not the case. Those of us who have given thought to the current situation know that there are very serious distortions and imbalances in the way that students in this country become eligible for higher education. It is not the intention of our Government to interfere with the way in which institutions decide to assess students. However, we believe that it is in the interests of improving equity and quality of education to accept, and indeed to facilitate, public debate. Of course, I was very interested in the remarks made by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Mr Hudson. I am sure that honourable senators were also interested in them. Because they were printed only in very abbreviated form in the newspaper I would like to add some amplification to them which Mr Hudson has provided. He points out: The conclusion that students from lower socio-economic groups perform marginally better at universities and colleges than those with equivalent entry scores from higher socio-economic groups is based on work published by Terence Dunn in the 'Journal of Education' in 1982. He did a sample survey of students at the University of Melbourne. His work confirms the fact that students from lower socio-economic groups normally have greater difficulty in studying at home and experience less supportive parental and peer group attitudes towards tertiary education. In addition, they normally attend schools which are less well-organised in preparing students for public examinations. I have made it clear in any comment that public examination arrangements and admission practices are a matter for the States. However, it is worth noting that over the last dozen years or so substantial changes have taken place through higher education institutions allowing alternative methods of entry and through the introduction, or partial introduction, of school assessment. At all educational levels it is readily acknowledged that special arrangements must be made for Aboriginal students-the extreme of socio-economic disadvantage. The fundamental point is that the need for special arrangements does not stop there but should extend into those areas of socio-economic disadvantage within our community which, while not as serious as those experienced by Aboriginal students, are still significant. It is quite clear that Mr Hugh Hudson, the Chairman of the Commission, was not seeking to usurp the authority of the States or of institutions in this matter. I believe he was absolutely proper in drawing to public attention the facts that are very well known to researchers in this area which are that students from poorer backgrounds have much more difficulty in achieving the necessary scores to get into higher education institutions and that that difficulty is not related to their ability or to their motivation. In fact, as the study that Mr Hudson referred to pointed out, such students actually do better than their marks indicate. The reason for that is quite clear. Because they have had to struggle and to overcome those difficulties they are obviously well able to deal with the challenges of higher education. I think it would be a great relief and a very welcome change for the education community if Senator Baume, instead of nitpicking about peripheral issues, addressed himself to the real issues confronting people administering education and formulating education policy such as the issue of quality which we want to improve for all students and the issue of equity which, if not of great interest to the Liberal Party of Australia, is certainly of fundamental interest to our Party and to our Government. Senator GILES —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a paper on tax, social security and incentive measures, written by Caroline Boyd, James Jordan and Michael Porter of the Centre of Policy Studies and supported by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard? This paper's outstanding contribution to Liberal policy is its advocacy of a flat rate income tax of 30 per cent. Will the Minister inform the Senate of whether the Government supports a flat rate tax? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the paper to which Senator Giles has referred, prepared by, as I think she stated, the Centre of Policy Studies. I do not think the people concerned with the Centre of Policy Studies would object if I described them as an ultraconservative group. That paper was obtained by me and, I understand, by other members of the Government this morning but, evidently, was available to the discredited former Treasurer yesterday. I do not know whether from that one should draw the conclusion that there was some collusion between the authors of the paper and the discredited former Treasurer. Senator Durack —What about the discredited present Minister? Senator WALSH —I am certainly not aware of the present Treasurer being discredited in any way whatsoever. I am aware of Senator Durack being discredited by the fact that for five years, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia, he allowed to gather dust in the bottom drawer a recommendation for the prosecution of tax evaders. I am aware of that. I am certainly not aware though of the present Treasurer being in any way discredited . Mr President, I return to the substance of the question. I will try not to be distracted by any further foolish interjections. The paper proposed a 30 per cent flat rate of tax with a $4,000 tax free income threshold. In fact, if such a policy were applied there would be a revenue deficiency of the order of $4 billion. The paper goes on to suggest that consumption taxes should be increased -presumably to cover that revenue deficit. I guess it is a matter of opinion as to whether that ought to be done or not. It should be noted for the record that if that course of action was chosen the consumer price index would increase by something between 5 and 6 per cent. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to propose a change in the tax system which would increase the CPI to that extent without at least addressing the question of what the effects would be on the wage indexation and the incomes policy for as long as increases in indirect taxes continue to be incorporated into the consumer price index and, therefore, under existing policy, into wage indexation arrangements. Of course, this would have the reverse effect to the very beneficial effects of the Medicare policy which have led to a reduction in the consumer price index and therefore stability in award wages for a period of 12 months between April 1984 and April 1985. I have not read the whole paper but so far as I know the authors did not address that question of the CPI and subsequent wage index ation, inflation and interest rate effects. The rationale for the recommendation to move to indirect taxation is based on a couple of pretty naive assertions, one of which is that the avoidance and evasion of income tax is a function of the marginal tax rate or the size of the marginal tax rate. Of course, the most tax evasion and avoidance is conducted by higher income groups. In fact, the marginal tax rate in Australia for some years has been very much lower-some 6 per cent lower-than it had been for virtually all of the 1950s and the 1960s. The rapid increase in tax evasion and avoidance which occurred under the discredited former Government, assisted in no small measure of course by Senator Durack's refusal to take any action on recommendations for prosecution of tax evaders, was a function not of increasing marginal tax rates, because in fact the maximum marginal tax rates came down in that period, but of the negligence of the Government then in power and the bizarre decisions of the High Court of Australia which in those days, under the tutelage of Sir Garfield Barwick, almost always came down on the side of the tax evaders and avoiders. The second naive assumption in the recommended move into consumption taxes is the assumption that consumption taxes will not be evaded. Certainly some types of consumption tax are difficult to evade but consumption taxes or consumption based upon or associated with the cash economy is, by definition, unrecorded consumption and unrecorded transactions. Therefore of course it would be just as easy-indeed, easier-to evade a consumption tax on unrecorded transactions conducted via the cash economy as it is to evade income tax. Finally, there are references in the paper to incentives to work, to stimulate employment and that high marginal tax rates are a deterrent to employment and production and so on. That seems to be a resurrection of the supply side economic theories of Professor Arthur Laffer, which I think even the Reagan Administration has now abandoned. Finally, the paper has concentrated on marginal tax rates and not on average tax rates. I have here a table showing the average tax rates under the tax schedule that will be in existence up to 1 November and the new schedule that will replace that existing schedule on 1 November 1984. At all ranges of income up to $40,000 the average rate of taxation paid is reduced and the greatest reductions in the average rate of tax which will be paid are at the lower end of the income scale. They progressively taper off as one moves to $40,000. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 8 October 1984, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Commonwealth Government to clarify its intentions with respect to overriding uniform land rights legislation by stating, without equivocation, whether it will legislate in accordance with its five principles including giving Aboriginals the right to veto mining on their land or whether it will accept State approaches which deny the veto.' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Commonwealth Government to clarify its intentions with respect to overriding uniform land rights legislation by stating, without equivocation, whether it will legislate in accordance with its five principles including giving Aboriginals the right to veto mining on their land or whether it will accept State approaches which deny the veto. The Opposition brings this matter forward as a motion of urgency because there is a great amount of concern among the public, Aboriginals and miners about the Government's intentions in this area. We have a clear conflict between what is proposed in the State of Western Australia and what is proposed in the policy documents of the present Government. Just a few minutes ago in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, said that he did not intend to prejudge the legislation that was to be introduced by the Burke Government, and lauded the fact that the Commonwealth was taking part in the preparation of that legislation. The fact is that it is already clear and on public record-it is clear from the documents which have been issued by Premier Burke-that there is a substantial and important conflict of principle between the Burke Government and the Commonwealth Government. It is important that the people of Australia, including the Aboriginal people and the resource industries, should know whether this Government proposes to impose its views on the whole of Australia or whether it intends to accept the various solutions which have been worked out around the States. It is important to remember that this is not just a matter of a potential conflict between the views of those who live in Western Australia and the views of those who run this Government. None of the land arrangements, whether in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland or New South Wales, meets the requirements of the five principles which have been laid down by the Federal Government-and in particular none meets the requirement that there should be Aboriginal control of mining. I refer to the Government's supposed policy position which has been laid out on a number of occasions. I wish to refer to two sources. The first is the Minister himself who, in a statement on 8 December 1983 and on other occasions, affirmed what he saw as the five key principles. Those principles-I shall not go through them all-include a particular form of title under which the land should be held, and that is a matter on which there is considerable variation from State to State. It affirms the protection of Aboriginal sites, a matter on which there is unanimous agreement in this chamber although there is significant difference as to whether that should be done by local or national legislation. The third key point outlined by the Minister was that there should be Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land . If we turn to the constitutional documents of the ALP which are supposedly binding on this Government, we find a more specific statement. We find that there is a commitment to incorporate in its land rights legislation the following principles: Aboriginal and Islander people shall have the right to refuse permission for mining on their land or to impose conditions under which mining may proceed. To set aside a refusal, or conditions imposed, shall require an Act of Parliament. I do not think there could be a clearer indication that the shorthand expression which is widely used, that there should be an Aboriginal veto or there should not be an Aboriginal veto, rightly expresses the policy commitment which has been laid down by the ALP. I contrast that with the statement which was put out by Premier Burke recently which includes as one of his conditions that there will be no Aboriginal veto on mining or exploration. The Premier at the time that he issued his statement of principles indicated that that was one of the principles which were non-negotiable. In other words, although it may be true that the Western Australian Government is involving the mining industry, the pastoral industry and this Government in the preparation of legislation, the fact is that the Premier has made it clear already that the question of Aborginal veto is not negotiable. So we have, whatever the results of that legislative effort, a conflict between the Federal Government on its fundamental principle and the views which have been adopted even by its State Labor colleagues. I believe that this is all just part of a conscious effort to postpone this issue, to take if off the political agenda. The Government is simply trying to use woolly words to obscure its real intentions. I remind the Senate that this debate is taking place in the context of a recent demonstration by this Government that it is prepared to legislate nationally in at least one of the areas of its five basic principles. We had a lengthy debate in this place about the heritage legislation which was passed notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberal and National parties. That was a firm legislative act by the Hawke Labor Government to impose a national solution in that area. I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to come clean with the Australian people and with the many groups which have a fundamental interest in this area and to let us know whether it intends to introduce other legislation which will similarly impose a national view in accordance with the five principles. We have brought this matter forward because it appears clear to us that there has been a quite deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to obscure its stance on this issue. I refer to both the statement which was issued by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Premier of Western Australia last Friday and some of the reports and further comments which were elicited on that day. We find if we look at the various reports which were made of that statement some various interpretations. We find, for example, that in Western Australia it was reported that there was Canberra land rights support for Burke and that the Premier was confident that the Federal Government would not legislate to override the Western Australian Aboriginal land rights package. We find a similar interpretation in another Western Australian newspaper, the Western Mail . That newspaper concluded that Mr Burke had won a free hand. Yet we find that at the same time doubts are being cast upon the Commonwealth's real intentions. The Western Mail stated: But Aboriginal leaders who met Mr Hawke later yesterday- that was on Friday- left saying that the Prime Minister had not guaranteed WA that Federal legislation would not apply in the State. Of course, Mr Hawke has a habit of saying what his audience wishes to hear. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr Hawke told the Premier of Western Australia a rather confused yes on the one hand and told the Aboriginals something different a little later the same day. We find the Sydney Morning Herald reporting the same thing. It said: A spokesman for Mr Hawke refused to say whether this meant that the veto of mining would be imposed on the States through national legislation. The sad fact is that the Government is not game to speak clearly on this matter. It is the view of the Opposition that the Government is bound both in fairness and in equity and as a matter of justice to the people with whom it is dealing to come clean on this issue. What words were actually used by the Prime Minister and the Premier? Let us look at what they said. I quote their Press release which states: The Federal and State Governments will work together to ensure that common principles are adopted in the formulation of land rights legislation. The Commonwealth remains committed to its constitutional responsibilities in this area, but in fulfilling these responsibilities the Federal Government will acknowledge the particular needs of Western Australia. It is that latter sentence I have read, on which the interpretation that the Commonwealth will not intervene, is based. But I point out that in the first sentence that I read there is no attempt to identify just what are the common principles that are to be adopted. As I pointed out, a non-negotiable principle has been put forward by Mr Burke that there should be no Aboriginal veto and there is a fundamental principle put forward by Mr Holding that there should be an Aboriginal veto. I believe it would be the simplest thing in the world for the Government to tell the truth in this matter and to indicate whether it does intend to impose, by its legislative fiat, its will on the people of Australia, including all of the five principles which have been laid down. I do not think there is any shortage of evidence of political duck-shoving in this matter. The fact is that the Government has not got the courage to declare its position. Right through last week we had stories about the differences between Mr Holding and Mr Hawke on this issue of land rights. We had Mr Hawke saying that the Government would make the position quite clear before the election. We had Mr Holding denying that that would be the case because of the continuing discussion with the various interest groups. Mr Hawke and Mr Holding, subsequent to their differences of opinion, issued a joint statement denying that Mr Hawke's comments meant that there would be a major pre-election announcement about land rights. If that is true, I can only say that it is a matter of great regret because if that means that the Commonwealth is not going to make its position clear, it is simply being dishonest with the electors of Australia. Why should we be concerned about all this ducking and weaving? I put it to the Senate that this is not just a matter of electoral importance, although it is certainly that. It was very interesting to see Premier Burke going out and being interviewed by the television stations on Friday and making comments about the fact that this was an issue which could cost five or six seats for the Labor Party in Western Australia. I think it is a pity that this should be an issue because I think it is an issue which needs to be put to bed before we have an election. That is the way I advocate it should be dealt with. I make the quite separate point to the Government: Quite apart from the electoral difficulties in which it finds itself on this issue, the whole question of uncertainty is a key problem in the continuing operation of Aboriginal affairs and in the continual development of working policies in this area. As I have said in other debates in this place there is a worsening public reaction because of the uncertainties which are abroad. There is a worsening public reaction which is tied up with the fact that the commitments which the Government has made are so open-ended as to make it uncertain as to what the end result will be. I believe that the worst aspect of all this is that the uncertainty is causing anti-Aboriginal reaction in the community. I do not believe that that is a good thing. I think it is an extremely unhealthy thing. It is something that I believe can only be avoided if this Government adopts certain policies. Indeed, I would go further: I believe that the Government will have to be prepared to admit to the Aboriginal people that it has made a series of promises to them which it cannot keep and, not only that, should not keep. It has gone further than it should have and I believe that the sooner it tidies this issue up and gets it back on to a more realistic basis, the sooner we will resume some reasonable progress in the whole field of Aboriginal affairs. There is, in fact, a whole series of people or groups who are entitled to be considered by the Government in this matter. I should, I suppose, refer first to the broad mass of Australians, many of whom are concerned at the apparent open- endedness of commitments being given by the Government. I am sure they are concerned in part because the legislation which we, the now Opposition, passed in 1976 proved to be more open-ended than we would have thought. It certainly included a greater volume of land or area of land than had been predicted. The open-endedness as to the time of claims and the fact that there are continuing land use conflicts, particularly in the areas of mining, have all combined to cause concern in the community. I do not believe that that concern will be allayed until this Government makes its overall position far clearer than it has at present. If, on the other hand, the Government simply says 'We intend to impose the five principles and we intend to impose them whatever the States decide and whatever the form of legislation that has already been adopted by the States' at least we know where we stand and at least the people of Australia know where they stand. The second group of people that I think are entitled to consideration are those many Aboriginals who have had certain promises made to them and whose votes have been bought with those promises. Over the last seven or eight years I have spent a fair bit of time in areas where there are large Aboriginal populations. I have seen the active campaigning of the Australian Labor Party which has very effectively purchased the votes of Aboriginal people who have wanted as much as the Government is now prepared to offer and more, as indeed all of us would want as much as we can obtain. The fact of the matter is that the Government finds itself now, I am sure, in something of a moral dilemma. It finds itself in a situation where it cannot deliver on its promises, or it finds difficulty in doing so and has to do so over the objections of many of its own supporters here and certainly in the States. Yet it has made those promises. The proper course for the government to take is to remove those elements of its promises which are unrealistic, which go beyond what is acceptable to Australian people. I believe that it has to face up to the very real difficulties which have been identified not just by the Opposition or the mining industry but also by people in its own ranks, such as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), very many other Labor observers and even the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, in debate in this chamber. I think the Government has to be concerned about the situation of the resource industries. I do not need to stress just how deeply concerned the mining companies and the explorers are at the problems which are faced in the Northern Territory. It is hard to have a debate on this issue without a good deal of vituperation. I hope that we manage to have this debate today without accusations of being our racist and other sorts of things which tend to fly round in the Australian community when debates of this sort are being brought on . I remind the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is seated at the table, that her colleague Senator Walsh, in a debate in the Senate in May this year, made clear his concerns about the mining situation. When he was asked by a Labor senator to attack Mr Morgan for his comment on Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites Senator Walsh said in part: I denounce the terms in which he puts his case, but the terms in which a case is put or exaggerated do not in my view necessarily invalidate the case itself. I and other members of the Government are concerned that, since 1981, 165 exploration licences have been offered to 42 companies on Aboriginal land and none has successfully negotiated a consent agreement. So 165 exploration prospects, not necessarily mining prospects, have been held up for almost three years because consent cannot be negotiated. A little later Senator Walsh said: I think there is some reason to be concerned. There is a prima facie case, at least in my view, that in some instances difficulties are being incited by non- aboriginal people . . . And so his statement goes on. I remind the Senate of that because I think the difficulties the Government faces are not just political difficulties. They are real difficulties and they have to be addressed as such. I am concerned also about the situation of State governments and I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that there is an extraordinary range of approaches which have been devised by the State governments around Australia to meet what are often very diverse circumstances for Aboriginal people and their requirements for land. Again, it is a matter where governments of different colours have arrived at quite different approaches. But I believe that the differences are as much related to the factual differences they face as they are to doctrinal differences. It is a fact that the Labor Government in New South Wales, in its rather limited land rights legislation, has provided very limited control over all but the minor minerals. That Government would have to be overridden, the Bjelke-Petersen Government would have to be overridden, the Cain Labor Government would have to be overridden and the Labor Government in South Australia would have to be overridden if these principles are to be applied. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider this not as a partisan issue but as an issue of great practical difficulty and one that needs to be sorted out quickly. I speak also on behalf of the Opposition which, in this area, has defined its own position with a great deal of care and has indicated that, while it would support the continuance of the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory , it believes that we must learn from the eight years of its operation and that significant changes should be made in that Territory. We also believe that it is important that the diverse solutions, which are possible in a federation, be pursued on a federal basis and that we should avoid the sort of overriding legislation which is threatened by this Government and which is certainly advocated by at least some of its members. I remind the Senate that I am supported in the sorts of views I have expressed by the views expressed by Senator Walsh as recently as yesterday, when he talked to the National Drilling Conference about the need to ensure access to land, and by the much older approach of Mr Campbell in Kalgoorlie who attacked the issue of land rights as it had been handled in Western Australia. The truth is that the Government is doing great damage in this area to Aboriginal people, to Australia and indeed now I think to itself. I ask the Government to make its stance quite clear. I ask it to answer this simple question: Will it or will it not override the States on these basic points? Will it impose its five principles? I ask it to come clean to the Aboriginals, whose votes it has sought and bought with its promises, to the miners it now soothes and to the State governments and Premiers it now soothes. I ask it to tell the people of Australia: Does it intend to impose, through Canberra legislation, the five principles, whatever the States of Australia may choose to do to find their own diverse solutions to this question? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.31) —Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Opposition, has brought before the Senate today a matter of urgency concerning what the Opposition sees as a need for our Government to clarify its intentions with respect to uniform land rights legislation. Given the failure of the Opposition to contribute anything positive towards resolution of this most complex problem, one must ask what the motive of the Opposition is in bringing this matter forward today. I have noted, as my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding, has noted in the other place, a distinct lack of interest during the last few months by the Federal Opposition in matters Aboriginal, including Aboriginal land rights. Why is it that suddenly we have from Senator Chaney a matter of urgency on land rights, in particular concerning our government's intentions which, I might say, have been stated clearly and will continue to be stated clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and by the Minister. I must put on the record my view of why Senator Chaney has raised this matter today; indeed, it is already in the public domain. I refer, for example, to an article in today's Australian headed 'Libs drop crime for other issues'. The article purports to give a report of a meeting of the Federal Opposition on its electoral campaign strategy. It points out: The Opposition's most recent opinion polls show that organised crime, while still retaining the electorate's interest, was not among the major issues. It says that the consultants who conducted the surveys briefed the Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock, and discussed the results. It continued: It is believed the polls show that the assets test, Medicare, taxation, unemployment, Aboriginal land rights and immigration are the leading issues. These will form the main thrust of the weeks' parliamentary tactics. Unfortunately it is not any desire by members of the Opposition to contribute to a resolution of the land rights problem that has caused them to bring this matter here today: It is simply a totally cynical change of tactics. Given that they are at the nadir of their public popularity and given that their leader's ratings are, I think, as low as has ever been recorded since popularity ratings for political leaders have been recorded, they have chosen simply to scrabble up a few votes from those with racist predilections or those who are able to be scared by the kinds of campaigns that Senator Chaney's colleagues in the Western Australian Liberal Party have run with some effect in that State, to utilise the sensitivity and controversy which surrounds this most serious issue. I must say that I regard it as a most cynical and regrettable exercise that they have entered upon. In support of what I say I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the Liberal Party, much less the National Party, has offered no answers to the question of how land rights can be implemented. We know that from its own defective experience when in Government. We know that Senator Chaney was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when the disgraceful Noonkanbah episode occurred . We know that, whatever Senator Chaney's private views or even his personal views publicly stated about land rights might be, his Party does not support him ; and we know that the coalition partner, the National Party, is totally opposed to land rights in any shape or form. So, there are no answers coming from the Opposition side of the chamber in this respect. I must comment too on the various claims that Senator Chaney made in his remarks. He accused us of dilatoriness or procrastination in not commenting on the legislation of the Western Australian Government. That legislation does not even exist. There is no way we can make comment on legislation that does not exist. What we have done, and what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs have done on our behalf, is to have discussions with the Western Australian Government and jointly to plan for the drafting of that legislation so that it will incorporate our principles regarding land rights legislation. Senator Chaney drew attention to the public statement made after the Prime Minister and Mr Burke met last week. That Press statement points to the fact that there will be an officer of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs working with the drafting committee in Western Australia so that the principles can be properly expressed. Of course, Senator Chaney's motion uses the term 'overriding legislation' in a particularly provocative way which we consider most inappropriate. Senator Chaney is trying to set us up in confrontation with our State colleagues in Western Australia and with other State governments throughout this country. I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that it is not the intention of our Government to get into gratuitous confrontation when the possibility of consultation and working together to a common end remains. We believe that possibility remains, and we have very good reason for believing it. The term ' overriding' simply reflects the desperation of the Opposition to try to whip up a bit of a brawl on this issue. We will not be provoked because our concern is not the gaining of a few votes in this matter. It is quite clear from the polls published in various organs of the media this week and last week that we are not in desperate search for votes. We do not have to treat every issue as if the fate of our Government depended on it. Clearly it does not. So we are determined to approach this issue in a proper, careful and sensitive fashion. To do that we have to approach it carefully and in consultation with all the relevant parties. There is no need for us to jump the gun and say that the legislation shall be so and so or else we will override it. Consultations are already taking place. The consultations have been fruitful and there are further opportunities for consultation to take place. The term 'overriding' fails to recognise that legislative action by the States could well be seen as complementary to the Government's legislation. In any area in which the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility there is a potential for conflict with actions of individual States. The resolution of such complex issues takes time and our Government has set in train a process of consultation with the Aboriginal people and with representatives of the mining industry, the pastoral industry and State governments to ensure a satisfactory ultimate resolution of these matters. Senator Chaney devoted a great deal of his time to the principles announced by our Government. He referred to them briefly at the outset and I will refer to them again. He seems to think there is some resiling from those principles by our Government. There is not. Let me make that quite clear. The five principles referred to mention as No. (iii): Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; It should be noted that the word 'veto', which has a general meaning of refusal to consent, does not appear in those principles. Nor does it appear, I point out , in the Federal platform of the Party. Both the principles and the Federal platform point out the opportunity for Aboriginal land owners to oppose mining, but that opportunity is to be qualified by other matters. For example, our Federal platform provides: Aboriginal and Islander people shall have the right to refuse permission for mining on their land or to impose conditions under which mining may proceed. To set aside a refusal, or conditions imposed, shall require an Act of parliament; It is clear in our Federal platform and has been clear in all our statements that there are cases where the national interest or possibly State interests must prevail. We have never advocated an unqualified veto and our negotiations with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal landowners have been completely honest in that respect. It is my view that Aboriginal people themselves accept the existence of the national interest and accept that in some circumstances it may have to prevail. What we are seeking to find is a proper and effective way in which Aboriginal control over the entry of mining into their land can be properly expressed with due justice being accorded all parties. Our Government is concerned with developing our uniform principles to meet the grave concerns of Aboriginal people about control of the impact of mining on their land. The major, but not singular, concern of Aboriginal people has been to ensure protection of their sacred sites of significance from the desecration which may be caused by uncontrolled mining activities and to ensure that their communities have certain safeguards in respect of the impact of those activities on their lives and society. These are reasonable and justifiable concerns and ones, no doubt, with which Senator Chaney would agree. The question of whether or not a veto is the most appropriate way to deal with this problem is currently being considered by the Government and, importantly, by the Aboriginal steering committee set up by the Government to advise on an Aboriginal perspective on these matters. In this context a number of points of view have been put in relation to the nature and degree of Aboriginal control over mining and these are still being considered with a view to achieving a balance of interests which protects Aboriginal interests but does not raise the spectre of the chief political stance which can be taken to argue that Aboriginal people are against national development. It should be borne in mind when discussing these issues that control does not necessarily mean veto nor, as I have indicated, does veto necessarily present the best way of protecting Aboriginal interests. At present the whole parameter of models available is being considered. The Commonwealth has made it clear that it expects the States to adopt certain standards in relation to these principles and if the States are able to accommodate these principles the degree or effect of any Commonwealth legislation would have to be seen as proportional. However, the Government does have a clear constitutional responsibility in this area and maintains its commitment to that responsibility. Senator Chaney seems to have lost interest in the debate so I repeat for his benefit that the Commonwealth acknowledges its clear constitutional responsibility in the area and maintains its responsibility to that commitment. There has been a great deal of argument which centres on the proposition that the needs of Aboriginal people vary throughout Australia. As a proposition this is incontrovertible. However, the Commonwealth wishes to ensure that the rights of Aboriginal people are uniform throughout Australia. The way in which the rights are expressed or protected may be different but the rights fundamentally ought to be the same. Of course this will not be an easy position to achieve but ultimately it will be in the best interests of not only the Aboriginal people but also of all the interests with which they have to deal. In a referendum the Australian people gave this power to the Commonwealth and no government of any political persuasion can divorce itself from its ultimate responsibilities. Senator Chaney, in drawing this matter to the attention of the Senate today, seemed to suggest that there was something incomplete or shifting in our position on this matter. There is not. We have stated the principles. The principles have been referred to in debate. Those principles stand and what we will be seeking to do, in consultation with State governments, is achieve complementary State legislation which will reflect and manifest those principles in a workable and effective way. However, it would not do to let the moment pass as if the coalition parties in opposition had any clear or effective position on this most important issue. A quick survey of the situation in the various States and the Northern Territory identifies the reality when it comes down to land rights. New South Wales has its own legislation providing grants of Aboriginal land. What happened in New South Wales? The New South Wales Opposition opposes land rights. In Victoria legislation is currently being examined which provides the granting of Aboriginal land in that State. The Liberal Opposition in Victoria totally opposes Aboriginal land rights. In South Australia legislation has been enacted providing for the granting of Aboriginal land, most recently at Maralinga, and that happened in the face of stiff opposition on behalf of the Liberal Opposition. In Western Australia-Senator Chaney's State-the Burke Government has committed itself to legislation for the granting of Aboriginal land rights. The Liberal Opposition parties in Western Australia totally oppose the concept of land rights. Not only do they oppose the concept of land rights but they have engaged in a most dishonest, fearmongering and racist campaign against the concept of land rights. The last time this matter was debated in this chamber I tabled for inclusion in the debate some of the material put out by the Liberal Party in Western Australia which was calculated to cause tremendous damage to the Aboriginal cause and undermine the Burke Government's capacity to deliver on land rights. However, we believe that that capacity has not ultimately been undermined and that land rights will be delivered. The position adopted by the Burke Government may well be seen by Aboriginal people as being less than they would have hoped but it is equally true that there were other sections of the Western Australian community who held very strong views as to what should be done in relation to the granting of Aboriginal land rights. In that environment, and in the knowledge that the Opposition parties were totally opposed to Aboriginal land rights, it has been difficult for the Burke Government to come to terms with the best way of carrying out its responsibilities to Aboriginal people. However, it should be understood that any comment regarding the proposed principles announced by Mr Burke should await the development of legislation which will give effect to the principles. It should also be understood that such legislation will be developed in consultation with those groups in the community which consider themselves to be most directly affected. That is a position which stands in stark contrast to the negative and totally destructive behaviour of the Western Australian Opposition. As I have said our Government-the Federal Government-will continue to be closely involved with the development of the Western Australian legislation and will continue to encourage that Government, along with all other State governments, to meet the valid and legitimate needs of Aboriginal people. That undertaking, as does our performance, stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Federal Opposition. I must ask: Where was Mr Porter, the Federal shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, when Mr Hassell, his Liberal Party colleague in Western Australia, recently announced total Liberal opposition to Aboriginal land rights? Did Mr Porter indicate what action the Federal Government would take in relation to that stand if Mr Hassell were to assume office in Western Australia after the next election? The same applies in relation to New South Wales and Victoria. Does Mr Porter announce to the world that the position the Federal Liberal Party has adopted stands in stark contrast to the announced position of his counterparts and colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria? If anything Mr Porter should make clear to the electorate in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales precisely what action he would take if he were in office-a most unlikely event, I must admit-to implement the stated policies of his Party. Time is short so I think I should be completely clear about where our Party stands. Australian Labor Party policy has always been to ensure that Aboriginals are able to exercise general control in relation to mining operations conducted on Aboriginal land. The Government remains firmly committed to that policy. What needs to be settled is the most effective and equitable way to give effect to that policy. 'No veto' does not mean no control, nor does it mean no capacity to oppose. We need to find an equitable way whereby opposition to mining, if that is the belief of the Aboriginal owners, or terms and conditions placed on mining , can be carried out effectively and in a way that is equitable to all concerned . The real impact of mining on Aboriginal people is twofold: There is the effect of mining on Aboriginal sites; there is the establishment of a non-Aboriginal community in proximity to Aboriginal communities. The Labor Government is firmly committed to the protection of Aboriginal sites. We have enacted national legislation to that effect. None of the dire predictions of the Liberal Opposition in relation to that legislation has come to pass. It was purported that all kinds of obstructionist or mischievous claims would be made and that our Federal Minister would meekly acquiesce in them. As it happened, two of the early claims-one concerning the Harding River dam and one concerning the Daintree Rainforest area-were not able to be accepted by the Federal Government because they did not clearly fit within the scope of the legislation. Those two examples should have established quite clearly that our Government is responsible when it comes to national legislation operating sensibly in conjunction with the States and that a national approach can work. We continue to be committed to a national approach and to uniform principles. It is absolutely outrageous of Senator Chaney to claim that there is some mystery or some concealment as to what those principles are. They are on record They appear in a publication which has been circulating in the community for some months, put out by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Those principles remain. What also remains to be done is a proper development of legislation which will incorporate those principles in a fair and equitable way. We have made many undertakings. Most recently, in the last few days, we have undertaken to work with the Burke Government so that those principles can be incorporated. We shall adopt the same complementary supportive approach to all State governments in this matter insofar as that is possible. It is our wish to have uniform principles implemented in the ways that meet the diverse needs of Aboriginal people throughout this land. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.51) —The Australian Democrats have always had a very strong policy on Aboriginal land rights and we continue to support this idea very strongly. It is long overdue. It is necessary that action be taken. Although we do not accept a range of the wording of the motion, undoubtedly there is a need for the Commonwealth Government to clarify its intentions. It is a need from the point of view of the Aboriginal communities. When Senator Chaney was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in a foreword to 'Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory', he said: The Act represents a genuine attempt to compensate for the dispossession and dispersal suffered by Australia's indigenous people. In other words, the context in which we are talking about land rights must be seen in the context of dispossession. That is the proposition that must be addressed. That is the area to which we must pay attention. On 20 February 1975 the Senate adopted the following motion, which was moved by Senator Bonner, the only Aboriginal who has ever been elected to this chamber: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay; urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for the dispossession of their land. That proposition was reaffirmed by the Opposition parties this year, so at least every group in this chamber is in agreement with that. Earlier this year, the Opposition parties went on to state the following: The original inhabitants were dispossessed and many of them were dispersed, with the result that their descendants are, as a group, amongst the most disadvantaged in Australian society. In other words, there is total agreement that the area about which we are talking is the area of dispossession. We are talking not about charity but about justice. We are talking about the legal recognition of prior ownership. Let us be very clear that that is the context in which this debate should take place. We have unanimous agreement that the context in which we are talking is prior ownership of the land. Hence, what can we do about that? What should we do in terms of restitution and compensation? They are the items that we are discussing . Following on from that, we then look at the single issue which is the subject of this debate, that is, mining. Why this of all rights should be raised, why mining companies rather than so many other groups in society should be seen to have a particular interest in this, I am not at all sure. It is possibly because the mining companies have funded probably the largest campaign attacking land rights; hence that is why so much attention is being paid to it. Looking at that item, I quote again from Senator Chaney in a letter in 1976 referring to the Australian Mining Industry Council and its statement about Aboriginal owners having the power to veto mining on their land, specifically the item that we are discussing. He said: It is generally said that other people in Australia do not have this. In fact, owners of land in Australia are given substantial protection against mining without the landowner's consent. The extent of protection varies from State to State, but in my State of Western Australia all developed and cultivated land is protected. Even pasture, including uncleared pasture, cannot be mined without the consent of the owner and occupier if it is in bona fide and regular use. In many cases this gives the private landowner the opportunity to bargain with miners about the terms upon which consent will be given. So let us be clear that in Australia those rights exist. In my own State there are even more widespread rights, under certain titles going back to the last century, to give absolute veto to private owners. So it is not something which is new in this country. It is something which has been there and is in many people's hands already. I should like to look at the analogy which is being used and which is the fallacy of the whole argument. The analogy is to link Aboriginal communities with private owners. That is the essential fallacy of the argument that is taking place and it is the one to which I wish to look. I wish to draw an analogy not between Aboriginal communities and private owners but between Aboriginal communities and mining companies. May I develop that point. Let us look at that notion. Let us look, first, at what happens with a company in getting a mining title, be it for exploration or development. Those companies that succeed in obtaining exploration licences make no initial outlay in obtaining that right. It is granted by every State for a nominal fee. The titleholder then trades on the value of that title by negotiating joint venture farm-ins for further exploration or development activity. In many cases in Australia-and I am sure that most honourable senators know of at least one-small companies, having no substantial backing, have been able to use this valuable asset, the right to explore, for the purposes of a public flotation in which the promoters keep for themselves substantial numbers of vendor shares, which, after a time, they sell. That is a commercial operation. I put to the Senate that there is no commercial difference between these corporate people, on the one hand, and Aboriginal communities who would be given such a right to explore and develop, on the other hand. There is no reason why Aboriginal communities cannot go into the market-place and be venturers in the exploration and development process, negotiating a valuable asset. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about compensation. For goodness sake, what shall we give the Aboriginal people as compensation? Are we going to give them what Batman gave them? No, if it is to be compensation, it must be something genuine. Why not give them the same rights as we give to many corporate companies, a right to hold in their hands, as a negotiable and valuable asset, that exploration right? What is wrong with that? It is compensation. It is a commercial asset. It is valuable in the market-place. That is what we are talking about. So let us get away from drawing this analogy between people and the Aboriginal community; let us think of it in terms of Aboriginal communities and the corporate structure. I suggest to the Senate that if we look at it in that way, we can see that the corporate group, which we call a mining company, has no greater claim to the commercial position than another group selected by anyone-maybe a State government-as having the same right. That is so even if that selection is not made on the basis of a political handout. I am talking here not about the State laws but about the reality in this country. Everybody knows what the reality is. So let us not have any fuss about that. The reality is that a political patronage has gone on in this country in terms of exploration rights. It always has been. It probably always will be. The handing over of mineral exploration rights seems to me to be no different if they are handed over for that reason or if they are given to certain groups in recognition of a social need or, in this case, as restitution and compensation for dispossession of ownership. There is a constant assumption that the Aboriginal mining companies should not have to pay anything to Aboriginal communities. That assumption does not hold up because most mining companies end up paying other companies for exploration rights in this country. It is typical that the person who has the initial exploration right rarely carries it out. Mining companies are quite happy to pay for the right to explore. They always have been. So I suggest that we may very well be caught up in a conceptual problem of our own making from which I believe we must get away. More important than that assumption, of course, is the assumption made throughout this entire debate that Aboriginal communities do not want to mine. I think that again is a fallacy. After all, in this country at present mining is the greatest asset of Aboriginal communities and their greatest source of income . Senator Kilgariff —They want to mine. Senator MACKLIN —I know they want to mine, yet the assumption that they do not is often made. I make the point that if a traditional Aboriginal community decides against mining, if it decides that it is not appropriate for its land, its culture or its tradition, for mining to occur in a particular place, what would we be talking about if we said that that decision should be overridden? What are we talking about in terms of the rights of Aboriginal communities in this country? Surely, if there are to be any genuine land rights there has to be the right finally for the Aboriginal group in the protection of its cultural heritage and sites finally to be able to say no. The bias is not that way. The bias in Aboriginal communities is to mine, but they must have the right to say yes or no at that point. It seems to me that without that right we are talking about a fallacy. That is not only my view. It is also the view of every inquiry that has taken place in this country about Aboriginal rights. The point is finally made in those reports that it makes no sense if Aborigines do not have that right. It makes no sense to talk about self-determination if that right is taken away. I submit to the Senate that what we are talking about is the right for Aboriginal communities to enter the commercial market place with a valuable asset in their hands and not in the hands of some other group, that is, of a mining company. If we look at it in that frame we can see why mining companies are so concerned. Mining companies are looking for the exploration right because it is a valuable asset. The Australian Democrats contend that that valuable asset ought to be held by the Aboriginal communities, for their rights and negotiations in the market place and for the return to them of that valuable asset. We simply have then not a matter of principle, of saying 'equal rights for all Australians', but rather a simple commercial battle going on as to who shall own those rights. That is all we are talking about in the ultimate. The Australian Democrats believe that those commercial rights ought to be held by Aboriginal communities. The mining companies believe that they ought to have them because they mean money. Let us be very clear about that. We are not talking about whether to mine or not to mine. We are talking about who is actually going to make the money out of it. The Australian Democrats believe that, as a matter of compensation to the Aboriginal communities, they ought to make the money out of it and not the mining companies. I wish to refer to a part of the mythology in closing which is that negotiations have not taken place or that it is very difficult to get any return . At the moment exploration which takes place on Aboriginal land is totally tax deductible. I suggest to people that if they do not know how to work it out they should look at the provisions of Division 10 of the taxation Act. They will find that it is a commercial proposition which can be transacted and sold. As has been demonstrated in the evidence which has been given to all the inquiries, including the Seaman inquiry, the chances of successful mining exploration are a thousand to one. It certainly cannot be said that the reason exploration is not going ahead is that a guaranteed right to mine cannot be obtained. A thousand to one chance of successful exploration does not really hold up under those circumstances. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.06) —The matter of urgency that my Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has brought before us today is one of very great urgency in the community. It states: The need for the Commonwealth Government to clarify its intention with respect to overriding uniform land rights legislation by stating, without equivocation, whether it will legislate in accordance with its five principles including giving Aboriginals the right to veto mining on their land or whether it will accept State approaches which deny the veto. It may help the course of the debate if I were to restate the five principles which the Australian Labor Party put down as part of its policy regarding the implementation of land rights. They are: (i) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; (ii) protection of Aboriginal sites; (iii) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (iv) access to mining royalty equivalents; and (v) compensation for lost land to be negotiated. It is the third principle that has caused so much comment in the last few days. In fact, the Premier of Western Australia has said that Western Australia will not be legislating for land rights for Aborigines providing a right to veto mining. Senator Coleman —Now say why; it was because of the gerrymander in the Legislative Council and you know it. Senator MESSNER —I will come to that. I am sure I can satisfy Senator Coleman with a number of matters. The point that has been brought up by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in the course of her remarks is that somehow or other this Labor Government now in power sees some difference between the position that it took on, for instance, the dispute over Noonkanbah. Indeed, we can remember quite clearly those days and those debates when Senator Ryan, then in opposition, claimed in the Senate that the solution to the problem in Noonkanbah was for the Commonwealth to legislate. That is what we had. Senator Ryan —That is when there was a Liberal State Government which had no intention of doing anything at all. Senator MESSNER —I am merely drawing the honourable senator's attention to the fact that at that stage she saw every need to implement land rights by overriding State rights. We heard no talk by the then Opposition, the present Government, about consultations with the States about what kind of legislation we should have. We heard assertions of undaunted power being exercised by the Federal Government against the interests of the community generally and particularly against those of the Aboriginal community. For those fundamental reasons we have to look very much askance at some of the remarks of Senator Ryan today in relation to her policy and to her complaints about what the Opposition is doing in discussing this matter today. She says that the veto power would not be brought in without proper consultation. That sounds very strange when she seeks to make the point when discussing the third of the five principles that that principle means that Aboriginal control would have absolutely no sanction to it. When one looks at that and realises that the veto is the point which gives the Aboriginal control meaning then indeed it seems to me that Senator Ryan is right off with either a misunderstanding of her own position or, very much more likely, is trying to obfuscate the whole issue. Let us examine whether there has been a failure of government to communicate its point of view on this matter over the last 18 months or so. Of course, soon after the election of the Hawke Labor Government on 5 March 1983 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, outlined proposals at that time for uniform land rights. He indicated that that legislation would be in accordance with those principles we have just been talking about. In particular the question of veto was never defined in the vague and obfuscatory terms with which Senator Ryan is now seeking to cover her tracks. The legislation was to be brought down in the early part of 1984. Of course, we never saw that. There was an announcement that that legislation would be put back to August 1984. We never saw that either. Now, of course, it has been put off altogether, obviously until there is an election, when this Government, if re-elected, can reconsider that matter and, no doubt, have some more discussion when perhaps we will get some clearer view of what will happen. Of course, the whole point is that the Minister, Mr Holding, has become marooned on an island of his own rhetoric and obviously left alone not only by the State leaders of the Australian Labor Party-in particular I mention again Mr Burke-but also by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is only a matter of a few days ago when the Prime Minister, asked about this question indicated apparently there would be no legislation on uniform land rights whereas his Minister had said to the National Aboriginal Conference that very day that the Commonwealth would be taking no action to prejudice decisions by the State governments on the sensitive Aboriginal land rights issue. It seems to us to be a mighty confusing thing, as it does to Mr Bob Riley of the National Aboriginal Conference, that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister are in direct conflict on this issue. I guess it is the same story we have seen in the past when every time a Minister put a foot out of line , by virtue of saying his mind and apparently articulating his policies, and this is deemed to be unpopular, the Prime Minister steps in and stabs him in the back. It is a classic example of the Grimes assets test matter all over again when we saw Senator Grimes go down in a screaming heap as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention. We are now seeing Mr Holding doing the same. We have seen no justification whatsoever by Mr Holding for the introduction of uniform land rights yet we have heard him talking about this in such obfuscatory and vague terms. He has never identified how uniform land rights would remedy the diverse problems of Aborigines right across the community and across Australia. We know of the differences- Senator Coleman —That is why there will be consultation. Senator MESSNER —It is a pity the Government did not realise that before it misled people into thinking it was going to introduce legislation of this kind. The fact is that there are major differences between the Aborigines of outback Western Australia and those living in downtown Sydney. These are the kinds of differences which State governments have clearly in their minds. They should be left to make up their own minds about them and in conjunction with the Federal Government, should lead towards a proper system of land rights to suit all people in the community. Mr Holding has never told us what is wrong with State legislation. He has never identified which particular States need overriding and interventionist legislation from Canberra. Of course, he has never outlined in any practical terms at all how he intends to implement Aboriginal uniform land rights. Fundamentally he has never addressed the consequences of Commonwealth- State conflict and the effect that conflict will have on Aboriginal people in particular. Of course, it is that very important point which brought Senator Chaney to move the matter of urgency today. We know that various States have land rights legislation and that some which do not have it are in the course of preparing that legislation. We want to know from the Federal Government what it is that it sees wrong with the legislation put forward by various States. We see, for instance, the situation in South Australia in regard to the Maralinga land. In regard to a veto by Aboriginal people over that land there is provision for arbitration when circumstances arise when Aborigines refuse to mine on their land. That is something designed to suit the particular conditions in South Australia. In New South Wales there is no mention in its legislation-again it is a Labor State-of a veto on mining. There are some other minor exemptions. In Victoria-another State of Labor Government-we understand that government is preparing legislation which will not incur the veto principle. Is it any wonder indeed that Mr Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, has seen fit to say what he did the other day about the position in regard to the Federal Government and that he actually wants to legislate without the veto provision, a situation totally antipathetic to item ( iii) of the five principles laid down by the Federal Government. Of course, this Government is in a great state of confusion over this matter. This really emerges strongly from the remarks of Senator Ryan. Clearly, she has been trying to confuse the issue today by speaking about the land rights policies of the Opposition. So that there is no doubt about that I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Aboriginal affairs policy of the Opposition which, of course, was released to the public on 30 August this year and which consequently has been the subject of much detailed debate. Leave granted. The policy read as follows- THE PORTER REPORT Newsletter from James Porter, M.P.Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Commonwealth Parliament Offices100 King William StreetAdelaide, South Australia 5000 Telephone (08) 213-2212 INTRODUCTION On 30th August 1984 I released the Opposition's Policy on Aboriginal Affairs. The comprehensive documents covers all areas of Aboriginal Affairs and is a realistic response to the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal Australians. The Policy was developed after many months of discussions with Aboriginal community organisations, government agencies (both federal and state) and interest groups. The full text of the Policy is reproduced in this Report to enable the widest distribution and consideration of the Policy amongst Aboriginal organisations. INDEX Aboriginal Affairs Policy Page Fundamental Principles 3 Culture 4 Education 5 Health 6 Employment 8 Housing 9 Legal Aids 10 Sacred Sites 11 Land Rights 11 Mining 14 National Aboriginal Conference 16 Aboriginal Development Commission 17 ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS POLICY Background The Coalition's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy is based on the following: (i) the occupation of this continent by Aborigines and Islanders prior to European settlement; (ii) the subsequent forced dispersal and dispossession of many Aborigines from their traditional lands; (iii) the resultant breakdown of Aboriginal social, cultural, legal and spiritual traditions as well as their physical and mental well-being, and the subsequent loss of Aboriginal dignity and independence; (iv) continuation of their suffering as a result of the breakdown in their traditional lifestyle; (v) recognition of the affinity most Aboriginal people have with their land. Aboriginal culture is derived from a unique relationship between the people and their land. Virtually all social, political, economic and spiritual relationships within Aboriginal societies have traditionally been based on land; (vi) acknowledgement that the forced assimilation policies of the past are inappropriate and inconsistent with Liberal principles which protect and foster the rights of the individual; (vii) that control over and responsibility by Aborigines for their own affairs is fundamental to the restoration of Aboriginal dignity, independence, self- esteem, social and economic well-being; (viii) the need to protect and foster the cultural and traditional heritage of the Aboriginal people, as an important part of the Australian cultural heritage; (ix) recognition of the limited extent to which the Aboriginal community has benefitted from the economic development and prosperity of Australia; (x) Aborigines should be free to choose to adopt a lifestyle consistent with their traditional culture or a lifestyle similar to that of non-Aboriginal Australians; (xi) Aboriginal society has been and will continue to be subject to change. N.B.-Aborigines should be read to include Torres Strait Islanders, but we recognise that Islanders and Aboriginals have distinct cultures and aspirations. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 1. The social and economic status of the majority of Aboriginal people today, and their historical experience since settlement, requires positive action to be taken to restore Aboriginal dignity and self-reliance. 2. Aborigines should have a leading role in making decisions which affect their own lives, and they should accept responsibility for those decisions. 3. An increase in Aboriginal involvement and responsibility at higher levels of decision making in Aboriginal affairs will require: (a) increased educational opportunities at all levels; (b) increased employment opportunities; (c) a devolution of responsibility from existing bureaucratic government structures to Aboriginal individuals and communities; (d) increased Aboriginal control in the area of financial management, and a transfer of functions from government departments to Aboriginal organisations where appropriate; (e) increased communications, consultation and co-operation between Aboriginal representatives and the government. The advice and views of Aboriginal representatives will be of paramount importance in the formulation and implementation of government policies and programs. 4. As an integral part of our community, Aboriginal people are entitled to equal access to all government services. They are entitled to additional services to meet their special needs and to compensate them for the particular disadvantages arising from the breakdown in their traditional culture and society. 5. (i) The Aboriginal community is composed of people living under different circumstances, namely: (a) those who live on their traditional lands and who retain some or all of their traditional association with the land; (b) those who live as fringe dwellers on the edge of towns; (c) those who live on reserves which are not their traditional lands; (d) those who live in towns and cities and have adopted a lifestyle similar to that of non-Aboriginal Australians; (ii) The granting of land to Aboriginal communities will need to be tailored to their individual requirements: (a) Aborigines choosing to live on their traditional lands, and who retain some or all of their traditional association with the land should, where practicable, be granted secure title to such land to facilitate a continuation of their lifestyle and culture; (b) Fringe dwelling Aboriginal communities should be provided with security of tenure for appropriate land; (c) Aborigines living on reserves which are not their traditional lands should be given secure title to that land; (d) Generally Aborigines and in particular those living in towns and cities are entitled to special programs or assistance to meet their particular disadvantages, resulting from the breakdown of their traditional culture. 6. All government policies and programmes, whether directed at the Australian community as a whole, or the Aboriginal people in particular, should be designed to promote racial harmony and eliminate discrimination and tension. CULTURE We are committed to preserving and fostering Aboriginal culture. We aim to preserve the integrity of Aboriginal culture and history and to develop an appreciation of our Aboriginal heritage among all Australians. We support the promotion of Aboriginal culture and heritage to develop an understanding and sensitivity within all Australians of the Aboriginal way of life. An understanding of Aboriginal culture is basic to the development of appropriate health, housing, education and other policies for Aborigines. We will develop initiatives to assist the Aboriginal people to preserve and promote their culture and heritage. EDUCATION The Commonwealth Government has a significant responsibility for funding Aboriginal education. To date our education system has failed most Aboriginal people in spite of extensive programmes, considerable goodwill and commitment by Governments. For example, too many young Aborigines are functionally illiterate, alienated and unskilled. Our policies are directed towards overcoming these problems. Aborigines should receive an education which is in harmony with their cultural values and chosen lifestyle and which enables them to acquire the necessary education skills. We recognise the value of Aboriginal community schools. Special programmes are required to ensure that Aboriginal students are given opportunities to successfully participate in existing educational structures. This would include a whole range of courses including technical trade programmes . Particular assistance is required for Aboriginal children who are unfamiliar with the English language and with non-Aboriginal customs. In co-operation with the States the National Aboriginal Education Committee will be given greater responsibility in the planning and development of Aboriginal education programmes. In association with the N.A.E.C. additional resources will be provided for- (1) the development of appropriate education curricula, including bilingual programmes to assist Aboriginal students; (2) the development of appropriate study courses for trainee teachers and Aboriginal teacher aides; (3) the development of appropriate material for an Aboriginal studies curricula to be available to all schools; and (4) special programmes to assist Aborigines to overcome their educational disadvantages and to undertake higher education. Many Aboriginal students need special assistance to enable them to undertake higher studies within our tertiary institutions. In particular, we acknowledge the achievements of the enclave programmes and we will look at how they can be usefully extended. The advancement of the Aboriginal people, and their ability to plan, implement and control their own affairs has been hampered by the lack of professionally trained Aboriginal people, particularly in areas such as the health, law, teaching and administration fields. Where possible we will move towards triennial funding of Aboriginal education programmes to facilitate better planning and continuity. Priority will be given to ensuring that teaching material is prepared and teacher training courses include programmes on Aboriginal culture, history and language. We place a high priority on the training of Aboriginal teachers, and will work towards achieving the target set by the N.A.E.C. for Federal and State Governments to train and employ 1,000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990. We will increase the number of Aboriginal resource staff, including Aboriginal teacher aides, to provide a link between the schools, students and the community . We will maintain the mature age teacher training scheme which originated in Coalition policy. The communication satellite will extend educational as well as entertainment opportunities to remote areas. In conjunction with the State education authorities we will seek ways of ensuring Aboriginal communities benefit from these educational opportunities. In view of the changed circumstances since the introduction of Absec and Abstudy grants, we will review the basis upon which they are paid to ensure they benefit those in most need. HEALTH We are committed to raising the standard of Aboriginal health to that of the general community. We will adopt health policies and programmes which are both cost-effective and have the greatest positive impact on Aboriginal health. The Coalition recognises that despite the expenditure of large amounts of money on Aboriginal health over recent years, the general health of the Aboriginal community continues to lag behind that of the Australian community as a whole. However, there have been significant advances in part because of the increased Aboriginal involvement in the control, management, design, delivery and evaluation of health care programmes affecting Aboriginal people. We will continue this policy thrust towards Aboriginal self-management and self determination in the health field. Fundamental to our health policy is the improvement of the environmental conditions under which Aborigines live, both physical and social. To maximise effectiveness, health programmes must be sensitive to Aboriginal culture. The Public Health Improvement Programme is providing essential assistance in upgrading environmental conditions-including the provision of clean water and sewerage treatment-and we reaffirm our commitment to the programme, which we consider a high priority. Community understanding of the necessity and operation of the programme and the maintenance of facilities provided is essential. We intend to give a high priority to training Aboriginal health workers to assist in this task. Where possible, we will also ensure the involvement of Aboriginal people in planning, co-ordinating and carrying out works under this programme. Particular emphasis will be placed on the education and training of Aboriginal health workers and health professionals such as doctors, dentists, and social workers, to take into account cultural difficulties. Support will be given for the curricula of University medical schools, nurse training and other appropriate tertiary institutions to include a component dealing with Aboriginal health, and the cultural beliefs and practices of Aborigines as they relate to health. We recognise the need for maximum Aboriginal involvement in the delivery of all Aboriginal health services. We believe it is appropriate and necessary for Aborigines to have greater administrative responsibility and involvement in the delivery of health care services at the State level. We acknowledge the valuable role played by the independent Aboriginal Medical Services and we will continue to fund such services. We recognise the desire by some Aborigines to enable integration of tribal and western medicine for Aboriginal communities which practice traditional medicine. We will examine this concept and conditions under which 'ngankere' (tribal medicine men) should be involved in community health programmes. Aborigines should be given access to all medical services provided to the general community by State authorities who have the primary responsibility for health and play a major role in the development of health programmes for Aborigines. In addition, the Commonwealth will assist the States in meeting the special needs of Aborigines by: conducting health education programmes directed at the prevention of ill health amongst Aborigines; training and employing Aboriginal health workers; providing medical supplies and equipment; and providing assistance in the development of specialised programmes, such as nutrition. We acknowledge that the development of policies and programmes of Aboriginal health has been impeded in the past because of the lack of statistics on Aboriginal health. We will give priority to working with the States to improve their procedures of identifying Aboriginal people when planning and delivering health care programmes. We will seek to obtain better statistics in this area. After consultation with Aboriginal representatives a health profile will be published annually to enable health trends to be identified and to assist with the planning and implementation of health programmes. We will attempt to overcome the destructive social and physical consequences of heavy consumption of alcohol by: implementing policies aimed at improving the socio-economic, cultural and spiritual conditions of the Aboriginal people; providing assisting for the implementation of alcohol prevention and rehabilitation programmes; supporting local Aboriginal communities in the implementation of their own controls over alcohol use; working with Aboriginal leaders to plan and implement new programmes aimed at overcoming the the alcohol problem. EMPLOYMENT Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing Aboriginal people. We will expand the role of the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee, and improve its co-ordination with the Commonwealth Employment Service, and relevant agencies and organisations in the States. Programmes designed to assist Aboriginal students to remain at school and continue with further studies will be continued. Special effort will be made in conjunction with the States, to give Aborigines greater access to apprenticeship and other trade programmes. The Coalition Government initiated the Community Development Employment Programme and we will continue our commitment to this programme. Every effort will be made to ensure Aborigines receive their fair share of assistance under Federally funded employment schemes. We support programmes to increase the opportunities for Aboriginal employment in the Public Service and other Government employment. We will ensure there are effective programmes to promote job opportunities in those remote locations where Aborigines traditionally wish to live and work. Wherever possible, Aborigines will be employed in the planning, implementation, maintenance and effectiveness review of public works programmes such as under the Public Health Improvement Programme. We will encourage the development of employment opportunities in areas where Aborigines are involved in the preservation and promotion of their own culture and heritage. We will encourage the growth of Aboriginal employment in art on a commercial as well as cultural basis. HOUSING The provision of adequate and appropriate housing is an essential part of an integrated approach to Aboriginal health, education and living conditions. Housing policies will be designed to enable maximum Aboriginal involvement at the Federal level and where possible at the community level. Emphasis will be gven to ensuring Aboriginal involvement in the planning and implementation of housing programmes, and in the design, construction, servicing and maintenance of such housing within the community. We will review the establishment of an Aboriginal Housing Authority to ensure there is an efficient and effective delivery of resources to those areas of greatest need. Aboriginal Hostels have made a significant contribution to the accommodation needs of the Aboriginal people and we will ensure that this service continues. We will develop a strategy based on an Australia-wide assessment of Aboriginal housing needs at the community level to raise the standard of Aboriginal housing to an acceptable level. This review will provide for extensive Aboriginal involvement. In particular, the housing needs of Aborigines living on reserves, outstations, pastoral properties, town camps, in temporary accommodation and those who are homeless require special attention. We will review the basis upon which funds are allocated under the Commonwealth/ State Housing Agreement. Consideration will be given to the allocation of funds on the basis of need, and increasing the level of direct funding to Aboriginal housing organisations. LEGAL AID Aborigines constitute about 1% of the total population of Australia but about 30 % of the prison population. Particular assistance is required in the provision of legal aid services to Aborigines. We are committed to the development of a more meaningful and effective administration of the legal system for them. We will support:- (1) the provision of legal aid to ensure fair treatment of Aboriginal people in the administration of the law; (2) the development and implementation of programmes designed to improve Aboriginal/Police relations; (3) the establishment of research programmes into Aboriginal criminology, legal aid, crime prevention programmes and the collection of statistical information; (4) programmes for the education and training of Aborigines as lawyers; (5) the involvement of Aboriginal people in the development, application and enhancement of the law. This includes the appointment of Aboriginal JPs, magistrates, probation officers, police and social workers; (6) continued assistance for independent Aboriginal legal aid services. SACRED SITES The protection of Aboriginal sites of particular sacred significance is important for the preservation of Aboriginal culture. Measures to identify, record and protect significant sites vary between the States. In the further development of Australia there are advantages in identifying in advance areas where special measures are required to protect sites of particular sacred significance. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act does not meet its goal, and gives the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs unacceptably wide powers over all land. We will repeal this legislation. We will initiate consultation between Aborigines and Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments with the aim of developing a better approach enabling the prior identification and protection of significant sites thereby assisting all land users. We will encourage the implementation of these measures in legislative form by the Northern Territory and the States and we will enact Federal legislation for the A.C.T. LAND RIGHTS The coalition acknowledges the cultural and spiritual affinity many Aborigines have with the land. Like all Australians, Aborigines should have the freedom to choose the type of lifestyle they wish to adopt. The Coalition believes there is a need for positive policies to provide opportunities for Aboriginal people who have a close and continuing association with their Aboriginal lands, to live according to their traditional culture and lifestyle. This will be enhanced if they can be given secure title to appropriate land, provided that land has not been alienated. Federal Legislation We oppose the imposition on the States of Federal uniform land rights legislation when in Government and we maintain our opposition to such legislation. State Governments The States have a responsibility to meet their obligations to the Aboriginal people. The States are independently adopting policies which seek to take account of the particular social, economic and cultural needs of their Aboriginal communities in respect of access and the tenure of land. We recognise that a land rights package which is introduced in one State, for one Aboriginal community, may not necessarily be appropriate for other States or other Aboriginal communities within the same State. The States are clearly in the best position to implement meaningful legislation in this area. We believe any Federal Government action in relation to land should only be taken where necessary, and then only after detailed consultation with the State. In relation to the application of Commonwealth Government policies and the development of legislation by the States, we will encourage them to: 1. enable the Aboriginal community to participate in detailed consultation in the formulation of land rights legislation; 2. enable Aborigines choosing to continue to live on their traditional land, and who retain some or all of their traditional association with the land, to, where consistent with the rest of this policy, be granted secure title to such land to facilitate a continuation of their lifestyle and culture; 3. grant security of tenure, in the abovementioned circumstances, whereby title to the land is held unencumbered for, and on behalf of, that community; 4. ensure that the terms and conditions of entry and compensation for exploration, mining and any other use of the land pays due regard to the social and cultural needs of the traditional Aboriginal owners; 5. provide for the protection and preservation of sites of particular sacred significance; 6. grant a title to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who are living on reserves which ensures: (a) that the integrity of the reserve boundaries is maintained; (b) secure tenure for occupants and preservation of their rights to use the land; (c) responsibility for the management of the reserves is vested in local communities; (d) full consultation with the community in relation to the provision of services; 7. provide secure tenure to protect communities who are ordinarily resident on land within a pastoral lease by way of excision of the Aboriginal settlement; 8. provide fringe dwelling Aboriginal communities with secure tenure for appropriate land; 9. provide special programmes or assistance for Aborigines generally, and in particular those living in towns and cities, to meet their particular disadvantages resulting from the breakdown in their traditional culture. The programme will seek to compensate for that breakdown. These Aborigines have special needs which will be met by special programmes as outlined in other areas of this policy. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976 The Coalition was responsible for introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act, 1976 and continues to support this legislation. However , after seven years amendments are required to overcome identified problems arising from the operation of the Act. In particular, we will: 1. ensure the public has access to main roads for the purpose of traversing the land; 2. require all land claims to be lodged by 31 December, 1986; 3. provide that pastoral leases or other interests in land purchased by or on behalf of Aborigines is provided on the same basis as other land holders and cannot be converted to inalienable freehold; 4. ensure fringe dwelling communities are provided with secure title to appropriate land; 5. review the operation of the Act in relation to public purpose lands in consultation with Northern Territory Aborigines and the Northern Territory Government; 6. we will support the granting of secure tenure to protect communities who have been ordinarily resident on land within a pastoral lease by way of an excision of the Aboriginal settlement and this should be done under Northern Territory legislation as recommended by Mr Justice Toohey. Our land rights policy does not include: 1. overturning existing titles and resuming farming land or private property; 2. isolating vast areas from exploration and development; 3. the Commonwealth Government assuming State responsibilities in relation to Aboriginal Land. MINING The Commonwealth Government is responsible for the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act. State Governments have the primary responsibility for mining within their own State. The Coalition's policies regarding mining on Aboriginal land will be based on the following principles: mineral rights should remain vested in the Crown; the interests of Aboriginal people who live according to their traditional culture and lifestyle on their own land should be protected; maintenance of the public interest in the development of Australian's resources ; control over mining is ultimately the responsibility of government. In the course of implementing these principles we will maintain close consultation with the Aboriginal people and other interested parties. Northern Territory The experience in the Northern Territory has indicated that amendments are required to the Act to resolve difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the Act, particularly in relation to mining. The delays in granting access for exploration and mining, complex administrative impediments and the payment of appropriate compensation are amongst the problems which need to be addressed. We will amend the Act to overcome these difficulties and to meet our stated principles. Exploration and mining on Aboriginal land will be in accordance with the following terms and conditions: Protection of Sites of Special Significance Consultation between mining companies and Aboriginal people will be required prior to exploration to enable sites of special significance (not the generality of Aboriginal land but sites of fundamental importance in Aboriginal custom and tradition) to be identified early in the initial planning stages. Land Councils will be responsible for arranging negotiations between applicants and the traditional owners. Binding agreements will be required in relation to the identification of sacred sites prior to exploration commencing. Protection of those sites will be required during exploration and any subsequent development stages. In event of failure to reach agreement within a certain time, access to arbitration will be available. Community Impact Mining settlements have a considerable social impact on a community. We support negotiations between Aborigines and mining companies in order that the adverse social consequences of mining on Aboriginal communities are minimised. In particular matters such as conditions of access (eg. fire arms, alcohol), site protection, employment of Aborigines on mining projects and appropriate compensation for disturbance to their land should be the subject of negotiation. Compensation Exploration: Compensation in relation to exploration on Aboriginal land should be payable in the same way as for landholders generally. Mining: Mining companies should continue to be responsible for the payment of compensation at the mining stage, for disturbance to the land, the traditional owners and their way of life. Royalty Payments The Federal Government will continue to receive royalties from mining on Aboriginal land and those funds will be used to assist the Aboriginal people. They will be transferred as royalty equivalents: 1. to the traditional Aboriginal owners; 2. the Land Councils, to assist in meeting their administrative and operational costs; and 3. to Northern Territory Aborigines generally for their use and benefit. We will review the operation of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account to ensure that allocations to the Account are distributed equitably. Arbitration Procedures We would seek to have the abovementioned matters settled by negotiation, however , in exercising the Federal Government's responsibility in promoting the development of the Territory's resources, and in order to ensure that the legislation is effective, there will be arbitration provisions to resolve disputes between Aboriginal communities and miners. Arbitration will be available at the request of either party to resolve disputes regarding the granting of access, the protection of significant sacred sites and the payment of compensation. We will provide for automatic arbitration if agreement is not reached within a certain time. NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONFERENCE The N.A.C. has a responsibility to represent the Aboriginal people and to advise the government on policies and programmes regarding Aboriginal Affairs. We will examine the recommendations arising from the review conducted by Dr. H. C. Coombs with a view to assisting the advisory and administrative functions of the Conference. In the restructuring of the N.A.C. special attention will be given to both the improvement of the participation in and the representative nature of the N.A.C. including where appropriate the role of the traditional elder. We will also consider increasing the regional role of the N.A.C. The N.A.C. will be given financial resources and other assistance to enable it to function as an effective Aboriginal representative body to advise government. Consultations with the Aboriginal people on proposed government policies and programmes will take account of the N.A.C.'s role. ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The ADC was established by a Coalition Government to enable Aboriginal people to have greater responsibility for their economic and social development. The delivery of services in furtherance of the economic and social goals must be both efficient and accountable. We will ensure the ADC effectively and efficiently achieves these goals. ''achievable goals'' . . . ''practical approach'' This Policy is about achievable goals. I am not prepared to make promises which I do not believe that I can deliver. For too long expectations of the Aboriginal people have been raised only subsequently to be let down. In the area of land rights the Policy makes clear that we do not intend to take away from the States their responsibilities in relation to land for Aborigines. The Policy is consistent with that which we adopted in Government. We believe the States are in the best position to identify and meet the land needs of their Aboriginal communities. Given that the mainland States have legislated or are debating proposals they ought to be allowed to continue on that course, without interference from the Federal Government. The Coalition Government introduced the N.T. Land Rights legislation and the S. A. Liberal Government the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights legislation without a heated and divisive debate which this Government has generated with its Uniform Land Rights proposals. I therefore welcome the W.A. Aboriginal A.L.P. MP for Kimberley, Mr Ernie Bridge's comments when he said: ''analysis of the Federal Opposition's Policy on Aboriginal Land rights announced yesterday revealed a commendable grasp of the principles and details of the issue . . . ''the Policy also had paid attention to the needs of the Aboriginal people resident in towns and cities. ''the Opposition's policies on sacred sites showed a sincere appreciation of their significance. The policies relating to mining would allow sensible debate and negotiation to resolve the important aspect of the land rights issue.'' We have highlighted the failure of the current programs to meet the real needs of the Aboriginal people particularly in relation to Housing, Health, Employment and Education. In these areas we have indicated new initiatives which will be taken to ensure these needs are addressed. The Sydney Morning Herald Editorial said the policy ''stresses co-operation and consultation between Aborigines and Government. And in such areas as health care it recognises the importance of self-management and self-determination.'' The Opposition Policy is a practical approach aimed at addressing the problems confronting Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Senator MESSNER —I mention as well one or two other matters in that context. Senator Ryan is so interested, apparently, in this area that she has failed to see the many articles appearing in the daily Press. I refer to an article last Friday by my leader, Senator Chaney, in regard to Aboriginal land rights. Of course, this follows other debates in regard to sacred sites legislation in which we have been involved over the last several months. The Minister must really have had her head in the sand. Let us not listen to the Opposition or the Liberal Party or the National Party on this matter. Let us take the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 October as a weather vane on the confusion in the Government . It was stated in the editorial: For Mr Holding, the land rights issue has blown out of hand . . . The difficulty in drawing up a uniform law to take into account this diversity within the States is obvious. The muddling over the legislation has not helped matters and Mr Hawke is now facing the probability that its time has passed. I repeat 'its time has passed'. This is the problem that the Minister faces. He knows that the time has passed because the States are getting on with the job of introducing legislation which suits their particular needs, which suits the particular needs of the Aborigines in those various States and which suits the particular needs and wishes of the wider community in each of those States. This is the kind of policy which the Opposition would seek to implement in government and which it will implement after the forthcoming election. Obviously this Government is unable to extract itself from those five non- negotiable principles which it stated earlier. Obviously it is without ground in trying to state a position which is acceptable to the States. One hears obfuscatory words about consultation and finding proper means, and so on, which have little to do with the actual circumstances. In view of the statements by the Premier in Western Australia, one can see that the Government is now trying to backtrack from those five principles. I suppose the question is: Is the Government waiting until after the election, if it is re-elected, to intervene and impose uniform land rights across Australia? That is the vital question to which people must address themselves at this time. Obviously the Government has in mind doing something after the election, if it is re-elected. That is the reason for our bringing this motion forward today-to obtain an unequivocal answer from the Government as to its real intentions in this matter. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.21) —I have in my hand a copy of a headline that reads: 'Land rights are a good idea if we are all sensible about it'. Unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition is incapable of being sensible about land rights or, for that matter, any other policy that faces this country at the moment. The Opposition, the popularity of whose Leader is reported in today's Herald as down to 14 per cent, is incapable of making the sorts of sensible decisions or recommendations one would expect of a responsible Opposition about anything. It seems that the Opposition, once again, is desperately grasping at straws to try to make an impact on the Australian community. We are constantly seeing emotionally charged matters of public importance being put forward by the Opposition in a rather futile attempt to discredit the Hawke Labor Government. Each time a matter of public importance is raised, we see the Opposition benches vacant. This matter, so we are told by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, and by Senator Messner, is so vitally important that we should all be addressing it here today. However, there are now only three members present on the Opposition benches. Each new attack appears to rely on a couple of issues such as immigration and land rights-moral issues which can be so misrepresented and distorted that it is difficult for anyone in the Australian community to understand the Opposition's intentions. Furthermore, the Opposition delights in stirring up those extremists in the community-and there are a few of them in the Parliament-with views so to the right of the political spectrum that the genuine issues are lost in emotive claims and counter-claims. Why is the Opposition in this place unable to bring forward issues that are genuine matters of public importance to be debated rationally, instead of relying on a re-run of a debate that took place in the House of Representatives last week? This issue has already been aired in the Parliament. We are simply hearing the same tired old cliches trotted out in a different form today. Let us look at the Opposition's claims about the urgency of this matter. Understandably, the Opposition is frustrated by the consensus style of the Government, and certainly in regard to this issue. It is clear from a Press release issued on 5 October by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Premier Burke and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, that Mr Burke had invited the Federal Government to nominate an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to participate in the drafting of Western Australian land rights legislation. There is no confrontation, no delay. The Federal Government has accepted this offer and an official will work with the Western Australian Government on a full time basis. The Federal Government, in accepting its obligations at a national level for Aboriginal land rights, recognises the interests of Western Australia in addressing its problems. The Federal Government is concerned about States concerned with land rights and has no intention of overriding any State, including Western Australia and Queensland. The Seaman Commission report and recommendations, together with the Western Australian Government's statement of principles, provide a valuable basis on which to address this issue in that State. The Federal and State Governments will work together to ensure that common principles are adopted in the formulation of land rights legislation. The Commonwealth remains committed to its constitutional responsibilities in this area. However, in fulfilling these responsibilities the Government will acknowledge the particular needs of Western Australia. The decision to accept the Premier's offer to become involved in the drafting process acknowledged the particular Western Australian situation and the benefit to be obtained by close Commonwealth-State co-operation in the formulation of these policies. As I said earlier, the Opposition continually tries to stir up confrontation on the question of land rights. We saw that when this House debated the heritage legislation. Senator Messner himself said that the legislation was dangerous and confrontationist. Yet that legislation has been in place for several months, and I have not seen any particular examples of confrontation; I am not aware of any particular danger out there in Australian society. Again, there has been misrepresentation of the land rights legislation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has indicated time and again, in the other place and through the media, that he is in close consultation with his colleagues in all the States; he is negotiating with all Ministers. He is even negotiating in Queensland. I have here a Press statement by Mr Bob Katter Junior, who is Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. The headline reads 'Aboriginals to get land titles by Christmas'. That is a National Party government talking about land titles by Christmas. It states: Queensland Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are the closest they have ever been to acquiring control of the 3.8 million hectares of reserve land they occupy. The Queensland Minister announced that the necessary titles should be ready by Christmas. Yet when one listens to a number of National Party and Liberal Party spokespeople one would think that it is only the Hawke Labor Government which would ever contemplate the granting of land rights. It is ironical that the coalition parties should be seeking a clear statement on land rights when they have made it clear that their State counterparts in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria are totally opposed to the concept of Aboriginal land rights. If anyone should be doing any clarifying in this place, it should be the Liberal Party because its members appear to be able to put on a different hat depending on the position from which they are speaking . We are all aware of the extreme campaigns that have been conducted in Western Australia and Victoria, and yet the Liberal Party dares to come into this place and say the Labor Party should be the one to clarify its land rights policy. The Labor Party is the one party that is seen by Aboriginal people in this nation as the only party that is genuinely committed to the enactment of legislation that will provide for the granting of land rights to Aboriginal people. A quick survey of the situation in the various States and the Northern Territory identifies the reality when it comes to land rights. New South Wales has its own legislation providing grants of Aboriginal land, yet the New South Wales Opposition opposes land rights. In Victoria, too, legislation is currently being examined which provides for the granting of Aboriginal land in that State, but again, the Liberal Opposition there totally opposes Aboriginal land rights. In South Australia legislation has been enacted providing for the granting of Aboriginal land rights, most recently at Maralinga, but again, in the face of stiff opposition from the South Australian Liberal opposition. Now we have in this place a debate concerning the situation in Western Australia. We know that in that State it is the Liberal Opposition parties who have totally opposed the concept of land rights. It is in this environment that the Federal Opposition seeks to paint itself as the supporter of Aboriginal land rights and as a party which cares for Aboriginal aspirations. The Burke Government has, in the face of continued opposition from the Liberal Party in Western Australia and in the face of deliberate scaremongering from the Western Australian Chamber of Mines, moved to commit itself to the granting of Aboriginal land rights. I concede that the position adopted by the Burke Government may well be seen by Aboriginal people as being less than they would have hoped to obtain, but it is equally true that other sections of the Western Australian community held very strong views as to what should be done in relation to the granting of Aboriginal land rights. It was in that knowledge that Opposition parties were totally opposed to the granting of Aboriginal land rights. It is clear that the Burke Government had to resolve the issues having regard to those realities. In conclusion, I state categorically that the Federal Government continues to stand by its commitment to the introduction of national land rights legislation. It has not moved from its position, announced in 1983, that fundamental to the national approach would be the five principles which have been mentioned on so many occasions. We are still committed to the granting of inalienable freehold title, the protection of sacred sites, Aboriginal control over mining on Aboriginal land, access to mining royalty equivalents for Aboriginals and compensation for lost land to be negotiated. However the details of these principles have yet to be finalised. The Government has no intention of rushing into such vital legislation. One can imagine the hue and cry from the Opposition benches if we were to bring forward such legislation. Honourable members opposite would change their tack completely and say that we were acting hastily, as they did in regard to the heritage legislation. The Government is also committed to a process of consultation, not only with Aboriginal organisations but also with community groups and State governments. Until those negotiations have been concluded the Government will not be forced by the actions of the Opposition or anyone else to state prematurely its position in regard to those principles. The motion moved by the Opposition has assumed quite incorrectly that national legislation would necessarily override legislation enacted by the States. Given the actions of the Labor States in acting on proposed land rights legislation, it ought not to be concluded that national legislation would have to negate or eliminate State legislation. That is the very reason why the Federal Government is committed to the process of consultation and discussion with the States before it makes its final determinations with regard to the form and detail of national legislation. It is quite clear that the Opposition, once again quite desperate for issues on which to try to make some impact in the Parliament, is simply rerunning a debate that we heard from the House of Representatives last week. The proposal has absolutely no substance. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.34) —In speaking on the matter of urgency that has been introduced by Senator Chaney, I wish to make just one or two remarks before I get to the main part of my speech. Senator Reynolds has said that this is a rerun and a quite unnecessary debate. I remind her that around Australia the topic is now one of considerable moment. In fact, the people of Australia are looking with very deep interest to the actions that may come from the Australian Labor Party and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, in the near future, and the reasons behind those actions. I also notice that the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Ryan , said that in bringing up this debate today we were being racist. Who does not get tired of the term 'racist'? I think that debate on this matter in the Australian scene is very wholesome-that this matter should be aired-but every time Aboriginal land rights are mentioned and there is some discussion on that matter, someone has to say: 'You are a racist'. That is a very unwholesome attitude, if I may say so. The Labor Government's action in relation to Aboriginal issues, and land rights in particular, has been confusing and misleading and has resulted in uncertainty and fears amongst the Australian public. This is what the discussion today is all about. It was not so long ago that Mr Holding suggested that in the very near future there would be national land rights legislation. He was very bold and strong in his initial attitude towards this legislation, but in the last few weeks he apparently has gone cold on the situation or, if he has not gone cold, he has stepped back several paces. It has been said, and I have seen the reports in the media, that as an election is coming up any legislation or matter that may cause confrontation or is controversial should not be proceeded with but should be put into abeyance. One presumes that, as Senator Messner has said, if the Labor Party wins the coming election we can anticipate this legislation coming forward in the New Year as it is controversial and brings about a degree of confrontation. To the disadvantage of us all, and particularly the Aboriginal people, the Labor Government's actions have resulted in increased fear and conflict rather than promoting racial harmony. The way in which Mr Holding has handled this debate over the last few months, and the way he has continued in public to make the various statements he has made, has certainly been against racial harmony. For instance, the handing over of Ayers Rock was decided upon without proper consultation with the Northern Territory Government and its people, without due regard to the likely public reaction and without first working out the administrative arrangements which would apply after the handing over of the Rock. What does one see in that situation now? It concerns me tremendously, because the Aboriginal people were given a considerable fillip. These people were promised that Ayers Rock would be handed over to them, but very little has happened since then. There has been no handling over of the title. As I understand it, that in itself is now a matter of controversy between the Government and the Aboriginal people. I believe this is because the Aboriginals have been promised so much. I believe that the Government, as regards the handing over of Ayers Rock, is presently on very dangerous grounds, for Ayers Rock or Uluru, as some may like to call it, has been given international recognition. The naturalists call it a biosphere park. It is said that there should be as little damage to it as possible because it is unique and so is its environment. There should be a halt to deterioration of Uluru. It should be held as a unique place for future generations. One of the world's major ecosystems is in jeopardy. It was envisaged, I thought, that Ayers Rock would be placed under joint ownership and would be administered jointly by the Aboriginal people and others, as is the case on the Cobourg Peninsula. This has not happened. The surrounds of Ayers Rock have not gone back to bushland, the old motels that were bought by Government have not been destroyed and brought back to bushland and the airstrip as I knew it has not been ploughed up and brought back to bushland, as I hoped would be the case. The same applies to roads and such. What do we see? We see some $50,000 is being spent on the airstrip. Does this show any intention of it being brought back to bushland? It is true that pioneer tourist operators were bought out by the Government to ensure that these motels would be dismantled and the area brought back, once again, to bushland. Despite all this planning and all the promises, Mr Holding is now, as far as I can see, spending money on the place to ensure that the airstrip will remain. A lot of the small motels which were abhorrent to the naturalist, to the people who said it must go back to bushland, will remain and will be used for other purposes. The Aboriginals knew for decades of the plan to return this area to bushland. As far as I am concerned, this is grossly misleading the people of Australia. The resultant public outcry and concern about continued public access and subsequent banning of people such as Val Doonican from singing at the Rock made a mockery of the Government's decision and its desire to be seen to be doing something for the Aboriginal people. Indeed, we now see the Federal Government coming undone over land rights. Having promised the earth to the Aboriginal people, the Government has been forced to reconsider in the face of opposition from the Western Australian Government. The hypocrisy of the Commonwealth Government in its approach to land rights and other Aboriginal issues shows up quite clearly in the decision of the Government to collaborate with the Government of Western Australia on State land rights legislation when the policy of the Labor Party is for uniform Federal legislation. If the Government were performing this about face on its land rights policy in recognition of the much more rational and reasonable policy of leaving land rights legislation to the States, the decision might be more readily understood. However, the reasons for the Government's backtracking on the land rights issue are purely and simply selfish ones. It appears that the Government has realised at last that there is great fear in the community, particularly in the mining and agricultural industries, about the implications of overriding uniform land rights legislation. In fact, there is such public opposition to such legislation that the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, has forecast a loss of up to five Federal seats by the Labor Party if such legislation is pursued. That prospect has resulted in an apparent reversal of policy where Western Australia is concerned on the issue of land rights legislation. The Government is displaying its usual disregard for not only the Aboriginal people but the miners and farmers and all Australians who have a right to know where they stand on Aboriginal land rights legislation. The toing and froing which has gone on since the Labor Government was elected has left Australians completely uninformed as to Mr Hawke's legislative intentions regarding Aboriginal land rights. Perhaps that should not come as such a surprise when one considers that the Government itself does not appear to know where it stands on the issue unless, as I have said before, it is backpeddling and going softly from now until next year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last week could not even agree with his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, as to whether there would be any statement on the Government's intentions regarding Aboriginal land rights legislation before the election. The Government must clarify its position with respect to this matter. Soon after the Hawke Government came to power, Mr Holding outlined his proposals to introduce uniform land rights legislation based upon his five principles. Those principles include, as Senator Messner said, the retention of Aboriginal land under inalienable freehold title and Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. The introduction of the legislation has been delayed because it has become increasingly less politically attractive to pursue it. I submit that the proposed legislation is completely unnecessary in any event. All mainland States have land rights legislation or are considering proposals for such legislation and all such legislation or proposals are inconsistent with the Minister's five principles. The current South Australian legislation provides for arbitration in the event of a refusal by Aboriginals to allow mining on their land. Under the Minister's proposals there would be no such arbitration. Aboriginal veto will prevail to disallow mining completely. This, of course, brings up a point too that no matter where one looks in Australia one sees that Aboriginal people are, as I see it, in favour of mining. It allows them the ability to have an interest in mining or to mine it themselves, like the Yuendumu Mining Co., which is a small mining company west of Alice Springs. This means that they can stand on their own feet without living on government handouts. As I see it, Aboriginal people are in favour of mining. But the strange thing is that when this comes out in the media and through government statements and what have you, it appears that the Aboriginal people are against mining. I suggest that this attitude comes about by people who speak on the Aboriginals' behalf. Similarly, as I was talking about the various State legislation, the New South Wales legislation would conflict with the proposed veto provisions. Now we have the proposed Western Australian legislation which is completely at variance with Mr Holding's proposed legislation. The legislation in place in Queensland, and that proposed for Victoria, would conflict with the Government's inalienable freehold and veto provisions. In the case of the Northern Territory, land rights legislation was implemented by the coalition-a fact which seemed to be forgotten by Senator Reynolds-back in 1975. After supporting Senator Neville Bonner's motion the coalition brought land rights in. We recognise, with the experience of eight years, that there are now some problems with the legislation and have proposed changes to the legislation to take account of the problems which have arisen in the past. I might add, too, that this was anticipated in the early days by Mr Justice Woodward in his report on the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. He said that the legislation would have to be given some time in order to see the workings of the Act. Clearly, when one sees this immense piece of legislation after eight or nine years it is necessary to have some adjustments made to it. The delays in granting access for exploration and mining, complex administrative impediments and the payments of appropriate compensation are amongst the problems which need to be addressed. We also propose to amend the Act to ensure that the public has improved access to main roads and that the situation which has arisen where the access road from Nhulunbuy through Arnhem Land has been cut off by the Northern Land Council does not arise again. On that aspect, very many of the judgments that have come out of the High Court of Australia in the last few years have turned Aboriginal land rights into something which was not the intention of the original draftsmen. The coalition has a record to be proud of in the area of Aboriginal affairs, including initiating policies of self-management which gave Aboriginals a new hope of controlling their own future in the same way as other Australians. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.48) —There is an old adage that if a thing is worth saying, it is worth repeating. I think that Opposition senators have not quite got it right yet because they think that anything they say is worth repeating. This is why we are seeing this little exercise here today. We saw it in the other chamber on Wednesday of last week. The Opposition is running these urgency motions backwards and forwards between the chambers like bookmakers' touts because it is totally devoid of any new issues. It is totally devoid of leadership. The latest opinion poll is extremely interesting on where the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia stands at the moment. The Opposition is endeavouring to divide the community knowing that there will be an election. The community in Western Australia is much more astute than the Opposition gives it credit for. It will not be divided on a racist issue such as Aboriginal land rights. Senator Kilgariff said that the racist issue that is constantly being raised by the Government in relation to the Opposition's claims was unwholesome. I think that was the word he used. I agree with him. I agree that the actions of the Liberal-National Party are the most unwholesome that we have seen for a long time. One of the things that the Opposition fails to recognise, of course, is that in 1967 the people of Australia spoke in regard to things Aboriginal. That includes land rights. Only this Government is prepared to accept that responsibility because in seven years the former Government did nothing for Aboriginal land rights. Senator Messner —Well, you are the first person to say so clearly for us today. Senator COLEMAN —I am very pleased that the honourable senator agrees with me. I am sure that his listeners will be heartened to know that the speech he made as a contribution to this debate is now being debunked. The issue that we have heard about so many times in this chamber is not really one of Aboriginal land rights. It is not really one of heritage legislation. It is delaying tactics on the part of the Opposition to prevent the Government getting on with what it is being paid to do and, that is, to run this country. Senator Messner can sit in this chamber and look for help from above. That is probably the only place from which he will get it. He certainly will not get it from the people outside this chamber. Let me tell him about the situation in Western Australia. It happens to be my State and I think I am a little closer to the situation there than he is. In a little while I will quote from some of the things that two former-I stress the word 'former'-Ministers have had to say, both from Western Australia, both former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, one who is out of the Parliament and one who is sitting on the Opposition benches now. I will repeat some of the statements that they made on things Aboriginal when they were in government in 1980. They brought very interesting issues to light then. Let me just tell honourable senators about what has happened in Western Australia. We have the biggest gerrymander outside Queensland operating in that State that provides for a situation where a government of my colour can never ever control the Legislative Council. All that Premier Burke is doing at the moment is acknowledging the fact that we can never ever control the Legislative Council. Once we get electoral reform through-that is highly unlikely given the situation there at the moment-we will move on a number of areas, but only when we know that legislation which is vital can be passed. There is little value in our putting up legislation at this point knowing that in totality it will be knocked out by the Legislative Council. One does not gain anything that way. All that that means is that one loses the entire legislation, that one gains nothing and that the Aboriginal communities gain nothing. We have heard a lot in media reports about what has been happening in Western Australia and in other States. All that has happened is that the voters in Western Australia have been subjected to some of the most racist advertising that it has ever been my displeasure to see. In case honourary senators are not aware of what has been happening the Mining Industry Council came out not so long ago with full page advertisements in the daily Press and with television advertisements showing a hand, black of course, building a brick wall around Western Australia. The inference of the voice-over on the commercial was: 'Your quarter acre block in the suburbs is under threat if a Labor government has its way and introduces land rights legislation'. I put it on the record here and now as the convenor of the Caucus Aboriginal affairs committee and as a member of the Australian Labor Party Policy Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that it has never been the intention to grant land rights just for the sake of granting land rights. It has always been the intention that we would grant land rights that were subject to claim by Aboriginal communities which could identify with that land in particular areas. We saw all these massive television advertisements and full page newspaper advertisements put out by the Mining Industry Council. There was a very good reason why that Council suddenly started this campaign. In conformity with the wishes of the Opposition it wanted to divide the community. But what else had happened was that the pastoralists in Western Australia had suddenly become aware that, for years they had veto rights over mining and they just did not know it. So the Mining Industry Council had to say 'We cannot possibly have something happening for the black people that is not available for the whites', trying to convince the pastoralists that they did not have veto rights. They were just not aware of them. The mining industry had walked all over their land. It had explored wherever it wanted to explore. It had done anything that it wanted to do on their land. It knew that it would now have to sit down and talk and consult with Aboriginal communities if land rights legislation became the order of the day. That concerned the mining industry because in the past it had been able to walk in and do what it liked. I remind honourable senators about what happened in the former Government's period of office when we had the disgraceful situation where the person who brought forward this matter of urgency today was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and sat on this side of the chamber. I have made mention of this before and I will make mention of it time and time again. Whenever an issue is raised that relates to Aboriginal land rights I will raise the subject of Noonkanbah, because that was the most disgraceful thing that ever occurred. Senator Chaney was the Minister at that time. I intend to quote some of the things that he had to say shortly after that and his acknowledgement of what Noonkambah meant. It was used as a divisive tactic by the former Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, who wanted to ensure that he was seen as being the white God above those black people. Senator Chaney —Stephen Hawke felt like that too. Senator COLEMAN —I will discuss that with the honourable senator another time if he wishes to do so. I would be quite happy for him to bring in an urgency motion on that issue if he would like to. I would be quite happy to debate that with the honourable senator. But at the moment we are debating his matter of urgency. We saw at that time a mining company that did not want to be involved with or forced into a situation but which was forced by a State government to take a drilling rig on to the Aboriginal community site at Noonkanbah, a property that had been purchased by the Government for the community. That company was forced to take that drilling rig on to the site at Noonkanbah, a site where every geologist to whom I spoke knew that there were not remarkable quantities of oil. Nevertheless, it was forced to take that drilling rig on to the site under threat by the former Premier, Sir Charles Court. I keep saying 'former Premier' and 'former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' because they are all on the Opposition benches now, both in the State and the Federal scene. That mining company was forced by the former Premier to take that drilling rig on site under threat of losing its exploration licences. That was the threat that was made to Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc., the mining company involved. It was told that if it did not take that drilling rig through it would have its exploration licences cancelled and this reference was not only to its licences on Noonkanbah . But, I am sure that Senator Chaney would agree that the interesting thing is-I raised this matter during the heritage legislation debate and I will raise it again now-that since the Noonkanbah situation and given that all that that exercise resulted in was a very fragile community, at the point of collapse, because of consultation, the company is now in Noonkanbah. It is drilling where it wanted to drill. More importantly, it is drilling where the Aboriginal community wanted it to drill. It is all being done with consensus-that overworked word perhaps, 'consensus'-conciliation or consultation. That is exactly the way it should be. There should be consultation. I will now talk about the consultation that is being undertaken by this Hawke Labor Government and the Burke Labor Government of Western Australia because that is why there is a delay. We are delaying. I am not unhappy about that but Senator Chaney has criticised us for not acting on Western Australian land rights legislation. There is no Western Australian land rights legislation, and those opposite know that. They criticise us here for not acting on something that does not exist. The Western Australian land rights legislation, when enacted, will be enacted in full consultation with the Federal Government, quite distinct from what has happened with other States and governments of the same colour when there has never been consultation between the States and the Federal Government as there has been on this occasion and will be on future occasions. We will not adopt the confrontationist attitude that Liberal-National Party governments tend to adopt. For instance, this morning's Australian contained an article on page 2 headed: 'Libs drop crime for other issues'. Such articles are always put to the front of the newspaper in the hope, I suppose, that the Liberal Party will be given some ideas on what the issues might be. The article states: The Opposition's most recent opinion polls show that organised crime, while still retaining the electorate's interest- I interpose here that it is retaining the electorate's interest only because of the way in which it has been treated by the media and the Opposition in this chamber- was not amongst the major issues. Of course it is not, and that should have been recognised by the Opposition without having to be told by the media. Amongst those things that the poll showed as of major importance is, of course, Aboriginal land rights and that, I suggest, is the only reason we have this urgency motion before us today. The media put it into the hands of of those opposite that this is an issue and they are determined to make it an issue. Senator Gietzelt —Tell us what the previous Ministers said. Senator COLEMAN —Oh yes. I must just read this before I finish, as my time is getting short. This is what was said by two former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Fred Chaney and his immediate predecessor Mr Ian Viner: So far these issues- land rights- so intense with the kind of emotions which run deep in race relations, have been resolved by long negotiation, with each side giving something but holding firm to what has been vital to their interests. This was said by the same man who here criticises us for holding firm to what has been vital, recognising that there is going to be lengthy discussion. Talking about the Northern Territory Act, they said: At the heart of the Act is the special relationship that Aborigines have with their land. These are the words of two former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs. In WA it has become fashionable to ridicule and condemn this spiritual association with the land, to insult Aborigines to whom it is still of great importance and to assert that sacred sites are found only after mineral exploration has uncovered promising finds on Aboriginal lands. There is a great depth of feeling in those words from Senator Chaney and from Mr Ian Viner, who was also a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in which they actually demonstrate that they care about Aboriginal people and that they really have a concern that land rights, the ultimate goal in their opinion, is attainable and can be given to Aborigines without all this falderal that those opposite have been going on with today. If they were being constructive about land rights legislation, this type of matter of urgency might have some bearing. But they are not being constructive; they are endeavouring to be destructive about what the Federal Government and the State governments are doing so far as land rights are concerned. There is no way that I would be prepared to accept that as an urgency motion. I think it needs the strongest condemnation and I urge the Senate to vote accordingly. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Georges, G. Richardson, G. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Giles, P. J. Ryan, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Hearn, J. M. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Button, J. Archer, B. R. Coates, J. Chipp, D. L. Cook, P. F. S. Hill, R. Foreman, D. J. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This information paper published by the Department of Aviation indicates continued improvement in 1983-84 in the domestic aviation industry. It also indicates that during that financial year there was a 3.5 per cent growth in passenger kilometres following a very large reduction in civil aviation traffic in 1982-83 of over 8 per cent. It looks as though growth in the civil aviation industry is accelerating, with 11 per cent growth in the 12 months to June this year compared with June last year. The fastest growth documented was in respect of regional airlines, those operating on intrastate routes, on which routes there was very rapid growth indeed. But on the major trunk routes in Australia passenger growth was less than one per cent. One of the striking things in this information paper prepared by the Department of Aviation is the finding that airline fares are still growing faster than the rate of inflation, presumably measured by the consumer price index. So air fares are still increasing, in real terms, in this country. I was rather surprised by the finding in the paper that there were larger real increases in air fares on the longer haul routes than on the short haul routes. I know that that finding would be of some interest to honourable senators from north Queensland and Western Australia particularly, who have been pressing for some time for restructuring of Australia's air fares system. That finding is the reverse of what might have been expected as a result of the debate in recent years on air fares in Australia. There are some very interesting regional differences in the results of the growth in the airline industry in the last financial year. Unfortunately, we do not have any data on passenger flows through the various major airports, but the paper does provide some extremely interesting information on airline-aircraft movements through the eight major airports in Australia. In the last financial year there was a decline of 1.5 per cent in aircraft movements by the airlines at the eight capital city airports. However, that figure was an improvement on the very large 7.5 per cent fall in the previous financial year. In the year just ended Canberra Airport recorded the largest increase in traffic movements and of the State capitals Adelaide had the best result, with a 2 per cent improvement. Interestingly, the worst result in terms of aircraft movements was Brisbane Airport where there was a 6 per cent decline. Possibly that is one indicator of a less than satisfactory economic situation in that State. Unfortunately the paper has some gaps in it. It does not document clearly the traffic movements at Melbourne Airport and that is a very unsatisfactory result. Looking ahead, the paper prepared on the aviation industry by the Department forecasts only a 2 per cent growth in domestic airline traffic in the present financial year. Of course one of the factors resulting from that projection would be the relatively large increases in air fares which have been occurring in this country. Unfortunately air travel in such a large country as Australia is a very high cost item. I believe that fares which have increased higher than the rate of inflation have been one factor contributing to the slow growth in air traffic in this country. The paper also forecasts some growth in international air traffic into Australia in the current financial year over that of the previous financial year . What the projections in the information paper indicate is that the days of rapid growth in air traffic in Australia are over. Gone are the times of recent years when the airlines recorded a growth rate in traffic of 6 or 7 per cent per annum. We are now looking at 2 per cent growth at the best. Gone are the days when the airlines were looking at equipping their fleets with the very large aircraft that are seen at present on international routes. One of the results of the slow growth in airline traffic has been the rationalistaion of the fleets by our airlines. They have been leasing out equipment and reducing capacity to try to cope with the situation. It is striking that in an economy which has grown overall since the mid-1970s air traffic in Australia is barely at the level it was in 1977-78. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on Government purchasing and offset policies in industrial innovation. I believe that the report is a valuable contribution to the high technology debate as it identifies new and necessary approaches needed to ensure that Australia does not miss out on this important bandwagon. The report also coincides with a report from the Auditor-General who called for clarification of the relationship between Australian industry participation programs and the offset policy. The Auditor-General found that there were weaknesses within the secretariat for identifying and recording purchases to which the offset policy applied. I think it is unfortunate that that is the case. I applaud the Auditor-General on his report. First and foremost, Australia does need a long term, realistic direction which is enthusiastically supported by government policies and community attitudes. The slow and painful demise of our manufacturing industries has injected an air of resignation into the economic climate which does not encourage risk-taking in the market place. Australia's apparent reliance on foreign technology could produce a complacency which is not conducive to aggressive product and process innovation. Other barriers such as State competition, excessive regulation and paranoid intervention do not contribute to the foundation of a confident domestic base from which Australia's technological potential could be realised or maximised. The fact that Australia in only a small trading nation augments the argument which calls for specialisation in areas where we display a particular talent, such as the biological sciences. There is a problem that if we laboriously endeavour to embrace the whole spectrum of high technology we could unnecessarily duplicate overseas efforts and have insufficient resources to reward innovation as deserved. As of March 1984 Australia had a very low percentage of expenditure on technology in comparison with that of other Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development nations. While the case for increased expenditure is naturally strong a re-organisation of current expenditure priorities, I think, is desirable. Funding emphasis on recurrent activity would be lessened while innovative activity is strengthened. After all, activity close to the product provides immediate gains. Government policies should assist Australian industries in a manner which do not eventually and inevitably necessitate excessive protection in order to prevent obsolescence. We must not build costly white elephants. For example, some of the facilities at the Government Aircraft Factories in Victoria could easily fit into this category if it is logically expected that the Royal Australian Air Force will take over the servicing of the new McDonnell fighter. Although not publicly acknowledged within the confines of the technical corridors of overseas board rooms, overseas manufacturers of defence hardware regard Australia as a very soft negotiator, in terms of not only the offset arrangements but also the inadequacies of after-sales service and warranties of goods supplied. The weakness of the rear section of the F18 aeroplane from the United States is a good example, and the latest of a very long list of problems where the Australian Government will pay more than originally intended or expected. With the principal potential suppliers for the helicopter contract busily explaining the benefits of offsets to Australian industry, once the contract is signed the successful tenderer will, if true to past form, then set about satisfying the Government as to why Australian industry is incapable of meeting specifications, tolerances and time delivery. Unfortunately, governments are all too ready to accept these kinds of arrangements, to the detriment of Australian industry. If our position is assessed realistically and positively and if our weaknesses are acknowledged, technological innovation which is appropriately rewarded will play a vital role in restoring Australia's declining living standards. I support the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to refer to the disappointment which I am sure is shared by a wide cross- section of people in Australia that the Government did not see fit to accept the recommendations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the development of fisheries courses in Australia. The Commission recommended for the first year of the triennium an expenditure of half a million dollars and then increasing amounts over the remainder of the triennium. There was considerable anticipation that that development would take place in Tasmania as part of the wide variety of marine-related developments which are centred in that State, varying from the Australian Maritime College to the Antarctic base, and including, as it does, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's fisheries research development there and a wide cross-section of other marine-related and fisheries-related facilities. I trust that this matter will be reconsidered by the Government and that marine science will be facilitated in its development, not only at the northern division or tropical division and the sub-tropical division of the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville but also through the development of what is sometimes referred to as southern aims, that there should also be a southern division. Whilst the Victorian Institute of Marine Science has done an extremely valuable job in carrying out research, particularly with regard to Bass Strait, there is a need for much wider research and development in relation to the temperate and sub-Antarctic waters, going right through to the development of much greater science and technology for the utilisation of the krill fishery in the sub-Antarctic waters. I hope that in the near future we shall see a change of approach which will enable a much more sophisticated development of fish technology, fishing technology and fish processing technology, as well as other aspects of the development of marine science. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. There may have been an explanation in the other place, but I am a little nonplussed as to why we have received on the same day the report from the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the Northern Territory for the year ended 30 June 1983 and the report for the year ended 30 June 1984. It is a little unusual to receive two annual reports in this way. The Government might care to let us know why that has occurred. The reports, coming as they do on the day that we have just had a couple of hours of debate on the question of policy with respect to Aboriginal land and Aboriginal land rights, are of some interest. After a very preliminary look at the reports, one finds that they bear out some of the concerns which have been expressed by the Opposition and which have led us to suggest that there is a very serious need for the Government to shift its position on this issue in a number of respects. The area in which the Commonwealth has sole jurisdiction, the Northern Territory, and the area for which legislation was passed by the previous Government, has thrown up a series of problems. Those problems need to be addressed. The problems are mentioned in passing in the Commissioner's report. The fact that a large number of claims have been made, for example, over stock routes, a procedure which is open to applicants under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as it stands because the land is not deemed to be alienated land, even though, in some sense, it is reserved for a public use, is a matter which has greatly complicated the administration of the Act and has caused a great deal of unrest and, I would say, ill-will. It is the sort of area in which reform is needed and needed quickly. One of the things that strike one on looking at these reports is the fact that there does not appear to have been very much progress made with respect to the applications which have been in hand for some time. Looking at the report for the year ended 30 June 1983, one finds at various points, for example on page 2: No reports on these three claims were made during this year. There seems to be a paucity of any finalisation of applications which have been made. Moving from the 1983 report to the 1984 report, I find the following on page 3: Of the 53 claims not yet listed for hearing, 34 await the outcome of a legislative review. The number of those claims being so large, no realistic assessment of the time needed to deal with outstanding claims can be made until the outcome of the review is known. On page 4 I find reference to the Mount Barkly claim: . . . this inquiry which had commenced in June 1983, concluded in September 1983 . No report was made to the Minister during this year. The Warlpiri, Kukatja and Ngarti claims are referred to at paragraph 11, as follows: . . . this inquiry commenced in July 1983 and concluded in September 1983. No report to the Minister was made during this year. We find that the Beetaloo claim was considered in a session in May 1984 and that the inquiry was adjourned pending the outcome of the legislative review. The Murranji claim, referred to at paragraph 13, was not heard during this year although a final session was scheduled for 1984. I am concerned at the fact that , as is reported by the Commissioner, we find this at page 7 of the 1984 report: The pressure of on-going work has resulted in a back-log in preparing reports. The pressure was in part alleviated by the filling of the position of Principal Research Officer . . . The Act was amended in June 1984, to provide for the appointment of more than one Commissioner; its implementation should expedite the resolution of claims. In fact, the reports show that one of the significant continuing problems in this area is the failure to bring claims to finality. I cannot stress enough the damage that uncertainty does in this area. The deep concerns which are becoming evident in the community and which are being made the subject of very considerable debate at present are concerns which are in part the result of people not being in agreement with some aspects of the legislation and the policies which are being pursued, but that those differences and disagreements about policy are being exacerbated by the large areas of uncertainty which remain. There is a very heavy obligation on the Government to bring more definite rules to bear to remove some of these areas of uncertainty to expedite the consideration of claims and, indeed, the finalisation of claims. The Government should amend the legislation in the way that has been suggested by the Opposition, to remove much of the very unhappy friction which has developed in this area. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In doing so, I note that the Australian Science and Technology Council is awaiting the outcome of the general consideration which is being given to offsets policies. It seems to me that it would be most appropriate to discuss this report along with the other report as soon as it becomes available in, I hope, a more detailed way than would be possible in the very brief debate we could have at this stage. So I do not propose to make any further remarks at the moment. I will seek to have this report and the offsets policy report dealt with together when they become available. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I was interested to look briefly at this policy paper. It suggests how private enterprise principles might be applied to public enterprises and is directed to the structure of the major business enterprises of the Commonwealth. It is of interest to me that the foreword to the paper talks of the research bias that exists in published Australian research in this field. It compares Australia with other countries and states that Australia has scarcely any recent research into the sources of efficiency in public enterprise and the functional role of the public sector in the mixed economy as a whole or the new and changing uses of public enterprises which changing times may call for. It refers to the work which was done and which is still being done by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with regard to the publication of the annual accounts of statutory authorities and departments. I refer to a comment on page 6 of the paper which talks of a general bias towards the study of bad cases. It quotes the present Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), speaking as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, as saying on Australia Day 1984: Great public commercial enterprises have been vandalised as a side effect of the monetarist experiment. He blamed a good deal of the vandalism on its intellectual supports. He went on to say: We intend to reverse that trend. I do not quite know what the Minister meant by that statement in regard to reversing the trend with regard to public enterprises, although we can draw on the paper that was prepared by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party titled ' Report of Task Force on Government Administration' which was published in September 1982. In paragraph 96, under the heading 'PUBLIC ENTERPRISES', it was noted: Although sections 92 and 51 (31) of the Constitution impose significant stumbling blocks upon the acquisition of existing businesses and the compulsory establishment of monopolies, there is no constitutional inhibition on the Commonwealth itself entering the economic field by establishing businesses in competition with private enterprise and using the various tax and other advantages enjoyed by government operations to produce the desired result. Equally there is no constitutional inhibition on the Commonwealth's ability to acquire (otherwise than compulsorily) equity in existing enterprises-though here again, of course, the opportunity cost of any such exercise, i.e. alternative uses for the money involved, would need to be weighed carefully. Another couple of paragraphs under that section also give us some impressions of the present Government's approach to public enterprises. It is therefore of some interest that part of the report which is before us today states that the main financial questions to be settled between the Government and each of its enterprises are, for instance, how much of the existing public stake in the enterprise is to be regarded as equity and how much as debt to government, what dividend requirements attach to the equity and what interest and repayment terms to the debt. A further question is how should future capital needs be met. Should they be met, for example, from earnings or equity capital from government or other sources or from borrowing from government and external borrowing? Another question is, where public enterprises are price setters rather than price takers, how should they set their prices in relation to, firstly, their internal efficiency; secondly, their dividend and debt service requirements; thirdly, self-financing requirements; and, fourthly, customer needs and the social and economic purposes the enterprises are there to serve? These matters raised in the report and in the statement of the Minister are of considerable public interest. It think it is timely that we have before us a report that draws these questions to our attention. As a former Minister for Finance, I can assure the Senate that I was very interested in the role of public enterprises, whether they ought to be seeking some return on the public capital that is employed in them and the difference between one that gives a competitive service, such as Qantas Airways Ltd, and others that give more or less a monopoly service. The questions raised by the report are of interest. I would like to think that the Senate had an opportunity to debate this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to advise the Senate that today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) called upon His Excellency the Governor-General and recommended to him that the House of Representatives be dissolved and that a general election for the members of the House of Representatives be held on Saturday, 1 December 1984. His Excellency has accepted that recommendation. The Prime Minister also asked the Governor- General to take the necessary action to enable an election to be held for half the Senate conjointly with the election for the House of Representatives. His Excellency has agreed to take this action. The details of the election timetable are: Issue of writs, 26 October 1984; close of electoral rolls, 2 November 1984; close of nominations, 6 November 1984; polling day, 1 December 1984; and return of writs, 24 January 1985. Referendums on the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 will also be held on 1 December. The Parliament still has significant and essential Government legislation before it. The Government wishes this legislation to pass the House by 11 October to enable it to rise then. The Senate will clearly need to sit at least an extra week to deal with the essential legislation before it. The Prime Minister then proposes to advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives, probably on 26 October. I ask for leave for the remainder of the statement to be incorporated in Hansard. The form of the statement which I have is in the form of the statement delivered by the Prime Minister to the House of Representatives. I think it would be more appropriate if that portion of it were recorded in Hansard. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- When my predecessor as Prime Minister advised the double dissolution of the thirty-second Parliament on the ever memorable 3 February 1983, he set in train a certain inevitability of events. The chief of those was, of course, the election of my Government on 5 March 1983. But his decision to advise a double dissolution also significantly affected the electoral timetable of this, the thirty-third parliament of the Commonwealth. As a result of that decision, the timetable for simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate-which had been temporarily restored by the premature election of 1977 -was once again disrupted. The consequence is that under the Constitution, there must be an election for half the Senate in time to enable the newly elected senators to take their places on 1 July 1985. In practical terms-involving considerations of the time required by the Australian Electoral Commission to complete the counting of votes-this means that the half Senate election could be held no later than April next year. It has, however, been the pattern over many years for elections for half the Senate to be held in the latter months of the preceding calendar year. Since 1949-leaving aside the three double dissolution elections-eight out of ten such elections have been held in November or December and one other was held in October. The three separate half Senate elections, of 1964, 1967 and 1970, were all held in November or December. It is therefore absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, that the decision to hold the election for half the Senate on 1 December conforms entirely with well- established custom, proper procedure and clear precedents. Virtually from the outset of my Prime Ministership, I have made it very clear to the Parliament and public that I intended, if possible, and if consistent with the higher national interest, to re-align the elections for the two Houses- that is to say, that there would be an election for the House of Representatives on the same day as the constitutionally inevitable election for half the Senate. That is now possible. It is highly desirable. And it is certainly in the best interests of Australia. I do not believe that the wisdom and propriety of this course-my publicly declared intention-have been seriously questioned over the past 18 months. It was of course, the reason my predecessor gave for the early election of 1977. But Mr Speaker, there is one very significant difference between 1977 and now- and that is that unlike 1977, the course we are now taking has been publicly canvassed and I believe generally accepted as proper and correct, virtually throughout the lifetime of this present Parliament. Indeed, Mr Speaker, in no quarter has it been more generally acknowledged as inevitable than on the part of our opponents opposite-who have already committed and spent literally millions of dollars on an advertising campaign targeted on a November or December general election. And speaking of dollars, I should point out that I am informed that the cost of two separate elections would be of the order of $49m, against $30m for simultaneous elections. There are, I believe, two other reasons of considerable importance why the elections for the two Houses should be held simultaneously and why the simultaneous election should be sooner rather than later-in December rather than March or April. Firstly, the business community, upon whom rests so much of the effort for national economic recovery, has widely urged the need for a prompt end to the electioneering atmosphere, as a means of sustaining the confidence which together we have been able to generate. They also share our concern over the frequency of election campaigns in Australia, as a factor militating against confidence and stability. In particular, the retail trade is anxious to have the election over as long as possible before Christmas. Secondly, by the decision of both Houses, the next Parliament is to be enlarged by 23 members in the House of Representatives; and consequent upon the Constitution, by two additional senators from each State. But those additional senators could not take their places until after the new and enlarged House of Representatives had been elected and had met. Accordingly, if an election were to be held for half the Senate alone, the additional senators would be, as it were, in a state of limbo for a period of anything up to 16 months after their election. Clearly Mr Speaker, for this and every other reason, if the will and mandate of the people are to be as fresh and contemporary as possible under the Constitution, then the elections for the two Houses should be held simultaneously. That of course, is one of the reasons why we are resubmitting to the people, by way of referendum, the proposal to alter the terms of senators so that they are linked to the term for the House of Representatives-to enshrine into the Constitution itself the principle of simultaneous elections. Its passage is necessary to restore stability and electoral predictability to our parliamentary system. The decision I have announced today restores that stability, simultaneity and contemporaneity for the next Parliament. By adopting the referendum proposal, the people of Australia can establish it for all future parliaments and for all time. I have set out in some detail the more specific reasons for my recommendation today to the Governor-General-the technical, the practical, the legal and constitutional reasons. But over and above these, there are reasons of profound national importance why the people of Australia should now have the opportunity to pass their judgment upon their Government and to renew its mandate. This Government was elected to revive and revitalise an economy which was in the grip of the worst recession Australia had known for 50 years. We have done that. We were elected to restore economic growth. We have achieved that to the extent that Australia now has the fastest growing economy of any of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We were elected to do what our predecessors had notoriously failed to do in their seven years-to fight unemployment and inflation simultaneously. We have created a quarter of a million new jobs in 18 months-against the loss of almost a quarter of a million jobs under our predecessors. We were elected to implement a wide-ranging but highly responsible program of social reform. That we have done. Above all the very foundation of all that we have been able to achieve so far- we were elected to undertake our pledge to bring about a national reconciliation , as the path to national recovery and national reconstruction. We have ended at last the needless confrontation and division which disfigured Australian society for a decade. But if all the great gains and achievements of the past 20 months are to be maintained and built upon, then it is absolutely essential that there should be a period, a long period, of consolidation, co-operation and creativity -creativity not just in government, but in business and industry and in the Australian community as a whole. The foundation of all this must be a period of political and economic stability and predictability-which only this Government can provide, and which this Government can best provide if it is granted, at the earliest possible opportunity, a new and re-invigorated mandate from the people of Australia. We are now at the very crucial stage of the national recovery. Even more than in the past 20 months, the need now is for firm, effective government to carry through and consolidate the gains made so far. The prices and incomes accord-the basis of non-inflationary recovery-has been spectacularly successful, and its continued acceptance and success is absolutely vital. Yet we know our opponents are pledged to the destruction of the accord, the dismantling of all the machinery which underpins it, and the dissipation of the spirit of co-operation and consensus which binds it together-and indeed in a very real and profound sense, the spirit which now binds this nation together in a way we have not experienced before in peacetime. Here then is the overwhelming reason why we believe we are not merely entitled, but indeed bound, to seek a new mandate at the earliest opportunity. Yet, for all that has been achieved so far, there are still pressing problems facing the Government and the nation. There is-for this Government at least-the totally unacceptable level of unemployment and particularly youth unemployment. This we will continue to make one of our most urgent challenges. There is the urgent need-in human terms, nothing could be more urgent-to end the needless and absolutely groundless anxiety which has been created amongst our pensioners by an irresponsible and indeed, thoroughly wicked and cruel campaign of fear and misrepresentation by our opponents. That alone would constitute an irrefutable justification for this election. There is the need for people once again to declare their determination that Medicare should endure. There is the need to deal the final blows to the tax avoidance industry in this country. There is the need, not only to strengthen the unrelenting fight against organised crime, not just by laws and machinery-as we are doing-but to fight it in the only way by which it can ultimately be won, by a nation and a parliament genuinely united in that fight. Here then are constituted overriding reasons of the highest national importance , why we today are asking the people of Australia for a renewal of our mandate on 1 December. A new spirit of confidence and self-confidence has emerged in this nation. In the final analysis, everything we hope for in this great country of ours depends upon maintaining and fostering that spirit. Yet we have seen in recent months that there are persons in Australia-and I regret to say, there are persons in this House-who believe, however misguidedly, that they have some kind of vested interest in undermining that new spirit of national confidence and self-confidence. I believe the people of Australia have already realised the nature and purpose of this campaign of denigration. I believe they will not easily or quickly forgive its perpetrators. On 1 December, I shall not be merely seeking from the people of Australia a verdict of faith and confidence in this Government. Much more importantly, I shall be asking the people of Australia to proclaim once again their faith and confidence in themselves, their faith and confidence in the future of this great nation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.38) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. That statement has been partly read and partly incorporated in Hansard. Of course, I have heard only that part of the statement which has been read to us by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Only about two years ago the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made an undertaking that under him a government would run for a full term. That followed a series of statements which he had made, allying himself with the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Hayden, that the Australian Labor Party believed that the Liberals had been wrong in having early elections, and that parliaments in which the Labor Party held a majority would go for a full term. That was a view expressed by Mr Hawke not merely when he was shadow Minister in the then Opposition but also when he was for a brief period, Leader of the Opposition, and during the election campaign he reaffirmed that his government would run for a full term. By 1 December the Government will have been in office for approximately 20 months. That is a long way short of what I think the Australian people understand to be a full term, which is three years. Indeed, under the constitutional arrangements which apply the Government may run for a little more than three years if it wishes. The Government indicated that one reason for wishing to have an early election- at least it has when the matter has been discussed on a theoretical basis; I do not know whether that is indicated in the statement-is the need to hold a half Senate election. Of course, the fact of the matter is that a half Senate election will be necessary by the end of the next financial year, that is before June of next year. A consistent view put forward by the Opposition is that if Mr Hawke were really determined to bring the two Houses together he would certainly have the option of having his election next year, say as late as April or May, a period which gives us a little more time to assess the worth of his Government and to assess the long term effects of the policies which Mr Hawke has introduced. That is a significant question and one that the people of Australia need to ponder. Why is it that Mr Hawke is going to an election a little over a year and a half after having taken office? The reasons for that are not hard to find. Early today we had a debate about one of the issues on which the Government is obfuscating and that is whether the Government will introduce overriding national land rights legislation. I think there are more significant reasons than that issue and the issue of the secret human rights Bill of the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am not sure how one protects human rights in secret but perhaps the Attorney-General will demonstrate that. However , he is not prepared to show us the legislation before an election. Of course, there are the Government's as yet unrealised plans for a capital gains tax and all the rest. I think there are far more significant reasons than the hidden agenda items to which I refer. The fact is that this Government has enjoyed a wonderful run of luck. There are plenty of Government spokesmen who have made that point as well as Opposition spokesmen. For example, Mr Dawkins has made that point. I think the fundamental criticism that can be made of us is that we were silly enough to call an election at precisely the wrong time, at the bottom of an economic cycle. Certainly I cheerfully make that admission. The fact of the matter is that the breaking of the drought and other benign economic influences have served Australia well. I think the most that can be said of this Government is that so far it has not got in the way. However, we are now at a point where the Government has brought in its second budget which has given it some $9,000m of extra revenue. The Budget has given the Government that because there was a lift of just under 50 per cent in provisional tax as part of an increase in the income of the rural community because of the breaking of the drought. There has been a large once-off lift in revenues which has been substantially devoted by this Government to new, additional expenditure. A $9, 000m increase in expenditure and slightly over a $1 billion reduction in the deficit tells us something about the form of the Budget which this Government brought in. I simply say to those people observing what is really happening to the economy and what is being done to the economy that there are significant problems. We have opposite us the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I managed to call him the right thing. He has called me the Solicitor-General, Senator Fraser and the Leader of the Government over the last week. I really am beginning to think that he is very confused about what my role in this place is. The fact of the matter is that there would be no one more aware than Senator Button of the fact that in the area of manufacturing industry and private investment there are extremely worrying signs at the present. The concerns which are being expressed by respected economic commentators, including the producers of Syntec, over the last couple of weeks are concerns which I am sure are widely understood within the Government. I say only that an election now is an election under which this Government is going, without coming clean with the Australian electorate both on what its plans for legislation are in the sorts of fields I have mentioned and, more seriously, the prospects for Australia under the continued policies of this Government. There are many things which the Government is concerned about. It is now spending vast amounts of taxpayers' money advertising Medicare. Why is this? The Government knows that the irritation against Medicare is mounting. The Government knows that people are put to the inconvenience of having to insure twice and of having to deal with two different bureaucracies to manage their health insurance. That sort of irritation is growing in the community. The Government knows that the irritation of the aged who are receiving their assets est forms is growing. The Government knows that there is concern about its tax plans and about its policies which are aimed at the short term instead of at the long term interests of this country. I am sure we will have many opportunities in the weeks of sitting that remain to debate the issues. I wish to say that this is yet another one of the many broken promises of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to the people of Australia and said that under him things would be different and that he would keep Parliament in session for a full term. He has shown as little regard for that promise as he has shown for the hundreds of others he has broken. I welcome the chance to go to an election because I think we have sat far too long on this side of the House. I welcome the chance to return Senator Button to his rightful role as Leader of the Opposition. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.47) —The Australian Democrats welcome the reasonably early announcement of the election. I agree with something the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said recently in the House of Representatives to the effect that this at least gives business an early idea of what is going on. To that extent I think the Government can be praised at least for not making the announcement later than it could have been made. The Australian Democrats are quite happy and ready and prepared for an election at this time. It hardly comes as a surprise. I think none of us here would regard it as a surprise. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I say that the issues which very few of our colleagues in this place tend to espouse are major issues which we will espouse in the election to come. We will stress the issues of peace in this world. We will espouse anti-nuclear issues. We will try to remind the Government and the Opposition throughout this campaign of the situation obtaining of a hell's brew of involvement among the export of uranium, the nuclear power industry and the proliferation of nuclear arms. Mr Deputy President, through you, I know that my colleagues understand that full well and that it is time they admitted it to themselves and to the people of this country. This is a major world issue. It is not good enough for us to run like lemmings towards the brink. Also it is not good enough-as happened in answer to a question earlier today-to have a Minister, in this case Senator Walsh, say that virtually he would take on trust from outside authorities whether the uranium of this country is used in nuclear weapons. I warn the Government that that issue is a much bigger one than it imagines. It is an issue on which the Government would be well advised to do its homework and perhaps, even at this late stage, to take a different viewpoint from the one it has taken up to now. In fact, that would not surprise me if that happened. Let us hope if it does happen it is not done with cynicism because an election is approaching. We would like to have complete conviction that the Government will go forward into this election with policies it will stick with after the election. That would be a new thing. That has not been the case up until now. The Australian Democrats believe-honourable senators can call us idealists if they wish-that our children should grow up in a world that is safe, clean and as reasonable as we can make it and that every effort devoted to that end is worth making. We believe again that the natural environment must be preserved. Again that is becoming a cliche. We have the disgraceful situation of a road through the Daintree Rainforest. Senator MacGibbon —Make your policy speech outside. Senator MASON —Senator MacGibbon is a senator from Queensland. I think he really ought to take more note of what is happening in the precious and valuable parts of his State. Senator MacGibbon is a part of the architect of the destruction of that place. He has spoken in this place and approved of it. Senator MacGibbon has helped create a monster. As he would know, yesterday there was not even a road that could be used trafficably but a morass and a quagmire which has already begun to destroy the Great Barrier Reef. Half a dozen vehicles got bogged. I ask Senator MacGibbon to do his homework and find out. He should be honest and go back to the electors of Queensland, looking at the welfare of his own State. The other great submerged issue which the Government has virtually ignored and about which it has done nothing is that great issue of unemployment. It is not good enough for the Government merely to create more community employment programs or to put in more toilet blocks at Woop Woop on which young people will work for three to six months and then go back into the ash can. That is not what is required in this country. The Government has not taken sufficient cognisance of the great tragedy in this country when 25 per cent of its young people-the best educated and most able generation we have ever had-are told they are not wanted. Of course the Government could do something about it. The Government is intimidated by the union movement, among other things. It will not have permanent part time work, it will not have a decent civilian youth corps because those in work who have influence on the Government have prevented those things from happening. Senator Crowley —We have just introduced it. Senator MASON —I ask Senator Crowley where are those plans. I ask her to bring those plans forward and tell the House what the Government is doing. The fact that one in four youths in this country is unemployed is a cancer on our society . Senator Robert Ray —What is your policy? Senator MASON —I could speak for half an hour on that policy. Senator Robert Ray —Give us one idea. Senator MASON —I sent an idea to the Government the other day. It should have been included in the Budget. I tell Senator Robert Ray that it has already been applied in ten countries in the European Economic Community. People who are prepared to retire a year or two earlier are given the full pension and people who are on the dole are being put into those jobs. That scheme is working in those ten countries. I ask Senator Robert Ray not to knock that idea. I wrote to the Prime Minister about it and received a reply from him the other day. The Prime Minister has referred the matter for Cabinet consideration, but the Government should have had it in the Budget. It is not good enough for the Government to let things go on and on and to let these unemployed people rot. It is not good enough for Labor members to sit here and allow these things to happen. Youth unemployment is a cancer on this country. It is from that source that the epidemic of drug-taking and the increasing epidemic of crime and housebreaking come. It is about time that was recognised as a matter of urgency and importance. It is not a matter that should be neglected by a Labor Government for two years. The Government has allowed youth unemployment to be as bad now as it was when the Government took office; the Government has done nothing about the position at all. Senator Crowley —That is an outrage. Senator MASON —Is it? I ask Senator Crowley to tell me some of the things that have been done. She knows as well as I do that the figures now are as bad as when the Government took office. The Government has done nothing about it and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Government has neglected the matter shamefully. In the last Budget the Government pretended to increase the funds devoted to youth unemployment, but when the wage pause funds are taken out it can be seen that the Budget has cut down assistance in that respect. Labor members should be honest with themselves on this matter. As for the Senate, there have been two elections in three years and the Democrats have begun to make the Senate a people's house of review. I promise at the beginning of this election campaign-because today marks the beginning of that campaign-that the Democrats will keep the Senate a house of review of that kind. Many Australian will have forgotten what it means to have the Senate in the hands of the governing party. In earlier years people had not even heard of the Senate and did not even know it was here. Now Australians know the Senate is here and they will continue to know it is here. I remind the people that unless the Democrats hold the balance of power in this place-and I do not hesitate to use those words, because we have exercised that power responsibly and reasonably -this Parliament will become a rubber stamp at the mercy of the forces behind the Labor Caucus. An interesting point made in the media is that it is possible this election will show an enhanced vote to the Labor Party. If it does that, that will be a vote against Bob Hawke. I allow those who have a little bit of thoughtfulness in their minds to work out the meaning of that. But we do not intend to allow a situation to obtain where the left wing forces, those forces who would want to change and pervert the structure of this country, will have free rein. We will be campaigning also on that basis on our responsibility and usefulness to Australian society. The Senate must remain an effective means of protection against the Executive. That is its role and its function. It is certainly not the desire of the Executive that that should be so. Senator Georges —He is looking for our preferences. Senator MASON —What will the Labor Party do with its preferences, Senator Georges-give them to the Liberal Party? If it does that an extraordinary situation will be created. However, it was done before in South Australia. Senator Georges will remember what happened in South Australia when Labor gave its preferences to the Liberal Party. That is the time it lost government there. I would have thought the pavlovian stimulus there might have cut home a bit. If Labor now wishes to give its preferences to the Liberal Party, if it sees itself more closely allied to that party than to anyone else, it would not surprise us. Senator Georges —We are thinking of giving them to the National Party. Senator MASON —Well, National Party members voted with Labor to increase the numbers of members of parliament. That was an unholy alliance. The Liberal Party and the Democrats voted against the increase in the size of Parliament, but the National Party and the Labor Party in this place voted to bring in that increased parliament. Do the people of this country like the thought of an increase in the size of parliament? If Labor members think so they have another think coming. It would be appropriate for Labor to give its preferences to the National Party as a vote of thanks for helping it in this place to get an increase in the number of members of parliament. Finally, the Democrats say that the Senate must remain an effective means of protection against the Executive. That is its function-a function it has grown into. This is now a House that is heard of, discussed and considered more than the House of Representatives. That is right and proper. This is the House that is elected by the more reasonable, more modern and more representative voters because it is a proportionally represented House. This House, the Senate, is the people's House. Let us not have any farce again about saying that the House of Representatives is the people's House. The House of Representatives in its very nature and constitution is under the thumb of the Executive. The Senate must continue to be a forum for policies designed to secure the future. I say, without fear of contradiction and without apology, that the only way this can be guaranteed is for the Australian Democrats to continue to hold the balance of power in this place. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.58) —Now I have heard the lot. The Senate has just been treated to a contribution by Senator Mason, who made the rather extraordinary statement that a vote for the Australian Labor Party was somehow a vote against Bob Hawke. I cannot quite follow that. Senator Mason —You just think about it for a while. Senator HARRADINE —I have thought about it. If by that you mean-- Senator Mason —I mean that his influence may be a little less in future than it is now. Senator HARRADINE —Is Senator Mason saying that if there is an overwhelming vote for the Labor Party, it will get control of the Senate? Senator Mason —No, I am not saying that. Senator HARRADINE —Most psephologists, the experts on elections, say that the Labor Party cannot control this Parliament. Let me look at the numbers. For example, in New South Wales the Labor Party could get four seats and the Opposition three. If that occurs in South Australia and Western Australia and if the other States break three, three and one, with Mrs Venn coming here, the Labor Party should do its homework and find out what that gives it. I believe that the statement made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, warrants a little more consideration than it has been given so far. One of the most bizarre reasons for an early election is contained in the third page of the Prime Minister's statement: Secondly, Mr Speaker, by the decisions of both Houses the next Parliament is to be enlarged by 23 members in the House of Representatives; and consequent upon the Constitution by two additional senators from each State. But those additional senators could not take their places until after the new and enlarged House of Representatives had been elected and had met. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, if an election were to be held for half the Senate alone, the additional senators would be, as it were, in a state of limbo for a period of anything up to 16 months after their election. I was in the House of Representatives when the Prime Minister was making that statement. I am sure that all members of the House of Representatives were absolutely aghast at the prospect of two additional senators being held in limbo for a period of 16 months. That takes the cake. Furthermore, I would have thought that a decision to enlarge the House of Representatives by 23 members, and in order to do so for this Senate to have passed a Bill which enlarged this House, was certainly not the doing of the Liberal Party but the doing of the Government and the National Party. I do not think even the Australian Democrats voted for that. I believe that a number of the points made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this statement are rather specious when they are used as the reason for calling an early election. About the only one that has some validity is the question of cost, which is dealt with on page 3. But that is not an argument for having an election on 1 December this year: It is an argument for having an election prior to 30 June next year. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, that would have to take place by the end of April next year. I would have thought that it could probably take place by the end of the first week in May next year. But it is not an argument for having the election now. Frankly, there are very real arguments for not having it on 1 December. One of those arguments is that of efficiency of the Parliament. The House of Representatives, according to this document, will try to rise by the 11th, which is Thursday. That will mean that from 11 October, for the rest of this year there will be no further sittings of the House of Representatives. No further legislation will be passed and the Parliament will have no further ability to exercise its audit and control functions over the Executive. This country, whatever colour its government may be, should not have a period in which the Parliament is allowed not to sit for the time that is now envisaged-from 11 October until probably the end of February. It is a period of about five months in which there will be no audit and control over the Executive Government. I think that is a bad thing for parliamentary democracy. Secondly, it appears to me that the only reason for not having the election in March of next year is the fact that the February unemployment figures will be absolutely devastating. Senator Mason —Hear, hear! Senator HARRADINE —They will be absolutely devastating in March of next year as far as youth unemployment is concerned. Senator Mason says 'Hear, hear!'. I disagree entirely with Senator Mason's panacea for youth unemployment. Senator Mason —You don't even know what it is. Senator HARRADINE —No. The honourable senator stated it. It is permanent part time work; in other words, sharing the work. I know quite a few people who would like to share their work, but not too many would want to share their pay because their pay is not enough for them to live on with the degree of dignity with which they ought to live. It really is a nonsense to say that that will be the panacea to the problem. Senator Jack Evans —It is one solution. What are your solutions? Senator HARRADINE —I was hoping the honourable senator would ask that. I hope that I will get from everyone here a guarantee of support of my one motion of urgency before the Senate rises. I want next week to move a motion of urgency which will go to the unnecessary and unfair burden of youth unemployment in today's society. I hope that will be done on a non-partisan basis. I have prepared a case, I hope thoroughly, in which the figures and the solutions will speak for themselves. I hope I will have the Senate's support for that one day next week. Senator Crowley —You live in hope. Senator HARRADINE —Do I not have the honourable senator's support? Senator Crowley —No, I haven't heard what you have to say for God's sake! Senator HARRADINE —Let us see how we go. Senator Jack Evans —You have avoided the issue for now, anyway, Senator. You don 't have any solutions obviously. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, I am sure you would rule me out of order were I now to launch into all of my solutions, which will be revealed as a result of the figures that are available and the interpretation of those figures that will be put forward by me in my motion next week. This document does not provide for a double dissolution. It appears that the Prime Minister has a constitutional reason or a number of constitutional reasons for calling a double dissolution. He has not chosen to do so. It raises a whole question mark over the attacks that have been made in this chamber, for example by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, relating to why the Prime Minister did not call a double dissolution. If there is a constitutional problem between the House of Representatives and the Senate, that is the way in which to solve it. But a double dissolution has not been called. It will be a half Senate election. That being the case I have now to say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and to the Senate that I will see some of your smiling faces back here again. I will not be standing at this election as I will not be required to do so. Nevertheless I believe that the volume and range of work and the issues that have been advanced and projected by me over a period warrant some consideration as to whether assistance is required in this chamber. I am sure that that has been given thorough consideration by persons who are very supportive of me in Tasmania and I believe that those people have come to a correct decision, namely , that another person will be nominated for election to this Senate. I was required, as honourable senators will appreciate, because of the change in the Senate ballot paper, to register my name as a political party for the purpose of getting a box on the top of the ballot paper. I think very few people realise that they will be faced with a changed Senate ballot paper. I do not know whether the Australian Electoral Office will do anything about it. Senator Robert Ray —I think it is going to spend about $1 1/2m on it. Senator HARRADINE —Apparently people will be informed about it because when they walk into a polling booth and see the ballot paper it will be totally different from what they had been used to. The ballot paper will consist of two sections: The top section will have boxes with the party listed underneath; the second section will show all of the candidates. People will have an option of either voting No. 1 in a box at the top of the ballot paper or going through all of the candidates underneath in the second part of the paper. I had to consider whether it was a matter which gave unfair advantage to the political parties against independents. I registered my name as a political party primarily for the purpose of getting that box. Honourable senators will appreciate that the requirements were not for me to have 500 paid up or signed up members, because I have far more than that as workers. I did not need formally to create a structure but simply to register the name, and the name had to be of fewer than six words and not obscene. Senator Button —That is for others to judge, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, it is too. Under those circumstances I am very happy to announce what people in Tasmania already know; that is, that a candidate by the name of Mrs Kath Venn, who has vast legislative and political experience, will be running in the election as a member of the Senator Brian Harradine Group. I have no doubt that the people of Tasmania will recognise the important role she will be able to play in this Parliament, which is the House of review. After all , she was the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Tasmanian House of review, the Legislative Council. She as a Tasmanian will be able to represent the State in what is, in effect, the States House. In that sense, I welcome the announcement of this election, but only in that sense. Senator Walters —You are getting free ABC time. Senator HARRADINE —I acknowledge the interjection of Senator Walters when she says I am getting my free ABC time now. This is probably the only way I can get it. I must say that the last occasion-- Senator Robert Ray —You must be a friend of Mr Whitehead, surely. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I have already asked him what free time I will get, but the last time Senate Estimates Committee A met we had a bit of difficulty over the ABC's decision in respect of homosexuals. I will be interested to know what free time I will receive in respect of the election. I have used the occasion of the announcement of the election by the Prime Minister to refer nationally to the point that Mrs Kath Venn will be standing at the next election. Thus, I welcome the opportunity to have her elected to this chamber. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 Canberra College of Advanced Education Bill 1984 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all it stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Limited to finance the purchase of two Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft. As part of its fleet modernisation program approved by the Government in November last year, Qantas is to acquire a total of six Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft. The company expects to take delivery of the first two aircraft in July 1985 and to introduce them into service shortly thereafter. The remaining four aircraft are scheduled to be delivered by March 1986. Qantas' fleet modernisation program, which also includes the acquisition of three Boeing 747-300 stretched upper deck aircraft, constitutes the single largest order of aircraft in Australian aviation history. The new Boeing 767 extended range aircraft will give Qantas greater flexibility and improved operating economics for more lightly trafficked routes to and from Australia. While the Boeing B747 aircraft operated by Qantas are well suited to long haul operations and heavily trafficked regional routes, they present difficulties to Qantas in serving the more lightly trafficked regional routes and the smaller gateway airports opened to international operations in recent years. At around 210 seats, the Boeing 767's passenger capacity is about half that of the Boeing 747 aircraft. The new aircraft will enable the company better to meet consumer expectations and needs. The new Boeing 767 aircraft are to be operated initially on services to Wellington, and as the company's pilot training programme develops and the remainder of the Boeing 767 aircraft are delivered, the aircraft will be progressively applied to Melbourne-Fiji, Sydney and Melbourne to Noumea and Australia to New Zealand flights. Sydney-Christchurch and Sydney-Auckland flights however will continue to be operated with Boeing 747 aircraft. During the fleet build-up Qantas plans to progressively introduce Boeing 767 extended range flights on selected routes between Australia and South East Asian countries. Qantas intends to raise loans for the purchase of only two of its Boeing 767s, the remaining four to be financed from Qantas internally generated funds. The three Boeing 747 Suds will be acquired through lease financing, and the $US304m finance package arranged by Qantas for the acquisition of these aircraft is the largest leverage lease deal struck by an Australian company and one of the biggest international multi-currency leases negotiated. To a considerable degree , Qantas' new aircraft will be financed through anticipated earnings and profits , and the company's recent return to profitability was a key factor in the company's program to re-equip. Internal financing will also be assisted by funds obtained from the disposal of six of the company's oldest Boeing 747-200 aircraft. The provision of a guarantee for Qantas' repayment of, and payment of interest on, amounts borrowed for two of its Boeing 767 ER aircraft and related spare parts and equipment will be limited by the Bill to $US200m or its equivalent in other currencies. The provision of a guarantee would not involve the Government in any cash outlay but does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. The terms and conditions of Qantas' borrowings are to be subject to the Treasurer's approval. The Bill also provides for proper security to be given to the Commonwealth over such property items as the Treasurer deems satisfactory, and Qantas is to undertake to maintain adequate insurance of the items under the loan guarantee, and to protect the security of the Commonwealth against the sale or mortgage of the aircraft. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.17) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The three main purposes of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 are to improve the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges, to place payment and penalty provisions on a more commercial basis and to pave the way for the introduction of a separate airport and airway charging arrangement to replace the existing air navigation charges. The Bill also makes some machinery amendments to the Air Navigation (Charges) Act. At present the Commonwealth's powers to recover debts for air navigation charges are limited to the imposition of penalty charges and normal debt recovery action through the courts. These powers have proved insufficient particularly with respect to certain general aviation operators. Over the two years to 30 June 1984, air navigation charges from the general aviation sector outstanding for more than 28 days increased from about $3.5m to about $5m. While the majority of overdue payments can not be classified as bad debts, they nevertheless represent a significant cost to Commonwealth revenue. As well as depriving the Commonwealth of revenue, operators with outstanding air navigation charges reflect poorly on the industry and adversely affect its overall cost recovery results. Moreover, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which often unscrupulous operators are, through such devices as straw companies, gaining an unfair commercial advantage over the great majority of operators who pay their air navigation charges promptly. While the Department of Aviation has actively tried to assist operators facing short term financial difficulties by encouraging them to make arrangements to pay by instalment, many problems have been encountered in dealing with recalcitrant debtors and straw companies. Mr President, it gives the Government no pleasure to introduce a Bill which provides for more stringent means to collect air navigation charges and only does so after considerable consultation with the aviation industry through the aviation industry advisory council. Council recognises the seriousness of the situation and the need for the Commonwealth to take strong action. Indeed, some industry counsellors believe the Commonwealth has been too lenient in the past in its efforts to collect air navigation charges. We endorse the tenor of this view but the fact is that the Commonwealth has not had the necessary tools to take a firmer stance. In these circumstances the government must be able take effective steps to recover and secure monies owed both under the present charging arrangements and any future charging regime. We have given careful consideration to alternative courses of action to solve the problem including a suggestion made by industry representatives that operators should have their aircraft de-registered as soon as charges become outstanding. I should like to briefly refer to this proposal which at first glance appears to be a simple and attractive solution akin to the approach adopted by motor vehicle registration authorities. On closer examination this is far from the case. In fact I am advised that that government could only pursue this course where there was a question of safety involved. In any event deregistration, of itself, would not place the Commonwealth in any better position to recover overdue charges in particular where aircraft are operated by straw companies or where an operator goes into liquidation since the Commonwealth would not rank as a secured creditor. For these reasons this proposal was not pursued. As an alternative the Government has decided to put in place a debt recovery process based on the creation of a statutory lien over aircraft in respect of which charges are overdue. This process will be exercised on a discretionary basis consistent with the circumstances of the debt. Use of the process will provide the Commonwealth with security and will also enable a graduated approach to be taken. I would like to elaborate on the way in which the lien arrangement will operate . When charges have been outstanding for more than 28 days there will be a power to impose on the aircraft a statutory lien which will vest a right over the aircraft in favour of the Commonwealth. Nothing more is involved at this stage. The Commonwealth will of course continue to take such steps as it can to encourage payment of outstanding amounts including payment by instalment. Where all efforts to make satisfactory arrangements to recover outstanding charges have been unsuccessful and the lien has been in force for at least six months the Bill establishes the right to deregister the aircraft by virtue of the claim which the Commonwealth has established through the lien. This will have the effect of prohibiting the aircraft from being flown and using Commonwealth facilities and services. The aircraft could not then be reregistered until the charges have been paid in full. The Government intends that the decision to deregister be reviewable in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. Where the lien has been in force for at least nine months the Bill provides for the Commonwealth to seize and/or sell the aircraft concerned. The power to sell is clearly a last resort and it is our hope that it will not prove necessary to use it. I would like to emphasise, Mr President, that at each critical point in the graduated process which I have outlined, it is necessary for the Minister for Aviation or the Secretary to his Department or an officer authorised by the Secretary, to exercise a discretion having regard to the particular circumstances of individual debtors. No step in the process is automatic. As I have already mentioned, the decision to deregister an aircraft will be reviewable under the terms of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. As part of this process the Bill provides that in the first instance such decisions may be reviewed by the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. Mr President, the Commonwealth has no wish to ground or to sell aircraft and the measures that I have outlined will have no effect on the great majority of operators in the aviation industry who conscientiously pay their air navigation charges. However, the measures are aimed at those who choose not to meet their financial obligations yet still expect to use Commonwealth aviation facilities and services. I have no doubt as to how such a situation would be handled in the business world. I believe the Commonwealth has adopted a balanced approach which provides an effective debt recovery procedure and a capacity to accommodate genuine difficulties faced by individual operators. It will also continue to be an effective debt recovery measure when the Government moves to the system of separate airport and airway charges later in 1985. The statutory lien provisions of this Bill are to come into operation by proclamation and we do not expect this to be possible before the end of March 1985. There will therefore be ample opportunity for those with outstanding charges to meet their obligations before these provisions come into operation. Even then, the Bill provides that the age of outstanding debts prior to the date of proclamation will be disregarded for the purpose of applying the lien provisions which, I would repeat, is a discretionary process which will take into account all the relevant circumstances of the debt. It will of course be essential to have further detailed discussions with industry before the administrative arrangements are finalised and these provisions are proclaimed. In the coming months the Department of Aviation will be conducting discussions in each State with industry groups and other interested parties, for example, representatives of the finance sector, to ensure the measures are given the widest possible coverage and to ensure that their views are taken into account. Turning to other aspects of the Bill, it increases the rate of penalty interest charged on unpaid amounts from 1 per cent to a more realistic 1.5 per cent per month compounded and also reduces the period of grace for payment before a penalty charge is imposed from 45 days to 28 days to bring the payment provision more into line with normal commercial practice. These measures will be effective from 1 January 1985. A further administrative matter is the introduction of new route and zone factors necessary to calculate charges for airline operations on routes on which services have recently been commenced. These measures will also apply from 1 January 1985. On top of this, it is proposed to allow the remission of penalty interest. The inability to do this as the Act currently stands has frequently added to administrative complexity. It is proposed that this apply from the date of royal assent to this Bill. Mr President, on 26 August 1984, the Minister for Aviation announced that his department would commence preparations for the introduction of separate charges for airport and airway facilities. The Government's in-principle decision to introduce separate charges was announced previously. There are a series of interrelated administrative and policy changes in prospect which will, over the next 12 months or so, result in a complete review of cost recovery arrangements. In addition to the introduction of separate charges for airport and airway facilities and action to reduce late and non- payment of air navigation charges, cost recovery arrangements are currently being examined by the independent inquiry into aviation cost recovery chaired by Mr Henry Bosch. Together these measures will result in a more effective and equitable cost recovery policy and will pave the way for the introduction of the national airports authority. The introduction of separate airport and airway charges, for which this Bill provides the machinery, will involve charges related to the use made by operators of broad categories of airport and airway facilities and services. These charges will replace the existing single charge for the use of airport and airway facilities. Their precise form will, of course, be subject to detailed discussion with the aviation industry and can only be finalised after the Government has considered the findings of the Bosch inquiry which is due to report by the end of October. Once determined, the schedules of charges will be detailed in regulations, rather than in the Act as at present, thus greatly simplifying the procedures for revising the charges in future. The principal purpose of introducing separate charges is to enable charges to more closely reflect the cost and use made of major airport and airway facilities in the various phases of a flight. Their introduction will, consequently, permit a more commercial approach to aviation investment decisions by enabling the identification of revenue associated with a particular facility or group of facilities and comparison with the capital and operating costs associated with such facilities. This action is of course a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the National Airports Authority. The new charging arrangements are expected to be effective on a date to be proclaimed next financial year. Before this occurs there will of course be further extensive consultation with industry and other interested bodies. The cost of administering the statutory lien arrangements will be absorbed within existing appropriations and it is estimated that there will be a once only increase in revenue of around $7.5m in 1984/85 arising from the introduction of the statutory lien and changes to the payment and penalty provisions. The new charging arrangements address the form rather than the level of charges and will not, of themselves, have any impact on Commonwealth revenues. It is estimated that the annual costs of administering the new separate airport and airway charging arrangements will be $1.0m, some $0.4m more than the present arrangements. Computer hardware, software, and system development costs are estimated at $1.0m in 1984/85 and due to the need to operate both new and old charging systems for a three month introductory period additional operating costs of approximately $0.3m will be incurred in 1984/85. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Air Navigation Act so as to broaden the Government's power to cancel or suspend the international airline licences of foreign airlines operating to Australia. The proposed amendments have no financial impact. The Air Navigation Act currently limits the power to suspend or cancel a licence for a foreign operator to a situation where an airline has actually failed to comply with a provision of the Act or the Regulations, or fails to conform to or comply with the terms or conditions of agreements or arrangements entered into with overseas countries. Firstly, this Bill will provide wider power to suspend or cancel international airline licences on safety grounds, which as I have indicated is currently limited to an actual breach of the Act or Regulations. The Act does not presently provide for a situation where information to hand indicates that there is likely to be a breach of the Act or Regulations which is going to affect safety. In the interest of preserving air safety in Australia the Government should have the power to act before the breach occurs. Another situation which can prejudice air safety is where an overseas aeronautical authority does not make adequate provision to ensure that its airline or aircraft substantially comply with the standards, practices and procedures set out in the Chicago Convention and its annexes. This situation could arise as a result of a failure to set appropriate standards or a failure to carry out adequate surveillance to ensure that an airline is complying with appropriate standards. As honourable senators will appreciate Australia is dependent to a large degree on the role of relevant overseas authorities to ensure that their aircraft operate safely into and out of Australia. Secondly, the Bill provides for an amendment to the Air Navigation Act so as to enable the cancellation or suspension of a licence of a foreign carrier where this is considered necessary or desirable to preserve or promote fair competition in international air transport services. At the moment the Government does not have the capability to cancel or suspend a licence where an overseas government decides to withdraw the licence of or reduce the activity of an Australian carrier. If these circumstances eventuated it would be important to be able to respond to this situation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On 24 August, the second report of the Joint Select Committee on electoral reform was presented to the Parliament. In all, the report puts forward ten recommendations, the majority of which are related to the subject of political advertising. Honourable senators will be aware of the valuable work executed by the Joint Select Committee since it was first appointed in May last year. The Committee's first report, which was tabled in this place on 13 September 1983, contained more than 130 recommendations, many of which were substantially adopted by the Government and which served to provide for the radical and beneficial amendments made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act early this year. The completion of the Joint Select Committee's second report represents a significant phase in the continuing task providing this country with a truly democratic electoral system. The Government acknowledges the unstinting efforts of the bi-partisan committee and its staff in this task. The Government is closely examining the proposals put forward by the Committee in its second report, and a response to all of its recommendations is still being determined. It is clear to the Government however-as indeed it will be, I believe, to all honourable senators-that the commonsense of the Committee's first two recommendations is self-evident. The Government shares the Committee's view that, while fair advertising of political parties' election promises, and of their rivals' counter-arguments, is a desirable objective, it is not one that can be obtained through legislation. Political advertising quite often needs to deal with the abstract and, for that reason, it assumes a different form from that of other advertising on radio, on television, and in the newspapers. Sub-section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, as it stands, prohibits untrue, misleading or deceptive political advertising. Those honourable senators who have witnessed the realities of past elections will know that the provision is unworkable. The Government accepts the conclusion of the Joint Select Committee that any amendment of the provision would either still be ineffective or would reduce its scope to such a degree that it would not prevent dishonest advertising. The Government proposes therefore that sub-section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and its virtually identical counterpart in the Referendum ( Machinery Provisions) Act-sub-section 122 (2)-be repealed. In the final analysis , if deemed necessary, the law of defamation provides an avenue for those concerned enough or having good reason, to pursue the issues in the courts. I also take this opportunity to bring to honourable senators' attention a drafting oversight in relation to sub-section 273 (20) of the Electoral Act, which concerns the order of election of senators. The Government proposes that the provision should clearly indicate that it refers not only to the Electoral Act but that it also applies for the purposes of the Representation Act 1983. There are no financial implications flowing from these proposals. Further information on the clauses of the Bill may be obtained from the explanatory memorandum, copies of which have been distributed to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.20) —When I came into this chamber some while ago to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1984 I had no knowledge that we were going to an election and that the announcement had been made. We had a series of comments on this matter from leaders of the various parties. I could not quite follow what Senator Mason was saying, but I have a strong belief that he seriously misrepresented my position. But Senator Mason is nearly always incomprehensible. Until I see the Hansard I cannot be sure what he has said. I will have to correct it at a later date. I am surprised that Australian Labor Party politicians really are not what they used to be. They just do not make them the way that they once did. They are really a limp wristed bunch of school teachers, social science workers and people like that. They obviously cannot last for more than 18 months before they are worn out and we have to have an election. Once upon a time a Labor politician could last three years between elections but it looks like those days have gone. There is no need at all for this election to be held. It is eight or nine months before we need one for half the Senate and it is 19 or 20 months before we need one for the House of Representatives. As Senator Harradine has said, it is a very serious matter to place this country in a position where there can be no sittings of the Federal Parliament for a period of up to five months. I certainly do not trust members of a Labor Ministry, from what I have seen of them, with their hands in the till, running this country, doing by regulation rather than by legislation all the sneaky things that they have done in the past . Senator Chaney referred to the matter of the broken promises. Of course, we had that great paragon of virtue, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with his hand on his heart saying that he would run for three years when he was running for office only 18 months ago. But that is all gone. There is no reason for this election to be held prematurely because the majority of this Government is unchallenged; the ability of this Government to govern is unchallenged. There is absolutely no reason for this early election. The only disability from which this Government suffers is its own incompetence. What are the reasons for this early election? First of all, what are the economic reasons? This Government took advantage of the breaking of the drought and the pay pause that we brought in. For the rest, its economic performance has just been to spend other people's money. As the Syntec group said in today's newspapers, in its report on the economic state of Australia, because of the incompetence of the Labor Party on the Treasury bench the forecast for next year is quite horrendous. What is another reason for this Government going to an early election? It is frightened of the attack it is suffering from the Opposition on organised crime because it is soft on it. It has the President of the Australian Labor Party standing over the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate in New South Wales and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber at Question Time today defended the Premier's right to intimidate one of his senior officers. This Government is running away from the standards of conduct that it has set. Take, for example, the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, and his teddy bear. In brief, the Australian Labor Party has taken counsel of its fears. The Prime Minister has taken counsel of his fears. A man of enormous accuracy and honesty in what he says and who breaks every promise he makes. He is a man of great courage. We remember when the flash bulb in the camera broke at the Lakeside conference a few months ago and Mr Hawke swore and nearly jumped out of his chair. We are happy to take this Government on whenever the election is held. It will pay the price for its incompetence. Moving to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, in the five minutes I spoke on it last time, I was reviewing the general income tax situation in Australia. I spoke of the need for reform, the need for the incorporation of simplicity, and of fairness and incentive in this Australian tax legislation, which is a very complex piece of legislation. I talked about just a few of the Australian Labor Party's failures in relation to income tax. I pointed to its new tax scales and the way in which it introduced a scale of five points instead of three. This gives the population of Australia the opportunity to pay more tax and to pay it sooner. This Government has introduced a scale where a person pays 25c in the dollar on $4,596 of income, thereby lowering the point at which people pay their income tax. The Government lowered the point at the top end, the 60c in the dollar scale, from $35,789 to $35,001. On that matter of increasing the tax scales, I would like to quote from a paper by Professor Arndt, a recently retired Professor of Economics at the Australian National University. In the opening part of his paper he said: The fundamental case is that progressive income tax, once widely viewed in western countries as the fairest and most efficient policy instrument for raising government revenue, has become a farce and a menace. One reason of long standing has been the ever-growing burden laid upon the tax by the expansion of the public sector in the welfare state. As the proportion of national income claimed by government has risen from 5-10 per cent in the nineteenth century to 25-40 per cent today, the apparent need to adapt the tax burden ever more finely to the differential 'capacity to pay' of taxpayers in different circumstances has grown with it. . . That paper by Professor Arndt was written in 1981. In 1984 we had the anomaly of Medicare foisted upon us. Leaving aside the other shortcomings of the Medicare scheme, it is grossly unfair from a financing point of view. There simply is no equity in it. It costs more to be sick under Medicare if both the husband and the wife work and it costs more for the rich. I would be very interested to hear the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, or any of the other Ministers in this place put forward the epidemiological studies for the Australian community which prove that working husbands and wives or rich or high income people are sicker and, therefore, are a greater drain on the health services of this country than any other section of the community. The Labor Party seems to have forgotten the great response with which the Australian community received the introduction of three tax scales by the Liberal-National Party Government some years ago. There are other problems with the Australian Labor Party's tax position. One of the things that is hurting in the community at present is the loss of tax refunds. Tax refunds are a very cherished part of the Australian taxation system. In effect, they are a method of enforced saving. Very many wage earners in Australia look forward to getting a tax refund cheque every year. They look forward not to blowing it on something irresponsible and frivolous but as a means of buying something essential for around the house, particularly if they are family people. Now they cannot look forward to that any more because it has disappeared under Labor. The rebates for health care and housing have all disappeared. More importantly, from a political point of view, my office-I am sure that most other senators are in the same position-is now getting an increased number of complaints from people who say: ' We did not get our tax refund, we got a bill instead. We have been slugged for $ 50, $80 or $100 extra tax payment by the Commissioner of Taxation. It has never happened to us before because we have been on pay as you earn'. That is happening because the Labor Party is ripping off more and more in taxation off the people of Australia with every passing year. We have lost the tax concession on dividends. The ability to invest in Australian industry and business is a right of the Australian people. If they are going to exercise that right they should have some incentive. They should not be taxed twice on the income they receive from companies they choose to support instead of putting the money into building societies. But what does the Labor Party do? It cries about the multinationals dominating Australian industry . But when any Australian buys a share in an Australian company he gets in the position where he has to pay tax twice. He pays company tax and, when the dividend is rebated to him by the company, he has to pay personal income tax on it. The Liberal-National Party recognised the basic unfairness of that situation . We gave people a concession on the first $1,000 of dividends that they received. We are dealing here with the biggest taxing, the biggest borrowing and the biggest spending Government since 1945. People realise that it is a big taxing Government. They realise that it is a big spending Government. They do not realise that it is a big borrowing Government. It is selling us into debt for the future with the extent of its borrowings. This year alone the interest on the deficit takes $5.6 billion of taxpayers' funds to finance. We are paying more in interest on the money the Labor Party has borrowed to keep us going than we are spending on education. We are spending almost as much on that interest payment as we are on defence. That interest payment is money lost. A large part of it goes out of Australia. If there is one thing the Labor Budget does, it proves how easy it is to spend other people's money. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —Before the dinner suspension I was talking about some of the manifestations of Labor mismanagement in the Budget and I had reached the point of discussing the deficit, saying that we had this enormous interest payment of $5.6 billion this year. I would like to tackle the big lie that has been told about the Fraser deficit. In the election campaign only last year Labor said that there was a deficit of $9.6 billion. Senator Robert Ray —In the campaign? Senator MacGIBBON —My apologies; it was after the campaign when the Government was preparing its massive blow-out in its Budget in the middle of the year. It has since been disproved. Budget Paper No. 1, page 367, shows that the deficit for 1982-83 was $4.4 billion, nowhere near the $9.6 billion that the Labor Party brought in as a subterfuge for its $7.9 billion blow-out last year and the $6.7 billion estimated deficit for this financial year, a deficit that every Australian taxpayer will have to pay for. I might observe in passing that that $ 6.7 billion estimated deficit this year is a very rubbery estimate. It will blow out and there is certain to be a mini-Budget in the new year if the Labor Party is still around. In that new Budget it will have to raise new taxes. That leads to the matter of tax reform which I raised in the earlier part of my speech, a matter that has been raised by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Regrettably, there have been no details at all from either of those gentlemen or any other member of the Labor Party as to what is involved in their new tax reform, but the Australian public is entitled to know what they are proposing and the public is entitled to know before we go to the polls for that premature half-life election on 1 December. One thing we can be sure of is that the tax reform involves the creation and imposition of new taxes . The Prime Minister in his policy speech said that most Australians will pay less tax, and one of the luminaries of the Labor Party-I cannot remember now whether it was the Prime Minister or the Treasurer-said that 90 per cent of all Australians would pay less tax. After 18 months of Labor administration we know that everyone pays more tax and not less tax; and the certainty in life is that while Labor stays on the treasury benches we will pay more and more tax. The Government, since it came to office, has taken $7 billion more in taxes than it should have and, in a magnanimous gesture, trading on the ingenuous nature of the Australian community, it will pay back $1 billion of that in November in the form of tax cuts. It really is 1984 if one thinks that $1 billion return for a $ 7 billion increase is fair and equitable. Where is the Labor Party going to get the money from to pay for its increased deficits all the time? It will get it from a range of new taxes on assets and capital, and the assets test for pensioners is the forerunner of a new family of taxes. There are two purposes for that assets test for pensioners. One of them is not the declared one of saving money on pensions. No one, not even the Labor Party, would pay $55m to set up a scheme for a minimal return of $15m this year. The real purpose of the assets test on pensioners is to progressively get all retired people to list their assets, to have all the information on a big computer and then introduce death duties in the future. The second purpose is to prepare the way for a general assets test on the community. I can just hear Senator Grimes saying that, it we are to tax the poor, the old and the helpless with an assets test, it is only fair that the fit and the productive share in it as well. I can remember the time in about March-April last year when Senator Grimes was first in this Ministry and was very anti the assets test. If he has any difficulty in explanation, I am quite happy to talk to Senator Messner and give Senator Grimes his eleventh chance, in the form of a matter of public importance debate, to explain to this chamber just what is involved with his assets test for pensioners. Senator Robert Ray —Not that speech again. Senator MacGIBBON —Senator Grimes has difficulty explaining his point of view, and I am very patient. It does not matter what the Labor Party calls its new taxes, whether they are a wealth tax, an assets tax or a capital gains tax; they are punitive and destructive of the private sector and they are punitive and destructive of the means of gaining higher employment in Australia. There are two major defects to these schemes. The first is that any form of capital gains tax or wealth tax will not be inflation proof. Secondly, they will not be compensated for by any meaningful reduction in other taxes. The present level of taxation in Australia is already crippling. We are one of the most highly taxed countries in the world . A person on average weekly earnings is now paying 46c in the dollar tax and, at the top end of the scale, where a large number of people now are through inflation, they are paying 60c in the dollar to the Government. They are working hard for that privilege to pay 60c in the dollar, and in return for that they get 40c for optional extras like buying a house, feeding their children and buying a few clothes to put on their backs. Another point about a capital gains tax or wealth tax is that it will not be inflation proof. Everything goes up in value as inflation takes its stride and no one is better off as a consequence. I might observe in passing that we did not have inflation in this country until the Labor Government in 1972-75 with the Whitlam mania spent us into the position we are in, and 12 years later we are still trying to recover from it. To put on a capital gains tax without compensation for inflation is a most iniquitous thing to do. The Labor Party has not seen fit to index income tax. It has not seen fit to introduce any trading stock valuation in the way in which most other countries in the Western world do . It is happy to profit by inflation at the expense of the productive section of the community. Senator Tate —Did you introduce it? Senator MacGIBBON —Make no mistake about this, Senator Tate: Business needs profits and if it does not have profits it cannot have working capital, it cannot grow and it cannot employ more people. With the prospect of these new taxes, under Labor we can look forward to a decline in the business health of this country. Turning to the specific points of this legislation, the Opposition supports the increase in penalties for breaches of the tax law. Some of those penalties have not been increased since 1936 and the tenfold increase in some of them is quite justified on those grounds. Our criticisms are twofold: First of all, we have a general philosophic one insofar as the discretionary power of the Commissioner of Taxation is increased in this legislation. The tax commissioner does need some discretionary power, but basically that power needs to be defined and as restricted as possible. Otherwise it is not fair or efficient from a business point of view because business deals in certainties in respect of legislation. The second objection we have to this legislation is a major one and it involves the reversal of proof in clause 297. The explanatory notes say: To ensure that persons responsible for breaches by companies of the taxation laws are appropriately dealt with, a person who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of a company will be deemed to have committed any taxation offence committed by the company. We support the statement by the Law Council that this provides a staggering and unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof imposing an improper and unnecessary burden and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian. At best, for the Government to legislate in this way is naive and simplistic. At its worst, it is a denial of our system of justice. There may be a case, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said, for this to be done in certain circumstances, but it has to be done with care and a great deal of thought. On a more positive side with respect to this Bill, the Opposition supports the proposals on the transfer of losses within a company group and we are pleased that the Government has reversed its former position on this matter. We support the increase in depreciation allowances on non-residential income-producing buildings to 4 per cent. It is a modest but helpful move, particularly for the tourist industry. We are against the dependent spouse rebate for de factos. There is no point at all in enshrining in legislation and financially encouraging disincentives to the family unit. There is a very big difference between social security payments, by which one helps someone in need, and the income tax law where one recognises something in a legal way. There are many other points in this 230-page Bill but time does not permit me to go into them. I recognise that the Government wishes to get this legislation through as rapidly as possible and since there are many others on the speakers list I close at this point. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.11) —What appropriate legislation to have before us on the evening that an election has been announced. The legislation imposes taxes and tax penalties and it sets out in a variety of ways the whole philosophy of the Government. We are able to hear in a variety of ways the responses of the alternative government, the Liberal Party of Australia. The Australian Democrats, as is now known and highly respected, hold the balance of power in this Parliament. As a result of holding that balance of power the Australian Democrats are able to do a number of things that hitherto would never have happened and did not happen in this Parliament. That will happen with the legislation that is before us; it will happen with a lot of legislation that will be before the Senate over the next week or so despite the pressure that is on us not to amend it and not to return it to the House of Representatives because that House will have already risen. The Democrats will, as we always have, look at each piece of legislation. Where we believe it to be appropriate we will modify that legislation and improve it, and we will do that with the support of the Liberal Party in the Senate. I acknowledge the support that we get from the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia when we do make modifications to improve legislation. We will support the Government particularly in terms of ensuring that it keeps its pre- election promises, and that applies to whichever party is in government. At this moment it applies to the Hawke Labor Government which looks like bolting home in the forthcoming election, whether people in this Parliament like it or not. Therefore we will have the responsibility once more of keeping the new government honest. We will have that responsibility again weighing heavily on us because there is a problem in the Senate without the Democrats-we have seen evidence of it right throughout today-that debate can move away from the topic and move into hyperbole, which does occupy the great bulk of the time of the House of Representatives in particular. Regrettably it does occupy a lot of the time of the Senate quite unnecessarily. To demonstrate that point, we have calculated that over the last two years, including some time of the previous Fraser Government, 72 per cent of the time of this Parliament was spent on such vital factors-I say that with the utmost sarcasm-as flights over the Franklin River, and such issues critical to the future of Australia as Paddington Bears. It includes all of the nonsense that one could imagine being debated in this Parliament, and the people of Australia pay us to spend our time in this Parliament looking after this country's needs. Regrettably, we waste 72 per cent of our time on those ridiculous and insignificant matters. Senator Crichton-Browne —If Senator Walsh were here he would clap you in his normal fashion. Senator JACK EVANS —I have not taken Senator Walsh's side or Senator Crichton- Browne's side. They are a couple of Western Australian heavies who do slug it out in this Parliament and who, regrettably, take up the time of this Parliament in that sort of activity. I am sorry for both of them because they both suffer from the consequences of those personal attacks. I acknowledge the interjection by Senator Crichton-Browne because when that happens not only does he suffer but also the whole Parliament suffers. The difficulty that the Australian Democrats have with legislation such as this is that we have to walk a tightrope because we are the party with the responsibility in the Senate for ensuring that legislation is acceptable to the greatest proportion of the community, not just to the pressure group which heavies the Liberal Party or the trade union heavies imposing their influence on the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Democrats are certainly pressured very heavily by 100 per cent of the community because our door is open to the total community, including representatives from all of the big business groups. We walk that tightrope and we save the Liberal Party's hide quite frequently just as we save the hide of the Government frequently. Senator Crichton-Browne —Like when? Senator JACK EVANS —Like tomorrow when I will be saving the honourable senator's hide and the hides of many of his friends when we vote not to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. In that sort of tightrope walk we protect the interests not of the heavy pressure groups, but, for instance, the interests of small businesses right around Australia which, until the arrival of the Democrats, had no party in this Parliament representing their interests. Beyond that tightrope walk in here, trying to work out legislation with the people who are debating it in this Parliament, we have the responsibility outside the Parliament of negotiating legislation even before it gets into this Parliament, just as Senator Janine Haines negotiated the Medicare legislation to ensure that the chronically ill were not disadvantaged and that the private funds were not put out of business. We had the responsibility of seeing that the National Crime Authority had enough teeth to be functional, to be able to operate. We had the responsibility with the assets test of ensuring that people' s homes were not part of the assets test and that the thresholds were increased to an adequate level. It is not just a matter of the tightrope walk. In this legislation the Government has picked up Australian Democrats' initiatives such as its acceptance of an Australian Democrats Bill to grant tax exemption to rural producers who made donations for people who were harmed in fires or other serious catastrophes. That was-and credit should be given where it is due-an initiative from the Democrats and the Democrats' Bill is in this Parliament as living evidence so it cannot be denied that it was a Democrats Bill. Senator Missen —Mine never got on. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry, it has gone on and that is the great thing that is happening in this Parliament. The Labor Party has picked up the legislation and is running with it, and it will be passed this week thanks to the Democrats' vote and thanks- Senator Jessop —Oh yes. Senator JACK EVANS —No, the votes of the Liberal Party are irrelevant on that Bill because we will vote with the Government to get that piece of legislation through. So the balance of power has a very positive effect in this Parliament. Let us look at some of the things that are coming through in these pieces of legislation. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 is essentially an anti-tax avoidance measure because it substantially increases the penalties for tax offences including failure to file a return, failure to furnish information and the submission of false returns. It provides for the Taxation Office to push more prosecutions through lower courts to speed up the Taxation Office's recovery of outstanding tax. I applaud the Government's initiative in moving in that direction. The Australian Democrats stand foursquare behind me in applauding the Government's moves to stop tax avoidance and tax evasion by any other name. Particularly do we support the Government when the measures are in prospect and not in retrospect. Senator Jessop —When it suits you. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Jessop should be careful. I personally have supported every piece of legislation against tax evaders and tax avoiders, and he knows that as well as anyone in this chamber. Senator Jessop —So have I. Senator JACK EVANS —I hail the honourable senator for that support, for all tax avoidance measures. We also believe that there needs to be legislation before this Parliament for the cherry pickers, those who have avoided their tax obligations through setting up false superannuation schemes quite deliberately aimed at avoiding their taxes and have then stripped the money out of those schemes, having sacked or retrenched their employees, or let them go, and have then got benefits of those superannuation funds without paying one cent of tax. That is known as the cherry pickers scheme, or the section 23F scheme. The Democrats have supported the abolition of that scheme, to the point at which I personally moved legislation in this chamber to have such legislation in place even while the Commissioner of Taxation is looking at ways of picking up that money that has previously been lost through the existing provisions in the tax Acts. I believe that the Government will carry through that measure which the Democrats initiated in this House to ensure that the cherry-pickers scheme is dead from this day forward. I believe that we shall have the support of not only the Opposition but also the Government in seeing that that form of tax avoidance is killed. There is a very interesting facet of taxation for which many people around Australia are very grateful to the Democrats. It needs to be brought to the attention of the House. Senator Jessop —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I draw your attention to standing order 406. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —There is no point of order. I believe that the honourable senator was only quoting from copious notes. Senator JACK EVANS —I was quoting from a single line-without any interruption and without any advice from Senator Jessop. Senator Jessop —Mr Acting Deputy President-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —We are not debating the point of order. I have ruled on that. (Quorum formed) Senator JACK EVANS —This legislation is anti-tax avoidance. The Democrats will support it despite having some misgivings. Those misgivings arise because of the additional penalties which are given to the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner and, I stress, any deputy or any authorised tax officer has the power, literally, to prosecute, to adjudicate, to determine the penalties and to execute these penalties. It will also have the effect of penalising directors and managers for tax offences committed by their companies by holding them responsible for the offences unless they can prove that they were not personally implicated. This reverses the normal legal custom whereby the accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It also authorises the Commissioner to prevent, subject to appeal, the departure overseas of a person with a tax liability. It is a good thing that tougher penalties are coming in, because we need to spell it out loud and clear to everyone in this country: 'You have an obligation to meet you tax payments. If you do not meet your payments, your next door neighbour or other people who may be far less able to meet increased taxes will have to make up the balance'. With these increased penalties, the Commissioner of Taxation will carry a very heavy responsibility. I have discussed the issue with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Commissioner of Taxation, particularly because of the vulnerability of pay as you earn taxpayers. A PAYE taxpayer could, in theory, as a result of submitting a late return or as a result of making a simple error-- Senator Jessop —What does the Treasurer say? Senator JACK EVANS —Wait for it-it would have come five minutes earlier if Senator Jessop had not called for a quorum. The Commissioner of Taxation will have the ability to treble the tax paid, because he has the ability to impose a 200 per cent fine. That worried me and it worried the Australian Democrats, to the point that we felt we must take action. Senator Jessop —Therefore you need our support. Senator JACK EVANS —Therefore we took the action. We did not just sit back on our behinds, as Senator Jessop obviously is content to do, and let nature take its course. What we have done is to ensure that taxpayers in Australia are adequately protected-- Senator Jessop —You cannot do it on your own. Senator JACK EVANS —We are doing it, with a majority, which we always do when we get improved legislation through this House. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order, Senator Jessop. I would be grateful if you would let the honourable senator make his speech in silence. Senator JACK EVANS —What has happened is that the Commissioner of Taxation has agreed, following representations from the Australian Democrats, that the same guidelines will apply for the imposition of tax penalties for the PAYE offences, to which I have just referred, as applied previously. In other words, as a result of this legislation, there will not be an increase for PAYE taxpayers who may make an innocent breach or who may even make a more serious breach; the penalties will not be increased in that area. The penalties will be for the real tax evaders-avoiders. As I have said, the Commissioner needs and justifies, as a result of the things that we have seen over the last five or 10 years, the additional powers to get at those tax evaders. So the Democrats will be allowing that part of the Bill to go through. The Bill has many shortcomings. It is an indication of the lack of courage on the part of the Government that it was not willing to do some of the things with which it has been tinkering and playing around, considering and throwing to some of its committees. It has not had the courage to come forward in this Parliament 's term and legislate for them. It had a chance to set the example in Australia by eliminating payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory. It is in this Bill as an amendment. It would have been possible for the Government to do away with payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory and set an example for all State governments. Payroll tax is an iniquitous tax which an employer must pay for taking on additional employees, for having too many employees. It is an anti -employment tax. The Government had within its hands the power to repeal that law for just the Australian Capital Territory, to give the lead to the State governments and to show them that it felt as a government that it was an iniquitous tax. But it fumbled that ball and dropped it. All it will do is mildly modify the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971. It dropped the ball again with the time allowed for the payment of sales taxes. Probably not many people realise what an imposition this tax is on most small businesses, that under the existing legislation a small business has to pay its sales tax within 21 days of that item, goods or services having been sold. But normally it does not receive the funds for 30, 60 or 90 days. So it is picking up the tab for all the taxpayers around Australia. It is paying the money to the Commissioner of Taxation before it has even received the money. In this legislation the Government has extended that term. We believe that it should have extended the term to 60 days. We believe that that would be a fair and just extension which would not hit harshly the revenue of this country but would mollify the very severe cash flow problems which most small businesses of Australia still suffer. We think that the Government could have modified its approach to the taxation of wines and, at the very least, could have exempted wines which are used for cellar door tastings. It could have given a little relief. It has not done so. We believe that in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill the Government could have got rid of the iniquitous Division 7 tax which is imposed on one sector of businesses in Australia, the small, private businesses, the private companies. Public companies do not pay a Division 7 tax for undistributed profits. Only private companies, the small businesses, pay this tax. Incredibly, either because the Government does not understand how small businesses work or because it is still favouring big businesses at the expense of small businesses, as did the previous government, this Government has let the Division 7 tax stand. There needs to be some redress of that. I would have hoped that a Labor government would have redressed that amount. They are the things that we, the Australian Democrats, would have introduced if this legislation had been ours. There are many areas of tax reform where the Australian Democrats would support this Government and have supported both it and the previous Government. The tragedy of Australia's taxes and the whole tax system is that it is a hodgepodge ; it is almost impossible for anyone to understand. I doubt that more than a handful of people in the whole nation really understand all of it. Unfortunately , the hodgepodge of legislation we have before us, which is going through in the last week or so of this Parliament with about 200 amendments to it, will be a further band-aid to a complex tax system which really lacks anything in the way of a planned approach to taxation. At the risk of repeating myself, I beg the Government to sit down with the Australian Democrats because we have such a plan but also with the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia so that we can plan a long term tax policy for this country which will not need 200 amendments every few months such as we are seeing go through the Parliament now. Let us have a tax plan which is easier to understand, which is acceptable and which will not be battered and messed up from Parliament to Parliament, from government to government and from party to party, but a tax plan which serves the people of Australia well. Let us have a tax plan which is universally accepted as fair and just, because this country needs a long term tax plan. If ever its economy is to recover and if ever businesses are to be able to see the way ahead for that recovery they need knowledge at least 10 years ahead of what is likely to happen in any tax plan with any government. I suggest that the Bill we are now considering, which has a couple of problems we will go into during the Committee stage, including the reversal of the onus of proof, at least from the Australian Democrats' point of view, moves in the right direction. It moves towards spelling out loudly and clearly to all people in this country that if one is a tax avoider one's days are numbered. If one is a tax avoider, if the Commissioner of Taxation does not get one in year one he will have the tools, the ability and the powers to get one shortly thereafter so that tax avoidance will not only be a waste of time but also a costly exercise. I applaud that approach. The Australian Democrats applaud it. We wholeheartedly support it. Let any government of the future be on notice that if it wants to legislate to get rid of tax avoidance in this country in prospect it will have the unanimous support of the Australian Democrats. I would like to see tax amendments constructively considered in this debate. I would like to see us give the Commissioner of Taxation the clearest possible indication that we are on his side, that we are right behind him in his drive, which we hope will be with renewed vigour, to chase up the tax evaders, to make it clear to tax avoiders that they do not have an enemy in the Taxation Office, that they can consult the Commissioner of Taxation before they make their steps into tax avoidance realms and that they can, as a result, be compelled to compete fairly with those businesses and individuals who are paying their share of taxes, because that is what tax is about. It is aimed not only at getting revenue for government but at equating for all of us the responsibilities that we have to pay our way in this community. We must not evade or avoid that responsibility as a result of having a sharp lawyer or a smart accountant that, as big business, we would be able to hire but, as individuals or as small businesses, we would not be able to hire. The Bill will address many of those areas and will give the Commissioner of Taxation the powers to deal with people who move into those realms. As a result it will have the support of the Australian Democrats. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.39) —We are debating this evening the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1984. I refer to only two aspects of those Bills. I take the opportunity while Senator Jack Evans is here to say something about his extraordinary outburst and claims about the way in which apparently the Australian Democrats have been conducting government in this country for the last 18 months. There is an extraordinary attitude of whimsy on the part of the Democrats, who often accept relatively minor amendments to government legislation. The Democrats are often bought off very easily by the Government. They then tell the world that they have won a great victory. Senator Jack Evans —Was section 45D very minor? Senator MISSEN —I am not saying that the Democrats do not succeed in some things . I am saying that in a number of things they exaggerate the effects of their influence. Senator Jack Evans tonight talked about tax deductibility for gifts such as fodder and claimed that the Australian Democrats actually had persuaded the Government to allow this. However, this will be achieved because the Australian Democrats and my party are prepared to support the amendment and the Government knows that it will be successful. Senator Jack Evans —I acknowledge that. Senator MISSEN —Senator Jack Evans took the whole credit for it. In fact, both Senator Harradine and I were working on this matter and arguing with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) before Senator Chipp's Bill was introduced. I remind Senator Jack Evans that Senator Harradine asked a good question on this matter on 25 May 1983. I wrote to the Treasurer on, I think, 28 July making a strong case for a change in the tax deductibility position. A month later Senator Chipp introduced a Bill. That Bill was helpful too because it put the matter on record here. In fact, I have a letter from Senator Chipp, following further correspondence, in which he thanks me for my support of his Bill and my correspondence with the Treasurer. Let us recognise that these matters often require a lot of work by different parties. Senator Jack Evans should not perform as the mouse that roared and endeavour to claim enormous achievements for his party when he realises that many of those things happen because there is a united front on the part of the Opposition parties. This problem is, of course, one which the Government has not succeeded in overcoming in its Bill. Basically before 1980 tax deductibility was allowed but then followed a change in the attitude of the taxation authorities. From that date they did not allow tax deductibility for gifts of kind. After the horrendous bushfires that swept Victoria and South Australia early in 1983 people were promised by our retiring government that they would be allowed tax deductibility for gifts. They were promised also by Mr Hawke, then in opposition and shortly to come into government that he would do so. Of course they found subsequently that this was not so. From that time the Treasurer resisted the claims which my party, Senator Jack Evans's party and Senator Harradine made that justice should be given to the people who were so generous at that period. The Budget Papers state: The income tax gift provisions are to be amended . . . to treat trading stock gifted after 21 August 1984 to an authorised fund, authority or institution as an allowable deduction to the extent of the value brought to account as assessable income under section 36 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This amendment will avert the situation whereby farmers and others seeking to assist victims of natural disasters may be subject to tax on the value of their gifts of livestock, etc., yet not be able to obtain a deduction in respect of value of the gift. It is extraordinary that the Government can make that statement and yet not recognise that that injustice was applying. Of course, it is of great annoyance to people of a charitable instinct at the time of one of their greatest natural disasters. Fortunately, of course, when our amendment or the Australian Democrats' amendment is passed we will see that justice done. I think it is a real characteristic of this Government that it has had to be forced over the long period of 18 months to do justice in this respect. It is part of the lack of understanding by this Government of needs and also of the charitable instincts of people. One finds this not only in this Government but also in the Labor Government of Victoria where there is such a determination to destroy voluntarism and the desire by people to give voluntary service in the community. In Victoria when people have wanted to give voluntary charity in the community they have also been brushed aside. I welcome the fact that we will succeed in amending this Bill, I trust tonight, and to back date the provision so that the people who gave those gifts will be able to claim deductions. The second matter I refer to tonight-this is contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill-is reversed onus of proof. I want to say a little about that because it is not just a question of the provision in the Bill. The provision has been criticised quite strongly in the House of Representatives by Mr Howard and other members of the Opposition who called on the Government to give explanations for this unusual course of reversing the onus of proof requiring company directors to prove that they have not committed an offence. Unfortunately, again we have not had an adequate answer. This is a problem which this Parliament must face up to. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs faced up to it and issued its report on the burden of proof in criminal proceedings some two years ago. The report was brought down shortly before the end of the Fraser Government. There is no acknowledgment yet by the Government as to its attitude to the various proposals which the Committee, after considerable investigation and having taken a lot of evidence, presented to the Senate. I remind the Senate of this because it is relevant to this matter which will be debated in the Committee stage tonight. On the evidential burden, that is the burden which is placed on a person to give evidence to discharge an onus against him-I agree that it is not unusual for this to be done in certain circumstances-the Committee recommended: The evidential burden 3. (a) As a matter of legislative policy, provisions imposing an evidential burden of proof on defendants should be kept to a minimum. (b) In order to enable this legislative policy to be achieved, such provisions should be imposed only in the following circumstances: (i) where the prosecution faces extreme difficulty in circumstances where the defendant is presumed to have peculiar knowledge of the facts in issue; or (ii) where proof by the prosecution of a particular matter in issue would be extremely difficult or expensive but could be readily and cheaply provided by the defence. (c) A detailed review of Commonwealth legislation imposing evidential burdens, and in particular licensing provisions, should be made to ensure that evidential burdens do not rest on defendants unless the considerations referred to in recommendation (b) above apply. That is only one of several recommendations unanimously made by both Labor and Liberal members of the Committee two years ago. We are yet awaiting the Government's attitude. Meanwhile the Government is proceeding to bring forward reversals of onus of proof without letting us know Government policy in this regard. Just to put the record straight, it is interesting to note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, made a type of response to a number of Senate committee reports on 15 December 1983-I suppose it was a Christmas gesture-including the burden of proof in criminal proceedings report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, tabled on 25 November 1982. Honourable senators will remember that this Government promised to do better than the Fraser Government and respond to committee reports not six months after they were tabled but three months after they were tabled. However, there is as yet no response. That was an extraordinary promise and it is yet another promise abandoned. I know of other promises made and abandoned by this Government, such as the promise made by it in December last year. It stated: A detailed examination of this report has been undertaken. It is expected that the Attorney-General will be in a position to table a full response to the report in Parliament early in the Autumn sittings 1984. We know that the autumn sittings of 1984 have long since passed. As late as 5 September 1984 the Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, Senator Michael Tate of the Australian Labor Party, wrote to Senator John Button pointing out this response and said: That schedule referred to 2 reports from this Committee-'the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings' (tabled 25 November 1982)- I remind honourable senators, although it is not relevant to this Bill, that that statement also applied to the report entitled the Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament tabled 2 June 1981. It was stated that a full response to each report would be tabled by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, early in the autumn sittings. Neither response has yet been tabled . Senator Tate referred also to another report tabled in 1983, also not responded to. Senator Tate continued: As the response time of three months to which the Government is committed has now passed by some considerable time in the case of each of these reports, I would be grateful if you could inform me when responses can be expected. I do not ask honourable senators and members of the public to hold their breath because all that has come since 6 December is a letter from Senator Button saying that he is awaiting a response from the Government. The Minister said in his letter: . . . I have taken up the matters referred to you in your correspondence with the responsible Ministers. There the matter has ceased. To add to the matters which have occurred and which would have brought these matters further to the knowledge of the Government, I refer to the fact that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Senate has considered this Bill. In dealing with the reversal of onus of proof, the Committee's recent digest stated: Clause 297 proposes to insert new sections 8K, 8L, 8Y (2) and (3). Each of these sections contains a reversal of the burden of proof. For example sub- section 8K (2) places the onus on a defendant to prove that he lacked guilty intent in providing a false or misleading statement. Section 8L (2) is in a similar form. Section 8Y relates to the liability of officers of corporations. Where a corporation commits a taxation offence the management of the corporation shall be deemed to have committed that offence. In such a case the defendant must prove that he was not involved in, or aware of, the offence. The Committee draws this clause to the attention of Senators in that it might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. There is no excuse for the Government not to have given some responses on this topic before now. There has been plenty of warning and opportunity to set out the principles which the Government intends to apply. It may well be that in these particular instances there is a justification; it may well be that they come within one or two of the proposed reasons given by the Senate Committee in its report. But tonight let us hear the Government's reason rather than experience the shuffling that went on in the House of Representatives. Let us hear the real reason why the Government says it must have this unusual provision relating to reversal of onus of proof. I raise this matter tonight not just because it appears in this Bill, but because this Government is gravely neglecting its duty to the community in not repairing the difficulties found by the Senate Committee as to the averments, the onus of proof and the unnecessary burdens of proof of a more serious nature. All these are set out in the report, but the Government is silent. Although the Bill contains many issues that are not controversial and are part of the Budget, I feel that it contains matters which must give some concern as to whether the Government appreciates its full duty to the Australian people. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.53) —The Senate is debating cognately three Bills relating to taxation, each of which deals with a wide range of issues. I intend to spend only a brief time on some of these aspects. The Government has an unfortunate habit of not only not honouring the majority of its election promises but also creating a lot of unnecessary precedents that attack the rights of individuals-many of them innocent. Provisions in these tax Bills are further examples of such attacks. It is significant that all the Liberal speakers in this debate have attacked this reverse onus of proof, and I commend the contribution made by my colleague, Senator Missen. The matter of reverse onus is a serious matter for ordinary Australians. The Law Council of Australia certainly did its job in outlining its concern. It referred to: . . . a staggering and unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof, imposing an improper and unnecessary burden, and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian. Under the legislation before us tonight prosecutions can now be brought without limitation of time. This could impose an impossible burden on a director of a company or a person involved in the management of the company who had little to do with taxation affairs, but who-two, 12 or even 20 years later-may not have all the evidence available at his hand to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had not been knowingly involved in such an offence. That is an intolerable position in which to put people who have retired from active management-people not concerned with taxation matters-just because they were directors of a company. The Liberal Party in outlining these problems has done a great service to the people of Australia. They now know the difference between a Liberal Government and a Labor Government whose policies attack the freedoms of Australians. The Opposition is also concerned about the automatic nature of penalties of up to 200 per cent for late payment. We are concerned that the Commissioner of Taxation's discretion is the only protection against oppressive action. It is also significant that the Law Council takes the strongest possible objection to granting the power to charge, arrest and remand in custody a person without the consent of the Attorney-General or his delegate under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. The tragedy is that the newspapers have not adequately informed the people of Australia about the unprecedented extent of these sweeping changes on the rights of individuals. An interesting aspect of the legislation relates to the controversial provision that extends the rebate to persons living in de facto relationships but limits it to 'a man and a woman living together as husband and wife'. Under the present Government I wonder how many years it will be before it follows the Australian Broadcasting Corporation type precedent involving homosexuals living together. If the current attitudes to morality persist, the community can expect a change in this legislation by deleting the words 'a man and a woman living together'. This indicates the sort of attitude displayed by the Government. This Government is a high taxing government. If Labor wins the next election, taxation will be even higher. Personal income tax makes up the largest percentage of taxation revenues since the war. Information from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) reveals a huge 20 per cent rise in gross pay as you earn collections over the first two months of 1984-85, a 31 per cent reduction in PAYE refunds-what people used to get back but no longer do-and a 33 per cent jump in net PAYE tax receipts. The so-called tax cuts are cuts, but in the light of the figures I have quoted the cuts will be insignificant and will make no great difference to take-home pay. The ordinary working man-not the man on average earnings who is constantly referred to in this place but the ordinary Australian who has to work for his tucker-will be hit to leg. He is the person who will suffer. We hear constant references to tall poppies, but by seeking to hit the top tax bracket the Government is losing sight of the ordinary person who must manfully share the tax burden in Australia without having the benefits of deductibility which others can get. The Government's tax policies will result this year in the largest annual rise in tax revenue in real terms since the war. That cannot be disputed. It is a high taxing and a high spending Government. We have problems before us. Mention has already been made of the controversial issue of gifts. In this legislation the fact that the Government mentions a date of 21 August 1984 for gifts of trading stock means that it would be collecting tax on the value of donations of fodder and cattle as well as donations to the Ash Wednesday bush fire appeals, the South Australian flood appeal shortly thereafter, and drought victims, despite promises by Prime Minister Fraser and Prime Minister Hawke. I hope that as a result of joint Opposition unity this injustice will be rectified tonight. I am also concerned about the selectivity of the Government. I have been concerned for some time about the lack of protection for people investing in credit unions. Credit unions are growing at a tremendous rate. It is extraordinary that the legislation before us tonight extends garnishee provisions to building societies but not to other non-bank financial institutions like credit unions. Why should they be exempt from these sorts of provisions? Why are they so special that they do not need this sort of legislation? I think it is unfortunate that the Government will not give credit where credit is due. I refer to the Government's decision about the transfer of losses within a company group. The Government makes no mention of the fact that it blocked the previous Fraser Government's similar proposal but now claims that its own proposal is an important initiative, as if it had dreamt it up on the first instance. The people of Australia should be reminded that, unfortunately, the new proposal will apply only to losses incurred in 1984-85, thereby robbing the business sector of the 1982-83 and 1983-84 losses which would have been covered by the previous Government's proposal, had that been translated into law. It would certainly also have been a better Bill if the Government had known the ramifications of its proposals. For example, so far as the transfer of losses within a company group is concerned it has excluded non-voting redeemable preference shares from the 100 per cent ownership requirement for transferring losses. This further demonstrates the lack of understanding of the Government, despite its rhetoric to the contrary, of the Australian capital market and the financing of business enterprises. The announcement this evening of an unnecessary early election is not surprising because the report of the respected Syntec organisation-the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, was always quoting this organisation when he was in opposition-says that the present business cycle upswing in the Australian economy, although strong, is essentially short term and superficial. No wonder we are having an early election. The Government is not prepared to face the harsh realities of life. It is prepared to take all the benefits of increased revenue as a result of the cessation of the drought. It made unfair comparisons with the Fraser Government's weathering the storm against a downturn in the international cycle, against one of the worst droughts known, and talking about its powers to create a recovery. But now that the signs are pointing the other way, indicating that the upswing cannot be sustained, that there are problems ahead and that the recovery is essentially short term and superficial, the Government is going for an early election. I ask the people of Australia to think before they vote because I believe that if they do so they will realise that this is an unnecessary and unjustified early election. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.05) —I refer to one aspect of these tax Bills as it specifically affects the Australian Capital Territory. A quite large section contains a number of amendments in relation to payroll tax. What I would like to see in it is not included, and that is, an exemption for the Master Builders Association group apprenticeship scheme from having to pay payroll tax. The scheme has been in existence since 1970 and payroll tax is still paid on wages spent under the scheme. I last spoke on this topic in this place on 8 September 1983 when I set out some of the history of the scheme and the reasons why I believe payroll tax ought not to be levied, at least on these wages. Personally, I think it should not be levied at all but, because of the importance of apprenticeships, I think this scheme should be exempt as it is in other places. The Master Builders Association has made a number of representations to government, so far without success. It is spending money which would be of value elsewhere. I understand that about 64 apprentices are employed under the scheme at present. The wages paid in 1983-84 were $687,195.75 and the amount paid in payroll tax was $34,359.74. I guess $34,000-odd is a great deal of money if one owes it and does not have it, but I suggest that in this instance it would be of great value to the community if that quite small amount of money were forgone. More and more young unemployed in Canberra are not getting the opportunity for apprenticeships and real careers. Youth unemployment is particularly high-about 17 per cent-although there can be no denial that the unemployment rate generally in the Australian Capital Territory has dropped to one of the lowest rates in Australia. However, about 2,000 young people are still without the opportunity of having careers. I think it is particularly important that we work on the long term solutions to unemployment, or we will have an increasing number of young people joining this unfortunate group, who will not be able to have careers and establish their lives in the Australian Capital Territory. It is not good just looking at what one might call creche or kindergarten solutions of looking after them or caring for them. Much more than that is required. The community employment program allocation for the Australian Capital Territory in this financial year is $7.6m. I have no doubt that a lot of money will be spent giving young people an opportunity to obtain employment experience , which is particularly worthwhile, but I suggest that of that total, which will be spent at the rate of $11,600 for only 45 weeks of experience and will then be spent and gone, the $35,000 allocated for the payroll tax could perhaps be diverted into this scheme, giving young people the opportunity to gain apprenticeships and a real opportunity to get on with their lives in a meaningful way. Similarly, only $500,000 has been allocated this year under the industry incentives program. Under that program, although the money is not paid out in wages, only $500,000 is allocated for capital expenditure and infrastructure to enable firms to have the opportunity to establish real jobs. That money is spent at the equivalent rate of $6,700 for each job which arises as a result of that expenditure. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) on 17 August 1983 issued a Press statement in which he announced the continuing agreement of the Government to help sponsor the group apprenticeship scheme. He indicated that in 1983, $42,500 would be allocated towards additional administrative expenses incurred by the Master Builders Association and a further $45,500 would be contributed in 1984 if more than 50 apprentices were employed under the scheme. He congratulated the Master Builders Association on the success of the scheme and its expansion and on the effort that the Association had put into it. I suggest that for the sake of $34,500 and the additional opportunities which could be given for real jobs, it is time that an effort was made to see that this provision was altered. We have a crisis as far as the apprenticeship of cooks is concerned. A letter has been received by the Joint House Department from the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board which indicates that there will be virtually no apprentices in this area for some years as a result of a decision that I do not understand suddenly to interpret the award strictly. The number of cooks employed will now be determined as follows: If there is one cook , there will be no apprentices; if there are two cooks, there will be no apprentices; and if there are three or more cooks, only one apprentice will be allowed. In the past the award has been interpreted much more liberally and in a way which enabled a number of young people to get jobs. In an area of tourism- the restaurant industry is certainly a significant part of tourism-to be cutting back on the number of young people who can become apprentices is quite absurd. I have already called upon the Government to take steps to alter that situation so that this cutback will not occur. The mere idea of one apprentice for three or more cooks is just not in the best interests of expansion in this important area . The intake as a result of this decision will be: In 1985, 15 apprenticeships will be available; in 1986, none; in 1987, none; and in 1988, 15. Given the rate at which the economy is growing, I suggest that the Government needs to look into this as a matter of great urgency and to ensure that the legislation is amended so that the strict interpretation of the award does not cause this cutback to happen. Given that the number of apprenticeships allowed will be cut back, it is even more important that we do something in the building trade to try to expand the opportunities available to young people. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter dated 17 September 1984, from the Office of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board setting out the information and other facts to which I have referred. Leave granted. The letter read as follows: Office of the ACT Apprenticeship Board Department of Education & Youth Affairs In reply please quote: Fourth Floor, Silverton Centre, Corner Moore and Rudd Streets, G.P.O. Box 1982, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Telephone:689611 17 September 1984 The Manager Joint House Department Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Sir I have been directed to draw your attention to the relevant Section of your Award which provides for apprentice cooks, in particular the sub-section which states:- ''One apprentice male cook may be employed in each kitchen where three or more cooks are employed. Provided that when an apprentice has served two and one half years or more another apprentice may be employed subject to the approval of the Apprenticeship Board. From this you will see that only one apprentice may be employed in a kitchen that has 3 or more cooks i.e. Number of cooks Number of employed apprentices 1 0 2 0 3 or more 1 So that if a kitchen is employing say 30 cooks it can still only have one apprentice under the terms of the Award. The only concession available to the ACT Apprenticeship Board is that after one apprentice has served 2 1/2 years in that kitchen another first year apprentice may be started with the approval of the Board. The interpretation of this clause will mean that only kitchens employing 3 or more cooks can employ an apprentice every 2 1/2 years. Therefore, the intake for cooking apprentices will be in the order of 12 to a maximum of 15 apprentices every 2 1/2 years and that all those kitchens that are currently employing 1 or 2 cooks will no longer be permitted to employ apprentices. The larger kitchens employing more than 3 cooks will no longer be allowed to employ more than one apprentice-so the projected intake of cooking apprentices will be:- 1985 198619871988198919901991199219931994 15 NilNil15NilNil15NilNil15 Prior to September 1984 the ACT Apprenticeship Board had been administering this provision with a very liberal interpretation and has been endeavouring for the past few years to have this provision amended by industry. The Boards' liberal interpretation has been that one apprentice may be employed where three or fraction of three tradesman are employed and this allowed kitchens with one, two or three cooks to employ one apprentice and kitchens that employ three, four or five cooks could employ two apprentices. As a recent meeting with all sections of the Industry has indicated that there will be no attempt to amend this provision, the ACT Apprenticeship Board, as a Statutory Authority, has no alternative other than to abide by the existing industrial law governing the future employment of apprentice cooks in the Territory. However, current apprentices will be allowed to complete their training. Yours sincerely R A SMART Chairman Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.14) —I wish to speak for just a few moments on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 because of some things that were said earlier, particularly by Senator Jack Evans, representing the Australian Democrats. He came into this chamber and spoke as though he had the God-given right to determine which way the tax rules of this country should go. I like he, am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. That is one of the committees that has in fact encouraged the Australian Taxation Office to take action that it otherwise may not have taken to try to recover taxation that it thought was being evaded. I felt that it was a little extravagant for the Australian Democrats to make the kind of claim that it did. We are in an election period, so perhaps we will hear a lot of extravagant claims over the next few weeks. I ask the question: What kind of taxes will we see presented in the next Parliament? Today I asked the question: Has the Commissioner of Taxation been asked to work out whether the Australian Taxation Office's computers can be organised to tax the assets of everybody in this country? It was not put quite that way, but that was effectively the question I asked. I got a very brief reply, in fact the briefest reply I think I ever heard, from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who is at the table. He said: 'No, that is not a fact'. I have information that such questions have been asked of the Taxation Office. In any event, can we really rely on the Australian Labor Party- no matter what it says its taxation attitude will be-to stick to what it says now when it gets back into government? Senator Childs —We are not like the Liberals. Senator TOWNLEY —I know, the ALP is much worse than the Liberals. The Liberals were bad enough. Senator Childs —You take 1977 as an example. Tell us about '77 and '78. Senator TOWNLEY —If the honourable senator would like to make a speech, why does he not do it in a few moments? I am sure the Senate will accommodate him. If necessary, I will stay here later tonight to hear the honourable senator speak at length. I will even move for an extension of time if he runs out of time. The tax situation with the Labor Party is a bad one; it has to be a bad one. I think some of it is a matter of a learning curve. I looked at what happened when the Liberal Party of Australia came into government in 1975. Certain spendings went on. Then I believe the people in the Liberal Party realised the problem that was being created by the interest payable on the national debt, which had gone up from of the order of 2.3 per cent to something like 5.5 per cent. The interest on the national debt this year is projected to be 8.8 per cent. That shows a nasty incline. It shows a trend. I studied a little bit of mathematics in my time-it is called an exponential curve, an exponential increase. That kind of increase is not a good one. It means that we are heading for trouble. I am worried about what will happen in the next Parliament. I believe that the Labor Party is in a learning curve. It does not entirely realise the damage it is doing to this country with the massive deficits of the last two years. Members of the Labor Party should not try to tell me that they can blame the previous Liberal Government because that is not entirely true. Anybody with a bit of intelligence and a bit of thought can sit down for 10 minutes and work out almost what the deficit will be in the next year unless some action is taken . Certain payments have to be made unless the Government makes drastic alterations to its payments to pensioners, veterans and people of that kind. It worries me that this country is heading for the same kind of situation as that in which France has found itself. A socialist government moved in and made all sorts of payments to its pensioners, unemployed and so on, and it increased taxes to do it. What happened then? It found that not only was its popularity going down the plughole, but also the whole country was becoming a mess. The value of the franc went down. The value of our dollar is going down and I believe it will go down even further. It was worth about $1.10 or $1.12 to a United States dollar when the Labor Party came to power and now it is worth 83c or 84c. I have been told by people whom I respect in areas of finance that it could go a lot lower than it is now if we continue spending like a drunken sailor. If this country continues spending in this way we could well find ourselves rated a Third World country. I first mentioned the national debt of this country a couple of years ago when it was drawn to my attention that even under the Liberal Party the interest on our national debt was increasing, but in no way was it increasing at the rate by which it is increasing now. I tabled in this Parliament some figures which were not prepared by me. They were prepared by the people in the Parliamentary Library. I have a great deal of admiration for the accuracy of documents prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Library . The figures that they gave me, which I am having updated at the moment-I am just waiting on a reply; I believe that someone else has asked for them to be updated on my behalf-show that we are more in debt per head of population than a lot of those countries in South America such as Argentina-- Senator Jessop —Brazil. Senator TOWNLEY —Brazil, as Senator Jessop mentions, and Chile. Mexico and Poland are two other countries. An article in the Weekend Australian showed the relationship between our national debt and that of some of the other countries that are deeply in debt. I think the ones that were mentioned were France and New Zealand. There were some others. I am sorry that I cannot bring them all to mind as I do not have that article with me. Our national debt situation was not as bad as the situation in those two countries I have mentioned. Ireland was another of those countries. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) whether he questions the figures prepared by the Parliamentary Library. A month or so ago I asked a question relating to this national debt situation. Our defence is in a terrible mess. ANZUS is in a heck of a situation with the radicals in New Zealand taking the attitude that they have taken. I believe that our next most important mess is our debt mess. A government has a responsibility , firstly, to defend a country. If it does not do that it should not be in government. The next most important thing is to make sure that its economy is stable so that one is not likely to get a situation where there could be a revolution in a country. I believe that there are certain forces within the Government-I will not say within the country-who would like to see a revolution in this country. That is the way in which they get those things in which they believe. We have those two situations: A government should be defending a country and it should make sure that its economy is right. I ask the Minister whether he believes that the figures from the Parliamentary Library that I have tabled on a couple of occasions in this Senate, relating to the national debt of this country compared with the situation in the countries I have just mentioned and others, are right. As I have said, the figures very often are right. I find it very difficult to point to where they are wrong. Senator Jack Evans spoke about several things. He tried to give the impression that the Democrats had saved the day with regard to payroll tax and sales tax by extending the amount of time that people have to pay these taxes. This is something that I brought up in this place years ago. The thing that has to be looked at in regard to taxation is something Senator Jessop mentioned a few days ago. Any country that starts taxing its people at the same rates that Australia is, which are now not sufficient even to cover its deficit, is heading for trouble. This Government has to do one of two things: It has to increase taxation dramatically to cover the deficit, unless it is prepared to jeopardise the future of the young people and the families of this country, or it has to extract every pound of flesh it can from the older people-- Senator Childs —The tax avoiders are the people you are letting off. Senator TOWNLEY —Come on. He has had stacks of opportunity to talk about tax avoiders. There is practically no money there. The Government will get no money there. What is the honourable senator talking about? Senator Childs —Because you are protecting them. Senator TOWNLEY —I am not protecting them. I have been trying to stick to the matter before us. Senator Childs —Face the facts. Senator TOWNLEY —The facts are that if this Government is trying to raise the kind of money that the Australian Labor Party needs to cover the deficit in this country, it will not get it by chasing a few people. Senator Childs —Five hundred million dollars; that is enough. Senator TOWNLEY —The honourable senator should wait just a minute. He should give me a go. There are a few rude people in this place who ask questions. When I start to answer them they interject again. They do not want to hear the answers. That may be what is happening right now. Is that the case? Does the honourable senator want to interject again? Senator Childs —No, I just want you to explain about the $500m; that is all. Senator TOWNLEY —Thank you very much. Let me answer the question then. Over the last few years this country has had a deficit of $19,000m. This Government will not get that out of tax avoiders. It will not get that kind of money except by pushing the little bloke out there working his guts out to try to make a few dollars to support his family. The honourable senator should not talk about tax avoiders. Chasing tax avoiders will not bring in that kind of money. If this Government does not look for that kind of money it will have a situation where the young people of this country and their families will be in debt and paying through the nose for the rest of their lives for the debt that this Labor socialist Government and Mr Hawke are creating. Senator Jessop —They are already being taxed twice on Medicare. Senator TOWNLEY —Let me talk to the honourable senator about Medicare. I did a bit of a survey on the things that were worrying people in this country. For some reason, I do not know why-it may be the haircut that the honourable senator spoke about-they like certain things. I will not make any bald statements tonight. Senator Childs —Don't talk about haircuts. Senator TOWNLEY —I agree that I cannot talk about haircuts. But because of my haircut I pay a lot of attention to others. I have noted that somebody else is paying a lot of attention to his haircut. He is a little bloke who happens to be the Prime Minister of this country. Senator Jessop —A very overrated Prime Minister. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Jessop says that he is very overrated. I will not use those words because I want to get back to the basis of the legislation before us . As I have said, I believe that any country that is in the situation that we are in is heading for trouble. Any country that has any marginal tax rate of over 50 per cent I believe is heading down a path that leads to disincentive. Senator Childs —You would let the millionaires off, wouldn't you? You wouldn't expect them to pay their fair share? Senator TOWNLEY —As I said a moment ago, if the honourable senator wants to make a speech I would be only too prepared to sit and listen to him, if necessary, until midnight. Although it would be a tremendous strain on my ears and most probably would make me go deaf I am prepared to do it. If he wants to make a speech he should go for his life but in the meantime, rather than making me deaf , let me make myself deaf. In a couple of countries there are governments that realise the importance of creating incentives. I want to name two countries that are quite different. The first of these countries is Hong Kong where there is a flat tax rate of about 15 per cent; it may be one or 2 per cent either way. That country is doing very well, thank you very much. In spite of the situation where , in a few years time, the communists will have control of that country, because of the tax incentives and for other reasons the situation in Hong Kong is quite excellent. Another country with a flat rate tax which is quite different from Hong Kong but which is more akin to Australia in some ways is Switzerland. Now in the United States there is recognition that a flat rate tax creates incentive . I know that it is not official Liberal Party policy at this stage, but with a tax rate of less than 50 per cent, and it is very important that it be less than 50 per cent- Senator Tate —Why? Senator TOWNLEY —Because with a tax rate of 60 per cent such as we have at the top end of people's incomes and with a provisional tax system for every extra $1 ,000 earned a person pays $600 in income tax and $600 in provisional tax. If that person has a small business he has to put in extra money for extra stock to get that extra income and, therefore, in any year in which he may make an extra $1,000 he may well have to find $1,500 to keep the business and his tax situation running. That creates the situation in which people just do not bother trying to make more than a certain amount of money. I believe that a flat tax rate in many ways would be very beneficial for this country. I have just pointed to two countries which have that situation, and they are both doing very well. Senator Childs —We do not want the Hong Kong standard. Senator TOWNLEY —I would not mind the Swiss or United States standards. Switzerland has a flat tax rate and the United States is looking at it. I agree with what Senator Jessop said last week. The rate should not really be a maximum of 50 per cent; it should be less than that. The figures which we have had taken out show that a rate of around 40 per cent would be quite possible, provided there was the increase in business that has been shown to occur in other countries. The Australian Democrats made a big deal about helping everyone. It has always been my attitude that a splinter party which gets in as the Democrats have-in some ways they have done some reasonable things, as has Senator Harradine- Senator Childs —You were a splinter party of one. What are you talking about? Senator TOWNLEY —Is the honourable senator talking about Senator Harradine? He is not here to defend himself. If the honourable senator is talking about Senator Harradine he should wait until he is here. I have always believed that any small party should to a large extent support the government. Government members, particularly those in the House of Representatives, are elected to do certain things but that does not mean that they have open slather for everything . If we believe that, we must believe that the Senate should be disbanded; and maybe that is what is really behind all the interjections during my speech tonight. The Australian tax situation, I believe, is a disaster. Unfortunately, by the time this Government realises the mess it is heading this country into, the tremendous deficit problems that will be imposed upon it will leave the young people of this country always in debt. Their futures will be made all the more difficult because of what we are doing here today. This tax system is a disaster and I hope that, whichever government is returned at the end of this year, it recognises the situation and takes action to stop the deficit funding of this country. I believe that Senator Missen put paid to many of the Democrats claims when he said they are a bit like Mr Hawke used to be when he was-- Senator Jessop —President of the ACTU. Senator TOWNLEY —How did the honourable senator know I was going to say that? We always heard of him at the last minute. In the same way the Democrats seem to explode from their telephone box of a party room, a bit like Superman, I suppose , zoom into the Senate and pretend that they have saved the day. I do not believe the people of Australia, particularly the people of Tasmania which, if I may put in a plug for the Gray Liberal Government, at the moment is now the low taxation State of Australia, will be fooled by the way the Democrats sit on the fence and at the last minute go the way they feel is politically expeditious. That is the word that should be used. We have heard some very bad English today, particularly from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), and I would hate to add to that. I believe that the people of Tasmania particularly will recognise that, if the Labor Party is returned, the Senate will be a very important part in the defence of the smaller States of this country. If the Labor Party is returned we will have death duties again and capital gains taxes. Initially, they will not admittedly be taxes on the house that someone owns, but if a bit more of the drunken sailor spending that I spoke about a moment ago goes on the Government will have to impose every tax it can think of. It will certainly impose the tax I mentioned in a question today-an assets tax. Why on earth would it go to the trouble and the political damage it is going to by affecting the grey power group of this country by imposing an assets test, an assets tax effectively, on pensioners if it were not going to extend it to the rest of the community? Of course, it will then have to impose a gift duty, a transfer tax or whatever we want to call it. This Government should be very well warned that the people of this country are still very much affected by the hip pocket nerve and, therefore , it should take due note of the likely anger that will be wrought in the community if it goes ahead with some of these taxes. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.38) —I have not heard all the debate on this legislation, indeed I have heard a fairly small fraction of it, but if the most recent contribution was typical of the calibre of the debate I should be grateful for not having heard most of it. I suggest that we should program these debates so that they are held before instead of after dinner. However, a few matters raised deserve an answer. Before moving on to those I want to correct a point of fact. (Quorum formed) I was about to point out an error in an assertion made by Senator Jack Evans who, I am told, stated that sales tax is payable within 21 days of the sale of goods. That is not the case. Sales tax is payable 21 days after the close of the month in which goods are sold. Therefore, it can be payable anything up to seven weeks after the sale of goods and, on average, one would expect it would be payable in the vicinity of five weeks after the sale of goods. Numerous Opposition speakers criticised, proposed section 8Y, clause 297 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill which has become known as the onus of proof provision. It ought to be noted that there is already within the Income Tax Assessment Act in section 167, known I understand as the default assessment, power to the Commissioner of Taxation to assess a tax liability where he believes that the taxpayer has attempted to default in payment of tax. The onus of proof under section 167 also resides with the taxpayer, not the Taxation Commissioner. Senator Jessop —How long has that been in the statutes? Senator WALSH —It has been there longer than I can remember. Senator Jessop —Why didn't you do something about it? Senator WALSH —I am not criticising its being there. I argue that under certain circumstances such measures are justified. I am also advised that, among other things, section 552 of the Companies Code, which was enacted in 1981 under a government which Senator Jessop supported, applies in a similar way in relation to offences concerned with share offers. In all there are about 200 laws, including the Health Insurance Act, the Customs Act and the Migration Act which contain provisions reversing the onus of proof. Proposed section 8Y in clause 297 of the major Bill before the Senate today is necessary. This was demonstrated by the recent case of Reynolds v. the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation decided on 26 September 1984. It demonstrated how people can avoid being penalised for clear breaches of the law by hiding behind a corporate veil. In that case the company had failed to remit to the Commissioner tax instalments deducted from the wages of employees. The Commissioner was unable to secure a conviction against a person who was at material times a director of the company despite existing provisions which were designed for that purpose. That case is a major reason for justifying the inclusion of that clause. Senator Messner asked: 'What would happen if a taxpayer were to incur a penalty because of the failings or negligence of a tax agent?' The short answer to that question is that such a person would not necessarily incur a penalty because the Commissioner has discretion, under those circumstances, to assess a penalty and would carefully consider any matter put to him. It was suggested that the penalisable act or omission was caused by a failure in diligence or negligence of a tax agent. Nevertheless, one ought to observe that people should take some care in selecting their tax agent and that a tax agent who was consistently negligent in this regard would be likely to be deregistered by a tax agents board. Senator Messner also asked how persons on whom the Commissioner has served a departure prohibition order might obtain a departure authorisation certificate. I am advised in relation to this matter that it is important to bear in mind that the Commissioner will be authorised to issue a departure prohibition order only where a person is subject to an existing unpaid tax liability and the Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that it is desirable to prevent that person's departure to ensure that the liability is discharged or secured. Such persons of whom there are likely to be only a handful in any one year should not expect to be able easily to obtain a departure authorisation certificate. Nevertheless, the Commissioner will issue a certificate if satisfied that the person will depart and return to Australia within a reasonable time and that the tax liability will be discharged. Alternatively, the Commissioner needs to be satisfied as to the security being given to the person's returning to Australia or, if no security can be given, that departure should be allowed for humanitarian reasons or because it would be in the best interests of the country. Another matter raised by, I understand, a number of honourable senators was the possibility of taxpayers being penalised for unintended or honest mistakes. People will not be penalised or prosecuted for simply making a mistake; they have not been in the past and will not be in the future. If the amendments are carefully examined it will be seen that they are directed against persons who fail or refuse to comply with a requirement of the law, who make false or misleading statements or who keep incorrect records. Senator Messner also sought advice as to how the Commissioner of Taxation would administer the proposed extensions of the dependent spouse rebate to de facto relationships and how such de facto relationships would be determined. The Commissioner is already required to take into account the existence of a de facto relationship in his administration of the taxation laws; for example, for the purpose of the Medicare levy. I expect that the Commissioner would use similar guidelines in applying the extension of the spouse rebate to de facto spouses. Senator Messner also raised a question about the second reading speech regarding the transfer of losses within company groups. I note that in Hansard the relevant reference is shown as 'succeeding years' and not 'preceding years'. I confirm that there is no intention to allow for the carry back of a loss. Senator Messner was apparently confused about that. I understand that prior to the introduction of the measure into the House of Representatives some copies of the speech were prepared which had a proof reading error. That probably accounts for the misunderstanding. Senator Messner also asked about the estimated cost to revenue of the group tax provision. The cost will apply in 1985-86 and not in 1984-85, of course, because of lagged effect. The cost estimated for 1985-86 revenue is $200m. When this matter was being discussed by the Government that estimate was given and it was queried by the Government because many of us were surprised that it was so high. However, we were assured by the Australian Taxation Office that that figure continues to be its best estimate. However, it should be noted that it is very largely a deferral of revenue because companies which record a loss in one year and can take advantages of these provisions would be required to meet that liability in some subsequent years when the group as a whole had sufficient taxable profit to take account of it. It is expected that by 1989-90 the cost to the revenue will have fallen to something like $50m. Senator Jessop —How do you work that out? Senator WALSH —For the reason that I stated before. All of these estimates of course, are only estimates; there can be no guarantee that they are accurate. The cost to revenue in the first year is likely to be the highest of all because groups of companies which have in some corporate entities a taxation loss for that year can offset that against profits in another company within the group in that same year. But in subsequent years when the companies which had previously recorded losses move into a taxable profit situation, they cannot continue to do it, and the cost to the revenue would be bunched in the first year of the concession and would taper off from there; at least, that is expected for the first four or five years. Also raised was the question of the uplift factor for the estimate of the provisional tax which will be collected in 1984-85. The question was raised particularly in the context of the anticipated substantial decline in farm incomes in this financial year. The farm income factor is less important than one would superficially believe because of the self-assessment provisions of the Act as it relates to primary producer provisional taxpayers, and the variations in farm income and, therefore, in a non-self-assessed adjustment in taxation paid by primary producers are likely to be extremely variable. That is modified to a substantial extent by the self-assessment of provisional tax liability by primary producers. Senator Jessop —What is the average farm income? Senator WALSH —I cannot say off the top of my head, but the anticipated farm income is substantially lower than it was in the previous year. However, there are three categories of provisional taxpayers-not only primary producers but persons in receipt of property income and persons in receipt of other forms of business income. Whilst it is anticipated that primary producers' income will decline substantially in 1984-85, although not necessarily their provisional tax liability because of the self-assessment provisions that I have mentioned, property income and other business income, which account for the bulk of income subject to provisional tax, are expected to grow in 1984-85 by more than 10 per cent-attributable to the general, very substantial economic growth which has taken place over the last 12 months or so. If Opposition members think that there is some fiddling with that figure-I do not think that anyone actually made that charge-I assure them that there is not; and if they are not willing to take my assurance, I draw their attention to the fact that a 10 per cent uplift factor for provisional tax purposes was applied in the last two Budgets of the former Government, despite the clear downturn in the economy prevailing towards the end of the coalition's period in government. I believe that those were the specific questions which were dealt with. The Government has two sets of amendments which will be moved in the Committee stage . I will be seeking leave to move the two sets of amendments en bloc, but as two sets, not one set, because they came in at different times. I understand also that the Opposition will be moving a number of amendments. The Government will oppose those amendments. I also understand that at least one amendment is to be moved by the Australian Democrats, and that will be opposed by the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.54) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 16, paragraph 37 (a), proposed new paragraph 31 (aa), line 16, leave out 'and'. (2) Page 16, clause 37, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: '(aa) by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: ''(c) the Commissioner shall- (i) refund the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the prescribed decision; or (ii) apply the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the prescribed decision against any liability of the person to the Commonwealth and refund any part of the amount that is not so applied''; and'. (3) Page 16, paragraph 38 (a), proposed new paragraph 32 (aa), line 26, leave out 'and'. (4) Page 16, clause 38, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: '(aa) by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: ''(c) the Commissioner shall- (i) refund the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the assessment; or (ii) apply the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the assessment against any liability of the person to the Commonwealth and refund any part of the amount that is not so applied''; and'. (5) Page 18, paragraph 44 (d), proposed paragraph 3 (1) (g), line 27, insert ' or (1D)' after '221YHD (1)'. (6) Page 52, proposed sub-section 221 YHJ (1), line 29, before 'remains', insert 'or sub-paragraph 221YHD (1D) (c) (i)'. (7) Page 156, proposed sub-sub-paragraph 10 (1) (a) (iii) (B), line 34, leave out 'commencement of section 10A', insert 'day on which the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 received the Royal Assent'. (8) Page 169, after clause 358 insert the following new clause: Default assessments '358A. Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3).'. (9) Page 176, sub-clause 381 (4), line 21, leave out 'sections 38 and 40', substitute 'section 38'. (10) Page 176, paragraph 381 (4) (a), line 23, leave out ', 40 (3)'. (11) Page 176, clause 381, after sub-clause (4) insert the following sub-clause : '(4A) Notwithstanding the amendment of section 40 of the Principal Act made by this Act, sub-section 40 (3) of the Principal Act continues to apply, after the commencement of this section, in relation to a liability for additional tax that accrued before that commencement, as if that amendment had not been made.'. (12) Page 193, Schedule 6, amendment of paragraph 221YHD (3) (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, omit 'after ''sub-sub-paragraph (1) (b) (v) (A)'' ', insert 'from and including ''applies-'' to the end of the paragraph'. These amendments are all of a technical nature. The Bill as introduced will insert uniform provisions into the various taxation laws to authorise the Commissioner of Taxation to refund any overpaid tax, duty or charge or to apply overpaid amounts against any outstanding liability of the person under any Act administered by the Commissioner and to refund any balance. Amendments (1) to (4 ) will insert similar provisions in the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 in cases where a refund of tax arises from a reduction in a person's tax liability following a decision of a board of review or supreme court. These were overlooked during drafting of the Bill. Amendment (7) will correct a drafting error as to the date on which interest will commence to be payable on overpaid amounts that will be brought within the operation of the Taxation ( Interest on Overpayments) Act 1982 by clause 319. Interest will commence to be payable on those amounts two months after the Bill receives royal assent. Various clauses of the Bill amend the default assessment provisions of the different taxation laws-other than income tax-to delete penalties that are being duplicated by the new penalties applicable to acts or omissions that lead to the evasion of tax, duty or charge. However, the relevant provisions of the Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964 were inadvertently not included in the Bill, and amendments (8) to (11) will correct that oversight. Amendments (5), (6) and (12) are consequential upon amendments made to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 in another place proposing amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to change the operation of the prescribed payments system. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendments agreed to. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.57) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 130, clause 297, proposed new sub-paragraph 8J (3) (a) (ii), line 24, leave out 'or'. (2) Page 130, clause 297, at the end of proposed sub-section 8J (3) add the following word and paragraph: '; or (c) an offence against section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act 1914, being an offence that relates to a tax liability'. (3) Page 137, clause 297, proposed new paragraph 8Z (1) (c), line 28, leave out 'or' (last occurring). (4) Page 137, clause 297, after proposed new paragraph 8Z (1) (c) insert the following paragraph: '(ca) the conviction of a person of an offence against section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act 1914, being an offence that relates to a tax liability; or'. I am not sure whether these technical amendments were circulated in adequate time; if not, I apologise. The Clerks did not have them until fairly recently, but I trust that Opposition members did. The amendments are consequential upon amendments introduced in the House of Representatives last Friday to the Crimes Act 1914 to create a substantive offence, in new section 29D, of defrauding the Commonwealth. This new offence is to be punishable on conviction by a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for five years or both. The penalty for the existing offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, which is being re-enacted as section 86A of the Crimes Act, is to be increased to the same level. By amendments (1) to (4), convictions against section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act 1914 will be taken into account as previous convictions for the purposes of the tiered structure of penalties proposed by the Bill now before the Senate for second and third offences relating to false or misleading statements, the keeping of incorrect records and certain other things done with the intent to deceive or mislead the Commissioner of Taxation. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendments agreed to. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.59) —by leave-I move: 1. Page 132, clause 297, proposed new sub-section 8K (2), lines 4 to 8, leave out the sub-section. 2. Page 132, clause 297, proposed new sub-section 8L (2), lines 20 to 33, leave out the sub-section. 3. Page 136-137, clause 297, proposed new sub-sections 8Y (2) and (3), line 37 (page 136) to line 6 (page 137), leave out the sub-sections. 4. Page 142-143, clause 297, proposed new section 8ZL, line 38 (page 142) to line 15 (page 143), leave out the section. These amendments concern the reversal of onus of proof in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill. This matter was discussed very extensively in the second reading debate. I do not want to canvass all the issues again, but merely draw again to the attention of the Senate the main criticisms of the Opposition as expressed in these amendments. Under this legislation a former director, officer or manager of a company could find, many years after he had retired, that because of an offence committed by that company he is penalised and an offence is deemed to have been committed by him. That could happen five, 10, 15 or 20 years after that person had retired. We believe that situation to be entirely onerous. We believe that it is beyond the principles of British justice that people could be held to ransom after such a long time. As I point out, there is no time limitation in this Bill. Quite apart from the fact that a person could be found liable after an unlimited period, we have to consider the circumstances of people who may have retired at the age of 65 and, many years later, find themselves called before a court, charged with offences and consequently penalised and convicted. That takes away the opportunities of those people to obtain access to documents. There is the question of memory of certain events. There is the question of having access to papers that will provide people with the arguments to defend themselves in such circumstances. Clearly the Government has not given any thought to the practical situations which might arise. We believe this to be entirely against the fundamental principles of British justice. We believe that people will be unduly affected because the Government, as I said earlier, has deemed that an offence will have occurred in these circumstances. In other words, the legislation requires that director, officer or manager of a company to prove that he did not commit the offence. The onus is not on the Commissioner of Taxation to prove that that person committed the offence, had some knowledge of it or was engaged in a conspiracy or whatever. For that reason we oppose clause 297 and seek the amendment of proposed new sections 8K (2), 8L (2), 8Y (2), 8Y (3) and 8ZL. We believe that our arguments were strongly represented in the course of the second reading debate. We feel that the Government is entirely on the wrong track on this matter. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in the course of his closing remarks referred to section 167 of the present Act, which allows the Commissioner of Taxation, if he is not satisfied with the return furnished by any person, to make an assessment of the amount owed according to his judgment. The Minister put that up as a justification for the Government's taking action in this respect, but it seems to me that that is an entirely different way of assessing tax from the way which is envisaged in this clause; that is, that many years subsequent to the involvement of a manager or officer in a company, penalties are assessed for an event that is deemed to have occurred. We believe that quite different issues are involved and seek acceptance of our amendments. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.05) —I am not sure where the Opposition got its advice in drafting these amendments. I am advised that the amendments would have a somewhat perverse effect. I am advised that Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 would delete the defence available to a person charged with certain offences against the taxation law; that is, the defence that the person did not know the essence of the offences and could not reasonably have been expected to know, those offences being: Firstly, the making of false or misleading statements; and, secondly, keeping records incorrectly. Those are strict liability offences; that is, the person will be guilty and liable to a penalty of a fine of $2,000 for a first offence and $4,000 for a second offence, regardless of the person's knowledge or intent in committing the offence. In those circumstances the Government believes that it would be draconian to delete the defence that is being provided; that is, that in committing the offence the person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the statement was false, misleading and so on. The defence of lack of knowledge is provided in relation to similar offences under other Acts. Strict liability offences prevent taxpayers from avoiding their taxation responsibilities by claiming inadvertence or lack of knowledge and are therefore an essential element in obtaining satisfactory compliance with the law. Nevertheless the Government is of the view that it would be an oppressive step to abolish completely the defences contained in proposed new sections 8K (2) and 8L (2). The third Opposition amendment relates to the liability of officers of corporations which commit tax offences. The amendment would remove the defences being provided that the company officer did not aid or abet in the act of omission of the corporation constituting the offence and was not knowingly concerned in or party to the offence. The effect would be to leave proposed new section 8Y to impose liability for a corporation's offence on any person who was concerned in or took part in the management of the corporation, however remote from the act constituting the offence that person might be. In that respect amendment No. 3 is similar to amendments Nos 1 and 2 and is regarded by the Government as being oppressive in the extreme. Insofar as the opposition claims concern that proposed new section 8Y would create a reverse onus of proof on corporate officers, the amendment is astray. It would impose an absolute liability, with no defence at all, on every person who was involved in the management of a corporation that committed an offence. The Law Council of Australia might be somewhat surprised when it finds out the amendments that the Opposition has proposed. The fourth amendment would delete proposed new section 8ZL of the Taxation Administration Act. That proposed new section would enable prosecutions for taxation offences that do not carry a gaol sentence to proceed on the basis that matters adverted to and contained in the information, claim or complaint of the prosecution are treated as prima facie evidence of the matter averred. I am advised that there is nothing new in that. Proposed new section 8ZL will re-enact substantially what is now contained in section 243 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and similar provisions in many other laws which have been in use for many years. Without the averment mechanism it would be impossible to carry out efficiently prosecutions against tax offences. Each year there are approximately 60,000 prosecutions for breaches of the tax law. If averment procedures could be availed of, the Commissioner would be required to prove by conventional means-that is, oral evidence from officers- each element of prescribed taxation offences. For example, in the simple case of a person prosecuted for failure to lodge a return the Commissioner's officers would need to be present in court as witnesses to give evidence to establish that the taxpayer had not lodged in any taxation office in Australia a return for the particular year of income. The amendment shows a lack of understanding of the time and resources required to prosecute 60,000 taxation offences without averment procedures. In short, the court system would not be able to cope and many of the Commissioner's officers would spend much of their time attending court instead of being engaged more productively and, I suggest, more socially desirably in ensuring compliance with the law. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator K. W. Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. BDurack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Foreman, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Cook, P. F. S. Kilgariff, B. F. McClelland, DouglasWithers, R. G. Chipp, D. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.17) —I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 297 on page 125 of the Bill. Again I make the point that the Opposition feels so strongly about this matter concerning the reversal of onus of proof that we foreshadow that should this amendment, which I will move in a moment, be lost we intend to move a further motion at a later stage of the debate requesting that the matter of the reversal of onus of proof be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I merely wish to indicate that in light of the argument that has gone before. I move: Pages 125-143, clause 297, as amended, line 5 (page 125) to line 33 (page 143), leave out the clause. Amendment negatived. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.19) —Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of procedure I indicate that I want to remove the further reference of this matter concerning the reversal of onus of proof just before the question is put that the Bill be read a third time. I take it we will be taking the Bill through those individual stages later? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —We will deal with that later when the time comes. Bill, as amended, agreed to. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1984 Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator JACK EVANS —by leave-I move: Page 1, sub-clause 2 (1), leave out 'sub-section (2)', insert 'sub-sections (2) and (3)'. Page 1, after sub-clause 2 (2), add the following new sub-clause: ''(3) Paragraph 9 (1) (b), insofar as it inserts paragraph 78 (1) (ad) into the Principal Act, shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1982.''. The purpose of these amendments is to make the provision applicable from the tax year ended 30 June 1983. The amendments are on similar lines to the provisions of a Bill introduced by Senator Chipp in 1983. They are also similar to an amendment that is to be moved by the Liberal Party. The Democrats believe that the date needs to be made retroactive because there were disasters in the year in question, including the Ash Wednesday disaster, which should be embraced by this Bill. We understood that the Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular, had already accepted the principle that the tragedies to which I have referred should be covered retrospectively by this Bill. Therefore, it was disappointing that the measure was not made retroactive to that year. The provision will give tax deductibility to the donors of products to victims of a national tragedy. The principle is accepted by all parties that it is unjust that if those products were converted into cash and donated to the victims they would be tax deductible. In fact, under the old legislation, which is still in force, these gifts are taxed to the full. It is a considerable disincentive to individuals who wish to give produce and products to those who desperately need them. Indeed, those concerned may need those very products rather than cash, which they then use to spend on identical produce or products at retail prices. I believe that principle is accepted by all of us. Although the Bill is mildly retrospective, I know that it has the support of all senators on this side of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.23) — An amendment to be moved by Senator Messner on behalf of the Opposition has a similar effect to the amendments that are now under consideration. Some of these matters were dealt with in the second reading debate. To put the matter into perspective so that this is not seen as the action of one group in this place, I remind the Committee that this problem was raised with me by a number of people soon after the Victorian bushfires. I think I was the first to raise this matter in Parliament in May 1983 in a question directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). The Minister's response was clear and to the effect that the matter was worthy of consideration. He indicated that he would be taking up the question and providing a definitive answer. Obviously, from that point onwards the matter exercised not only the minds of people in this chamber-Senator Missen and others took up the matter vigorously-but also that of the Government. An announcement was virtually in the offing at about that time. Therefore, it would not be inconsistent with the Government's attitude to tax measures for this measure to be operative from 1 July 1982. It would cover the period in which these gifts were made out of the generosity of the hearts of the farmers, and others who were providing gifts rather than money to fire victims. I support the amendments moved by Senator Jack Evans or the foreshadowed amendment by Senator Messner, whichever is the more technically correct. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.26) — I support the amendment to be moved by the Opposition. I recognise that the Australian Democrats have a similar interest in this matter. I have been critical of the Government for not recognising the need to exempt from sales tax appliances purchased by people in fire prone areas who may be victims of disasters such as were experienced on Ash Wednesday. I have been critical of the Government in that respect and believe that it should have another look at the matter. I believe that the Opposition's amendment is more comprehensive and more technically correct. Therefore, whilst recognising the motivation of the Democrats, I believe that they should support the Opposition amendment as being more comprehensive than theirs. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.28) — The Opposition acknowledges the points made by the Democrats. I am informed that they are quite happy to support our amendment because of the technical factors that favour it rather than their own. Consequently, the effect will be the same as though they were proposing their own amendment. As a senator for South Australia, and having been involved in overseeing the arrangements which the then Fraser Government was making with the State Government of South Australia at the time of the Ash Wednesday bush fires, I have clearly in my mind that there was no doubt that people were given to understand that a tax deduction would be available for gifts such as fodder and other items made in kind to the victims of the bush fires by farmers and other people. As a result I think this amendment is thoroughly justified on the basis of my understanding of the Federal Government's undertaking to the State Government at that stage. I admit that I am going on my own memory of what happened, but I believe that at the time there were significant and high level discussions directly between the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia. Consequently, I believe that the undertaking could be substantiated. For that reason we believe that the provision should apply from 1 July 1982 so that it will have effect during the income year ended 30 June 1983 and subsequently to cover the period which encompasses the bush fire date. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.30) —I draw the attention of the Senate and the people of Australia, particularly the people of Western Australia , to a travesty which has taken place and is still being put into effect in Western Australia. Let me briefly introduce the background to this matter which is based on what is known as a Systems 6 study, a comprehensive long term plan for Western Australia, which was divided into sections and which aims at ensuring safeguards and benefits for the people and the environment of Western Australia. It is in my opinion a magnificent study and a very comprehensive and well thought out report. Included in the initial report and subsequently in the final report was recommendation M93.3 which reads: That the recommendations of the Cockburn Wetlands Study (that Farrington Road should not be extended around the north of North Lake and that the proposed Roe Highway be modified to reduce its impact on the wetlands in the area) are endorsed. Those recommendations included a quite specific exclusion of a previously planned extension of Farrington Road. The Australian bicentenary road development grant guidelines which were in force at the time that a number of decisions were made relating to Farrington Road made it quite clear that any road development should not ignore the environmental impact and, in particular, any serious environmental or ecological consequences of a road to be built using ABRD funds. The specific reference to which I draw the Senate's attention is 3.8 Environmental Information, which reads: When projects are submitted for approval, the States are required to certify that all works involved in the project conform with the requirements of the State's environmental authority. A project will not normally be approved without this certification. Until a project meets a State's environmental requirement, works on the project will be limited to hardship acquisition, investigation or such works as the State environmental authority is prepared to let proceed until all environmental requirements have been met. The State should also advise whether particular projects submitted for approval are likely to have a significant effect on National Estate sites, Aboriginal lands and sacred sites. These requirements are quite clear and very easily understood. System 6 says 'Do not proceed. You are in danger of destroying the ecology'. The ABRD grant guidelines make it clear that no road should be built with its funds which contravenes its environmental guidelines. Briefly, the background to the problem is set out in a statement which dates from March 1976 right up to October 1984. With the approval of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh)-I have sought the approval of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris)-I seek leave to have that background information incorporated in Hansard because it sets out the foundation of the argument I put tonight. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Background: (i) March, '76-Cockburn Wetlands Study states that Farrington Road is an unnecessary road and should not be constructed. (ii) 1981-E.P.A. presents draft of System 6 report and adopts Cockburn Wetlands Study. (iii) June, 1983-E.P.A. consulted by M.R.D. E.P.A. stood by its recommendation that Farrington Road should not be built. (iv) July, 1983-M.R.D. applied for A.B.R.D. funds. (v) October, '83-M.R.D., Cockburn City Council and Melville City Council give assurances that the project will not breach Bicentennial guidelines. E.P.A. is not consulted, nor are the other interested parties. (vi) October, '83-Melville City Engineer met with Cockburn City Officers to discuss details of the Farrington Road project. (vii) November, '83-Tenders are called and close on 5.12.83. (viii) December, '83-Melville City Council and Cockburn City Council notified that Bicentennial Funds are available. (ix) January, '84-modifications made to proposed roadworks. (x) May, '84-Farrington Road gazetted by M.R.D. (xi) May, '84-System 6 red book released and accepted in principle by the Minister for Environment. (xii) May, '84-Melville City Council adopts final draft of System 6 report, including the recommendation M93.3 that Farrington Road not be constructed. The Melville City Council has been consistent with its support of M93.3 since 29.5. 84. (xiii) May, '84-Lowest tender accepted for project. (xiv) May, '84-Department of Conservation and Environment advises the M.R.D. to notify E.P.A. of developments on the Farrington Road project. (xv) June, '84-M.R.D. and City of Cockburn submit Notice of Intent to E.P.A. (xvi) July, '84-Unofficial letter is sent to the M.R.D. and forwarded to E.P.A. (xvi) July, '84 (cont)-This unofficial letter from the Melville City Planner was contrary to the expressed wishes of the Melville City Council and ratepayers and appears to be the basis for any decision made by the E.P.A. to accept that Melville City Council desired the construction of Farrington Road. (xvii) July, '84-Melville City Engineer notified Main Roads Department of the concerns of the Melville City Council west of Murdoch Drive, Murdoch. (xviii) July, '84-Cockburn City Council notified of Melville's concern as to the environmental impact of the proposed Farrington Road project. (xix) August, '84-E.P.A. met with Officers of the City of Melville and City of Cockburn and expressed concern for the possibility of environmental damage that could be caused by the road. Melville City Council recorded these concerns. (xx) August, '84-E.P.A. asked for joint local government agreement to be signed before work should proceed on the construction of Farrington Road. No such agreement was signed. (xxi) August, '84-E.P.A. suddenly reverses recommendation M93.3 and gives approval for road to proceed. (xxii) August, '84-Contracts are signed, (xxiii) Sept., '84-E.P.A. met and gave formal decision to reverse recommendation M93.3. (xxiv) Sept., '84-Melville City Council sought the opinions of residents and continued to discuss opposition to the extension of Farrington Road west of Murdoch Drive. (xxv) September, '84-Bulldozers roll onto Melville land and are halted by mass demonstrations. The city of Cockburn defies all attempts to halt roadworks; attempts by injunctions sought by local residents, the Conservation Council of W .A., the City of Melville and the State Government. Appeals by the Mayor of Melville, the media and the Premier were unable to halt works as were the attempts by people to block the passage of bulldozers with their bodies. (xxvi) October, '84-Despite 30 days of intensive media coverage, mainly headline news, work on this project has not halted. Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the Senate. As I said, that background clearly demonstrates that there has been either a dereliction of duty or possibly a deliberate misleading of one or two State Ministers, possibly the Federal Minister for Transport and possibly senior people in the Melville City Council. The Environmental Protection Authority has very sound reasons for rejecting any proposals to extend that road. Again, rather than take up the time of the Senate , I seek leave to have those sound reasons incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Farrington Road Issue: Irregularities in the reversal of recommendation M93.3 of the system 6 report Question: What led the E.P.A. to reverse recommendation M93.3 between August 9th and August 27th? Background: (a) AUGUST 9-E.P.A. meeting between three members of E.P.A., Mr Treloar (the Melville City Planner) and Mr Candy (the Cockburn City Engineer). E.P.A. refused to reverse recommendation M93.3 and requested a joint agreement be signed between the local government bodies. (b) AUGUST 10-The Cockburn Town Clerk, Mr Amarego, sent a letter to the Melville Town Clerk seeking a joint agreement to satisfy the E.P.A. (c) AUGUST 14-Melville Town Clerk received the letter. (d) AUGUST 16-Mr Amarego again requested the letter to be signed by the Melville Town Clerk. (e) AUGUST 21-Melville City Council Works Committee considered the joint agreement and questioned the construction of Farrington Road west of Murdoch Drive. (f) AUGUST 27-Professor Main, Chairman of the E.P.A., issued an Executive order on his own authority that the Farrington Road project could proceed. (g) AUGUST 27-Main Roads Department released Bicentennial funds. (h) AUGUST 28-The City of Cockburn, as manager of the project, let the contract . (i) AUGUST 28-Full council meeting of the City of Melville expressed concern at the possibility that the area around North Lake may be damaged by the construction of Farrington Road and sought the opinions of residents, their concerns were referred back to the E.P.A. (j) SEPTEMBER 6-E.P.A. meeting. Only two members present as Professor O'Connor had not received an agenda. Chairman asks for retrospective approval to 27th August to reverse recommendation M93.3. The joint letter has not been signed by the local government bodies. E.P.A. meeting gives retrospective approval. (k) SEPTEMBER 7-Minister for Environment informed for the first time of reversal of M93.3. Farrington Road Issue: Background (Continued): (1) SEPTEMBER 10-Cockburn City Council sent bulldozers onto Melville land without permission from the Melville City Council. (m) SEPTEMBER 14-Chairman of E.P.A. asks Cabinet for retrospective approval to reverse recommendation M93.3. Cabinet denied request. E.P.A. asked to view its decision. (n) SEPTEMBER 15-State Government sought to halt roadworks but failed. (o) OCTOBER 4-E.P.A. meeting to review its decision to reverse recommendation M93.3 is postponed owing to the overwhelming number of submissions received. (p) E.P.A. meeting rescheduled for Tuesday, October 9th. Other questions: (i) Why didn't Professor Main wait for the joint agreement from the City of Melville? (ii) Is it irregular for the M.R.D. to have documents prepared in advance of a decision being made? (iii) Why did Cockburn let the contract when it was known that Melville City Council opposed certain aspects of the project? (iv) Why did the City of Cockburn commence work on Stage 3 of the project instead of Stage 1 where there was no disagreement? (v) What was the true reason for Professor O'Connor's resignation? (vi) Were misleading documents or pressures exerted to or on the Chairman of the E.P.A.? (vii) Why was the whole project expediated and concealed from public scrutiny? Note: SEPTEMBER 21-Professor Des O'Connor resigned from E.P.A. Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the Senate again. The Minister for the Environment has claimed that the EPA based its advice 'on full consultation with the Main Roads Department, the city of Melville and the city of Cockburn'. I make that claim because I have before me a letter from the Minister for the Environment, Ron Davies MLA, addressed to the Town Clerk of the city of Melville which states precisely that. I seek leave to table that letter as evidence that that Minister was obviously unaware at the time of writing that there were very serious environmental considerations which at that stage had not been drawn to his attention. Leave granted. Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the Senate. This evidence flows on to another quite serious situation involving the Federal Government. This is the reason why I believe that this matter should be drawn into the Federal sphere. The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, on 24 September 1984 wrote to the President of the Kardinga Residents Association in Western Australia explaining that the project which was submitted to him in July 1983 by the Western Australian Minister for Transport, Mr Grill, gave an assurance that no environmentally significant aspects of the project needed referral to appropriate environmental authorities. That is a very serious situation because it would appear on the surface of the information I have tendered to the Senate tonight that this project, which this letter says was approved for ABRD funding in October 1983, was approved on a false pretext. The responsibility for that misleading of the Federal Minister has yet to be determined. I understand that the Premier of Western Australia is very concerned and, in fact, is currently investigating the matters which have been drawn to his attention. I understand that the Minister for the Environment is equally concerned and that the EPA has great difficulty in accepting that this could have happened under what were until now considered to be quite safe protections written into the State's environmental legislation and which particularly provided for the environment by the System 6 study which, I understand, had the full endorsement of the Western Australian Government. I draw the Senate's attention to this matter because I believe this area is a significant part of the Perth metropolitan area. It deserves protection. It is not just a bit of wasteland through which a road can be pushed without considering the ecological consequences. It is not just a beautiful area from an aesthetic point of view. I understand that ornithologists from around Australia visit it because of the bird life there. The plant life is unique in its variety and the types of plants that are there. The whole ecology is a very precious one . It is a relatively large area for a metropolitan area to have within its precincts and is a beautiful bit of Australia's natural heritage. As a result of this possible deception by certain people who, for their own reasons, have forced decisions to be carried out without due consideration, and who have been party to misleading the Federal Minister, and no one knows exactly how many people before that, to obtain the grant of $1m in road funds, the interests of the road builders have been put ahead of the interests of the people in the community who believe that that road should not proceed. I conclude by asking the Federal Minister to have a full inquiry into this matter and to freeze the funds. I do not want that $1m withdrawn from road funding in Western Australia because, goodness knows, we need the road funding and the road construction in Western Australia. I believe that there is an alternative route to this particular traffic that the Cockburn Shire Council claims is building up and will build up in the future, an alternative route which will probably prove to be just as acceptable to all of the parties who would use it and far more acceptable to those who want to protect our natural environment. Given that the Federal Minister accepts that request and that he ensures that there are no penalties and no losses of funds to the Western Australian Government and the Cockburn shire for this particular development, I believe that all parties would, with good will, move rapidly towards finding an alternative solution. On behalf of those people in Western Australia who are concerned for the environment, I appeal to the Federal Minister and the Premier of Western Australia to accept this proposal that an inquiry be conducted and that, in the meantime, the funds for this particular road be frozen. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.42) —I rise tonight to address myself to the problem which has arisen before in this Senate; that is, the question of refugees or border crossers in Papua New Guinea, those who have come from West Irian and who are now, in greater numbers than ever, in Papua New Guinea. I do not propose to go over the details, with which many honourable senators will be familiar. I spoke on this matter on two earlier occasions in the adjournment debate-on 9 May and again on 31 May. At that time my concern was particularly with the death of Arnold Ap who was a Melanesian curator of the university who had been killed in very suspicious circumstances. In the subsequent speech I dealt more particularly with the development of the actual refugees and the situation they are in. Since that time we are aware that there has been something of a tragedy due to the deaths of a number of people who were living in camps in Papua New Guinea, a neglect which has been acknowledged by Papua New Guinea, due to perhaps inexperience on the part of the people who were supposed to be looking after them. That was an occasion when our Government made some offer of assistance. I think the whole position is still one of concern. We have known that no real arrangement or agreement has been reached between the Papua New Guinean Government and Indonesia. There is a constant threat so far as these people are concerned. The development which is of considerable interest to us is that from 2 September to 16 September of this year the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists sent a mission to that area to see the camps , to extensively interview people there and to ascertain the position. The delegation that went was a distinguished one of wide experience, including Mr John Dowd, a New South Wales member of parliament and President of the Australian Section; retired judge Trevor Martin, also a member of the Executive Committee; Professor Garth Nettheim, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales; Mr D. Rowland and Mr David Bitel, solicitors in New South Wales and also father L. Van Der Berg of the Netherlands who had the advantage of speaking the Indonesian language. An interim report has been presented by Mr Dowd on behalf of the mission, dated 24 September 1984. It is a short report and I think it would be very useful to honourable senators and the public to know its contents. I seek leave to incorporate the report in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows-- INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS AUSTRALIAN SECTION Mission to Papua New Guinea, 2nd to 16th September, 1984 concerning the refugee status of ''border-crossers'' from Irian Jaya INTERIM REPORT 24th September, 1984 In view of the urgency of clarifying the status and situation of the nearly 11, 000 people who have crossed into Papua New Guinea from Irian Jaya in the last year, the members of the mission decided that it would produce this interim report setting out a short history and summary of the fact finding mission. The major part of the final report is in fact completed but will inevitably take some few weeks for compilation, editing and reproduction, which will delay publication. NOTE: 1. For convenience, in this report the term ''refugee'' will be used rather than try to distinguish precisely the particular status of the various groups. As will be seen from our conclusions and recommendations, with the exception of a small number who will voluntarily return, the balance are either refugees or ' 'persons in the situation of a refugee'' and entitled to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees assistance. The more neutral word, ''border-crosser'' only covers the status of some of those who have come into Papua New Guinea. 2. The conclusions and recommendations are approved in final form by the Australian Members of the mission although they reflect the agreement in principle of all members. Background to the Mission As a result of representations made to the Executive Committee of the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists in April and May, 1984, the press reports and various publications being made available to it, it was decided by the Australian Section to make inquiries concerning the status of the refugees. Subsequently the Section resolved to seek permission from the Papua New Guinea Government to visit Papua New Guinea and particularly the refugee camps to investigate that status of the inhabitants of the camps. Permission in principle was given after an outline of the purpose of the mission and identification of the members of the mission were furnished to the PNG Government. Visas were granted for all Australian members of the mission. Some few days prior to the date of the mission, it was clear that the Papua New Guinea Government had reservations about the mission and its officers queried in detail the purpose of it and only after representations made to the PNG Government on Wednesday 29th, Thursday 30th and Friday 31st August, 1984, was the mission allowed to proceed. The members of the delegation were: John Dowd, M.P. (N.S.W. Parliament) President, Australian Section ICJ, as leader of the mission. Judge Trevor Martin QC (Rtd), member of the Executive Committee of the Australian Section, ICJ. Professor Garth Nettheim, Professor of Law, University of New South Wales, member of the Executive Committee of the Australian Section, ICJ. Mr. D. Rowland, Solicitor of N.S.W., Head of the Centre for Technology and Social Change at the University of Wollongong, member of the Executive Committee of the Australian Section, ICJ Mr. David Bitel, Solicitor, N.S.W., member of the Executive Committee, Australian Section, ICJ. Father L. Van Der Berg, of Megan, the Netherlands, member of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, former missionary to Irian Jaya, Bachelor of Canon Law, attending at the invitation of the Netherlands' Section of the ICJ. SUMMARY OF MISSION The five Australian members met the head of the PNG Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Matane and his principal advisor and discussed the refugee problem for an hour and a half on the first day of arrival. Discussions were also held with members of the press and former Irian Jayan residents living in Port Moresby. Two members of the mission, Professor Nettheim and Judge Martin, then flew to Vanimo in the north to visit the camp in Vanimo, namely Blackwater, and the camps at Green River and Kamberatoro. The remaining members joined by Father Van der Berg, flew to Kiunga in the Western Province of what was formerly Papua, to visit the refugee camps in that area. The members of the mission in the Kiunga area visited camps at Kungim, Komopkin, Atkamba, Niogombin, Dome and Rumginae ( the latter being a hospital dealing with the malnourished and those affected by respiratory and other disorders). Having trekked in through the bush and by canoe to examine conditions at Komopkin camp and to carry out interviews, Dowd, Bitel and Rowland stayed overnight to better understand the people and conditions. At each of the western camps, the principal interviewing was done by Mr Bitel who speaks Bahasa Indonesia with some fluency and of course Father Van der Berg who also speaks Bahasa Indonesia. Some of the interviews were conducted by people alone, some were conducted in the presence of others and some in the presence of PNG Government officials. Group interviews have obvious disadvantages but very often the reaction of the people around assist in showing the veracity of the person who is making particular statements. On the other hand, group interviews inhibit individual frankness. In addition to the interviews with the refugees, members of the delegation had interviews with the patrol officers, police officers, the district head in the Western Province area, Mr Trevor Downes, the Catholic Bishops in the Vanimo and Kiunga area, a local Member of Parliament, Mr Warren Dutton, other Catholic Priests, people resident in the towns and indeed, officers of the Foreign Affairs Department stationed in Vanimo. The mission was given considerable assistance in understanding the issues involved by these officers and of course the cross-section of persons involved in the camp areas, all of whom had lived with the situation for some months. Members of the mission had the opportunity of examining particular records showing the names and numbers of people in various camps. Some members of the mission also had the opportunity of discussing the conditions of the refugees and the medical circumstances with hospital workers at the Rumginae Hospital. The leader of the mission flew from Kiunga to Vanimo to also examine the Blackwater camp near Vanimo and talk to members of the Catholic Mission and other residents of the town in addition to PNG Foreign Affairs Officers. On return to Port Moresby, further discussions were held with press and with former Irian Jayan residents and with officers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, some of whom had visited the camps. An interview was granted on Saturday, 8th September by the Indonesian Ambassador and a lengthy discussion took place with him. Three members of the mission remained on during the following week and carried out further discussions with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Red Cross, Save the Children Fund, the UNHCR and others. One of the members, Father Van der Berg, then visited Vanimo and visited the camps in that region. The purpose of outlining this history is to underline the fact that as well as direct evidence, the members of the mission had an opportunity to compare their impressions and evidence with other people in the area who had worked with this problem in order to give them a perspective on the evidence they had taken. It is intended in the final report to deal with particular findings and humanitarian issues concerning the refugees and particular matters relating to Mr Arnold Ap and the circumstances surrounding his death. The conclusions and recommendations of the mission are set out below. CONCLUSIONS 1. That a large number of the approximately 11,000 refugees now consider themselves to be indefinitely or permanently displaced from Irian Jaya. These comprise mostly people with traditional border-crossing rights under the Border Agreement between PNG and Indonesia and having clan and language affiliations with people on the PNG side. They include also a further, smaller group of urbanised people, mainly coming from the jayapura area. 2. That this large number of people are either refugees within the terms of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or are people clearly in a refugee-like situation within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees excepting that small number that is now prepared to return voluntarily. 3. That because the people who have come across are people from the immediate border area, most with clan and language affiliations on the PNG side, there is therefore little evidence that the taking of this number of refugees will open a floodgate for refugees from other parts of Irian Jaya. 4. That the displacement of this large number of persons is an indication of serious problems within Irian Jaya. 5. That there is clear evidence of human rights violations in the area of Irian Jaya nearest to PNG by the Indonesian authorities against local villagers. 6. That the eye witness evidence concerning the state of Ap's body and the injuries shown, are clearly inconsistent with the statements made by Indonesian officials that he was shot escaping. 7. That there is some evidence that the PNG Government was deficient, in distributing aid and assistance to the refugees during the first few months after they had crossed into Papua New Guinea. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That no one be returned involuntarily to Indonesia. 2. That the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees be given full authority and responsibility in conjunction with the Government of PNG, to provide assistance to the refugees pending the achievement of durable solutions. 3. That nations, and national and international aid agencies, including the UNHCR, be urged to offer assistance to PNG to care for the refugees pending completion of durable solutions, and also to help to achieve such durable solutions. 4. That the administrative arrangements for the distribution of aid to the refugees include the participation of the UNHCR and appropriate church agencies. 5. That the Indonesian Government take no immediate action against the families and property of refugees so that the prospects of voluntary repatriation are not diminished. 6. That the Indonesian Government make clear both the precise nature of criminal charges that individual refugees will attract on their return to Irian Jaya, and the appropriate authority, civil or military, to deal with such charges, and that the Indonesian Government provide firm guarantees subject to UNHCR monitoring, that those who return voluntarily will face no other punishment or penalty. 7. That the PNG Government ensure that, for the time being, all refugees be given permissive residence status within PNG. 8. That the PNG Government invite the assistance of the UNHCR in the determination of the status of the refugees. 9. That the PNG Government ensure that before refugees are interviewed to determine their status, appropriately qualified advisers be made available to them. 10. That the PNG Government ensure that those refugees who have actively participated in political actions (mainly those refugees in the Blackwater Camp near Vanimo) ought to be given refugee status and settled within PNG or, if necessary, in other countries within the region. But the remainder should be located where possible in their own clan/language groupings within PNG, but at some reasonable distance from the border to prevent them from constituting a continuing problem for PNG-Indonesian relations. 11. That the PNG Government should not discriminate against the refugees in decisions on the granting of citizenship. 12. That Australia has a special role to play in the future of the refugees from Irian Jaya as the most appropriate independent nation in the region, and in particular Australia should be willing to accept some of the refugees for whom third country resettlement is decreed necessary. 13. That the Indonesian Government, in the implementation of the policy of transmigration in Irian Jaya, be urged and encouraged to respect the culture, traditions and rights of the indigenous people of Irian Jaya. 14. That both the Indonesian Government and appropriate international organisations, within and outside the UN system, should investigate the situation in Irian Jaya, to examine the problems that have given rise to the refugees leaving the country, with a view to their resolution. 15. That an internationally supervised enquiry be held into the circumstances surrounding the death of Arnold Ap in view of statements made by the Indonesian Government conflicting with evidence made available to the mission and to others . 16. That Indonesia and Papua New Guinea ratify the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 17. That Indonesia and Papua New Guinea ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. John Dowd, M.P., President, Australian Section International Commission of Jurists Senator MISSEN —The report is very interesting because apart from the detail of where members of the mission went, they proceed to form certain conclusions as to the situation. They draw our attention to the fact that there are now approximately 11,000 refugees who consider themselves indefinitely or permanently displaced from Irian Jaya. This has been a growing number all the time and the position, therefore, is that the number is greater. They also give some information about the evidence of human rights violations in the area of Irian Jaya nearest to Papua New Guinea and those are violations by the Indonesian authorities against local villagers. They also draw attention to the evidence they saw there concerning the death of Arnold Ap and the injuries which he suffered, obviously prior to death, which were clearly inconsistent with the statements made by Indonesian officials who said he was shot when escaping. Their recommendations are even of more interest because they deal with a situation recommending that nobody should be returned involuntarily to Indonesia and urging the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other authorities to take an active part, and that they be allowed to take an active part, in assisting refugees pending durable solutions. It is clear that the position at the moment is very indefinite and that the position is not satisfactory. It is clear from the report that there are refugees who obviously cannot go back to Indonesia who need to be settled and probably settled in areas not close to the border so that they are not involved in further problems. But other people, including the Australian Government, may have a special role to play, according to the report. I think we have a great need to continue taking an interest in the situation of this very considerable number of people in this very difficult situation in life. I therefore desire mainly to night to put into the record this interim report because I think it is important that we know at this stage what Australians who have been observers on the spot have determined. I hope that the Australian Government will take an interest in that report and will keep reporting the situation to the Parliament and what Australia is doing to help the very real problem in this area. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.48) —Mr Deputy President, it was my intention to seek leave to make a personal explanation on the assumption that debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) and the Income Tax ( International Agreements) Bill would have finished before half past 10. It was not, so perhaps I could take this opportunity to put a matter straight concerning myself. This afternoon, during Question Time, I referred to an inconsistency between a minute or memo received from the Department of Defence on 12 December 1980 and what I described, I thought accurately at the time, as a Press release issued on 4 October 1984. On the copy I have is printed: 'Text of Department of Defence Press Release of 4 October 1984'. I have since discovered that that in fact was not a Department of Defence Press release but was the transcript of a report which had been carried in a Queensland newspaper. I had been advised by my Department, in a minute dated 5 October, that the Department of Defence Press release yesterday would be inconsistent with our 1980 advice. An error had been made by an officer in my Department-I am not sure how; I have asked for an inquiry to be made-which led him to believe that this transcript of a newspaper report was an official Department of Defence Press release when in fact no Press release was issued. I understand that the Department of Defence is to submit to the Queensland newspaper in question a letter for publication. I could not make that statement by way of personal explanation but I thought it was desirable to do it at the earliest opportunity. I turn now to the matters raised by both Senator Jack Evans and Senator Missen. I am not fully familiar, or even indeed as familiar as is Senator Jack Evans, with the matter he raised about road funding in Western Australia, so it would not be advisable for me to say too much about it except that there was clearly some confusion, at least within the Western Australian Public Service and perhaps on one local council, which led to the one or more State Ministers inadvertently incorrectly advising the Federal Minister. The Federal Government' s involvement in the issue is somewhat coincidental and only through a Federal Act which would have been inadvertently invoked by what has happened. I noted Senator Evans's request for the responsible Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, to have an inquiry into this matter, to defer funds for that road until the inquiry is completed and to pursue an alternative route. I certainly cannot respond definitively to that, but I will draw Mr Morris's attention to the points which Senator Evans raised. Perhaps he can take them up with Senator Evans by correspondence. I think I can only say much the same about the matters that Senator Missen raised. I am not particularly familiar with the subject matter of his comments but I will see that they are brought to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I will suggest to the Minister anyway that he takes the matter up with Senator Missen by correspondence. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question Nos. 432 and 969) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware that the Attorney-General's report dated June 1977 on the 6th Report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, headed, 'Need for Legislation to Regulate the functions of the Defence Signals Division', includes a clear statement of fact on page seven that the Defence Signals Division in the past has obtained transmission materials from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC). (2) Will the Minister review his answer to my question No. 242 (See Hansard, 13 September 1983 page 617). (3) Will the Minister ascertain why the OTC has provided misleading information on this matter. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I understand that the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security was a secret report and was not made publicly available. I would assume that any document commenting on that report would also not be available. If any document of the kind described by the honourable senator existed, I am not aware of it. However, if the honourable senator wishes to pursue this issue I suggest he direct his question to the Attorney-General who has ongoing responsibility for such matters. (2) and (3) I am advised by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission ( Australia) that it is not aware of the report referred to be Senator Bolkus. The Commission has reviewed its advice to me which I used in answer to parliamentary Question No. 242 (Hansard, 13 September 1983, page 617) and has confirmed that it has not provided misleading information on this matter. (Question No. 535) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff (a) have been, or are being, appointed, or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1(a) 2(a) 2(b) Interim Committee for the Australian Sports Commission 1 part time chairman 1 part time deputy chairman 2 full time members 1 part time member Nil Interdepartmental Committee on the Australian Institute of Sport Nil Nil Joint Commonwealth, State/Territories Working Group on Uniform Regulation of Travel Agents Nil Nil 1(b) Nil (Question No. 1056) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: (1) I refer the Minister to my Question No. 959 and his answer thereto and I ask the Minister: (a) will he specifically answer the two questions therein, and (b) what are the answers to those questions. (2) Will the Minister for Defence now provide specific answers to the two questions raised in Question No. 959 (see answer to Question No. 959 in Hansard, 21 August 1984, page 84). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As the Prime Minister said in his statement of 6 June 1984, all functions and activities of the joint defence facilities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. Since the Barnard/Schlesinger discussions of 1974, arrangements have existed for consultations with the Australian Government on developments related to the joint defence facilities in Australia. These arrangements were further developed in 1978 and again in 1983, following discussions between the Minister for Defence and the United States Secretary of Defense Mr Weinberger. Details of these arrangements are confidential to the two governments, and much of the information provided to Australia under these arrangements is provided on a confidential basis. The Australian Government does not intend to breach that confidentiality, and will neither confirm nor deny claims about the operations of the facilities going beyond the Prime Minister's statement. Many claims have been made in some media reporting about the joint defence facilities. In addition to speculation about the operations of the facilities some claims have been made to the effect that there has been a lack of consultation by the United States with the Australian Government over the operations of the joint defence facilities, and that information has been made available to the US Congress and not to the Australian Government. No information is available to either the US or Australian Governments that substantiates any claim that information concerning the functions of joint defence facilities in Australia, not available to the Australian Government, has been made available to the United States Congress. On this basis the answer to the honourable senator's specific questions are: (1) (a) Yes. (b) the answers are: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (2) See my answer to (1) b. above. (Question No. 1086) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The number of officers and employees in the categories referred to as at 1 September 1984 was as follows: Word processing Typists - 2 Steno-secretaries - 12 Typists - 2 (2) Two (Question No. 1099) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: Has an incident occurred to warrant the Special Air Service's close interest in and the frequency of unannounced training raids on offshore oil rigs without reference to workers in the area; if not, why is it necessary to carry out such exercises in this manner which is giving concern to both workers in the area and public. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The frequency of SAS training on offshore oil rigs is not related to any specific incident but is directed at sustaining a good offshore counter terrorist assault capability. It is not correct however to refer to this type of training as being unannounced; ESSO and the relevant platform workers are notified of all training activity before its commencement.