Wednesday, 10 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such manner as to be harmful in 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 Senators Archer (from 14 citizens) and Watson (from 30 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 Enquiry 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 Senators Lajovic (from 18 citizens), Messner (from 18 citizens) and Scott ( from 162 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to 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 be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 151 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 981 citizens) and Macklin (from 290 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 117 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 513 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 834 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 331 citizens) and Messner (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and travel entitlements for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as legally married couples. As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 648 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Limited located in the State of New South Wales, respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products, developed by research-based companies; Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for the continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research- based companies which are product originators. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research- based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from one citizen). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the Senate, at its rising on Thursday, 11 October 1984, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 October 1984, at 10 a.m. (b) the hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 16 October 1984 be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m; and (c) on Tuesday, 16 October 1984, Question Time take place at 2 p.m. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the hours of meeting of the Senate on Wednesday, 17 October 1984 be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. (3) That the Sessional Orders relating to the conduct of business which apply for week one apply for the sitting week commencing 16 October 1984. (4) That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the present period of sittings. Notice of Motion Senator HILL(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the granting of proprietary rights to persons originating new horticultural-plant varieties, and for related purposes. Notice of Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to ensure the conservation of the wet tropics of North-East Queensland. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) draws the attention of the Minister for Health the 102 aged people in the Australian Capital Territory in need of 24-hour-a-day care, who at the moment are awaiting nursing home admission: (b) calls on the Minister to explain why with such a critical shortage of nursing home beds in the Australian Capital Territory, he ignores the prevailing conditions which have closed 24 nursing home beds in Canberra including 12 empty beds at the Allambee Nursing Home and 11 empty beds at the Jindalee Nursing Home ; (c) condemns the Minister for allowing a nursing home bed at Morling Lodge to remain closed even for emergency cases, because, to use the Minister's own words 'that bed does not draw a subsidy, and in such a situation could be open to abuse'; (d) calls on the Minister to immediately address the urgent problems arising from lack of respite care for the carers and their families in the Australian Capital Territory; and (e) abhors the accelerating degeneration of nursing home care for the aged and disabled in the Australian Capital Territory and calls on the Minister to immediately redress the deteriorating situation. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) aware of the huge debt being built up by Australia due to successive large deficits; (b) bearing in mind that that debt will one day have to be repaid by the youth of this country; and (c) convinced that the only way that the National Debt will be reduced is by increasing taxation, calls on the Government to stop spending money on unnecessary projects and requests the Government under no circumstances to implement a tax on assets, as has been suggested will happen in 1985. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Papers are tabled 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. Prices Surveillance Authority-1st annual report 1984-pursuant to section 44 (1) of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983. 2. Commissioner of Taxation-63rd report 1983-84-pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provisions of the statutes relating to recoupment tax , sales tax, bank accounts debits tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty, the A.C.T. stamp duty and tax, tobacco charges and the stevedoring industry charge. 3. Department of Communications-interim annual report 1983-84. 4. Department of Defence-annual report 1983-84. 5. Film Censorship Board-report on activities for 1983-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 6. Law Reform Commission-Foreign State Immunity-report-pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 7. Trade Practices Commission-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 8. Australian Veterans' Health Studies-The Mortality Report-parts 1-3-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the report. 9. Accounting Standards Review Board-annual report for the period 1 January-30 January 1984 together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 10. Legal Needs of Social Security Claimants-report prepared for the Legal Aid Council-together with the text of a joint statement by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Social Security. 11. Temporary Assistance Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 30 (K) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. 12. Industries Assistance Commission-report on injection moulding machines and parts. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.08) —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- STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1984 This Bill gives effect to the historic decisions of the Government announced in the Guidelines to the Commonwealth Schools Commission on 14 August 1984. Those Guidelines set out policies for the implementation of a comprehensive long term scheme for the funding of government and non-government schools in Australia. The policies embodied in this Bill are designed to produce, for the first time, a rational system of Commonwealth funding for schools and an accompanying redefinition of the respective roles of the Commonwealth, States and non- government school communities in providing financial support for schools. We have defined a new partnership between the Commonwealth and the States which will ensure co-operative relationships and planning through the medium of education resource agreements. It will not be a matter of the Commonwealth imposing its will on the States or riding rough-shod over their priorities. We hope, through these resource agreements, to produce a new era of improvement in resources and outcomes for government schools. Commonwealth agreements with non- government school authorities will ensure that Commonwealth funds are directed to raising standards and will require a partnership with non-government school authorities in pursuing this objective. In the case of non-systemic non- government schools, the Commonwealth will not be requiring individual schools to enter into a formal Resource Agreement, but schools will provide the Commonwealth with prior notice of how Commonwealth funds will be applied and will account for these subsequently. Similarly, with this funding scheme, we believe that we have buried for good the futile debate on State aid which has proved so debilitating in our society over many generations. We have recognised the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government in assisting in the achievement of satisfactory educational opportunities for all children. While expressing in practical terms the primary obligation of Government to public schools, we have formally acknowledged the existence of a dual system of education in this country, and established mechanisms to ensure that the two systems can exist in an harmonious atmosphere. It is in the spirit of these sentiments that I put forward the provisions of this Bill. The Bill appropriates an estimated $1,385m for schools programs in the States and the Northern Territory in calendar year 1985, subject to final enrolments in per capita programs. Grants will be supplemented retrospectively in subsequent amending legislation for further relevant cost increases, in line with approved cost supplementation arrangements. Funds are appropriated for the Commonwealth's new special purpose programs for Basic Learning in Primary Schools, with $6.7m p .a. for the triennial period 1985-87, and for early Special Education, with $3. 9m in 1985, together with a two-year forward commitment capacity of 70% p.a. of these funds. The legislation fully maintains the Government's other major program initiatives in 1984, including the triennial program for Computer Education, as well as all other special purpose and capital programs for schools. For the new long term Commonwealth general recurrent program, the Bill appropriates grants on a per capita basis for the four years 1985-88 for both government and non-government schools. The grants for government schools provide for significant real increases each year and include a special 10% supplement in recognition of the obligation of government schools to provide services to students in a variety of circumstances and locations. Per capita grants for non- government schools are being provided on the basis of the 12 category scheme, recommended by the Commission, which will ensure a greater differentiation in the needs of schools than the previous four group scheme. Categories 1 and 2 on the new scale will provide annual grants at the same real levels as in 1984 for schools with the highest incomes. Categories 3 to 12 will generally provide for significant annual real increases in grants for schools with progressively lower incomes. As foreshadowed in the recent Guidelines to the Schools Commission, the increases in general recurrent grants for 1986-88 will be subject to satisfactory Resource Agreements with State and non-government school system authorities on the application of these additional resources to national objectives in education, to be established on the basis of the report of the Quality of Education Review Committee, under the Chairmanship of Professor Peter Karmel, which is due in April 1985. The Commonwealth would also expect the States to make a contribution towards the achievement of these objectives from their own resources. It would also wish to be satisfied that the increases in Commonwealth grants are not being used to substitute for State expenditure. The Bill makes provision for the transfer of any increases in general recurrent grants for which there are no Agreements to special purpose programs. Grants are appropriated for non-government schools which would be operating below the Community Standard on the condition that they will adequately maintain their private cash recurrent expenditure. Schools which fail to maintain their private effort, and which have no justification for failing to do so, may be assigned to a lower grant category. Schools will need to satisfactorily explain to the Commonwealth any circumstances where they are unable to offset any declines in the value of contributed services. Schools which are able to operate from private sources at or above the Community Standard are expected to avoid imposing additional charges, or taking any other steps which further widen the resources gap between themselves and other schools. The Commonwealth would welcome moves by schools operating above the Community Standard to use their Commonwealth grants to ensure greater access for students from lower income families, as many of them have said they are committed to doing, by the introduction of differential fee structures. The Commission has been asked to monitor and report on schools' responses during the 1985-88 funding period. The Bill implements the enhanced provisions for accountability by non- government schools which were approved in principle in the recent Guidelines, as recommended by the Schools Commission. The Government did not accept the Commission's proposal for public registers. The Government has given an undertaking that the Schools Commission will consult with non-government school authorities on the details of the information to be sought by the Commonwealth. The Commission intends to explore ways of simplifying the details of requirements on schools and systems for information relating to Commonwealth funding of both government and non-government schools. To facilitate the streamlining of the administration of the Schools Commission' s programs, this Bill makes provision in a number of programs for the payment of grants on a block grant basis, rather than requiring the Commission to seek detailed proposals from school authorities for decisions by the Commonwealth Minister. The Commission reports that it will be undertaking consultations with school authorities on the further devolution of appropriate responsibility for the administration and allocation of Commonwealth funds to school authorities, subject to agreed administrative procedures being developed for the achievement of Commonwealth objectives. In this legislation, the Government has provided for new criteria for assessing applications for assistance for new non-government schools which were announced in the Guidelines. The legislation also makes provision for prescribing subsequently in Regulations other possible criteria, following receipt of advice from a special committee of the Schools Commission which has been established to consult closely with States and non-government school authorities on further proposals for co-operative arrangements for the notification and assessment of applications according to a negotiated set of priorities. The Government's objective is to improve the capacity of Commonwealth, State and non-government school authorities to plan a more equitable and efficient approach to new schools. Consistent with the Government's policy to provide for retrospective cost supplementation of all programs from the beginning of 1984, this Bill also amends the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983 by providing supplementary grants for 1984 programs totalling $16.8m, consisting of $11.7m for government schools programs, $3.9m for non-government schools programs and $ 1.2m for joint programs for all schools. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1984 On 5 July 1984 the Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 Triennium were released. The Commission responded with detailed recommendations in Volume 2 of its Report for the Triennium. The States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 has been prepared following consideration of the Commission's recommendations. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for tertiary education in the States and the Northern Territory for the 1985-87 Triennium, and to provide cost supplementation for 1984 grants. The funds to be appropriated under this Bill are allocated on a fixed triennial basis for all elements of higher education. The funding provisions being legislated for 1986 and 1987 under this Bill are minimum amounts only. Final allocations will be determined after a further report from the Commission due in March 1985. For the TAFE sector, funds are appropriated for 1985 only. The Government has, however, announced its intention to extend full triennial funding for TAFE if the States also indicate resource commitments for the three years. Discussions with the States on this matter are continuing. I would remind the Senate that the Commonwealth has a supplementary role only in the TAFE sector. This Bill provides $1911 million for the higher education sector for 1985 and $ 1937 million and $1956 million for 1986 and 1987, respectively. The distribution of these funds is as recommended by the Commission. The key features are- an increase in general recurrent funds of 2.3 per cent in real terms in 1985 with further increases of 1.3 per cent and 1.0 per cent in 1986 and 1987, respectively, to fund a further increase in intakes in 1985 and to provide for the pipeline growth in enrolments over the triennium; an increase in capital funds in 1985 of 20.4 per cent in real terms to be maintained over the triennium at least at that level. This will enable 57 higher education projects with a total value of some $230 million to be commenced or completed during the triennium; an increase in funds for equipment to be directed to those institutions where enrolments are increasing; $3.1 million over the triennium for pilot projects and investigations aimed at promoting equity in higher education; $3.1 million over the triennium to establish new key centres of teaching and research. These centres will have an applied research focus and will be located in both the university and advanced education sectors; $4.5 million over the triennium for proposals to increase participation of Aborigines; $10.5 million over the triennium to be reallocated from existing subsidies for collegiate style residential accommodation to a special assistance scheme for needy students to help meet accommodation costs or other emergencies; additional funds over the triennium towards the increasing costs of superannuation. In TAFE a total of $272 million will be available under this Bill in 1985, an increase of 3.8 per cent in real terms. Increased funding will be provided for fees reimbursement grants, designated grants for special course provision and for college services and for equipment grants to assist the TAFE system to respond to technological developments. This Bill also gives effect to the Government's decisions on recommendations by the Commission for changes in the legislation providing grants for tertiary education. Accordingly, this Bill enables the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, on the advice of the Commission and after consultation with the States, to vary amounts payable to institutions, sectors and States subject to certain limitations prescribed in the Bill. This provision provides flexibility for the efficient and effective management of programs over the triennium in accordance with the Government's objectives. Any determinations which have the effect of increasing or decreasing a State's allocation under the Bill are required to be tabled before each House of Parliament. Other changes incorporated in the Bill include authority for the Minister to approve advance expenditure on the construction of approved capital projects, the removal of the existing limitation of 1 per cent on the amount of funds that a college of advanced education may apply to continuing education programs and provisions for the automatic carry over between years, up to prescribed limits, of amounts of under or over expenditure of an institution's recurrent grants. Consistent with the Government's policy to provide for retrospective cost supplementation of all programs from the beginning of 1984, this Bill also amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 by providing supplementary grants for 1984 programs totalling $11 million. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. The measures that the Government has announced and the substantially increased funding allocations that are given effect to in this Bill are evidence of this Government's commitment to rebuilding of the tertiary education to a period of steady planned growth funded on a fixed triennial basis. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL (NO . 2) 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to: Allocate the bulk of 1985 funds to the States for PEP projects in government and non-government schools and TAFE institutions; Provide an additional $4 million to TAFE institutions in 1985 and 1986 as previously announced in the Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium; reserve some 1985 funds specifically for projects related to Aboriginal education as recommended by the Commonwealth Schools Commission; and supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the Participation and Equity Program in the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bills which are also before the Senate today. This supplementation plus the additional $4 million being provided for TAFE will involve a further appropriation of $1.23m in 1984 and $6.403m for each of the years 1985 and 1986. Provision for these increases was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.09) —I move : That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In May of this year the Minister for Territories and Local Government introduced a Bill to enable the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands to exercise the full rights, privileges and obligations of other Australian citizens. It is pleasing to present now a similar Bill for Christmas Island, our other Indian Ocean territory. Like the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, in the early years on Christmas Island there was a great deal of exploitation and injustice inflicted on the Chinese and Malay workers. This was particularly the case under the former mining operator, the British Phosphate Commissioners, who were managing agents for the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, an Australian and New Zealand government authority. The phosphate mine generates the only significant economic activity and therefore is the primary employment base of the island. Christmas Island became an Australian Territory in 1958. The current mining operator, Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island, which was formed in July 1981 as a wholly-owned Australian Government Company, has been responsible for most of the services to the island and for nearly all administration costs. The Government decided earlier this year that there was a need to bring the island and its community into the mainstream of Australian life. Initial and important steps have already been taken to provide for a normalisation of Christmas Island to confer rights, responsibilities and obligations on the residents of the island commencing on 1 October 1984. The changes being proposed follow the general thrust of the 1982 report by Mr W . W. Sweetland on the long term future of the island. He recommended that the island be opened up to a wide range of economic activities in view of the declining reserves of phosphate and that the phosphate mining company of Christmas Island cease to be responsible for various non-mining functions. He also pointed out that the island had special features and should not be treated as just an extension of the Australian mainland. The normalisation process will mean that social security and health benefits would be introduced. Wage rates would be determined applying the same principles that apply generally to Australian wage earners and local government would be introduced together with municipal charges. Commonwealth revenue raising measures equivalent to levels on the mainland would be introduced. Residents would be entitled to vote in Federal elections. Since 1981 the Migration Act has been extended to the island, conferring permanent resident status on island residents and allowing them to qualify for Australian citizenship. Also the Government was conscious of the fact that Christmas Island had under its care and control an area of unique natural interest including the only known breeding ground of the endangered Abbott's booby bird. The five measures addressed in this Bill provide for the extension of mainland rights and responsibilities to the island residents in the areas of voting rights, health insurance, social security benefits, student assistance, land use and occupancy and supreme court registries. That is: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and Referendum (Machinery (Provisions) Act 1984 This will extend the franchise to eligible Christmas Islanders. The amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 extend both Acts to the territory of Christmas Island as a separate district of the Commonwealth electoral division of the Northern Territory. Electors will be included in the Northern Territory electorate for the purpose of House of Representatives and Senate elections and national referendums. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides the machinery for an Assistant Divisional Returning Officer to be appointed to maintain the roll and to assist with the preparation for the polls in both Federal elections and referendums. A consequential amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-government) Act 1978 will provide that Christmas Island people who are entitled to vote in federal elections will not thereby be able to vote in elections for the Northern Territory. The financial implications of extending the franchise to Christmas Islanders are minimal, and are restricted to those incurred in registering the names of eligible islanders, freighting of voting material to and from the island and the casual engagement of polling officials. Expenditure of only $3,000 to $4,000 for each election is envisaged. Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 The extension of this legislation will remove anomalies so that Christmas Island is in a broadly similar position to the mainland in respect of medical and hospital services. In the totality of health funding grants to the States and the Northern Territory the financial impact on the Commonwealth will be minimal. Social Security Act 1947 The legislation proposes amendments to the Social Security Act to enable pensions, benefits and allowances to be paid to residents of Christmas Island with effect from 1 October 1984. It is estimated that the cost of these payments will amount to $650,000 in a full year. It is important to realise that eligible Christmas Islanders would in any event become eligible for these benefits simply by moving to the mainland. In accordance with usual practice it is proposed to allow eligible residents of Christmas Island a three month period of grace in which to claim a pension, benefit or allowance and receive payment with effect from 1 October 1984. Payment arrangements will be the same as for mainland Australians. Student Assistance Act 1973 The amendment of the Student Assistance Act 1973 will enable courses in technical and further education offered on Christmas Island to be approved for the purposes of the tertiary education assistance scheme (TEAS), provided that they meet the normal criteria for the approval of courses. As a concurrent measure, the student assistance regulations are to be amended to ensure that any person ordinarily resident on Christmas Island will meet the TEAS eligibility requirements relating to permanent resident status. The costs resulting from the amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973 are expected to be $8,000 for 1984/85 and $16,000 in 1985/86. Christmas Island Act 1958 Amendment of this Act will enable the making of ordinances of the Territory that would otherwise conflict with the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. Ordinances may then be made to regulate the use and occupancy of land. The Government has accepted, in the other place, an amendment proposed by the Opposition which makes specific reference to the Commonwealth's obligation to acquire land only on just terms. A further amendment to the Christmas Island Act will enable ordinances of the Territory to be made in relation to the Supreme Court of the Territory, that may have effect outside the Territory. This will allow for registries of the Supreme Court to be set up outside the Territory and offices of the Court to exercise their powers and functions outside the Territory so improving the administrative efficiency of the Court. In conclusion, the Government would like to pay tribute to the management of the mining company and the union of Christmas Island workers for the considerable contribution and assistance they have provided in development of the normalisation package for the island and establishment of conditions for fruitful discussions on the island's future. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.10) —I move: That Government Business Orders of the Day Nos. 3 and 4 relating to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Trade Practices Bill 1984 be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator Walters —Gee! What is your reason? Senator GRIMES —I am sorry that I did not talk with Senator Walters personally. I talked to others on her side who are a little more senior than she. By way of brief explanation, the motion will enable the education Bills to be considered after we have considered the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill and related Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator JACK EVANS —In an article in this morning's edition of the Canberra Times, and I believe in other newspapers around Australia, reference is made to the foreshadowed passage of the renowned cherry pickers Bill of the Government, the Bill being the one that was introduced by me in this place. The article contains the following statement: Government sources said a deal had been worked out at a meeting between Mr Keating and Senator Evans last week, under which the Government would support the Bill in return for Democrat support for tougher tax-avoidance penalties included in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill. I wish to make it quite clear that no such deal was made and that the reference to the mythical Government source is totally erroneous. In fact, I satisfied myself and the Australian Democrats were satisfied that the penalties provisions would not be onerous on pay as you earn taxpayers and as a result of that we supported that legislation. The Government has made its move, I understand, to ensure that tax avoiders in the cherry pickers scheme do not continue to evade their responsibilities. [COGNATE BILL: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Mr President, if it suits the convenience of the Senate, I suggest that we have a cognate debate covering the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984, the Air Navigation Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984. The PRESIDENT —Is it so agreed? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.13) —The Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill, the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Qantas Airways Limited ( Loan Guarantee) Bill touch on the reorganisation of various issues in connection with air navigation and in particular the overseas operator, Qantas Airways Ltd, and its forward purchase program of aircraft. I shall deal with two or three of these matters in the course of my remarks. Firstly, I turn to the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984. Senator Button —A very good Bill, too. Senator MESSNER —It is not so good that it cannot do with some amendment to improve it even further. We will be moving some amendments later. The point at issue is that apparently the Government sees as necessary the payment of charges which might be outstanding and unpaid against an airline prior to the payment of secured creditors or other creditors who may be seeking to obtain repayment during the recovery process. Various provisions are incorporated in the Bill. There is a power to impose a statutory lien after 28 days of outstanding debt; there is a power to deregister aircraft after six months of the statutory lien and there is a further power to seize or sell the aircraft after nine months of the lien being in force. This, of course, is subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The point is that the Government will receive priority over ordinary creditors and secured creditors in these circumstances. We in opposition feel that the Government is being a little too zealous in this matter and consequently feel that other creditors should have first claim since the charges which are raised in these circumstances are in the nature of ordinary commercial dealings and are not, I think, in the same category as ordinary crown debts. The next matter I would like to refer to is the question of the introduction of separate airport and airways charges which were announced on 26 August by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). This will enable charges to reflect more closely the use of major airport and airway facilities in the various phases of a flight. This will be a precursor to the establishment of the so-called national airports authority. The third element is the alterations to the penalty provisions to bring them more into line with commercially accepted practices and to implement new measures of a machinery nature. I note that the penalty rate will be as high as 1.5 per cent a month in this situation. The Opposition proposes to move an amendment whereby that is reduced to one per cent. It is felt on this side of the chamber that the rate of 1.5 per cent is generally too high in comparison with other interest rates that are applicable today and that, consequently, our amendment is thoroughly justified. I will also be moving an amendment during the Committee stage to clause 5 of the Bill in order to adjust the position which I referred to earlier; that is, to propose that the debts that are owing to the Commonwealth in respect of charges, including navigation charges, will remain behind the debts owing to secured creditors and other creditors of an airline in that situation. The second Bill, the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill relates to Qantas's forward acquisition program and provides for the purchase of two Boeing 767 200 aircraft due in July of 1985, four Boeing 767 200 aircraft due in March of 1986 and three Boeing 747 300 stretched upper deck aircraft whose date of delivery is not known to me. This is the single largest order of aircraft in Australian aviation history. Qantas intends to raise loans for only two Boeing 767s, whereas the remaining four Boeing 767s are to be financed from Qantas's internally generated funds. I understand that it is intended that the three Boeing 747 stretched upper deck aircraft will be acquired through lease financing. The Minister in his second reading speech did point out that to a very considerable degree that Qantas's new aircraft will be financed through anticipated earnings and profits. That is to be commended. We do hope that this is a continuing trend in these circumstances. That will be enhanced and assisted , of course, by the sale of some six present 747 200 aircraft. From a practical standpoint for Qantas the idea behind this is that the 767 extended range aircraft is intended eventually to replace the 747 200 aircraft. The seating capacity is approximately half that of the 747s and, therefore, is more likely to be suited to lightly trafficked routes. The 767s are more suited to the smaller gateway airports that have been opened in Australia recently and to other international airports. It is intended that the Boeing 767s will operate initially to Wellington in New Zealand and later services will be instituted between Melbourne and Fiji, Sydney, Melbourne and Noumea and generally to other ports in New Zealand. Eventually the service will be extended to selected routes in Australia and South East Asia. The Commonwealth's liability is not a direct cash cost, of course. The provision of guarantees for the borrowings of Qantas in these circumstances will not involve the Government in any cash outlay. But, of course, it creates a contingent liability for the Commonwealth in the event of the default of Qantas in these circumstances. We support that Bill. The third Bill is the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1964. This Bill seeks to broaden the Government's power to cancel and suspend the international airline licences issued to foreign carriers operating in Australia. At present this power is limited to actual breaches of the Act and/or regulations. The Government has not thoroughly justified its case in this area. We are not exactly certain in what circumstances the Government would see it necessary to exercise the power that it has been clothed with by this legislation. But it does seem that it has in mind retaliatory action in the event of Australian airlines being affected by the actions of other governments overseas. Certainly we can see some need for that but the power appears to extend further than that. If the Minister is able to provide us with more information as to the circumstances in which the Government sees this power being exercised I feel that the Senate's understanding of exactly what the Government has in mind would be improved. The power is very wide. It provides that the Government may cancel and suspend those licences where, in the opinion of the Minister, it is necessary or desirable to do so for the purpose of preserving or promoting fair competition in international air transport services. I do not think we have to be too imaginative to envisage situations where those criteria could be applied in practically any situation. Consequently, I think the Opposition is quite justified in seeking further information on that matter. However, we do support that Bill. In summary, the Opposition is proposing to move amendments during the Committee stage of the legislation with regard to the priority of debts and airways charges and also seeking to reduce the penalty rate from 1.5 per cent to a more realistic level of one per cent. Bearing in mind those qualifications, we will be supporting the legislation. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.24) —There was quite lengthy debate on the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984, the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) (1984) and the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984 in the House of Representatives. Some six amendments were moved. As an indication of the flexible attitude which the Government is taking in respect of these Bills, four of those amendments were accepted by the Government. Of course, Senator Messner is wishing to move the two amendments which were unacceptable to the Government because they changed the processes by which the Government believed it had some obligations in respect of the airline industry. The Government is not able to accept the two amendments to be moved by Senator Messner, and there are good and cogent reasons why the Government will ask the Senate not to support them. We appreciate that overall the contribution of the Opposition to the debate on these three Bills was one of general support. As regards the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, we are continuing the practices and processes by which not only Qantas and other public operators but also sometimes private operators in the aviation industry are given government guarantees in respect of the important acquisitions that they make from time to time to modernise their fleets. We appreciate that generally speaking there is very little opposition to those annual pieces of legislation. In the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 the Government is seeking to give itself regulatory powers which already exist in other countries with similar economies and similar aviation industries. We are proceeding not unusually in these matters but in accordance with established practices and procedures which are acceptable in developed countries. However, as far as the two amendments are concerned, I think it has to be said and stressed that the Government, in seeking to impose some penalties in respect of charges in the airline industry, has been more than patient and more than conciliatory and has placed a great deal of its endeavours towards solving the difficulties, which difficulties have not accrued since March 1983 but have been with us for a considerable number of years. I refer to the failure of some operators to fulfil their proper financial obligations. When using Commonwealth services and resources they clearly have an obligation to pay, as do other commercial enterprises and citizens in this country who use such services. A small section of the aviation industry is not playing the game, and some steps need to be taken. When the overwhelming majority of operators, large or small, are co-operating with government, playing their part in the industry correctly and paying their way with respect to charges, it is pretty clear that it is unfair to those who are co-operating, are reasonable and are paying that sections of the industry are not co-operating and therefore creating difficulties with respect to their payments to the Commonwealth. After extensive consultations and acting, I believe, with the support of the majority of operators in the industry, having taken the matter to the advisory committee of the airline industry, we have taken steps to impose penalties which the Government believes and which I think any reasonable person would believe are fair, just and equitable. I do not know of any commercial enterprise which would be as lenient as the Government is with respect to the penalties suggested in the legislation. For example, if a commercial enterprise or a person falls behind in payments, they suffer greatly from penalties by way of higher interest rates. If finally they do not fulfil their obligations, they default and the goods in respect of which they have failed to meet their obligations are often repossessed. We know, of course, that banking institutions and other lending authorities do not take kindly to the inability of persons, companies or groups to fulfil their obligations. In difficult economic times we see that the extreme step of bankruptcy is finally applied to solve the problems of those who do not meet their proper financial commitments. I think the legislation is very generous insofar as it will impose only a rate of interest that is less than the commercial rates charged by the trading banks. Therefore there ought to be no opposition and no long debate about the need for the Government to have these regulations and penalties imposed. As the legislation has the general support of the industry I urge the Senate to reject the amendment. The only other matter with which I take issue is the second amendment which will be moved by Senator Messner. Of course we will deal with it at the Committee stage. Overall the Government is putting itself in a secure position with those who have debt liabilities. It should not be argued in any way that the Government is acting injudiciously or unfairly. Therefore I urge honourable senators to support the legislation and reject the amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.33) —I move an amendment to clause 4 of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984: (1) Page 2, clause 4, paragraph (c), lines 6 and 7, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(c) by omitting from sub-section (2) ''1 per cent'' and substituting ''1 per cent or such other amount as is prescribed''; and'. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.34) —I do not want to reiterate what I have said in the second reading debate. The Government believes that it is acting fairly, properly and equitably in these matters and, therefore, it will oppose the amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.34) —I move an amendment to clause 5 of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984: (2) Page 3, clause 5, proposed new sub-section 5B (6), lines 25 to 34, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: '(6) For the purposes of priorities amongst creditors and the purposes of the distribution of proceeds of a sale made under sub-section (9), the statutory lien has effect as a security interest in respect of the aircraft ranking in priority- (a) after any security interests in respect of the aircraft created before the time of registration of the statutory lien (together with interest accruing on any such interest after the time of registration of the statutory lien); (b) after any unsecured debt coming into existence before the time of the registration of a statutory lien; (c) before any secured interest not falling within paragraph (a); and (d) before any unsecured debt not falling within paragraph (c).'. As I pointed out during the second reading debate, the purpose of this amendment is to change the order of priorities which appear in the Air Navigation (Charges ) Amendment Bill 1984 so that the statutory lien set down in it will take priority after any security interests which existed before the organisation came into existence, together with any interest that might accrue thereafter. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the person who has a security interest is protected for his or her debt and for the interest as it accrues, and after any unsecured debt that comes into existence before the time of the registration of the lien. The Minister has said that he will not accept the amendment, but we see this as an issue of some importance in the light of our belief that the Government is being altogether too zealous in seeking to protect the revenue in circumstances where quasi-commercial or even commercial situations exist. We see no reason why the Government should not be taking the same risks as those taken by other people in the community who would be incurring debts in their favour by airlines . For that reason, it is quite beyond the pale that the Government is seeking to put itself in a prior position. We see it as a circumstance that is different from that of taxation, which is raised deliberately from all citizens. Laws govern the factors involved with taxation which is recovered in priority to other debts, and there is that protection thereby flowing to the Commonwealth as a result. However, in these circumstances, we see no reason why the Government should be put in a position that is prior to that of other citizens who cannot obtain the kind of security that the Government can obtain. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.36) —The basic thrust of the statutory lien arrangements is to enable the Commonwealth to secure debts owed by the operators. It will apply, substantially, to those that deliberately seek to avoid payment. We are in the area of protecting the public interest and putting the Commonwealth in a proper position in respect to those that default in their obligations to the Commonwealth, and not in a secondary position regarding debts that may be owed by a commercial enterprise or an individual, as far as the other statutory obligations are concerned in regard to debts. Therefore, it is pretty valid that the Government should not place itself in a position that is different from that of other commercial enterprises. We urge rejection of the amendment. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.37) —The Australian Democrats will be opposing the amendment. We believe that there is an obligation on this Parliament to protect the Commonwealth's assets. The amendment would water down the provisions which would provide that protection. I can sympathise with much of what Senator Messner had to say. There are genuinely innocent creditors about who will be standing in line and who will, as a result of this legislation, move back in priority for claiming their payment should something go wrong with the company concerned. However, what needs to be borne in mind is that quite frequently creditors that would precede the Government simply because they have some security in the enterprise would be or could be related to the enterprise itself. By organisation and manipulation, that is quite possible under our present laws. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of this Parliament, as I have said, to protect the assets of the Government and government agencies. They do not have quite the same protection in a number of spheres, and they do not have quite the same ability, through the Public Service, that commercial enterprises may have to look after their interests in relation to services which are provided, as distinct from products which are provided. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Martin, K. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Bolkus, N. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretButton, J. N. Boswell, R. L. D. Coates, J. Jessop, D. S. Haines, J. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.47) —I take this opportunity to place on record the tremendous contribution of Qantas Airways Ltd staff led by Mr Jim Leslie in putting in a very fine profit performance at a very difficult time for the airline. Qantas has indeed a very fine record of service and reliability and is regarded as one of the world's very best airlines. I am confident that the support of the travelling public not only will continue but will increase. Under the fine stewardship provided by Qantas management I think that Qantas Airways will continue to be the leading airline around the world. Loans, leasing and internal funding from returned earnings will be the principal means of increasing Qantas's range of modern aircraft and updating existing aircraft. I think these are adequate and modern measures of financing the airline. I believe its record of profitability will continue well into the future. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.48) —I wish to declare that I have an interest in part of this legislation. I have a financial interest in a commercial college which is likely to be granted a benefit as a result of this legislation. In declaring that interest I also indicate I will not be voting on the legislation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.50) —The Senate is debating a package of three education Bills, the States Grants (Schools) Assistance Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill and the States Grants ( Education Assistance-Participation and Equity Amendment) Bill (No. 2), and has agreed to take them together. These three Bills make up the Government's funding package as contained in the education guidelines for schools and tertiary education announced over the last few months. The Opposition is pleased to consider the Bills together and is also grateful to the Government for having agreed to expedite debate on these matters. The reason we want the debate expedited is that the Opposition will propose some amendments, including some amendments in the Committee stage of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill, and we would like the opportunity for those amendments, if they are successful here, to be considered in another place before it rises for the election which is due. I indicate in advance that the amendments which we will press relate to certain discretions which have been given to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs under the legislation. I indicate that while we do not mind the Minister having those discretions we believe they are of a character which properly should be the subject of the scrutiny of Parliament. We will move appropriate amendments to have the appropriate provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act apply to those matters. Last night in another place during the cognate debate on these Bills I heard the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) observing that there had been increases in funding, including an increase in 1983, which he welcomed and which he attributed to the actions of the Hawke Government. The 1983 funding increases , which were real, of course were put into place by the legislation equivalent of that which we are considering now and which passed through this place at the end of 1982. To the extent there were increases in certain funding areas for 1983 these increases occurred during my time as Minister. I was delighted to hear the honourable member for Petrie welcome those increases, but let us be clear that it has been a determination of several governments to see the maximum possible contribution to educational activity in Australia and to see that extra real funding is going into education in various areas. We welcome that that occurred for the 1983 calendar year as well as for the 1984 calendar year and, now, for the 1985-87 triennium. On behalf of the Opposition I place on record with no equivocation the fact that we welcome the good news for some educational activity which is contained in this legislation. We welcome extra funds whenever these are provided to help educational activity. We congratulate any government that can find its way clear to provide those extra funds. There is nothing mean or mealy-mouthed in the way we offer those thanks. However, that will not stop us drawing attention properly to certain matters within the legislation which require critical comment. That is not to say that it is not good legislation. But there are still matters which have caused concern to education authorities and amongst the provisions there are still some matters which are causing some alarm to education authorities and which are the cause of continuing concern within the sector. I will deal very quickly with the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. This Bill merely brings together in one piece of legislation the funds that will flow to the participation and equity program under programs both for schools and technical and further education. The Opposition has no argument with the way the Government has decided to fund this program. There has been a little criticism on the ground that in this first year of the program there has been some delay in some of the funds reaching institutions which are the end users-for example, schools. We were able to get confirmation in the recent Estimates Committee examination of the fact that some schools were only now, at the beginning of term three, receiving their participation and equity program money to be spent during the remainder of the calendar 1984 school year. That is a very small criticism. We welcome the PEP program, we note the increased funding, and we wish the Government success in achieving the goals it has been seeking in that program. As for the other two Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill are more substantial pieces of legislation and will require more comment. In regard to the schools assistance Bill we welcome some of the increases in funding and we are pleased to see that the Bill makes provision for four-year funding in certain educational matters. But I must say to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs that, despite the considerable reassurances in the Bill, there are still uncertainties within the educational community. Different signals are being received from different parts of the government apparatus. For example, the signals that were received from the Labor Party Conference recently regarding the funding of, say, non-government schools were different signals from those which have been received subsequently from the Government. Many of the people to whom I talk ask me the simple question: Does not the Labor Party Conference lay down the policy of the Labor Party for the next two years, did it not lay down a certain value position on school funding, and is that value position still that to which the Party adheres? All the Labor people to whom I have spoken tell me that that is correct and that the Conference did lay down a policy; it did agree to a policy on school funding matters and the values adopted. I understand that those matters do remain the policy of the Australian Labor Party. That policy, as enunciated and accepted by the Conference, still gives considerable concern and worry to many parts of the school community. The Conference decisions are still there in the background. The Government has decided to undertake what might be called perhaps a death bed repentance in view of the way the issue is running, but a repentance nevertheless. This legislation is not consistent with the decisions of the ALP Conference. This legislation, I am pleased to say, puts into position for four years funding for non-government schools and lays down principles for government school funding. The guidelines give an indication of which way the Government wishes to go between now and 1992 , but still there is uncertainty as to what the Labor Conference proposed and the extent to which this will bind, or could bind, a Labor government, if it still remains in power. The Bill puts into effect a number of changes that were indicated in the guidelines. These include the change from four to 12 funding categories for non- government schools. It puts into effect new requirements for the approval of non -government schools for funding, a matter to which I shall return in a moment. It also puts into effect new requirements for the maintenance of effort by government schools and non-government schools for the enacting of new resource agreements between the Commonwealth and schools, and a number of other administrative variations. The Opposition does not oppose the States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Bill and we shall be moving an amendment to the second reading motion as an expression of view to be added to the second reading which I shall now discuss. Apart from that we shall be supporting the Bill because we believe it picks up much of what we have been advocating in the past year. To that extent the Opposition is grateful to the Government. The Bill contains a large number of matters, which I shall not enumerate, but the Opposition is prepared to support most of them. I shall concentrate for a few moments on the requirements in respect of the approval of new non-government schools. The Opposition notes that one of the provisions of the legislation will be the phasing out of impact studies for new schools after 1985. We are glad of this because we believe that such studies serve no useful purpose; we believe that they were the wrong way to go. If the Government wished to impose some kind of control over the establishment of new non-government schools, the Opposition believes that impact studies were never the right way to do it and their phasing out after 1985 will be a good thing. Schools are now required to give 24 months' notice of their intention to open if they wish to receive funds. There may be some discretion to vary this where a school wishes to relocate urgently or to extend its number of years of offering. We are concerned about any constraints placed in the way of community groups wishing to establish new schools. I do not include in that constraints upon minimum numbers because I do not object to the Government's proposals in respect of minimum numbers for new schools. But the Opposition believes that the long notice required will be an unnecessary constraint on the rights of parents who wish to establish new non-government schools. In the second reading amendment which has been distributed the Opposition expresses the view that this is an inappropriate restriction to place on the establishment of new schools and that the Government should re-examine the issue . Therefore, at the appropriate time the Opposition will seek to add at the end of the second reading motion the words: ', but the Senate- (a) supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right for all parents to be supported in that choice; and (b) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents.'. I move now to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill, which will put into effect the Government's plans for the funding of universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education for the calendar year 1985 and for the triennium which starts with 1985. The Bill is interesting because it presents the funding of tertiary education in a new way. It is constructed differently from Bills we have seen before and on this occasion relates to function instead of each sector. Previously the legislation was structured around universities, colleges and TAFE. This legislation is now structured around things such as recurrent expenditure, capital expenditure, equipment expenditure and so on. The Bill provides extra real resources. We have nothing but praise for continuing improvement in real resources where this occurs, but the extra resources may not be sufficient to allow all the extra functions which the Government is seeking to have taken up and to allow adequate funding of the extra students who were enrolled at universities and colleges of advanced education over each of the last few years. In addition to that, the Bill puts into effect the Government's decision to phase out the specific subsidies to halls of residence and university collegiate residences. The Opposition indicates its continuing opposition to this measure. More than that, we are aware of considerable criticism from within the sector and of some remarks by the Universities Council and some of the other councils which indicate that there will still be continuing pressure and continuing problems, even with the funding levels which the Government has provided, especially if the Government wishes to press its priority areas of educational activity. I remind the Minister of the Journal of Advanced Education, which is the journal of the Federation of College Academics. In the recently produced Volume 7 No. 6 it criticised the Government in several areas. The front page is headed 'Higher education at risk', even though the Federation knew of the allocation of money which the Government has made and the priorities which the Government has set. The college academics cited as unsatisfactory the Government's intervention in the wage case which academics faced earlier this year, an intervention which saw part of their rise set aside for a period of months. The effect of that will be several-fold. First of all, the Minister has said that some of the savings have enabled more things to be done in higher education. But it is not the function of Australian academics to help pay for the Government's programs in higher education. It is not the job of the sailors to pay for the aircraft carrier. It is quite irrelevant to say that the Government has reapplied the savings from the academics salaries to help provide more in higher education. The academics believe, I think with some justice, that they were ill-treated in the Government 's approach when it went back to the Academic Salaries Tribunal earlier this year. I have been told of specific instances of academics who will be retiring during this interregnum between the time the Government went back to the Tribunal and the time, yet to come, when the full wage rise is passed on to them . For those who retire there will be a permanent and continuing loss of benefit because the final salary on which they retire will be affected adversely. Some of them will suffer for the rest of their lives from the effect of the Government's intervention before the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The Journal of Advanced Education also takes the Government to task for the inadequacy of its funding guidelines, as it calls them, for the 1985-1987 triennium. It points out, as do the directors of colleges of advanced education, that the funding of extra places is being carried out at short run marginal cost only. They say that this is a continuation of a trend-I will come back to this in a moment-which in the end will affect adversely the standard of education in Australia. The third thing to which the Journal of Advanced Education refers is the fact that any reference to the independence of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has been removed from the Australian Labor Party platform. It was part of the ALP platform; it is no longer there. I draw the Minister's attention to some of the comments of the Universities Council in relation to the amounts of money which have been provided. In paragraph A1.5 the Council says: However the funds currently allocated for the 1985-87 triennium fall well below even the levels sought by the commission. They are certainly inadequate to implement fully the increased student intake expected in the Guidelines, the emphasis on technological change, and the other special initiatives such as the introduction of key centres, the expanded equity program and plans for the increased participation of Aborigines. The Minister has to acknowledge that even her own advisers in the Commission and in the councils are saying that the amount of money is inadequate to do the jobs which have been sought from them. I note in the Report for the 1985-87 Triennium recently produced by the Tertiary Education Commission that table A1.2 shows that the staff-student ratios are not improving. There are still 11.6 students to each staff member. I might say that that figure appears to have been static for several years. The table shows in relation to State universities that the general recurrent grant, the amount of money available for each student attending them, is continuing to drop in real terms. The amounts shown were $7, 780 per student in 1980 and for 1985 almost $600 less using December 1983 dollars. It is a very brief table produced by the Minister's own advisers and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table A1.2 STUDENT/STAFF RATIOS AND EXPENDITURE PER EFTSU AT STATE UNIVERSITIES, ACTUAL 1980-1984, ESTIMATED 1985 1984 1985 1980 1981 1982 1983 (prelim.) (Est.) Student/Staff Ratios(a) 10.7 10.8 11.2 11.6 11.6 (b)11.6 General Recurrent Grants(a) per EFTSU ($) 7,780 7,700 7,590 7,450 7,300 7,250 (a) Excludes advanced education activities at the University of Wollongong and James Cook University. (b) The actual numbers of new academic staff appointed from within the additional funds available will depend on the levels at which individual universities make appointments. Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful to the Minister and to the Senate. The other table to which I wish to draw attention is table B3.1, also prepared by the Tertiary Education Commission. This, of course, has been done on advice from the Advanced Education Council. It appears on page 100 of volume 2, part 2. This table restates the information that I gave a little earlier. It talks about average recurrent funds-the number of dollars per equivalent full time student for advanced education-and how that has changed since 1976 and how it is expected to change through to 1987. The Council has considered funding in the year 1976 to be an index value of 100 and it shows that by 1987 this will have dropped progressively, including a drop over the years of the Hawke Government as it is proposed in these guidelines, to a figure of 86.6. I note that in the last year of the Fraser Government, when I was Minister, the index figure was 90 .2 and that it has dropped under Senator Ryan's stewardship and is proposed to drop even further in the years to come. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard-again, it is a brief table-just to make the point that there is a continuing squeeze upon the institutions in relation to the amount of funds available for the support of each of their students. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table B3.1 AVERAGE RECURRENT FUNDS ($/EFTS) FOR ADVANCED EDUCATION, 1976 TO 1987 (Base 1976 = 100) Year Index 1976 100 1977 101.6 1978 99.4 1979 98.1 1980 98.3 1981 96.7 1982 94.0 1983 90.2 1984 88.6 1985 87.8 1986 87.0 estimated 1987 86.6 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister. I come back to the question of the halls of residence and the students in them. I understand that the Minister wishes to apply some money to institutions for emergency loans. The Opposition has no objection to that. Indeed, we thought that was the subject of an election promise which should have been redeemed earlier. But to do that by taking money away from the students attending halls of residence is to take action without equity, without fairness and without any kind of logic. I remind the Minister of the survey carried out by Professor David Beswick into the halls of residence in which he found, among other things, that more than 80 per cent of those who used the halls of residence come from non-metropolitan Australia. They need the residencies as somewhere in which to locate themselves as they move away from their homes to undertake higher education. Professor Beswick found that in terms of their social and educational backgrounds they did not appear to be especially privileged, that they represented a group quite typical of the whole higher education population from which they came. Professor Beswick found also that the colleges play an important part in socialising students. There can be no real logic, no reason, no purpose in the Minister withdrawing this money. Even her advisers in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission did not recommend it. They recommended a different reallocation of the funds for the student residences. Indeed, it is a matter of great regret that the Minister and the Government did not take up the advice of the Tertiary Education Commission in relation to the moneys for halls of residence. The Tertiary Education Commission put up a positive and reasonable suggestion about the way in which that money could be reapplied or reallocated, and it is an approach to which the Opposition is attracted. I summarise that the Opposition in general supports these Bills. We support the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill with no reservation. We support the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill with the addition of an amendment to the second reading motion, to which I have already referred. We also have an amendment to the second reading motion for the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. I suggest that it might make it easier for the Senate if I move together the amendment that I have to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the amendment that I have to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. I seek leave to do that, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: At end of motion, add: 'but the Senate- (a) in relation to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984- (i) supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; and (ii) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents.'; and (b) in relation to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984- (i) supports action to satisfy the continuing needs of students in Halls of Residence for specific support after 1985, along the lines recommended by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission; and (ii) resolves that the Ministerial directions of variation contained in this legislation should be not only laid before Parliament but also subject to Parliamentary disallowance.'. It remains now only for me to foreshadow very briefly what we mean in relation to the last part of the second reading amendment. At the Committee stage I will move specific amendments designed to make certain ministerial variations to sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act. The effect of that action would be merely that, if the Minister exercised the power which she proposes to have under this Act to make variations, such variations would be subject to disallowance by the Parliament, like regulations and all other subordinate legislation. I will present that argument at the Committee stage. Again, it is because of these amendments that we have sought to expedite consideration of these Bills. I thank the Government for having acceded to our request. I indicate again our general support for the legislation. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.20) —The Senate has before it the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, the State Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. We have this sort of debate in the Senate at this time each year. Through these Bills the Commonwealth funds universities, colleges and schools for the coming calendar year. Some $2 1/3 billion is provided for tertiary education in 1985 and similar amounts are provided for the other two years of the triennium. About $1 1/2 billion is provided for schools and a smaller amount for the participation and equity program. I support the remarks of my colleague, Senator Peter Baume, the shadow Minister for Education on these Bills. Before I discuss the Bills in detail let me say that in the Senate, in our at times strong minded debates about funding education, we do not sufficiently acknowledge the fact that in this country we have a superior education system. Regardless of the faults in our schools and regardless of the complaints we receive as to the funding structure, the curriculum, or other matters that parents, students and teachers are concerned about, we do have a superior education system in our schools and universities. Witness the ways in which so many parents in Australia proudly relate the achievements of their sons and daughters in the schools. There is occasional harking back to a golden era when, it is claimed, literacy and numeracy achievements were higher than appears to be the case now, with the apparent lack of discipline or ability of some people seeking employment and the disappointment of some parents of 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds. However, I do not believe that there is any substance in the myth of a golden era of the past. I believe that the employment situation in Australia offers very few unskilled jobs. Because of the employment situation we are seeing highlighted all the more the unfortunate position of those who have not picked up sufficient skills to compete in the employment market. I do not believe in a golden age. I do attest to Australian schools, both government and non-government, being of a high standard. Neighbouring countries go to great lengths to send their privileged students to an Australian school, government or a non-government. I believe that progress has been made and that, in broad terms, we can be proud of the achievements of teachers and school administrators in government and non- government schools. Often in this chamber we debate ways to improve the curriculum, inadequacies in the presentation of, for instance, language education, or how to improve literacy and numeracy, particularly amongst the 25 per cent of students who are least served by the schools. We are concerned about transition to employment. Too often in the Senate in our debates we take a stance that neglects to note the more basic situation, that Australian school children now are being provided with educational resources greater than was provided at any time in the past. This is an achievement of government and opposition alike. It is an achievement not least of governments as they provide the resources, but the skill, the dedication and the enthusiasm of teachers and parents alike at schools are also important. I make the same remarks about higher education. I believe our universities and colleges have never been better served than they are at present. A privileged group of overseas students-be they from our region, from Europe or from the United States of America-still come to participate in our undergraduate and graduate programs. An Australian university or an Australian college is regarded as one of the best places in the world to study. I therefore take these few minutes to recognise and applaud the points of excellence in the Australian education system generally. The second introductory matter I wish to raise is the general and perhaps surprising amity of the debate. Senator Baume has referred to the deathbed acceptance by the present Government of the basic concepts of schools funding which were the cause of so much debate in the last year and a half. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who until a few minutes ago was in the chamber and who, I have no doubt, will return shortly, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who is in the chamber, and who has a real interest in education matters, ought to acknowledge that this Government has contributed to the more bipartisan approach to education discussion in Australia because it has accepted the basic concepts that we had urged upon it, concepts which we had chided it for departing from in its first Budget and in its education decisions of the first year and a half. Because there had been so much debate in this chamber and so much difference of opinion about the way in which this Government seemed to be heading and because there was so much debate by the public, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-I hope that Senator Button and Senator Ryan supported the move-appointed a special inquiry into this contentious question of schools funding through the Schools Commission. That inquiry reported to the Government on 17 April this year. Consequently, the Government broadly accepted the wisdom in the findings of that Schools Commission inquiry. The Schools Commission's findings were to accept the long-held and long-supported basic concepts that the Liberal-National Party coalition had been urging all along. That is why we approach these Bills in a much more bipartisan way. I believe that the Government's decision in that regard is, in general terms, to be applauded. I believe that the Australian public recognises that. The public recognises that the Government has come back, perhaps three-quarters or more of the way, to the good policies of the Liberal and National Parties. That is good not only for the receivers of education in Australia but also for social cohesion, because the state aid issue and the bitterness associated with it in certain periods of recent Australian history is now all the more behind us. I also forthrightly commend the Government for committing these decisions to an eight-year program of which next year will be the first year. The legislation before us with regard to schools funding is peculiarly unusual in that it commits funds four years ahead, for half of that eight-year program. Therefore, it locks in the degree of bipartisan support in this chamber for embracing these basic concepts of education funding to which I have referred. In those respects I note, in an introductory way, that we are not now seeing an acrimonious and sharply divided debate about the Bills that are before us. I now refer to the three Bills in turn. The Tertiary Education Assistance Bill does not see any dramatic change or expansion of resources available to our universities and colleges. Senator Baume has rightly said that the Bill is recast in a new format. But in terms of the resources that are available, there is no brave new world in this legislation. For the coming triennium there is no reflection of the Government seeing that there are resources available to try to begin a dramatic expansion. Back in 1974 it became clear that the dramatic increase in education funding at all levels had lifted schools, universities and colleges to a plateau which was recognised as soon as the Fraser Government was elected. Although there was a 2 per cent or so real increase in funding for higher education in the first year of the Fraser Government the plateau was really locked in by about 1977. Although in the Budget this year there is a 9 per cent increase for universities, an 8 per cent increase for colleges of advanced education and the usual 30 per cent increase for technical and further education, which is the pattern of real increase we saw in the Fraser Government period, those modest increases are somewhat similar to the 1977 situation. But, by and large, for the past seven or eight years we have seen a plateau in Commonwealth resources available to universities and colleges. As is well known, the Commonwealth has now assumed total support for higher education in Australia . So the plateau of funding, which is implicit in the Tertiary Education Assistance Bill which is before us, is just saying that for the next three years the resources of Australia indicate that we will not be able to afford any departure from this modest plateau of the last half a decade and more. Those of us in the chamber-Senator Baume, Senator Macklin, Senator Button, Senator Collard from Queensland and, of course, Senator Townley who is in the chair and I-have, in most years, frequently explored in our own policy formulations how we could lift the participation rate of Australians in higher education. We are all aware of the comparison with Japan, the United States of America and even some parts of Europe, where Australia seems unfavourably to compare with higher participation rates for 18-year-old, 19-year-old and 20-year -old students and students in their early 20s, involved in higher education. I think that, by and large, most honourable senators regret this unfavourable comparison. The anxiety remains in our minds as to whether we are properly equipping young Australians with the professional skills that they may need for Australia to develop with regard to engineering, natural sciences, social sciences and all other areas of tertiary education. It is undoubtedly true that, if we have made a mistake in the provision of higher education for Australia's young people, we will reap the loss in the coming generation's inability sufficiently to live up to international competition or sufficiently to take the opportunities for commercial industrial development for our region and, indeed, for our part in the world. Happily, it has been brought to our attention by professional groups in Australia, not least by the vice-chancellors of our universities, that not only in terms of pure and applied research but also even in terms of higher education opportunity, Australia is doing it a bit on the cheap. Australia is getting by with the status quo of enrolments, which may prove most unfortunate for our country's development. In this Bill the Government has not put forward, nor honestly has the Opposition or the Democrats put forward, a solution to where the funds would come from were we to argue in this debate for a dramatic increase. Senator Button's colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), at one stage this year floated a brave new world idea of greatly expanding our tertiary education enrolments. That got headlines in the newspapers and we were all excited at the possibility that an Australian government could see a dramatic increase of resources for higher education in Australia. Lo and behold, it proved to be only a brave new world idea without actuality and without support. Indeed, that Minister has suffered considerably in the recent Budget in that he has not got even his research money and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is suffering. Generally speaking, the excitement of some of those published ideas has turned bitter now because neither this Government nor the Opposition has put forward how the resources could be gained to make such an idea live. Senator Button —You agree that you could probably obtain the same result by a better use of resources? Senator TEAGUE —That is a perennial and classical answer which I welcome. We must always endeavour to use the resources available to the best effect, especially in primary and secondary schools-particularly secondary schools- because the resources are largely there in primary and secondary schools. If we want a concentration of resources within years one and two in primary schools, for instance, there ought to be a reallocation of priorities within the resources available. Similarly, there ought to be a readjustment of the resources available with regard to remedial education, secondary education and, to some extent, multicultural teaching aids and language resources. I agree with that proposition, and I hope we may be able to gain a like commitment in our universities and colleges to reorder priorities. What I am saying is that with this $2.3 billion in this Budget year and similar amounts in the other two years of the triennium, there is a continuation of the plateau of recent years and not a dramatic increase. We in the Opposition are critical of the Government's funding of tertiary education because it has picked upon a very tiny part of tertiary education support-the halls of residence associated with universities and colleges. It has phased out the support; there will be no money coming from the Commonwealth for halls of residence. It is true that it is a small amount, but it will have the disadvantages that Senator Baume referred to. The Opposition will be moving an amendment to indicate its support of action to satisfy the continuing needs of students in halls of residence after 1985 along the lines recommended by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The experts have put forward a way in which to do this, and we support that. I refer briefly to Senator Ryan's answer that additional moneys will be made available for emergency loans. I welcome that. It is overdue. It was promised a couple of years ago. I would have thought that it would have been one of the many Budget outcomes in May of last year, but still the students of Australia are waiting, not just the students in halls of residence but the students in colleges and universities in every part of Australia. I make the plea as constructively as I can to the Minister that these emergency grants not be given to halls of residence or residential colleges but rather be given to the institutions with which those halls or colleges are associated and that they be only a part of a global amount which will meet the emergency needs of all students in those universities and colleges. I believe it is inappropriate to set up a funding mechanism, even with minimal guidelines, only to a loan fund in each residence. I believe that each institution, college or university, should be given minimal guidelines with regard to repayable emergency loans and that they should be administered by appropriate officers and advisory committees in each university and college. I make that plea to the Minister. I hope that it is not too late for such machinery to be put into effect. In other words, it should be a part of the global funding of emergency loan schemes which was recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts when I was Chairman and which the Government accepted at the time. The Opposition has no quarrel with the concept or the words of the States Grants (Education Assistance Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. The provision of money which would make fair and equal access by Australians to higher education institutions, indeed to schools, is entirely appropriate. We believe in a bipartisan way in equality of opportunity. However, there might be in the Minister's mind an extra tone in this Bill-I hope not-which she injected in answer to a question from Senator Zakharov on Monday of this week in the Senate. I refer to her comparison between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The Minister had taken up the Liberal Party's goal and objective of equality of opportunity. She said: 'Yes, that Liberal objective is one that I embrace but beyond that'-and here she got on to dangerous ground-'we want equality of outcomes'. I believe it is a lot of nonsense for a government to determine from the outset that there will be equality of outcomes. It is a nonsense to manipulate higher school certificate scores to make up for some apparent, supposed and assumed disadvantage of girls in the Australian Capital Territory. I still look forward to confirmation that this is to be completely reversed and that there will not be any adjustments to girls higher school certificate scores to increase them a little to make up for their femininity, to give them equality of outcome or to make it easier for them to get into university just on the grounds of their femininity. The new Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission has floated an idea in recent weeks that perhaps there ought to be some socio-economic points adjustments, some Aboriginal points adjustments and some adjustments for other areas of disadvantage. Is he serious? He is an intelligent and experienced man, a former Minister for Education and a person who has a great deal to bring in advice to governments on tertiary education. I am not yet convinced of Mr Hudson 's view. Will we set up a government bureaucracy that will be the point adjustment bureaucracy which will evaluate the socio-economic background of a group of students or a particular student? Will it say: 'The exam came out with this range of marks indicating ability, capacity or achieved skill up to that point but, of course, we will have to adjust all those marks. There will be this much more for being a woman or this much more for being over a certain age or this much more for being an Aboriginal or perhaps for not being born in Australia'? We should have a special division of the bureaucracy with about six officers in line-all in triplicate-to adjust the scores of those who were not born in Australia. Perhaps there will be a graded amount to take into consideration how many years ago someone came to Australia. This is all a nonsense. I believe that the argument about equality of outcomes is a central concept which is not accepted on this side of the Parliament. It will be watched vigilantly because there is a great deal of suspicion amongst the public at large even about what is meant by the Minister in terms of affirmative action. I support affirmative action if it means making it possible to encourage someone to be available for a job or to be trained for a job. But if affirmative action means a person's scores will be manipulated or other competitors will be excluded so that they get the job or appointment, then I reject it. The kind of positive discrimination that manipulates outcomes or that gives a result to a person who has not achieved the capacity or skill will, I believe, be rejected by the Australian people. That is an element in the participation and equity program that is not in the Bill but which I warn the Minister will not be accepted by the Opposition. My time has run out so I will leave my remarks on the schools legislation to another occasion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.48) — The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No . 2) 1984 are essentially the Australian Labor Party's record in education for the coming election. I think it is instructive to look at the record contained in those Bills to find out what it is attempting to say to the electorate that it has done about education. Essentially the Labor Party Government has done what the previous Liberal-National Party Government has done. Here we have a policy of more of the same, more tinkering, more warmly titled programs, more good intentions and more hand wringing, that Australia cannot afford to give its young people a future. The Labor Party Government has also confused participation with attendance. Undoubtedly enrolments are rising but why are they rising? The main reason has to be the economy. Currently over half a million young people in this country between the ages of 15 and 19 are not employed. One out of every five of our young people are out of a job. Is it small wonder that parents are sending their children back to school because what else can they do with them? What else are they able to do? It is very odd, is it not, that parents in Australia now are in a situation in which they want to give their children a better chance in life. Yet they are not thinking about that. They are thinking about how much worse it will be for their children to be able to make their way in society. Young people, of course, are also reacting. They are reacting in the ways that one would imagine young people would react. Some of them are working twice as hard and becoming frenetic at their studies and lots of others are looking at their brothers and sisters who have been educated, who have achieved their grades in school and who are still out of work. They are asking: 'Why bother?'. That is filtering back down through the education system making it so much more difficult for teachers in the classrooms. The Australian Labor Party Government has directed its undoubted political talents to keeping the votes of private school parents. It will stay in government because of that achievement but I wonder how many children of the poor will say thank you. I wonder how many teachers in overcrowded classrooms will say thank you. I wonder how many children and young people in high schools who are there not because they want to be but simply to be child minded will really say thank you. It should be made very clear that Australia is going backwards in education. It has been doing that for years under the previous Liberal-National Party Government and the Labor Party Government has not reversed the trend despite the promises made time and time again. It has not reversed the trend in these Bills. Education-Senator Teague was talking about the money aspect-has lost $1,000m in the Budget since 1977. If the 1977 percentages for education had been maintained there would now be another $1,000m in the education budget. Another $1,000m would be distributed through these Bills that we are talking about now. In other words, education has gone backwards. It has gone backwards in many ways but most directly, in relation to these Bills, it has gone backwards in terms of the amount of money which could be made available for it. The Australian Labor Party, when it was in opposition, was bitterly critical of the Liberal-National Party's allocation to education in the Budgets. The Labor Party while in opposition promised that it would reverse that trend. That has not occurred. Where is the inventiveness with the funds that these Bills have made available? Where is the innovation? Where are the breakthrough programs? Where is the acknowledgment that our greatest resource in this country is our young people? Where is the national plan for education to which we can look forward? Instead what do we have from this Labor Party Government? We have another committee of inquiry. I am quite sure that that committee of inquiry will do an excellent job . It will produce an excellent report which will look marvellous against all the other reports on the bookcase of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan). However if education will not be funded what is the use of the report? It will not provide more jobs. It will not provide one teacher with any additional preparation time. It will not lessen by one per cent the enormous cost in Australia in the waste of human lives. That surely is the debate. That surely is what we ought be looking forward to in these Bills but we have not had it. What else did we get? Recently we got an attack from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on schools and tertiary institutions. He questioned their effectiveness. It is all right to question effectiveness if one is not going to provide additional resources to teachers and lecturers in tertiary institutions to enable them to carry out the tasks which are imposed on them under these very Bills. Australia is eleventh among the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the amount of public expenditure that it devotes to education, as a percentage of gross domestic product. This has translated directly into our being the twenty-first out of the 24 OECD countries as an exporter of high technology. That is the bad news; the good news, as Barry Jones has said, is that we are still ahead of Iceland and Turkey. Barry Jones, that person crying in the wilderness in this particular Government, put it in this way, and it was well said: Can we rethink our concept of 'resource'-to recognise that the nation can be richer through intellectual effort, through using the little grey cells, than through digging things up? Ignoring the need to develop our most outstanding natural resource, our people, the Labor Government has decided that it is perfectly all right to avoid investing in Australia's human potential, despite what its members said in opposition and despite what they said when they went to the people last year. The Government has provided the basics, undoubtedly, but it has not aimed at the excellence which is required. This Labor Government has followed the dishonourable tradition of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. We have tinkering, tinkering and more tinkering; nothing fundamental; not upsetting anybody; and steady is the course downhill. The Minister has proclaimed an increase of 15,000 places over three years in the tertiary sector. That certainly sounds great-until one compares it with the growth in population. What we needed were the 23,000 places recommended in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report just to stay level, just to stay with the growth in population. Anything less, and we are going backwards. Anything less-and we have got less and we shall provide less access for our young people to tertiary institutions. In these Bills we have extraordinary planning priorities. Unfortunately, yet again, we have the looking-at-the-next- election syndrome, and not looking at the next century. But I remind the Senate that the next century is only 16 years away. Surely we cannot afford any longer to go on bargaining with that future. We cannot afford to cut our kids adrift in this country, to have one out of the five of them unemployed, and leave it at that. Whatever priority this Government will give to the development of human or material resources, those decisions, these Bills, will have an enormous impact on national decision-making. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has one of the most important portfolios in relation to the development of this country and to our future. If the Government believes that the natural resources are the most important element, the major questions, surely, are about digging them up and getting them out, and all the more the merrier and the sooner the better. If, however, one shares the view-certainly it is the view of the Australian Democrats-that resources in this country in 1984 have to be defined in human resource terms, it follows that rising participation rates, not just retention, rising standards, increasing our expenditure on research, developing our high technology industries and enhancing the intellectual capacities of our people are what we ought to be talking about. This Government promised increased participation. Instead, we have increased retention rates, and we have dismally failed to provide the additional resources that will be required to convert those retention rates into participation rates, genuine participation in education. Teachers who are at the work face cannot be expected to carry larger and larger numbers of pupils without additional resources. Teachers cannot work miracles in areas in which the Federal Government and the State governments are admitting impotence. Simply increasing the numbers in schools-that is what this Government has done-is not to increase the life chances of the pupils in those schools. The extraordinary decrease in funds for the professional development of teachers points to a particular frame of mind. One sees that we are seeking to increase the number of pupils and to decrease the amount of money for professional development, and expecting the teacher to translate programs. No matter how brilliantly they are conceived in the participation and equity program, it is ultimately the teacher who translates them into effectiveness in the classroom; it is the teacher who carries out the work, not the person who develops the program. If the teacher does not have the additional resources, that program will be an utter and abject failure. That is what we are confronting. Unfortunately, putting those resources into teachers is not electorally spectacular in any way. But it will work. When the Australian Labor Party Government came to power, I think that everybody could expect and had reason to expect some radical reforms. That is reasonable in having a Labor Party come to power after being in opposition for so long, and coming to power with a solid political base. Surely we could have expected considerable differences in approach from that which we saw under the conservative Government. But apart from a new brand of sticking plaster, we got nothing. What are some of these things that we would have looked at? We could have looked at a national plan which included class sizes which were framed on classroom teachers and not on the total number of teachers in schools. We could have been looking at an educational bicentennial project to overcome the capital works deficiencies in all schools in Australia by 1988. We could have looked at an increase in the participation of parents in schools. We could have looked at freedom of choice for parents rather than freedom of choice simply for institutions. We could have looked at the establishment of a national literacy program. We could have looked at the establishment of open study groups on the Scandinavian model. We could have looked at the implementation of a national language project and policy; at recognition of the needs of isolated children by the provision of increased technology; at genuine self-determination in the education of Aboriginal children; the enactment of a Bill of Rights for young people and children. We could have looked at legislative guarantees of international freedom at the tertiary level; at an Australia-wide statute for tenure; at a tertiary education bicentennial project to rectify the capital works deficiencies in tertiary institutions by 1988. We could have looked at adjusting capital depreciation rates to compare with private enterprise depreciation rates; at equipment being funded at private enterprise depreciation rates; at the establishment of an Australian research foundation to conduct arm's length operations so that we do not have to go down the line that the American institutions have. We could have looked at making educational allowances at least as attractive as unemployment benefits; at the introduction of an education/work guarantee for all young people in this country ; at a program for on-campus and off-campus accommodation under a national capital works program as a high priority. We could have looked at funding overseas student places under the foreign affairs budget and not under an education budget; at the creation of new places according to the recommended CTEC level of 23,000, and not on the reduction of 8 ,000 places over the next three years for young Australians. We could have looked at the establishment of an open university with open entrance to allow those people who do not have the qualifications and who have not the ability to attend our current tertiary institutions to have at least one chance in their life of gaining tertiary qualifications. In other words, we could have been looking at some genuine work being done in terms of equity. We could have looked forward to more things on the Labor Government's coming to power in 1983. Many of those things would not be costly but would provide us with equity in the education system. Instead we have shuffling and more shuffling. The Australian Democrats believe that if this Government genuinely believes that our young people are our greatest resource a budgetary allocation must follow in recognition of that. It is not possible to say 'We recognise that youth is our greatest resource' and then fund that area in the way it is currently being funded. We believe that, more than anything else, we need an education and work guarantee in this country for people under the age of 21. The French Government, which has for so long disappointed the people who elected it to power, announced only a month ago, as part of its five-pronged program for next year, that it would be introducing an education and work guarantee for all young people in France in 1985. Why has it done that? It has recognised that if we do not do that we are storing up for ourselves the most extraordinary social problems for the future. I am not saying that an education and work guarantee will not be costly, but what is the cost of one in five young people being unemployed? If we want to swap costs, let us do so. One cost is monetary. The present cost is social. In the future that social cost will translate into the most horrendous financial costs of the most staggering kind. If anyone wants to look at research, let him look at the research that has come out of the University of Belfast on endemic unemployment amongst young people and the costs of it to a Budget. Our current education budget will not cover the social costs in the years to come. We will need twice the amount of money we currently spend as a percentage of the Budget to deal with that social cost in the future. We are talking about twice the amount. That is indicated by the research on similar problems in Northern Ireland. People there know something about endemic unemployment. I appeal to the Minister. Next year, 1985, is the International Year of Youth. Surely we can pledge that this country will have every young person actively engaged in either work or some form of education next year. It is a goal that will cost us-we will have to pay in dollars and cents-but the Australian Democrats would rather employ or educate a young Australian than pay unemployment or social security benefits with the ensuing social disruption and disharmony we will face in this country if we do not get those young people into some form of employment or education. We have to do it. It is not a partisan matter; it is a matter of the lifeblood of this country, it is a matter of this country's future. Senator Peter Baume —Would you remove the automatic right to the dole from some young people as part of your program? Senator MACKLIN —No, I do not want to look at the dole. I want to look at everybody doing something. Senator Peter Baume —Do you want to make the dole less attractive for those who want to make a wrong choice? Senator MACKLIN —No, I do not want to make anything less attractive. I want to make our future more attractive by having everybody doing something-everybody employed or being educated in some way. That does not mean it must be at a tertiary institution. It does not mean it must necessarily be at a secondary institution. There are many places in Australia where one can gain education. One can gain it on one's father's farm. One can gain it on one's father's fishing boat. One can gain it in an enormous number of places. We need a complete reordering of priorities if we are to achieve that goal. I am sure that this Parliament-certainly I speak for my Party-would support the Government 100 per cent on that. I urge the Government to pledge to this country now that 1 January 1985 will be a radical day for Australia, the day when this country grows up and takes responsibility for its young people. I would not mind this Government's winning an election on that pledge because, if it did so, it would have been an election worth fighting for. At the moment I cannot see what we are fighting about. We are fighting amongst ourselves and the young people are losing. I ask this Government to pledge that the beginning of next year will mark a radical change. Let the Government win on that pledge and not on the current shuffling in education. Let it win on a radical plan to have everyone of our young people not on the dole, not sitting at home watching television, not engaging in crime and not looking at a bleak future but looking at something they can hope for and that we, on behalf of them, can hope for. I believe that would satisfy education debate well into the year 2000. That would be worth discussing, worth hoping for and, I acknowledge, worth winning an election on. However, at the moment I cannot see it. It is not in these Bills. The hope is not there. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(12.12) —in reply-I rise to respond to the points made by honourable senators in debate on the three education funding Bills which are before us-the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984, the States Grant (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 and the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984-and in doing so to make some comments on matters raised. Clearly, the Bills are supported. I thank the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for their support. However, a number of matters have been raised. Amendments have been moved to the motion for the second reading of two of the Bills and one Committee stage amendment has been foreshadowed. I will deal briefly with the matters that have been raised and then with the second reading amendments, which are not acceptable to the Government. Senator Baume raised the question of Australian Labor Party policy which was formulated in July this year. He expressed the view that there was some conflict or insecurity because the legislation before us is not exactly in terms of the Labor Party platform. I simply point out to Senator Baume and to all people who are obviously not clear about this matter that it is the job of the ALP Federal Conference to formulate the principles on which our Government's programs will be based. Those principles have been formulated. The legislation that we now have before us is our Government's application of those principles in legislation, policies and programs. The main thrust of the Labor Party's education platform is twofold. The first is to set out very clearly the primary obligation of governments to government schools and the obligation on all governments to take whatever steps are available to them to ensure that the education provided at government schools, which is of course available to all comers, is of the highest possible standard. It will be clear from the different array of funding arrangements set out in the legislation that that principle has been implemented, and implemented very strongly. The second thrust of the Federal platform concerns schools that operate outside the government school system-non-government schools. There is a clear commitment to assist those schools on the basis of need so that children attending those schools can have satisfactory educational standards. Again, the introduction of a new system of 12 funding categories whereby schools in the non-government sector will receive funds is an implementation of that principle. Any queries that might remain in the mind of Senator Baume or of any of the persons on whose behalf he was purporting to speak should be cleared up entirely by the legislation, which is our Government's expression of the principles contained in the Federal platform. Senator Baume also expressed his opposition to any constraint whatsoever being placed on new schools developing outside the government sector. Indeed, one of the second reading amendments addresses that. I shall comment on both of those at this stage. I think it is really quite nonsensical for representatives of any political party to get up and maintain that there should be no restrictions of any kind on any initiative to establish a school in the non-government sector. Quite clearly such constraints do exist, and exist for very good reasons. The first and major constraint of course is that schools must receive registration from the appropriate bodies, which in this country are the State departments of education or, in the case of the Australian Capital Territory, my Department in co-operation with Australian Capital Territory education bodies. Quite clearly it has never been the case under Liberal governments or any other kind of government in this country that a group of people could establish a school and receive public funding for that school without meeting certain educational criteria such as health standards and so forth. That is the first and most obvious way in which constraints are placed on any group desiring to set up a school. Of course, the States themselves wish to improve the registration procedures for schools. Evidence of that can be seen in a recent report of the Australian Education Council, the council of education Ministers, which made a number of recommendations whereby States could take better steps to ensure that schools that receive registration, thereby becoming eligible for public funding, are indeed offering a proper standard of education to the children who attend those schools. I look forward to seeing a higher standard of registration implemented by State authorities throughout Australia. It is, of course, also the case that no government could sensibly say that any school can be set up and be able to receive funds to the extent that it wants to receive them. Every portfolio has its budget restrictions and every area of public spending has huge demands made on it. In fact the thrust of the very few criticisms made in the course of this debate about the Government's education policies and the legislation is that we are not spending enough. I think that Senator Macklin's criticisms really amounted to that-that he would like to see more money spent on education, with more places and more programs and so forth. So would I. Every Minister in the Government would welcome the opportunity of having more funds and resources available to do more things. Clearly we are limited by budgetary constraints. Senator Macklin will not have forgotten that when our Government took office just 18 months ago we had a huge national debt and a deficit of $9.5 billion. We had huge inescapable demands on public expenditure mainly caused by the dreadful crisis of unemployment. There were other inevitable and inescapable demands on public expenditure in the social security area and, indeed, in the education area and the public housing area. In order to go some way towards meeting all of those very urgent and legitimate demands on public expenditure and at the same time reduce the deficit, which was causing such a drain on public resources in debt servicing and so on, and in order to give to the overtaxed workers of Australia some modicum of tax reform and, as well, to keep the prices and incomes accord in place so that Australia would not be subjected to an inflationary round of wage increases, certain decisions had to be taken. As far as the education portfolio was concerned those decisions meant that less money was allocated than would have been allocated in the best of all possible worlds. That is not to say that we have not increased very substantially and very effectively education expenditure in all of the crucial areas. In fact in every area and every level of education we have provided for substantial real increases in funding. The only area of education expenditure in which there will not be real increases is those non-government schools categorised as well above community standards and which, while retaining a minimum grant, will not receive any real increases over the funding period. I do not think anyone could argue that that was anything other than a fair and proper decision. Senator Teague —I would argue that. Senator RYAN —Senator Teague would argue that, but it is not an argument I am persuaded by. All other schools, both government and non-government, will receive real increases of a most substantial kind. The tertiary sector also has received real increases of a substantial kind. There will be many more places in the academic and general staffing area, not, of course, as Senator Macklin said, as many as the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission recommended or as many as the councils of the Commission set out as ideal, but certainly a substantial and overwhelming improvement on what happened in this country for seven years under the Fraser Government. Because there are these restrictions in terms of budgetary realities it is simply not possible to say that every school that starts must receive maximum funding, no matter what its circumstances. Therefore , there are new requirements for the development of new non-government schools insofar as their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance is concerned. I am pleased to see that most of those recommendations have been accepted by the Opposition. Senator Baume and Senator Teague again raised the question of the phasing out of the special assistance to the university colleges and colleges of residence in some colleges of advanced education. I have explained publicly on many occasions and, indeed, in this chamber what the effect of that policy will be. It will be to free funds, $10m in fact, from a program that was not needs based- while it did give some benefit to some needy students it certainly excluded most needy students from any assistance at all-to a program aimed at giving accommodation assistance to all needy students. Instead of only some halls of residence receiving accommodation assistance we will fund all institutions, including all CAEs. This is particularly crucial since the growth in tertiary numbers substantially will be in the CAE sector. We will give all CAEs and all universities access to that fund so that they can make emergency loans to students having difficulty in meeting their accommodation expenses. They may be students who are in halls of residence. I think Senator Teague wanted some reassurance on that point. I accept that there are some students living in halls of residence who find difficulty in meeting their accommodation expenses and who will continue to find difficulty. They will now be eligible for assistance. Furthermore, students not living in halls of residence but living in some other form of accommodation and who up to now have had no accommodation assistance at all will be eligible. I remind Senator Teague , who I know has a very deep concern in this matter, that the increases in the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance for those getting the maximum living away from home rate should more than cover any increases in fees at the halls of residence. However, I will not speak any further on that because I think the explanation is clear. I also remind Senator Teague that the guidelines for each institution's operation of its own funds are now being negotiated between CTEC and representatives of the institutions. Of course, as soon as those guidelines are available they will be made public. Senator Baume also addressed attention to the fact that concern has been expressed in the tertiary sector, particularly by unions in that sector, to the effect that the level of funding provided may not be adequate. The answer to that is that we believe it is functional for institutions to be able to operate and take in extra students at the level that we have allocated. We also accept that it may be necessary to supplement some institutions and some faculties that operate in a more expensive way than others in the course of the triennium. However, before we make any decisions about supplementation we have asked the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission under the chairmanship of Hugh Hudson to report to us again on real student costs in a more definitive way than has happened to date and in a way that gives us some indication as to the variation in costs for students in tertiary institutions. Of course, those variations are very large. The cost of putting a student through a veterinary science course or medical course is perhaps twice or three times the cost of putting a student through a law degree or an arts degree. So when we are talking in terms of average per student cost we are talking in terms of a very crude average indeed. The Government has not found it helpful in making funding decisions to have available only crude indications of cost. We are seeking to get a more precise and comprehensive picture of the costs of educating students in different kinds of tertiary institutions and courses. On receipt of that report the Government will be in a position to consider possible supplementation throughout the rest of the triennium. What we have done in these Bills-this cannot be stressed too much-is to return to triennial funding so that all institutions will now know that they have a triennial commitment at a certain level of funding for the students they have now, and for the progress of those students through to the end of their degrees. I think that the institutions appreciate that form of security. Similarly, a minimum triennial program is set out for capital funding, of which the details are known. Again, we hope to be in a position to make supplementations throughout the triennium, but at least there is a three-year building program which is most welcomed by institutions after the dearth of capital assistance they had to endure under the Fraser Government. I remind the Senate, too, that retrospective cost supplementation was introduced in our last Budget so that institutions, although they have difficulties and experience backlogs in capital and equipment, are in a much more stable and secure position than they have been since 1975. That security and stability will be built on as the economy permits. I would like to direct attention to the amendments to the second reading motion . One amendment suggests that the Senate: supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; and deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents. That amendment is not acceptable. Clearly, the present Government has responsibly recognised the fact that parents make different kinds of choices with regard to their children's schooling. We have funded those choices very substantially indeed, as I have pointed out, with real increases in most of the non-government sector. But a completely open-handed, libertarian, no budget, no registration, no standards kind of statement such as that would not be regarded by the Government as a responsible statement that would be of any assistance to parents at all. The second amendment to the second reading motion calls for a change in the Government's decision about the funding of halls of residence, and also suggests that the Senate: believes that the ministerial directions of variation contained in this legislation should be not only laid before Parliament but also subject to parliamentary disallowance. The two parts of that amendment are also unacceptable to the Government. The one concerning student residences is unacceptable for the reasons I have given. The second part of it is unacceptable for reasons I shall outline in detail in the Committee stage, because I understand there is another more detailed amendment to be dealt with then. For this reason the Government in this legislation relating to tertiary education is setting out a three-year program so that the minimum level of funds for each institution is determined for three years. What the institutions receive in this legislation is determined by student intakes and total enrolments. However, the Government needs some capacity to readjust the funding at the margin in cases where there are changes in these factors-for example, if there is a fall off in enrolments, or where an institution agrees to take in extra students and does not do so. For reasons such as changes in the operation of an institution, it may be necessary to transfer funding from that institution to another institution. Senator Peter Baume —There is no argument. Senator RYAN —I am pleased that Senator Baume says that there is no argument. When that decision is taken according to the legislation now before the Senate, it will be made public and will be laid before the Parliament. The decision will be taken only after advice from the Tertiary Education Commission and consultation with the relevant State authorities affected by the decision. For the transfer of the power to be effective, institutions must be able to react promptly and confidently to any transfer authorised by the Minister in the expectation that transference of funds will go ahead. If the Opposition amendment were to succeed, if a threat of disallowance were to hang over the heads of institutions for up to 45 sitting days-and of course the way it works out that period could stretch into months-we believe that the institutions could be seriously destabilised. I recognise that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills recommended that the right of disallowance should be incorporated with regard to any such decisions. Quite regularly we accept the views of that Committee, but in this case I think that Committee has underestimated the administrative difficulties that institutions would experience if, on the one hand, they are told by the Minister that they are to receive an extra appropriation of funds and will be able to employ more staff at a time in the academic year that suits them, but on the other hand realise that they may suddenly lose those funds at any time in the next few months. I do not regard that as being in the interests of stability and the efficient use of resources by institutions. I would not think that either Senator Macklin or Senator Baume would have any interest in destabilising institutions. I doubt that there would be any capacity for the Minister, and certainly there would be no desire, to make other than a proper decision in a transfer of funds between institutions because the procedure is so public. If any improper kind of transfer were suggested, it would be known publicly and institutions, unions and senators would make their views known. It seems to me that although the principle of parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance of regulations or decisions is not normally a matter on which we have any argument, in this case I ask the Opposition and Senator Macklin to consider the difficulties that will be caused to institutions which apparently expect to receive more funds but in fact may not. If the Opposition wishes to persist with this amendment in its present form in the Committee stage, I will explain in more detail the technical difficulties that will be created for the Government. The Bills before the Senate today represent a major commitment by this Government to a number of new initiatives in education. Senator Macklin asked where were the radical changes and reforms one might expect of a Labor Government. I would point Senator Macklin to those new initiatives and reforms which are peculiarly those of a Labor Government. That can be observed by the fact that they are attracting a great deal of criticism. Our whole concept of improving participation and equity is one that non-Labor forces in this country have chosen to be very critical of. In particular, when the Government speaks of improving access by disadvantaged groups to complete their secondary education and to all forms of higher education, it is criticised by the extreme conservatives on the grounds that such increased access will cause a deterioration of standards and so on. I am sure that Senator Macklin is familiar with these tedious arguments that are trotted out every time the Government suggests that students from disadvantaged backgrounds should have a better chance than they have had previously. I say to Senator Macklin when he asks where is the difference that perhaps the greatest difference is in the commitment of our Government not only to improve the number of places available in secondary and tertiary education but also to improve the quality that is available to students. The Government has done that not only through a number of programs, funds for which are provided in this legislation, but also in the special initiatives with regard to Aboriginal students, students from socio-economically disadvantaged areas and so forth, through programs such as the participation and equity program and the new basic learning program. This is also being done through the new inquiry to be undertaken by the Tertiary Education Commission into the use of new technologies to improve access and equity in higher education, and in TAFE. I do not think even Senator Macklin could claim that any of these things are initiatives that could have been expected from a conservative government. Indeed, the country had to wait seven years for a Labor Government for these initiatives to be developed , funded, set up and, as we now see, implemented. Senator Teague —What about the new amount of $20m in all of that? Senator RYAN —For what? Senator Teague —For the PEP. Senator RYAN —The PEP program has received additional funds. It is a triennial program. At this stage I would say that the funding is adequate because the machinery is still being developed. Because it is a participatory program, a decentralised program, which works mainly through representative State committees, which in turn work with designated schools to develop programs. It really is not the kind of development that can deliver the results in a few months. There have been some delays in some areas of the program but the money and the structure are there. I believe that the initiative and the creativity on the part of teachers and parents are there and that we will see the fruits of it . It may be a program that we will wish to supplement in the ongoing years. In conclusion, I thank the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for their support. The amendments moved by the Opposition are not acceptable. I commend the Bills to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I will now put the amendments which have been moved to the motion for the second reading of this legislation. Senator Macklin —Mr Deputy President, I do not see how the questions relating to both of these amendments, which relate to separate Bills, can be put together because we wish to support one and not the other. It will be very difficult for us. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Peter Baume had leave to move them both together, which was not denied by the Australian Democrats. To avoid confusion, I will put the questions separately on each paragraph of the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added by paragraph (a) (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. Amendment negatived. Question put: That the words proposed to be added by paragraph (b) (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.38) —by leave-I move the following amendments to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill: (1) Page 49, sub-clause 31 (3), lines 1 to 5, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section 26 (1), 27 (1), 28 (1), 29 (1) or 30 (1 ) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.'. (2) Page 54, sub-clause 36 (3), lines 18 to 21, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and sub- section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section 35 (1) or (3) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.'. (3) Page 60, sub-clause 42 (3), lines 34 to 37, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section 41 (1) or (2) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.'. (4) Page 64, sub-clause 46 (5), lines 33 to 35, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: '(3) The provisions of sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section 46 (2) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were a reference to a revocation.'. As we remarked earlier, the Bill has been recast and it is therefore necessary to move this amendment four times. This amendment has a single purpose, to which purpose the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, referred in her remarks in the second reading debate. The purpose of the amendments is to insert in several places a capacity for parliamentary disallowance. Let me argue -I did not put the argument earlier-as to why we are proceeding down this path. The Minister has proposed in this legislation that there should be some new powers to vary certain determinations or grants after processes which the Minister identified in her summing up in the second reading debate. The Opposition has no objection whatsoever to the existence of a power to make variations, for reasons which the Minister has set out. There is some sense in that. We have no objection to the processes of consultation which the Minister has identified as part of that process, but we say that the variations which are proposed here come within that class of action which is properly a matter over which the Parliament should have authority at the end of the day. We have therefore moved in relation to four areas that where the Minister wishes to make such determinations not only must they be placed before the Parliament and not only must we be told about them, but also the Parliament should have the power, however theoretical that power is and whether or not it is used, to disallow. There are many constraints upon the Government in making variations. The Minister has described some of those constraints. I think she has described them accurately. It is quite unlikely that the Minister would ever want to misuse a power. We agree: We have no argument. It is therefore unlikely that the Parliament will wish to put into force its power of disallowance, but it should properly have that power in a matter of subordinate legislation. The advice of officers that that would make the provision unworkable does not really stand up and we do not accept it. For those who may be listening I just indicate that the first of our amendments, to clause 31 (3), will affect any variations which are made to the recurrent expenditure. The amendment we propose to clause 34 (3) relates to any variations which are made to equipment grants; the amendment to clause 42 (3) relates to variations made to building projects; and the amendment to clause 46 (5) relates to variations to payments to staff at other than recommended rates. Our proposition is not to prevent the Minister from having the power to make these variations. It is to ensure that the proper constitutional proprieties are observed and that the provisions should be subject to disallowance as is other subordinate legislation. I put it to the Minister that whilst the Parliament would be conscious of all the constraints to which she referred in her second reading speech, whatever they are, they do not go to the fact that it is a proper exercise of parliamentary power to make subordinate legislation subject to disallowance as these amendments propose. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.43) —The amendments moved by the Opposition relate to various clauses of the Bill, which, as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, indicated in the second reading debate, were dealt with in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. In the Committee's estimation they constitute an undue delegation of powers to the Minister. I think the proposition that the Minister raised in her second reading speech is a very important one. She said that some of the institutions may feel constrained not to use the money that she provides in her determination at any time because in doing so they may very well be committing themselves to new staff and equipment or to modifications to their curricula activity that may at a later stage-it could be a very late stage-be taken away. I acknowledge that point. I say on behalf of the Australian Democrats that that would certainly never be our intention. One sees from the history of the operation of the Senate in relation to its regulation that it is very rare indeed for the Senate to reject a regulation. Indeed, in going through the whole process the Senate is mindful of the problems that can arise if it rejects a regulation. I suggest that the concern raised by the Minister really ought to be put to rest. The various institutions need merely to look at the way in which the Senate has responsibly conducted itself in relation to all of its legislation, and delegated legislation in particular. In this regard it is probably less a matter of technical detail although I understood the Minister to say that she wished to raise some technical problems, and I certainly would not want to pre-empt her position. On the basis of the fact that the Australian Democrats have always supported the notion of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee regarding the undue delegation of power, we will support these amendments unless there are technical problems concerned with them , to which the Minister said she wished to refer in the Committee stage. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister say what the Prime Minister's present attitude is to the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge? Does he maintain the view expressed on the John Laws show yesterday morning, namely, that he would not, in any way, seek to interfere with the processes of the Committee? Does he hold to his endorsement, a few hours later, of Mr Lionel Bowen's attack during Question Time in the House of Representatives on the Committee or does he support Mr Bowen's late night partial retraction? How does he explain the Prime Minister's gyrations in assuming three different positions in the space of 12 hours? Senator BUTTON —I can only explain the gyrations by conceding that they may have happened, and I am not prepared to do that. Let me say at the beginning that this question really goes to the weight that is to be attached to an answer to a question given by the Deputy Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. If honourable senators read Mr Bowen's answer to the question clearly and the subsequent statement which he put out in relation to that answer, they will see that he has expressed a general concern which for a long time has been held here by members of the Government and indeed by some members of the Opposition I believe over the general environment of smear and innuendo which has surrounded a lot of the proceedings of this Parliament in the last few weeks and months. I think that arises from the fact that the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee in a way involve a mixture of the judicial with the political, which I would never have thought would be a desirable mix in any context. Having said that, I would just like to say that, although the Government was not keen on the course which has been followed in relation to the allegations made against the judge, we have accepted that course. I personally say, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, that I have absolute confidence in the ability and integrity of the commissioners. I believe that the honourable senators on that Committee are going about performing the very difficult task which they have been given with diligence and a fair minded approach to the questions involved. In those circumstances, and having discussed this matter with the Prime Minister, there will be no interferences in the processes of that Committee. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of delegates to the Seventh Australasian and Pacific Regional Parliamentary Seminar which is currently meeting in Canberra. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to the delegates our warmest welcome to Australia and indeed to the Senate chamber. We wish the delegates a successful seminar. I trust their visit is an enjoyable and interesting experience. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. In view of the lack of concern by the Tasmanian Liberal Government for providing support services for women in Tasmania, will the Minister say what consideration she has given to continuation of Federal Government support for a women's information service in Hobart? Senator RYAN —It is very disappointing that the Tasmanian Government has failed to provide an information service for women in that State. That failure certainly leaves a significant gap in services available for Tasmanian women. In every other State and Territory now satisfactory long term arrangements have been made to develop support services for women, including the Women's Information Service in Queensland which was opened by our Government in April. The Women's Information Service in Tasmania was a Commonwealth employment project and, as such, a temporary job creation measure which nevertheless pointed to an ongoing need for an information service for women in Tasmania. I have requested the Office of the Status of Women to discuss with responsible departments the existing provisions for various aspects of women's services and to report to me on what action is required in this area. Proposals which address the needs of women in Tasmania for support services should form part of this report. When I have that report it may be possible for us to take action to establish a permanent service. Senator DURACK —My question is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I acknowledge the answer he has just given to Senator Chaney. I thank him for the very clear acknowledgement and support that he has expressed for the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and its members in the difficult task they have. I refer the Leader of the Government to the view expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday, a view which was later endorsed by the Prime Minister. The statement made by Mr Lionel Bowen yesterday states: If the Senate had any wisdom it would wind up its Committee. Does the Government believe that the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge should now be wound up? Senator BUTTON —In answering the question directed to me by Senator Chaney, I thought the last sentence of my answer was quite clear on that question. I have nothing to add. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to a comment in Monday's Courier-Mail that, in relation to service pensions, the pensions manual is essential reading. Do service pensioners or service pensioner applicants need to purchase a copy of this manual, or does the Department of Veterans' Affairs inform pensioners and pensioner applicants of their rights and ensure that these people receive their correct entitlements? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, my attention has been drawn to an article that appeared I think in Monday's Courier-Mail which is misleading in a number of respects and, to the extent that it is misleading, creates unnecessary reaction, concern and fear in the minds of those who have read the article. Firstly, the manual cannot , as Mr Asprey suggested, be purchased through the Australian Government Publishing Service outlets as he claimed. However, the manual is available at each branch office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and can be inspected there under the freedom of information legislation. Relevant pages-I emphasise that-can be photocopied at 10c per page. The other point that needs to be stressed to show the misleading nature of the article is that if service pensioners take Mr Asprey's advice and obtain the full text of the manual they will be involved in considerable and unnecessary expense because the Government has taken a number of steps to prepare information, bulletins and pamphlets which are readily available, as well as establishing a hot line both in the Department of Social Security and my Department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Officers at the branch offices are specially trained to give information to pensioners generally. So there is absolutely no need for people to be put to the trouble of getting access to the manual and/or photocopying pages of it which probably would do more to create confusion than to assist them in understanding what is involved in the assets test. I hope that the people who set themselves up in the daily newspapers as advisers to pensioners give correct advice and not misleading information. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party , Mr Wran, told businessmen in London recently that it would not be long before the Foreign Investment Review Board was dismantled? Does this statement, when considered with the Government's decision to allow foreign banks into Australia, mean that the Government intends to preside over an increasing degree of selling the Australian farm to foreigners? Will the Government give an absolute undertaking that a continued monitoring of foreign purchase of Australian assets will be maintained? Senator WALSH —I have seen newspaper reports of comments alleged to have been made by Mr Wran. I have not seen a transcript of what he said but I understand that whatever comments were made were made by way of an off the cuff reply. Although I have not seen the transcript I will proceed to answer the question on the assumption that Mr Wran has been accurately reported. He was, of course, discussing primarily the development of the Australian financial sector. The Premier is strongly supportive of the development of off-shore banking in Australia, a move which the Commonwealth Government has recently facilitated through a new policy. Senator Mason —Are you going to abolish it or not? Senator WALSH —No. I am coming to that. I have a note which has been supplied to me by the Treasurer. I want to quote the exact words the Treasurer used in the note he supplied to me. The Government is happy to give Senator Mason an assurance that the FIRB will continue to monitor foreign purchases of Australian assets. We reviewed the policy only last year and decided to maintain the approach pioneered by the previous Australian Labor Party Government in the mid- 1970s which continued virtually unchanged by our predecessors, to their credit. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a recent statement by the Opposition spokesman on trade in which he suggested that deregulating the oil market in Australia would lead to a 10 per cent reduction in retail petrol prices? Does the Government share this view? Senator WALSH —The Government certainly does not endorse the statement which was put out by the shadow Minister for Trade-I think that is his title-better known as the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia who, incidentally, was the member of parliament who announced his intention to retire from the Ministry in the previous Government but managed to come back in opposition as Deputy Leader of the National Party. I would have thought it says something about the dearth of talent available in the National Party that somebody who, on his own admission, regarded himself as finished as a politician has now been resurrected as Deputy Leader of the National Party. One could forgive him for that if it were not for the fact that he has a gaggle of factual errors in the Press statement he issued. He claimed that substantial savings of up to 10 per cent in retail fuel prices could be achieved if the oil market were deregulated. That is approximately 5c a litre, which translates into about $7.50 per barrel. Implicit in that is an assertion that the import parity price at which Australian crude is priced to Australian refiners is $7 to $8 a barrel above the price at which comparable crudes could be imported. That is sheer nonsense. Because of transport costs in both directions, spot market sales and so on there could be some difference in the price, but it certainly would be less than half that magnitude. He also said in his Press statement that the import parity pricing was extended to all oil in 1977 during a period of world shortage. There are two factual errors in that. It was extended in 1978, not 1977. Since that was done by a government of which he was a member one would have thought that he would have had some knowledge of that. Secondly, there was no period of shortage in 1978 when that import parity pricing policy was adopted by the previous Government. The shortage appeared some 12 months or so after that, following the political turmoil in Iran. The basis of the statement of the Deputy Leader of the National Party is that Australian commodities should be priced at export parity levels. In a completely free market one would expect the price of Australian crude to settle somewhere between the export parity price and the import parity price. The difference between the export parity price of Australian crude oil and the administered import parity price is, as I indicated, of the order of $2 to $3 a barrel at present, due primarily to transport costs. So to get any significant reduction at all in oil prices, Mr Hunt is endorsing the principle of export parity prices . I am amazed, to say the least, that the Deputy Leader of the National Party should argue for export parity pricing for Australian-produced commodities. There would be a 75 per cent reduction in the price of sugar if on the domestic market it were to be priced at the export parity price instead of its present administered price. The price of dairy produce would fall by something like 50 per cent if it too were to be priced at export parity prices instead of administered prices. The price of eggs would fall by something like 75 per cent also if the same principle were to be adopted for them. In addition, there would be a fall of the order of 20 per cent in the price of Australian wheat sold for human consumption. So I must say that I am amazed to find the Deputy Leader of the National Party, a party which purports to represent agricultural interests, advocating a policy based on the pricing of Australian-produced commodities at export parity levels. I would expect that the agricultural constituency, which he purports to represent, ought fairly quickly to send him a rocket dissociating itself at least from the principle of export parity pricing which he is expounding and endorsing. Quite clearly, if that were to be adopted it would have a devastating effect on a number of major agricultural industries. Senator SCOTT —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I refer him to his description of Mr Wran's attack on Mr Clarrie Briese as 'an unfortunate remark'. Is he aware that on this morning's AM program Mr Wran said that he had read the Deputy Prime Minister's comments in the House of Representatives yesterday on the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on the Allegations Concerning a Judge and that he supported them? Is he also aware that Mr Wran refused to withdraw his comments about Mr Briese? Does the Minister regard this as yet another unfortunate utterance by Mr Wran? Senator BUTTON —I did not hear the program to which Senator Scott refers and, in the terms of the question, I am unaware of the various statements which are implicit in it. Senator Walters —You sound like Morgan Ryan. Come on. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters did say: 'Come on'. I am vastly encouraged by that. Without reading the purported statements made by Mr Wran I would not like to comment on them. I do regard as unfortunate any debate conducted across 12, 000 miles of ocean about events taking place in the Senate. I use the word ' unfortunate' again in that context. I would like to examine the particular remarks. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment report on the progress of Australia's bid to host the 1988 South Pacific Arts Festival? As a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders have already indicated their strong support for undertaking primary responsibility for this prestigious festival, can the Minister outline the membership of the Australian delegation attending the 1984 South Pacific Arts Festival in Noumea between 8 and 22 December, when this decision will be taken? Senator RYAN —I will have to refer that matter to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I am sorry that I do not have a brief on it. I believe that steps have been taken along the lines that Senator Reynolds's question suggests, but I will have to get details of it for her. Senator ARCHER —Does the Attorney-General endorse the statement of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge this morning when it described Mr Lionel Bowen's attack yesterday as 'mistaken in its suggestion that evidence had been improperly let in and that the Committee had been reckless in failing to protect the fair trial of a person in New South Wales'? Does he agree with the Committee that Mr Bowen failed to understand the 'elementary fact that the making of allegations by way of admissible evidence is the way in which any judicial trial proceeds'? Will he now advise his senior colleague about the elementary principles of legal proceedings? Senator GARETH EVANS —That question does have a degree of fascination, coming as it does from Senator Archer who I am sure would not appreciate the distinction between admissible and inadmissible evidence if he fell over it. Senator Grimes —He knows all about houses though. Senator GARETH EVANS —No doubt he may have had some experience in the courts in that respect. I am not in a position, not having either heard the whole of the proceedings down there or read any of the transcripts, to make any judgments about what the Committee has been doing in relation to its treatment of evidence on the grounds of inadmissibility or otherwise, and as such I am not in a position to make any independent judgment as to the competing merits of the statement made by Senator Tate this morning or, on that particular issue, some of the comments made by Mr Bowen. All I can say is that, with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I have complete confidence in the Chairman and members of the Committee to act in accordance with the principles by which the Committee was set up. Similarly I have confidence in the capacity of the Commissioners assisting the Committee to advise it of the legal issues involved in the treatment of evidence. I believe under those circumstances the Committee should be allowed simply to get on with the job, even though I am one of those many people who have strongly argued that the Committee should never have been set up, or at least should not have been set up other than as a last resort, since other much more appropriate means were available for determining the kinds of issues with which that Senate Committee is now confronted. There are larger issues which are a matter for legitimate debate, but I have nothing further to add on the particular question I was asked. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to Senator Coleman's question yesterday regarding allegations by the honourable member for Forrest, Mr Drummond, that pensions paid to dependants of war disability pensioners were threatened and that the Veterans Entitlements Bill was being delayed until after the election in order to incorporate unpopular changes in it. The Minister, in his answer, denied that this was the case. I ask him: When is the Bill expected to be introduced and why has it been delayed? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that yesterday I responded to a question from Senator Coleman of Western Australia regarding a statement by Mr Drummond, the honourable member for Forrest, published in the Collie Mail, when I indicated that there was absolutely no truth in the allegations that the Government intended to abolish dependants' pensions for the wives and children of war disability pensioners and that the Government had some ulterior motive for not introducing the Veterans Entitlements Bill in this session of the Parliament. I think Mr Drummond alleged that, because there were unpopular proposals in the legislation, the Government was being rather reticent and cunning in not bringing it before the Parliament. The Veterans Entitlements Bill has not been introduced because of the brevity of this parliamentary session. We have actually run out of time. During most of this year, since the report of the committee of review, there have been extensive consultations with the ex-service community. The finalisation of the decision-making process within government has created a time lag, and the review of the Repatriation Act and associated Acts since 1920 has required a great deal of consideration by me as the responsible Minister and by the Cabinet. The Veterans Entitlements Bill is actually before Cabinet. But the dissolution of the Parliament will stall a number of pieces of legislation, including the Veterans Entitlements Bill. In no way is that delay because of any of the contents of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to update, modernise and rationalise all the relevant pieces of legislation and a major degree of agreement has been reached with the veterans community. It is a matter of personal regret that consideration of the Bill by the Cabinet was not able to be completed and, not having been agreed to by Cabinet, has not been introduced in the House of Representatives. It is a money Bill and that is the place where it would be introduced. As I did with respect to other Bills dealing with the determining system, I give credit to Senator Messner and the previous Government for initiating the review. None of the delay that has occurred with respect to the Veterans Entitlements Bill is the fault of the Government. I assure the Senate, and Senator Giles and Senator Coleman, that the Bill will obviously be presented now in the autumn session. The good will that exists between the Government and the veterans community will be continued in the consultative processes in the meantime. Senator HAMER —I refer the Attorney-General to the suggestion by the Deputy Prime Minister that the Senate should wind up the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and let justice in New South Wales take its course. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the course of justice in New South Wales is free of corruption and political influence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not satisfied that any system of justice anywhere in the world is totally free of corruption. As to political influence, that is something about which I am not in a position to judge. All police forces and all systems of justice around the world do their best to cope with the realities of the world which they inhabit. Some environments are more difficult than others. But I do not in any way accept the force of the allegations made against the Government and system in New South Wales, based as those allegations are far more often than not on smear, innuendo, half-truths and very often outright lies rather than hard evidence of the kind that can produce convictions in court, and as such I do not think there is any substance in the innuendo which underlies the honourable senator's question. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review in which the new permanent head of the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, is reported to have said that the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has proved more durable and worked better than most commentators had predicted and has contributed substantially to the moderation of labour costs and industrial disputation? Can the Minister indicate whether he agrees with Mr Fraser's observations? Senator Chaney —It is all right for Secretaries to the Treasury to make speeches if they agree with you, is it? Senator WALSH —Certainly, so far as the Treasury Secretary's observations and comments go, there is absolutely no question that his observations are correct about what has happened over the last 12 months or so, in particular because of the contribution of the prices and incomes accord to the massive decline in industrial disputation over the last 18 months compared with the preceding period, figures on which were given yesterday by Senator Button. However, the Treasury Secretary was commenting only on what has happened so far and did not speculate or comment about what was about to happen in the future. I believe that the major benefits of the prices and incomes accord are yet to come-major benefits in the form of the continuing downward trend of the consumer price index in 1984-85 and the fact that, because of the prices and income accord, the Medicare policy and the cementing of an agreement with the ACTU through the tax cuts in the 1984 Budget, there will be no increase in award wages between autumn 1984 and autumn 1985. Therefore, because there was no increase in award wages over that 12-month period, the downward trend in the inflation rate should continue at least into 1985-86 as well as prevail throughout this year. A major contributor to that fortunate outcome and prospect is, of course, the Medicare policy and the agreement with the ACTU not to pursue, through wage indexation, compensation for the effect that that had on the consumer price index. It has established a new and lower threshold of inflation. One type of policy change could upset and reverse the achievements of the last 18 months and that is if a taxation change were to have perverse effects on the consumer price index in the opposite way to the changes caused by the Medicare effect and, in particular, if a massive increase in indirect taxation in the order of $4 billion, as suggested at the weekend by the Centre of Policy Studies and endorsed by the discredited former Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, were to be introduced without any prior agreement or arrangement with the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the ACTU on the discounting of such CPI increases induced by a shift from direct to indirect taxation. Such a policy would clearly add around six percentage points to the consumer price index and, through the wage indexation system, establish a new and higher level of inflation. It would, of course, be quite catastrophic to proceed in the way that the Centre of Policy Studies has suggested, a suggestion which was uncritically endorsed by Mr Howard and presumably the rest of the Liberal Party. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that until recently the front cover of Australian passports carried the Australian crest, the words 'Australia' and 'Passport' and the image of a crown? Is it a fact that Australian passports currently being issued no longer have an image of the crown? Why did the Government decide to change the passport cover format? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is always a pleasure to hear a politician on the wave length of the community she purports to represent. I am sure that the good burghers of the Gold Coast will be fascinated to learn that their candidate regards this as the kind of measure to justify concern in the national Parliament. It is a measure of just how little there is to be concerned about in the way the country is presently being governed. I have no idea whatsoever what the present cover of passports might look like. I will find out from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has much more recent experience than I of that situation, and give the honourable senator advice accordingly. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows, in its own way, an answer given by Senator Walsh to a question from Senator Sibraa a moment ago. Is the Minister aware that the Business Council of Australia, when commenting on the Australian tax structure, has pointed to a general loss of faith in the system? Does the Minister share the view of the BCA? In view of repeated suggestions that the Government proposes to conduct a review and reform of taxation in this country in its next term, will the Minister indicate what is intended? If there is to be a review, what would be the major elements of it? Senator BUTTON —The Business Council of Australia has published some documents on the taxation system and has certainly made the comment that there does appear to be a general loss of faith in the system. If that is a correct conclusion I imagine that it is a conclusion which has been arrived at over the experience of a number of years when there undoubtedly has been declining faith in the taxation system at least in certain circles within the community. Senator Cook asked me about the likelihood of change and the direction of change in any review of the taxation system which might be conducted by the Government. The first point I would like to make about that is that any such changes would need wide discussion, careful consideration and a degree of broad community consideration. The Economic Planning Advisory Council has already given consideration to some of these issues. I believe its consideration has stimulated discussion on these matters in bodies such as the Business Council of Australia. The Government, as distinct from the Opposition, does have a positive attitude towards taxation reform. I think we are all well aware of the previous Government's record on taxation matters, particularly its failure to act against tax avoidance resulting in massive tax inequities. Senator Messner —That is not what the Commissioner of Taxation said today. Senator BUTTON —I am asked to say what the Commissioner of Taxation said. In his 1984 report he stated: The boom of the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes of the kind experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s was a thing of the past. Senator Chaney —Because of our action. Senator BUTTON —It was as a result of action taken by people such as Senator Durack who, for five years, left a prosecution sitting in the bottom drawer of his desk. That is the sort of action to which the interjection refers. Senator Chaney —Absolute rubbish! Untrue. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says: 'Absolute rubbish'. It was not absolute rubbish. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is well known to everybody in the Senate that what was just said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate is totally inaccurate. I think that the comment should be withdrawn and that the Leader of the Government should resume answering the question on a factual basis. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —I will not withdraw my statement, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —The Chair has not asked you to withdraw it. Senator BUTTON —Since this Government was elected the Opposition has continued to frustrate the Government's efforts to remove tax avoidance and recover tax avoided by bottom of the harbour schemes. Because of these things, amongst others, there is widespread community concern and desire for an overhaul of the Australian taxation system. The Business Council of Australia, to which Senator Cook referred in his question, put out a paper earlier this week which lends support for an overall review of the tax system. That paper also supported a capital gains tax in the context of an overall review of the system. Senator Watson —Have a look at the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation which was presented to the Parliament yesterday. Senator BUTTON —I am not interested in what the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation said when I am dealing with what the Business Council of Australia said. The next person to whom I wanted to refer who referred to capital gains taxes-that was what I was dealing with when Senator Watson interjected-was Mr Howard, the apparent next leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. He has indicated that he is not fundamentally opposed to capital gains taxes within a properly structured and reformed tax system. Even the Liberal Party economic committee, which has been silent on most matters in the last 18 months, stated that it would have to 'look at capital gains tax'. The Government has moved in the Budget context to provide tax relief for low and middle income earners and will continue in its efforts to produce a fairer tax system. As I have said, consultation will be a key part of that process. On the need to encourage public debate about equity in the taxation system in Australia the Opposition has been strangely silent. If the Opposition's promises are to be honoured there will have to be some very hefty increases in taxation but we wait still for the Opposition's taxation policy. All that has been done by the Opposition over the last 18 months in relation to taxation issues is to raise bogeys and scares about things such as a capital gains tax. No responsible debate about the taxation system can take place in this country unless those issues are publicly aired and aired in places such as the Parliament. They must be aired in the context of a constructive contribution to the discussion. The whole of this Opposition's policy on taxation matters over the last 18 months, and indeed on economic matters generally, is well summarised in this adaption of the words of A. A. Milne: 'Hush! hush! Whisper who dares! Andrew Peacock is saying his prayers'. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery on my left of former Senator Jim Toohey, a distinguished, long- serving senator from South Australia. To former Senator Toohey and Mrs Toohey, who is accompanying him, I extend a warm and friendly welcome to them upon their return to Canberra. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In one sense, it follows the question that was recently answered by Senator Walsh with regard to the prices and incomes accord, but my question takes the accord into the future and not into its past. Does the Government have any advice on the effect that the prices and incomes accord would have on employment next year if it remained in its present form? As the effect of the Medicare adjustment will be excised from the calculations of the consumer price index, is it acknowledged that full CPI adjustment together with any productivity gains decisions and non- wage bargaining such as superannuation payments would institutionalise unacceptably high levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment? Has the Government given any serious consideration to these matters and has the Government any advice on its views with regard to the future of the accord and its structure? Senator BUTTON —I think that it would be well known that the future of the prices and incomes accord will be negotiated-I am not quite sure when, but I think that it will be next year-and in that process of negotiation many of the issues which have been raised by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will have to be discussed. But I should have thought that it was also known by most people that neither the Government nor the unions have yet determined an attitude to the question of a productivity case next year, which is one of the factors that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me to take into account in answering this question. Looking into the medium and longer term future, the most essential point is to attain a system in this country under which we are able to agree on prices and incomes matters. If we are not able to maintain an agreement on those issues, there is very dire peril for the economy as a whole. Concerning the ingredients and constituents of that agreement, I concede that many of the issues to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred in her question are matters which have to be taken properly into account, but it is not possible at this stage to say, as I have indicated in relation to the productivity case and in relation to other matters, what weight can be given to each of those particular matters that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has mentioned. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a statement by Senator Teague in the Adelaide Press that the social security inspectors will enter people's homes to assess personal assets when the assets test is introduced? Will the Minister explain to the Senate and the people of Australia the facts? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the statement issued in South Australia by Senator Teague in which he used the tactic which is frequently being used by honourable senators opposite in saying that officers of the Department of Social Security will be entering people's homes to determine what assets they have in those homes. The simple and straightforward answer to that is that Senator Teague's statement is a complete and utter lie, and he knows it. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator cannot use that terminology, as he knows, and I ask him to withdraw that word. Senator GRIMES —I would question that, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. To put it almost equally as simply, the statement issued by Senator Teague is completely untrue. There is no truth in it at all. Senator Teague is practising the technique used in the 1940s by a person of similar political persuasion, the technique of the big lie. When one repeats a lie often enough he hopes that the community will believe it. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President. Senator GRIMES —That was a bit slow. Senator Chaney —The Minister is quite right when he says that I am slow, Mr President, because insults are not against the Standing Orders, and the question is whether one simply draws attention to disorderly behaviour and accentuates it by taking a point of order. But the implication of what was being said by the honourable senator is quite clear, and I would seek a withdrawal. The fact is that the honourable senator is addressing a matter which is within his portfolio responsibilities. He is trying to put over the point that the Government will be imposing an assets test with absolutely no machinery for enforcement. He is seeking to make a political point that there will be no machinery for enforcement, and-- Senator Elstob —On a point of order, Mr President. Senator Chaney —I am on my feet on a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now going beyond the bounds of taking a point of order. Senator Chaney —I agree, Mr President. I think that my point of order is clear, and I would seek-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the Minister for Social Security to withdraw the use of the word 'lie' in relation to a member of this Senate. Senator GRIMES —Yes, Mr President; I will certainly withdraw that. Senator Chaney —I am sorry, Mr President, but the accusation was that Senator Teague was behaving in a way similar to a political party in the 1940s with the big lie, and so on. The implication is clear, and I suggest-- The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the statement that Senator Grimes has made is not in relation to any specific party. Senator Chaney —With respect, Mr President, I do not wish to canvass your ruling , but the remarks directly related to Senator Teague, and I believe that they were offensive. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the Minister to withdraw the word 'lie' in respect of Senator Teague. I understand that he has done that. I do not regard the other matters that have been mentioned by Senator Grimes to date, at this stage as being out of order. Senator Missen —On a further point of order, Mr President. It is perfectly clear that there is an allegation that Senator Teague, my colleague, is a nazi. There was talk about the party of Goebbels, who practised the big lie, to anyone's general knowledge. To suggest that is to make a highly offensive remark about any democrat in this country. To make that suggestion is far more offensive than accusing someone with the other word which has been used and which is unparliamentary, whereas its equivalent is parliamentary. That is part of the nonsense of this place. Nonetheless, to say of a member of this chamber who is a well known democrat that he is of a party that takes the same view as Goebbels and the Nazi Party is a perfectly offensive thing and a worse offensive thing than what has been withdrawn. I ask that it be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind the honourable senator that, whilst he used certain descriptive words, they were not used by Senator Grimes, and it is not for the Chair to draw inferences from those remarks. However, I ask the Minister for Social Security to be circumspect in his remarks in respect of any honourable senator. Senator GRIMES —If it brings peace to this place, Mr President, I will withdraw any inference that Senator Missen may have drawn from my innocent remarks. Senator Walters —One thing is that you are never innocent. Senator GRIMES —Coming from such a worldly-wise woman, that is praise indeed. In case honourable senators have forgotten, the question asked whether my attention had been drawn to statements in the Adelaide Press that Senator Teague had said that social security inspectors were to enter people's homes. I have said that that is completely untrue. As Senator Missen said, Senator Teague is a responsible member of this Parliament and a democrat. I also remember that in his maiden speech Senator Teague made great play of the fact he was a Christian. I find it extraordinary that someone who claims to be a Christian could repeat a statement of that type, with the obvious intention of worrying elderly people in particular in this community. I think that the most sensible thing for me to do is to repeat what I said before: The statement is untrue. There is no power under the Social Security Act, under the assets test legislation, for inspectors to enter people's homes in the way that Senator Teague implied. I hope that members of the community will recognise statements such as this from Senator Teague and others for what they are. Senator Teague —On a point of order, Mr President: I thank the Minister for the publicity that he gives to my opposition to the assets test, but I in no way implied that the social security officers will knock on every door- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Teague, I would ask you to state your point of order. Senator Teague —My point of order is that the Minister does not deny that in certain circumstances members of the Department of Social Security will visit citizens in the community. I ask him to clarify that. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. It concerns the ongoing problem of the downgrading of Australian Broadcasting Corporation services for the Townsville and Rockhampton regions. I ask the Minister whether he recalls a statement made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hawke, prior to the last Federal election, which was only 19 months ago, when, in elaborating on Australian Labor Party policies for north Queensland, he said: . . . North Queensland is far from the major urban centres of population, and there is a tremendous importance in giving particular attention to communications, transport and roads. The ABC-the national broadcasting service- has a staff to service this vast area which is smaller than the staff of the national broadcasting commission in Launceston, Tasmania. . . . a Labor Government will make a grant of $250,000 to immediately start on the upgrading of its services to North Queensland. That was stated 19 months ago. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am just on the point of doing so, Mr President. In view of that election promise, will the Minister please comment on whether or when this sum of $250,000 is to be made available to the ABC for the upgrading of communication facilities for north Queensland? Senator BUTTON —I certainly recall the words of the Prime Minister to which Senator Bjelke-Petersen referred. They have made a vivid impression on my mind because I wrote them myself. Senator Peter Rae —So, it was you having a go at northern Tasmania as well? We will remember both of you. Senator BUTTON —No, as I understand it, northern Tasmania was spoken of with favour in the statement. Insofar as the amount which Senator Bjelke-Petersen alleges has not been appropriated is concerned, I will direct that part of her question to the Minister for Communications and provide her with an early answer . Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to a Press report last week in the Brisbane Daily Sun of an unidentified flying object terrorising people in the Cunnamulla area of outback Queensland? It was not the National Party. Is he aware that a number of Cunnamulla women who were playing golf at the time were startled by a loud explosion and the sight of what appeared to be a delta-winged aircraft in the distance, a view that was confirmed by 25 trail bike riders? There was a further report of great vapour clouds and violent shaking homesteads. Will the Minister indicate whether the Royal Australian Air Force was operating any delta-winged aircraft in the Cunnamulla area at the time or whether similar reported sightings of UFOs in that area have been received? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Defence has been advised that there were no delta-winged RAAF aircraft in the Cunnamulla area at the time and that there have been no reports to the RAAF of such a sighting. The only suggestion of which the Minister for Defence is aware is that it may have been Beryl flying off course. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to her statement during the matter of public importance on land rights legislation on Monday, 8 October, when, referring to Western Australian legislation, she said: We have undertaken to work with the Burke Government so that those principles can be incorporated. As the Burke Government does not agree with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, that Aboriginal people should have the power of veto over mining on Aboriginal land, is this a principle that the Federal Government will now not pursue? As there appears to be general agreement between the Western Australian Government and Northern Territory Government in regard to the framework of land rights legislation, will the Federal Government then amend the Northern Territory (Aboriginal Land Rights) Act in regard to public reserves and stock route reserves, et cetera, now claimable in the Northern Territory? Senator RYAN —Senator Kilgariff's question refers to the intention of the Western Australian Burke Government and the Hawke Government to co-operate in the development of Western Australian State legislation for Aboriginal land rights. I quote from the joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Western Australian Premier issued on 5 October after they met to discuss how this could be brought about: The Federal and State Governments will work together to ensure that common principles are adopted in the formulation of land rights legislation. It is far too early to pre-empt the outcome of that legislation drafting process . It is the belief of our Government that it will be possible to incorporate principles such as a measure of Aboriginal control over their own land into the State legislation. The assertion by Senator Kilgariff that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, would be insisting on veto, or some such assertion that he made, is not right. Mr Holding has not been referring to veto. He has been referring to the desire of Aboriginal people to control their own land, to have some say in what should happen should there be mining on that land . Of course, an overwhelming preoccupation of the Aboriginal people is to be able to protect sacred sites from damage caused by mining. We believe and we hope that it will be possible for those principles to be incorporated in the State legislation. For that reason we are working with the State Government in drafting that legislation. When the legislation is drafted it will be possible for Senator Kilgariff or any other honourable senator to ask further questions about it. I do not believe that there is any current intention to amend the Northern Territory legislation, although I understand that its operation is under some sort of review. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to an article in the Australian Municipal Journal dealing with worker-owned and worker-controlled business. Is the Minister aware of the benefits to be gained by the establishment of worker co-operatives in the area of job generation? Does the Minister know that in the United States of America during the last decade about 5,000 employee ownership plans have been established with about three million participants? Will the Government look at ways to encourage this development in Australia so that the Australian Labor Party's excellent record of job creation can be sustained in the years to come? Senator BUTTON —Senator Foreman was kind enough to indicate to me that he was going to ask this question. I have referred to the article which Senator Foreman mentioned. On the basis of that article I make the comment that some local employment initiatives, including worker co-operatives, have the potential to provide a valuable economic and social response to the needs and aspirations of many unemployed people. Senator Foreman, in his question, identified particularly the question of international experience. I add to what was implied in his question that these experiments have been successful not only in the United States but also, for example in the Basque area of Spain, where some 17, 000 people are employed in worker co-operatives. Similar initiatives have now taken place in the United Kingdom and Canada as well as other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is monitoring these initiatives through participation in the local employment initiatives program of the OECD. The issue of Federal Government assistance to a range of initiatives such as worker co-operatives and other forms of less conventionally organised small enterprises has been under active consideration by a number of government departments within the wider context of local employment initiatives. However, before the Government determines any specific program of assistance further public discussion and consultation will need to take place with State governments and other interested parties. In particular the development of further initiatives requires detailed consideration by the Government of the various legal, financial, social and administrative aspects involved. That is an ongoing process. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and follows his recent response on the question of the assets test. I ask the Minister: In this pre-election atmosphere is he asserting that under no circumstances will valuations put on assets by pensioners be queried, and is he asserting that under no circumstances will Department of Social Security officers or tax officials enter homes for purposes related to the valuation of assets? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the second part of Senator Chaney's question is yes . Officials will not be entering people's homes under any circumstances. The only circumstance in which they could enter anyone's home would be if they were invited by that person, and I cannot imagine many people doing that. The first part of Senator Chaney's question was whether the assessment of assets by all pensioners would be accepted. The answer to that is no. The Government believes that the vast majority of pensioners in this country are absolutely honest and therefore in the vast majority of cases their assessments will be accepted. In the vast majority of cases the assessment of the assets that Senator Chaney is talking about will be of no effect at all. I think Senator Chaney knows, just as everybody else knows, that the vast majority of pensioners in this country do not have enough assets to get anywhere near being affected by the assets test. If someone lives in a suburb such as Vaucluse or Toorak in a house worth $750, 000 and says that the other assets come to a value of only $2,000-to use a ridiculous case- of course we might question that. However, we will question it only in those circumstances in which there is reason to question it. Senator Chaney and his colleagues when in government did not believe that the vast majority of pensioners in this country are honest. They based the administration of the Social Security Act on that. If we assume that the vast majority of people in this country, be they pensioners or anybody else, are dishonest we get ourselves into great difficulty and tie ourselves in great knots with our administrative structures. I suggest that that is what has happened in the past. That is why we are trying a new tack, as other countries have done. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment that there may well be cases where there will be a non-acceptance of the valuation of assets. As a supplementary question I ask the Minister: What procedures will be followed by the Department to determine any dispute where the valuation is not accepted? Senator GRIMES —The first thing that will happen will be that the Department will question the valuation. The pensioner may then have another look at that valuation. Secondly, an independent valuation, at the cost of the Department-at the cost of the Government-can be obtained by the person involved. Thirdly, as Senator Chaney knows, we have appeals structures in the social security system now unlike that which existed before 1976 when the assets test was previously removed. Any pensioner dissatisfied with what has happened can then use those appeal and review structures which we have and have had for some time. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday I answered a question from Senator Childs relating to the vetting of the Casey diaries. In the light of a further article on this subject in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, I wish briefly to supplement the answer I gave yesterday. The Sydney Morning Herald this morning said: . . . part of Senator Evans' statement yesterday still appears to be at odds with official documents available to The Herald. Later in the article the terms of the official document in question were repeated. The circumstances which led me to answer as I did yesterday in this respect are as follows: There is, I understand, a minute in existence from a deputy secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Minister which states: It is estimated that processing this material will take from six to 12 months and it is proposed that during this period Dr Hudson will survey it . . . on behalf of the Department. In this matter, he has been asked by the Directors- General of ASIS and ASIO to act also on their behalf. As to the reference to a request by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to act on its behalf, I am advised that this does not actually reflect what really happened. On the information available to me the sequence of events-which has been checked with the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in particular, with its historian, Dr Hudson-is as follows: First, the Deputy Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, which is of course within the Department of Foreign Affairs, spoke to the Director-General of Security in ASIO and suggested that ASIO should consider examining Lord Casey 's papers, including the diaries; secondly, in response to that, an officer from ASIO discussed the matter with Dr Hudson, who suggested that as he was going through the diaries looking for material of relevance to the Department of Foreign Affairs he would be prepared to flag material of interest to ASIO; thirdly, ASIO accepted that offer. So it is the case-I stand by the statement to that effect-that ASIO did not in any way seek to initiate the vetting of the diaries as far as its interests were concerned. I repeat what I said yesterday that as a result of that vetting which did occur no material of any kind has been removed at the request of ASIO. I hope that clarifies the matter further for the public record. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented in remarks that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) made during Question Time today. Certainly he is not misrepresenting me in saying that I am totally and resolutely opposed to the assets test. However, he alleged that reports of remarks that I had made in South Australia were contrary to the announcement he made today. I have never claimed-it would be wrong to claim-that as a normal course every pensioner in Australia would have a departmental officer, from the Department of Social Security or any other department, intrude into his or her home. I was protesting about two things. One was that as I genuinely understood the situation-until the assurances freshly given by the Minister here today in the Senate-in the case of any disputed valuation there would be a knock on the door and a visit by a representative of the Department of Social Security to an age pensioner. The other circumstance I had in mind was that there would be random checks of pensioners by way of a departmental officer knocking on the door. Those are the two circumstances that I had in mind in my references to that. I acknowledge now to the Minister that I have heard for the first time in the Minister's unequivocal statement that in no circumstances will a departmental officer ever knock on the door of an age pensioner. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now debating the matter and going beyond the point of a personal explanation. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, in concluding my remarks I maintain that I have been bona fide in my remarks in opposition to the assets test. I take the Minister's total and unequivocal assurance as a fresh statement not only to the Senate today but also to the public of Australia. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is exceeding the terms of a personal explanation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —The Minister may proceed. Senator GRIMES —Senator Teague in his remarks said that today for the first time I had made a statement saying that pensioners' homes would not be entered in the application of the assets test, nor would there be knocks on pensioners' doors. Repeatedly in Question Time and during debate on the assets test in this place I have pointed out that there is no power under the Social Security Act for officers of the Department of Social Security to enter people's homes in the assessment of the value of these assets. I have said that repeatedly-- Senator Teague —Knocking on their doors. Senator GRIMES —I have said repeatedly that they will not be knocking on anyone' s doors. If Senator Teague says that we should accept his bona fides in making that statement publicly, which he knew damn well would frighten pensioners, that he made that statement in all honesty and in a genuine sense of I do not know what, some time I would like to hear any evidence he has to make such a statement. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The wrong direction Labor is taking Australia. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. 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) —The Opposition is bringing forward this matter of public importance for discussion in the context of it being a little over 18 months after the election of the Hawke Government and a little over 18 months since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made the promise of no early election. Now, of course, we have it from Mr Hawke' s mouth at last, officially, that we are having an election-an unnecessary and early election. There is no mystery about why the Government is proposing to have this early election against its promise of a year and a half ago. It sees the time for an election as being right for it now-not right for Australia but right for the Government. That view of why it is right for Mr Hawke to have an election for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party is based on a lift in the economy which has occurred over the last 18 months. We in the Opposition welcome that lift; we understand it and think that it is good for Australia. But it is very important to remember why the economy has lifted and to put this debate into that context also. I do not want to have any lengthy debate on the immediate state of the economy. There are many other issues I wish to canvass, but in doing so it would be improper of me not to at least provide some economic environment. I agree that there has been a lift in the economy. I turn to one of the Government's Ministers, Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Finance, for the explanation for that lift. Mr Dawkins said, not very long ago: . . . the Hawke Government came into office at the bottom of a recession riding on the coat tails of the previous Government's wages pause initiative and at a time when the rural sector was about to swing into a boom year. I would respectfully adopt that view of the Minister for Finance. From our point of view the election was held at the worst possible time, at the bottom of a recession, with the breaking of the drought and other factors that were beyond the previous Government's control, and particularly the wage pause that was put in place by the Fraser Government, having given the present Government the opportunity to be in office during a time of increased economic activity. It is important to know what the effect of that lift in activity was on the current Budget. It gave the Government a total of $9,000m of extra revenue. That is a very substantial lift and took the revenue raised by this Government to a record proportion of the gross domestic product. It provided the Government with an opportunity to do something for the long term economic health of Australia. The Opposition says that is an opportunity which the Government has squandered. I do not wish to go into detail on that, but I shall quote some non-political observers on the position Labor has taken us to in its recent Budget. I would like to quote from a couple of recent editions of a magazine called Syntec which is a service on money and the economy, and a very respected observer on the economy. One finds in the September edition of that magazine the following statement: The Australian economy is enjoying the unusual and welcome combination of strong growth, rising employment, falling inflation and healthy corporate profits. I say, by way of interpolation, that the Opposition welcomes any improvement in the economy. A little later on the same page the article goes on to say: Labor's 1984-85 Budget raises doubts about its ability to determine the capacity of the second Hawke Government to carry this combination into 1985-86. A little later on the same page the magazine predicts that if the Government is to act responsibly it must quickly rein in the growing structural component in the Federal Budget, which will mean an autumn 1985 package of fiscal measures. Put in the sort of language we use here, the magazine is saying that the Government has brought down a Budget that will require it to produce a mini- Budget next year to put the economy into some sort of order. Syntec repeats that prediction in its publication issued on 1 October: The first step to re-building Australia's business investment base should be supplementary Budget measures next Autumn to cut the structural Budget deficit. The Opposition is concerned about these matters of what the Labor Party is doing to the economy. Another impartial or non-political observer, the Westpac Banking Corporation, in a review which has been circulated recently, dated September 1984, makes the point that the Government is running great risks for Australia in its Budget. After pointing out that the Budget contained no major surprises, the article goes on to say: A closer reading of the budget documents, however, makes it clear that 'no surprises' is not synonymous with 'no risks'. Indeed, the risks associated with this year's budget, especially in terms of upward pressure on interest rates, escalate next financial year. During Question Time a number of Ministers expressed great faith in the accord. Westpac, in that same document, under the heading 'The Costs of the Accord', points out: Despite the apparent innocuousness of the budget strategy, its overtones of short term expediency are disturbing. The article states a little later: Moreover, the Government seems to be prepared to risk all in order to keep the accord intact. A little later the article continues: . . . the accord may well yield some of these benefits. But substantial modifications are required if all are to be realised. As it stands, the accord is all about keeping happy the 91 per cent of the labour force which has jobs. It does nothing to alleviate unemployment by, for example, allowing scope to change wage relativities. Finally, I wish to quote the bulletin of the Business Council of Australia which , in a publication released in August 1984, said that business returns are still in a parlous state. I mention those matters as a prelude to my comments on the wrong direction in which Australia is being taken by this Government. I think that it is commonly felt throughout the electorate at the moment that we have had an economic improvement and that things are looking pretty good. What I wish to point out is that the economic improvement effected by the Government has arisen largely because of factors which are beyond its control. It has, however, presented the Government with a golden opportunity to do something for the permanent benefit of Australia. It is clear from the outside economic commentaries that are being made that that opportunity has been largely squandered. Put simply, the Government has had a surge of extra money into its pocket because of the recovery. Instead of using that money to put Australia into better order, it has simply spent it to buy comfort and votes in the short term and, as a result, the longer term prospects are being put at risk by the Hawke Government's actions. I wish to mention one other feature of the approach that has been a matter of discussion in this chamber over the last days. We welcome the fact that the labour force in Australia has responded and reduced the level of industrial disputation, but I would point out that, notwithstanding the reduction in the gross level of industrial disputes over the last year or so, there is a warning in the figures which were released for July 1984. Those figures show that the number of working days lost in July 1984 was an increase over recent low levels and presents the highest monthly level since May 1983. Obviously there are some warning signs for the Government even in that area, where again it has been expressing great satisfaction. Today, the concerns I want to express on behalf of the Opposition are about the general directions that the Government is setting both for Australia generally and for Australian society. The Government is setting wrong directions in so many areas. The Government is, in my view, against many of the values which Australians hold important. I know that today there was reference in a rather disparaging way to the fact that one of my colleagues identified himself as a Christian. I think that there would be great upset on the Government's benches if we went around identifying members of the Government as being atheists, agnostics or whatever. I cannot see the relevance of that. I thought the faintly sneering quality displayed was a straw in the wind. The particular matters I wish to address relate to the way in which the Government is apparently against thrift and saving; the way it is quite clearly against personal responsibility; the way it is against the idea that people ought to be able to retain their own income for their own disposal; the way the Government is careless of youth unemployment, and the way the Government is against the individual compared with its great concern for big unions and big companies. I would say that the Government is against, or at best wishy-washy about, our national symbols, it is against the effective fight against organised crime and it is lukewarm about our defence. That is a considerable list of things that the Government is against. I have 10 minutes in which to touch on them. I wish to explain my argument that this Government is against thrift and against people saving and providing for themselves by saying in a compendious way that it is clear that the Government is putting the incentives in the wrong direction. The Government is signalling to the Australian people that it is against self- help and self-provision. We see this in the assets test which, at very great administrative cost, attacks those who have saved for their old age. We see it in the response to lump sum superannuation. Self-provision through lump sums is one of the few avenues available during a time of inflation for people who do not have access to indexed superannuation on the Public Service model. The attack on lump sums is an attack on self-provision and thrift. We see it most clearly in this list of tax changes which this Government has introduced. When we lost office when Mr Hawke became Prime Minister there were tax incentives for people who were purchasing their own homes, people who were insuring their health and people who were seeking to invest in Australia and had modest investments in Australian companies. We find that the Government has made tax changes not just to lump sum superannuation and not just to the assets component of social security; it has removed the tax incentives which existed for those who were purchasing their own homes through the mortgage rebate, the tax rebate for health insurance has gone and the investment income rebate which prevented the double taxation of dividends has gone. Australia's savers, Australia's self- providers, have all been attacked by these changes. We see that the Government is against personal responsibility on the part of Australians in their actions in so many fields. In Medicare we find the Government telling Australians, for example, that they are not legally entitled to insure themselves against 100 per cent of their health costs. That is now illegal in Australia. We find the Government attacking the doctor-patient relationship, fostering the idea that doctors should get their returns through bulk billing direct from the Government. I believe that, in a community which has been well served by the medical profession in general, in a community in which access to health care has been available to almost every Australian, we have seen a high quality of care because the doctor-patient relationship has been maintained. We go to doctors not because they are giving us grace and favoured treatment but as their professional clients entitled to seek their services, to pay for them and to cover our costs by insurance. All of that is being struck down and fought against by this Government with its pressure for bulk billing and its desire to reduce all doctors to bureaucrats and to remove the doctor-patient relationship in its traditional sense. We see it in the Government's wish to limit the expansion of private schools. Private schools in Australia are not the preserve of the wealthy. The great bulk of private schools in this country are Catholic schools of the sort which I went to and schools which cater for the whole income range of the population. They are not the preserve of the rich and the wealthy. I believe that the evident desire of this Minister to restrict their growth is the clearest possible indication of the general attitude towards personal responsibility which this Government has assumed. One very nice straw in the wind about this Government's attitude to personal responsibility is that when I was Minister for Social Security I restored what Mr Whitlam had removed, namely, the requirement that if somebody was thrown on to the Department of Social Security for support as a result of having been left by his or her spouse, the law required that some reasonable attempt be made to recover maintenance from the departed spouse, the person who was not providing support. Mr Whitlam removed that provision. We put it back on the basis that people who desert their spouses should have an equal responsibility with the taxpayer to support the supporting spouse, and the present Government immediately removed it. The simple fact is that we can see from a range of activities of this Government that it does not wish to foster personal responsibility. It wishes to foster responsibility being a matter for the state and ultimately that will do great damage to our community. As far as disposable income is concerned, this Government is clearly against people retaining control of their own incomes. In the recent Budget we found the Government taking a higher proportion of what this country produces in taxation than ever before. It is going into a campaign on the basis that it is providing tax cuts when its own figures show that individual pay as you earn taxpayers will on average pay more this year than they paid last year. There will be a continued increase in the amount paid per pay as you earn taxpayer this year. Last year the average per pay as you earn taxpayer was a little over $78 a week. This year on the Government's own Budget figures, after taking into account the increased number of taxpayers and everything else, the average pay as you earn taxpayer will be $87 a week. So much for a government which claims in this Budget to be cutting taxes. The key thing is that this Government has maintained at the highest point of our history the take which it is making through the tax system from the Australian people. This Government is also careless of the greatest social problem which this country faces, youth unemployment. It is true that unemployment has reduced over the last 18 months to a modest extent, but the relationship between youth unemployment and the general rate of unemployment has worsened. Again, I have time for only a few figures. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that the unemployment position for young people is worse now than it was at the time of the commencement of the Labor Government. On a seasonally adjusted basis , the proportion of young people, from 15 to 19-years-old, looking for a full time job to all people looking for a full time job is higher now than it was in March 1983. In March 1983, 27.4 per cent of 15 to 19 year olds were looking for a full time job. In August 1984, 25 per cent were looking for a full time job, but that was in the context of a lower unemployment rate generally. Under this Government the position of the young unemployed has worsened when compared to the position of the unemployed generally. Again, time does not permit a careful and a complete analysis of this situation . But the real issues in this area have not been faced by this Government. It has buried the report which was commissioned by the Fraser Government on this issue, the report of the Bureau of Labour Market Research; it has failed to face up to the fact that youth unemployment is substantially contributed to by our rigid system of wage fixation; it has not opened up the lines of inquiry that are required in this area; and it has done nothing to improve the relative position of young Australians who are unemployed. I think that is one of the major condemnations that can be made of the Government. It has also failed to show that it is interested in the position of individual Australians as against the interests of trade unions and even of big business. We find that comment being made not just by politicians who might be regarded as having a partisan view but by observers such as Maximilian Walsh who, as recently as last Monday, in an article wrote as follows: . . . industrial policy as now outlined in the party platform-- he was referring to the Australian Labor Party platform- was virtually written by the industrial movement. The key union involved here is the left-wing Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights' Union. He went on to say, in talking of the accord: . . . adherence to the letter of the accord is plainly absurd in economic terms . He went on to say: If the existing industrial movement gains the sort of policy input in this area which it is attempting to do then the spectre of state corporatism really begins to take on substance. Such corporatism where big government, big business and big unions combine to protect what they perceive as the comfort of the status quo was a feature of Mussolini's Italy and Peron's Argentina-both, incidentally charismatic regimes. In other words, it is an economic system which has profound social implications. Put simply again, this Government is prepared to co-operate with big trade unions, to involve them in the preparation of its Budget and to hand to them major decision making. It is not prepared to consider the interests of individual Australians and in particular it is not prepared to consider the interests of the unemployed and the long term unemployed. We see its kowtowing to the union in its attempts to repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, one of the few effective mechanisms that was made available to employers to resist unreasonable trade union behaviour. The last thing which I have a chance to mention is the question of national symbols. The Government, without reference to the Australian people, made changes to our national anthem. It has made changes which show that it is seeking to send Australia off in a different direction. I suppose the simplest example is the cassettes which we, as politicians, made available to our constituent organisations when they wanted Australia's national symbol, the flag , the national anthem, the portrait of the Queen and so on. Those symbols have been altered. We do not find God Save the Queen, but the old national song on both sides of the cassette. Senator Martin will be speaking and has had a lot to say in the chamber recently on this matter. The fact of the matter is that most Australians would believe that Labor is taking us in the wrong directions here as elsewhere. Honourable senators will note the way the Government has had to turn to support the Bill introduced by Senator Durack to protect the present Australian flag. I believe that Australia has become what it is by Australians being encouraged to look after themselves, to be self-reliant and to seek to improve themselves. Under this Government we are moving in the opposite direction. The Government will take away our self-reliance, our independence and the desire to improve ourselves. I believe it will leave us a much sorrier country. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.32) —I hope that rather dreary dirge from Senator Chaney is not a preliminary policy speech because if it is we are in for one of the dullest campaigns in history. It is interesting that this matter of public importance of such an unspecific nature has come up because it is rather typical of the shotgun approach of members of the Liberal Party of Australia. At the moment they are struggling to actually come in on any particular issue and therefore try to hit 10 or 12. They always say: 'Unfortunately time prevents us from exploring these particular matters'. This matter of public importance is about the wrong direction Labor is taking Australia. I think any rational debate on this particular subject would require us to have a look at the direction in which we are going. In spite of Senator Chaney's obvious reluctance to discuss the economy, I would like to mention some of the facts that have gone on in the last 20 months. First of all, I draw the Senate's attention to what members of the Australian public at least think about it. In the most recent Age poll they were asked the question: 'Which party is better able to manage the economy'? They did not reply 'The one that is lucky' as Senator Chaney would say. He would say: 'It is all luck'. The result was: A total of 54 per cent believe that the Australian Labor Party is the best economic manager and only 25 per cent believe that the Liberal Party is the best economic manager. One might ask why. Let us look at some of the highlights of employment over the last 20 months. In the last 20 months 250,000 new jobs have been created. I do not say that the Government always takes the credit for every job that is created, but 150,000 fewer are unemployed now than in early 1983 and we have a 4 per cent positive annual growth rate in employment compared with a negative rate under the Liberal Party. When we move to the second great economic indicator of inflation, we have halved inflation in this country while we have been in office, that is even if we leave apart the adjustments made for the introduction of Medicare. We are in a position whereby by halving inflation our international competitiveness has improved and all sections of the community have benefited. At the moment we happen to have the fastest rate of economic growth in the Western world, at over 6 per cent. That again is of benefit to the Australian community. On the vexed question of interest rates, we have managed to reduce interest rates to about 11 per cent. They got up to almost 17 per cent under the previous Government. By reducing interest rates this, in turn, has increased private investment. There have been increases in the building area and increased retail sales. As well as that, we have managed-when this chamber has permitted in its limited way-to attack tax evasion and tax avoidance. At the moment consumer and business confidence is high. All that is not a matter of regret for members of the Opposition. They were in an awkward position. They are really barracking for two sides. I am sure in their heart of hearts they would like the economy to improve because they have the best interests of Australia at heart. On the other hand, their own political fortunes are directly related to the economy. If the economy turns sour, they do well. If the economy does well, they tend to do badly. So they are caught betwixt and between. This Government took the plunge and inflated the Australian dollar and no one on the opposite side is critical about that any more. It has taken all the speculation out and the country is far better off for it. Where necessary, we have deregulated parts of the banking industry and that, again, has proved very successful. We have been able to bring about substantial tax cuts for the lower and middle income earners and we restructured the tax scales. This year we have even managed to reduce the deficit which was brought about last year predominantly by the previous Liberal government. So in the area of the economy this Government has performed well. Senator Chaney says: 'It is luck. That is all it is'. It is more than that. We have managed to bring about those gains and retain them. One of the reasons we have been able to retain those sorts of economic aims is because of our industrial relations policy. I would just like to correct something. Senator Chaney comes in here and says that the Labor Party 's industrial relations policy is in fact drawn up and foisted on us by the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union which, in turn, proves we are really going to become Peronists. The fact is that I happen to be the national convenor of the policy committee that wrote our industrial policy. Senator Chaney —No, industry policy. Senator ROBERT RAY —The honourable senator said 'industrial policy'. Unfortunately there are no members of the metal workers union on that committee. If one wants to go to the industry committee-that is the committee which drew up the policy-there are no members of the metal workers union on that particular committee either. So much for the honourable senator's assertions there. On the question of industrial relations, there is no doubt that the prices and incomes accord has been successful. There is no point in achieving indexed wages and reduced inflation if, in turn, all those gains will be dissipated by industrial lawlessness. It is a fact that, once averaged out, we have had the lowest rate of industrial disputation for something like 15 years. Senator Chaney said that July was a bad month. I accept that, but that is one month out of 12 months and we do not really know where the trend is going, but the previous month, June, was one of the lowest we have ever had. So the rate of industrial disputation has been heading down and the country has benefited by it. This Government has taken this country in the direction of a whole range of things. We have had industrial reconstruction, there has been close attention to the steel industry and a car reconstruction plan. In our 20 months in office we have managed to bring about the most substantial electoral reform since the early 1900s. We have been able to set new areas and new gains in the social welfare area and we have been able to introduce equal opportunity and sex discrimination legislation. We have been able to bring about all those reforms in just 20 months. That is the direction we have taken this country. We have to ask: What direction will the Liberals take us? We remember the years of misery, despair and economic malaise that existed from 1975 to 1983. We really have to remind the electorate of the misery of those particular years when unemployment sky-rocketed, interest rates went through the roof and we continually had double digit inflation. Australia should not return to those sorts of years. I think I have a rough idea of the sort of direction that Senator Chaney and the Liberal Party would like to take us down. What they yearn for is the return to conservative hegemony in Government in this country. No longer do we have the patronage of conservative governments, no longer do we tolerate the born to rule mentality. Senator Chaney comes in here and infers that we are going down the Peronist path. I would hate to imagine the path that Malcolm Fraser would have eventually taken us down if he had survived in 1983. In the last year in office in 1983 the previous Government had a 3 per cent decline in employment. Is that the road, is that the direction Opposition senators want the Government to go down? The previous Government had almost 11 per cent unemployment at the start of 1983. Is that where we have gone wrong? Is that the direction we should be taking, the direction of the last Fraser Government? In the financial year 1981- 82 we had an inflation rate of 10.4 per cent. Did we take the wrong direction when we started reducing that inflation rate? In 1982-83 we had an 11.5 per cent inflation rate. Did we go wrong? Did we take Australia in the wrong direction by reducing that by half? Of course we did not. Senator Chaney and the Liberal Party come in here today and say that the Labor Party, for all sorts of ephemeral reasons, is taking this country in the wrong direction. In what direction would the Liberals take us? Apart from talking about a return to traditional standards, standards that one can never define usually, apart from that sort of waffle, in what direction would members of the Liberal Party take us? They cannot tell us because they basically do not have any policies. The reason why members of the Liberal Party have not any policies is that they are not used to opposition. I am not very sympathetic to that point of view. Honourable senators opposite are not used to being in opposition and they are not used to working out how to come back into government. They are used to winning and they are used to governing in this country. They have not applied themselves in the last 20 months towards developing policies that they can put to the electorate to try to convince the electorate that they deserve a second chance, even given the failure of the previous seven years of Liberal government . Their problems do not stop only at policy; their problems stop at leadership. They have difficulty at the moment in wondering what their future direction is, whether they have been taken in the right direction. In recent weeks they have tried to whip up all sorts of issues and they all seem to have died. The popularity of the leader of the Liberal Party is down to 22 per cent. When a leader's popularity drops below 40 per cent we always regard that as going into the basement. I would hate to think what 22 per cent means. I cannot think up a term for it. But that is a fairly serious thing for honourable senators opposite . What they are really facing, going into this next election, is that the person who is making policy on the run will have a popularity rating in the order of 22 per cent. I wish to go to some of the more specific points raised by Senator Chaney. His first complaint was that the Australian Labor Party is going to an early election. He very conveniently ignored the fact that seven prior early elections were called, for which the Liberal Party of Australia was responsible. Let me quickly take honourable senators through those elections. He complained that this Government was going to an early election. In 1951 the then Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, had no hesitation at all in taking this country to an early election. Honourable senators might ask: 'Why did we go to an early election?' Primarily because Sir Robert Menzies then wanted to get control of the Senate, so we had a double dissolution for that purpose. The next early election was in 1955, again called by Sir Robert Menzies. The intention there was to maximise the political position of the conservative parties, having narrowly avoided defeat in 1954, and capitalise on a Labor Party split that occurred in 1955. The next early election came in 1963, again one year before it was necessary and again for politically expedient reasons. The Liberal Menzies Government was almost defeated in 1961. It saw an improving economic climate and it saw one or two foreign affairs issues that it could exploit, so we had another early election brought about by the Liberal Party-the same Liberal Party of which honourable senators opposite are the heirs. The next early election occurred, if I am right, in 1974, again caused by the Liberal Party blocking Supply in this chamber. So we had another early election. The next early election was in 1975, again as a result of the Liberal Party blocking Supply. Not one honourable senator opposite complained about those early elections. Can any honourable senator on that side say that he or she complained about any of those early elections that I have mentioned? I see Senator Chaney nod. Senator Chaney —It is true; yes, I did. Senator ROBERT RAY —Unfortunately I never noted that but I will accept the honourable senator's word. Maybe we do have one person opposite who complained about those early elections. In 1977 we had another early election. The main reason for that early election, apart from that of political expediency, was to bring the election of the two chambers into line; a very similar reason for this current election and very similar motives, I have no doubt, to those leading to the 1977 election. But, to my knowledge, no one on the other side of the chamber complained about an early election. Finally, in 1983, for the seventh time in just on 32 years, another early election was called. But this one, unlike all the others, proved to be the all-time disaster. We could not have had worse timing for that early election. The drought broke about a month later and, if anything, the international economic situation was on the improve. Allied with good government that brought about today's position. It is no use Senator Chaney coming into this chamber and complaining about an early election at this time. I have said here once before that, having to put up with seven early elections being foisted on us by the Liberal Party, just once in history we are allowed the opportunity, in my view, to be lucky and to go to an election that may occur in a favourable environment. The real reason why the Liberals are so distraught at an early election is that the Labor Party will cream them at the upcoming polls. We will be returned, I think, with a similar or a better majority in the House of Representatives and a relative position will at least be maintained in this chamber. What that means for those opposite is another three years in opposition. That is something that they really are not looking forward to. The second major point made by Senator Chaney related to how the economy was going. He said that he did not want a detailed debate on the economy. How many detailed debates on the economy have we had in this chamber in the last 20 months? Very few. We have had more debates on videos, flags, the assets test and all the basic irrelevancies than on the main issues that affect all Australians. We virtually do not have those sorts of debates in this place. I can understand why, when the opportunity presents itself to the Opposition to initiate those sorts of debates, it does not. It is not our responsibility to initiate economic debates; it is the responsibility of the Opposition. Senator Chaney then went on to say that this Government was not encouraging thrift and savings. He did not really explore that so I must say that I am finding it rather difficult to grasp what he meant. He went on to say that this Government does not believe in personal responsibility. That is not true. What we do not believe in is personal irresponsibility. We do not believe in leaving the citizens of this country unprotected. He talked about the Labor Party as being in some way against individuals and for corporations. I think that is a fairly outrageous statement, given the history of previous Liberal governments in this country. They are always good at espousing the rights of individuals until they decide to introduce conscription and have them killed overseas. Then individualism means nothing. Anyone who protests against that sort of individualism can be gaoled. So much for the views of those opposite on individualism. As I have said, this matter of public importance amounts to a dress rehearsal for a policy speech. If it is, from one point of view I welcome it. If that is the best the Opposition can do I will have a very relaxing election campaign in the next seven weeks. But it also worries me that, if that is the best the Opposition can do, this Government, when it is re-elected in December, cannot look forward to the Opposition it deserves. No matter what honourable senators opposite say, the worst thing for government in this country is to have a weak and inept Opposition. That is what I think we are tending to have at the moment and we have tended to have in the last 20 months. It looks as though we will have a rerun of that situation in the next three years. It is not good for the country. On occasions when the Labor Party has been depleted in ranks and ability it has also failed to make a proper contribution for the future of this country by providing an inept and incompetent Opposition. We have done it; I admit that. It has occurred historically. When it has the country has been worse off for it. This matter of public importance and the nature in which it has been approached today demonstrates to me that we are in a similar situation. I know it is very patronising for anyone on the Government side to tell the Opposition to lift its game. But if that has to be done in a patronising way so be it. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.48) —Far from this debate being a dress rehearsal for a policy speech, it was an attempt by the Opposition to express concern at national direction and an attempt to get the Government to state what that direction is. Senator Chaney, in opening the debate for the Opposition, pointed out that this Government is anti-thrift, anti-personal responsibility, anti- individual choice and anti-established national symbols and heritage and has a poor situation on defence. The strictures of time in relation to matters of public importance are such that we can never take the time that we would like over issues. I say at this stage that, whilst I will have to cut short some of the areas I would like to talk about in the 15 minutes available to me, I hope that the speaker after me will not make the same fatuous statements as Senator Robert Ray did about Senator Chaney. Senator Ray, of course, had the right to move that the Senate give Senator Chaney an extension of time to speak longer. If the Senate so moves I would be delighted to take advantage of that. Contrary to what Senator Ray just suggested, Senator Chaney was not completely negative in relation to government economic policies; he gave great credit where it was due. However, he did point out some of the areas of direction, long term implications versus short term implications, which are the issues that we want to talk about today. It is very easy, in a short period in government, to trot out a number of seemingly attractive policies. But the difficulty with this Government is that it has never stated a coherent philosophical objective for Australia. We get plenty of propaganda, plenty of hype and plenty of smiling faces on the right social occasions. We have tried on numerous occasions in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to get the Government to state its position in relation to-- Senator Cook —Plenty of jobs; reduced inflation; plenty of growth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! I believe the previous speaker was heard in almost absolute silence and the same courtesy should be extended to Senator Martin. Senator MARTIN —I did not hear what Senator Cook said. I deliberately did not try to hear it because time is short and I do not intend to have his speech, which will come later, as part of my speech recorded in Hansard as an interjection. The simple fact is that the Government has taken short term expediency measures-we know that it is in trouble within its own ranks to some extent for those reasons-but nowhere do we get the actual direction spelt out. There was a complaint during Senator Ray's speech that he was unaware of what we were talking about in reference to this being an anti-thrift government. He said that he found it difficult to understand what Senator Chaney was saying there because he did not say much. Senator Chaney referred to such things as the assets test and the superannuation tax. When we do have debates on those subjects all we hear from the other side are complaints that we are having debates on those subjects yet again. Senator Ray apparently has not listened to any of those debates, or read any of them. I suggest that the next time we debate those subjects he be here. Very simply, the Opposition is saying that now, after 18 months in government, directions are clear. Short term gains are also clear, but the long term implications of those gains are serious. We are concerned that the direction in which this Government is taking us is wrong and that the long term implications for the economy, for individuals, for our way of life and for the things basic to our society will be changed in a way that is not to the benefit of this nation. The issues include the rights of individuals as against the corporate state. Just a few months ago when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, pointed out that this Government had a confluence of big government, big unions and big business, the features of a fascist system, people laughed heartily, particularly supporters of the Government. Now we hear echoes of that comment from political commentators concerned about the disadvantaged, the voiceless under this system. I am sure that it is very cosy for the Government to have big business so close to it and so willing to please it on occasions, but it is of no benefit at all to the small entrepreneurs, the individuals who provide the dynamism in the society, or to the employed person who, in the term of his working life, seeks either to save or invest in a way he believes to be prudent. The disadvantages and disincentives to thrift are very clear. The assets test is a penalty for having assets. The superannuation tax is a penalty for trying to get together a sum which can be invested. The implications of that are long term . The Government gets away with that one basically because the short term effect is very minor, but the long term structural effect on our economy and on people' s options is very profound indeed. In the future without a doubt we will have death duties, gift taxes and wealth taxes. That is not a bogey. We already have a form of death duties in a particular area of application of the assets test. We have a gift tax, for pensioners only admittedly at this stage. I would like Senator Ray to indicate where a gift tax which is applicable only to age pensioners fits into this Government's social welfare philosophy. Many Government speakers, including present front benchers, are on the record recently as saying that they believe a wealth tax should be introduced. The very use of the term 'wealth tax' is an indication of the philosophy of this Government. Wealth equals assets, of course . It does not mean wealth in terms of 'rich'; it means just having something. We are some distance down the track, and that is what Senator Chaney meant when he talked about disincentives to thrift and disincentives for individuals to take responsibility for their future. In fact, not only are there disincentives; there are also positive prohibitions in some areas. The Government prohibits private gap insurance in an attempt to pressure people away from private insurance. It has also made prohibitive the cost of private health insurance. Senator Ryan intervened when Senator Chaney referred to private schools. In fact there is a reduction of choice because the Government now takes on itself the right of approval of new non-government schools and says that they will be only in developing areas. In my State of Queensland in the last year or two there have been new non-government schools where non-government schools did not previously exist, but not in what one would call developing areas-those areas have taken some time to get together the necessary capital. Now that is going to be subject to government fiat. The Government is against choice in relation to health insurance and in relation to education. In the short term it has been pressured out of its anti-non-government school policies of last year. Without a doubt it is hostile to the private education system simply because it has the potential to show up the shortcomings of the government system on occasions. People have been voting with their feet when given a reasonable choice, and people go to where they have a reasonable choice in the cost of education in independent schools and a reasonable choice in the cost of health insurance. The individual is penalised by tax and is left out of this corporate state structure . Senator Chaney referred to the national symbols. We have raised this in debate quite a few times, to the great boredom and annoyance of members of the Government. Today I asked a question in relation to the removal of the crown from the cover of the passport, a simple question. Senator Gareth Evans in his typically sneering way attributed to me the motive that I now was trying to win a rich and conservative electorate. That shows how superficial this Government is. The Gold Coast has the highest youth unemployment rate in Australia with one in three teenagers on the dole. That is an issue. Maybe they do not care about the crown on the passport. That was not a question I was asking for their benefit. Senator Peter Baume —They do not like the question. Senator MARTIN —The Government did not like the question, as Senator Baume said, so it dodged it. Certain things are part of our culture and our tradition. There is a saying: 'If something works, don't fix it'. The funny thing about the monarchy and the Australian system is that it works. It is not easy to explain to people from different cultures and other countries why Australians like the monarchy. Because of the denigration and the attitudes shown by members of the Government, I can only say that none of them could have seen the closing ceremony of the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane in 1982 when nothing short of total adulation was shown to the Queen and Prince Philip. It was not sycophantic ; it was spontaneous. Australians like that system and they like a lot of things that go with it. What they do not like is a government that does these things: Moves towards changes in the flag and only under extreme pressure will say that it will take any notice of something like a referendum; takes away God Save The Queen as a vice regal anthem, in other words, denies in the presence of a Governor and a Governor-General that the same courtesies are due to them as are due to the monarchy; and announces a new national anthem without any prior indication of consultation. There are those who have been in touch with both the previous Government and this Government on the subject of the national anthem for years since the 1977 referendum. All of that was on record, but the Government consulted not at all. In making the decision in relation to Advance Australia Fair it was also able to make the decision that God Save The Queen would become only the royal anthem. It has taken away from the cassettes we hand out the tune God Save The Queen-no announcement; nothing at all. As I have said, it has removed the crown from the front of the passport, which had a symbolic significance. All those things which the Government refuses to add up disturb people. They say: 'What is it doing? In what direction is it taking us? What is its objective?'. Never once in all those debates and in response to all those questions that they yawn and laugh about here have members of the Government given the answers to those questions. Today we have not had an answer on the subject of direction, as laid down by Senator Chaney. The point I would like to finish on is one that Senator Chaney finished on, because it is a disturbing one. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has had an image of being a right winger in the area of foreign affairs. That was not the image of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. Despite some nervousness on the part of some people when this Government came to power it appeared that Mr Hawke 's directions would have the upper hand. Either Mr Hawke is losing or he has lost interest because recent directions are very disturbing indeed. We are all aware of the great concern in this country at the implications, following the election of a Labour Government in New Zealand, for the ANZUS alliance. People in Australia may not be very vocal on the subject of the ANZUS alliance, day to day, but that is because, rather like the monarchy, it is something they take for granted as being very basic. This Government's attitude to the New Zealand Government's policy has been to leave Washington and Wellington to work out between themselves their differences over nuclear visits in the hope that the present ANZUS Treaty can be saved. Nothing specific has been done and certainly no alternative, if that hope proves to be a false one, is being pursued or acted on. The Government has said nothing to lead Australian public opinion on this issue. It is essential that the Government direct its mind to more positive leadership on this issue. But in fact we have a directionless situation where Mr Hayden can be critical of the United States when he visits the United Nations and do nothing in relation to an alliance which could well break, not because of Australia or the United States but because of the third party, and allow the Western Australian branch of the Labor Party, a left wing branch, to determine how the new Labor policy on United States naval visits will be applied. This is direction; this is leadership! Senator Cook —Tell me about that. Senator MARTIN —It may well be that Senator Cook has the answer. The point is that there should not be any branch of any political party determining policy on anything as fundamental as that. What direction does the Government want to take this country in in relation to individual responsibility and its own national responsibilities? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.03) — I rise to oppose this matter of public importance raised this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney , that Labor is taking Australia in the wrong direction. This is the most pathetic matter of public importance I have seen in my 18 months in this Parliament. It is an absolute nonsense and shows the sheer desperation of the Opposition in the lead-up to the coming election. It is very clear to observers what is happening in Australia at the moment. The Opposition is very isolated in the community. It is out of step with the people. It is very clear from the soundings that have been taken in the media in the last week or so that the people do not wish to go in the direction in which the Opposition wants to go. I think one of the factors behind that is that there is a recognition in the community that the Opposition has shifted far to the conservative right on the political spectrum. One of the reasons for that is the relatively larger number of National Party of Australia members in the coalition caucus since the last election. I think that they have imposed a more conservative position on the Opposition which is becoming more and more out of step with urbanised Australia. In any case the people of Australia had enough of the direction of the Liberal Party of Australia in the eight-year period up to 1983. I remind honourable senators of some of the aspects of that direction which occurred in the eight years leading up to 1983. There were fewer jobs in Australia. In the last 12 months of the Fraser-Howard Government almost 190,000 jobs were destroyed. In addition, over a quarter of a million Australians lost their jobs in the last 12 months of the Fraser-Howard Government. We found, on coming to office last year, that inflation in Australia was running at over 11 per cent. Housing interest rates were at record levels-13.5 per cent, a rise of four percentage points under the Fraser-Howard Government. That Government was so uncertain about its direction that in a period of five years it introduced four different health schemes. There were record small business bankruptcies under the Fraser-Howard Government. There was a divided Australia with confrontation on most issues and, worst of all, lower living standards. Those are the sorts of directions in which the previous Administration took this country. It was a direction which led to a dead end; it was a direction which led up a no-through street. It dashed the hopes and expectations of many Australians and it was made clear by the people early last year that they did not want to travel any further in the direction of the Fraser-Howard Government. No wonder the people firmly rejected the Liberals in March last year. They said: 'We have had enough. It is time for a change'. The essential point is that Australia now has positive direction. It knows where it is going at last. That is the difference between this Administration and the previous Administration. It is very clear that the people strongly endorse the new direction that Australia is taking and that direction, I am pleased to say, involves facing up to the real issues, not the phoney issues drummed up by the Opposition. Not even the phoney issues are looking good for the Opposition at the moment, when one looks at the opinion sounding yesterday in the Melbourne Age. It was pointed out that there was no clear advantage for the Opposition in respect of the organised crime issue that is being drummed up. People clearly believe that the government of the day is no worse at fighting organised crime than the Opposition would be. I believe the Opposition would do much better to work on formulating some real policies rather than try to dream up these phoney issues. The important function of an opposition in our society is to be the alternative government, to present alternative policies to the electorate. I am sad to say that the present Opposition is falling down very badly in that duty. Of course the real issues known to the Australian people at the moment are jobs , jobs and more jobs, lower unemployment, lower inflation, lower interest rates, the restructuring of taxation, the level of small business bankruptcies and fewer industrial disputes. They are just a basket of real issues that I put before the Senate this afternoon. I think it is a real tribute to the Hawke Government, a real tribute to the Labor Government, that the Opposition does not really want to debate these sorts of issues. It does not really want to place the bread and butter issues of the day firmly on the political agenda. Obviously the Opposition does not do so because it knows that there is nothing in it for it. The opinion poll in the metropolitan dailies of this morning, I think, again indicates why the Opposition does not want to debate the real issues in this country. Look at the poll this morning on economic issues. The Age published a poll which suggested that 54 per cent of the electorate saw the ALP as a better economic manager. A mere 25 per cent of the people who responded in that survey believed that the Liberal Party would make a better economic manager. That is a majority of more than 2 to 1 in favour of the present Government. I was heartened by the breakdown showing the response by businessmen and professional people who, by a margin of 49 per cent to 30 per cent, said that the Labor Party was a better economic manager than the Opposition could be. I think that they are some of the factors that have to be noted when we look at the context of this sort of matter of public importance this afternoon which focuses on the phoney issues of the day and not the real bread and butter issues facing the Australian people. This Labor Government is taking Australia in the direction of consensus and co- operation, not confrontation. It is working for a united Australia, not a divided Australia as we saw under the Fraser-Howard Government. It is working for a situation in which Australians are working together and not against each other and, importantly, it has set in train policies for an expanded economy with growth and better utilisation of our resources. It is also working for policies which provide for greater equity and fairness in the community. It is reapplying the ability to pay principle in taxation which I think is long overdue in this country. Let us look at some of the results of those policies and strategies in operation. As a result of co-operation in the labour market rather than confrontation, working days lost through industrial disputes are at low levels. Business, trade unions and professional groups are all working together under the prices and incomes accord. That accord has provided the most important benefit to the people-an expanding economy with low inflationary pressures. It has resulted in 10 per cent real economic growth in the 12 months to the June quarter 1984-the highest in the world and the highest in this country for a quarter of a century. There are more jobs in Australia. There are more people at work in both the private and the public sectors of the economy. I respond to Senator Chaney and Senator Martin by pointing out that the most important way of encouraging thrift and saving is to ensure that most people have jobs. It is almost irrelevant to talk of other factors which affect the level of saving. The most important single determinant of how much people can save is their level of income. I am pleased to say that there are many more thousands of people at work in Australia now and, therefore, able to save than there were when this Government came to office. In the first 12 months of the Hawke Government, 190,000 extra Australians had jobs in the private and public sectors. That is to be compared with a reduction of a similar magnitude in the last 12 months of the Fraser- Howard Government. There was a reduction of 32,000 in the number of unemployed people in the first 12 months of the Hawke Government. Compare that with the rise of over 250,000, which I mentioned earlier, in the last 12 months of the previous Administration. Another factor which encourages thrift and saving is the inflation rate. We are now presiding over a situation in which inflation and the rise in the consumer price index are less than 7 per cent a year. When we took office the inflation rate was 11 1/2 per cent. That reduction in the inflation rate will have a large effect on thrift and saving, which I understand the Liberal Party professes to be so keen to promote. Housing loan interest rates have come down under this Government-another way in which households are able to have more disposable income and more ability to save. Interest rates on home mortgages have been reduced from 13 1/2 per cent early last year to 11 1/2 per cent now. The taxation structure has been re-scheduled under this Government. We have introduced the new 25c in the dollar tax rate on lower incomes. From 1 November that will increase the disposable incomes of lower and middle income families. The Government has been cracking down on tax dodgers to provide more revenue and the ability to restructure the tax burden later. The direction in which we want to take Australia is one of ensuring that our income tax is no longer a voluntary tax for the rich, as it was under the previous Government. Under the present Government, as a result of the direction in which we are taking Australia, we have seen a sharp reduction in the level of bankruptcies. In answer to a question in this chamber recently, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) pointed out that in the last financial year there was a 5 per cent reduction nationally in the level of bankruptcies. I recall Senator Martin saying that she wanted to see the dynamism of small business left unfettered. Good heavens! How can she say that when under the Government that she supported business bankruptcies were at record levels? Small businesses went to the wall at the fastest rate in recorded history in Australia, so how can she talk about the dynamism of small business? Under the present Government, the number of bankruptcies has been reduced. Apart from an expanding economy, that is the most important factor that will allow the dynamism of that sector to continue and to grow. As a result of the direction of its policies, this Government has provided for more equity in education by making more resources available to the poorest schools. It has focused social security benefits on the neediest members of the community. I instance sole parent families, pensioners with children, and families renting accommodation in the private market. A continuation of those directions will be good news for Australians. The contrast with the performance of the previous Government is stark. The contrast with what we understand of the present Opposition's policies is stark. Going in the direction that we are led to believe the Liberals would take us would be like going on a journey into unknown territory without maps; a journey with few signposts to lead the way- those signposts being a lack of policies on the part of what should be the alternative government. Most importantly, following the directions that the Liberals would have us follow would be just going on a broken journey, because there will be a change of driver soon. It is no wonder that the Liberals cannot take the people with them in drumming up these phoney issues. It is no wonder that the Liberals and the National Party are so isolated, and it is no wonder that they are doomed to failure on 1 December. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.16) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance, namely: 'The wrong direction Labor is taking Australia'. The subject which has been raised is valid and important. It is an important subject in this pre-election period, an important matter for the pre-election consideration of every Australian voter. Honourable senators are indebted to my Leader, Senator Chaney, for bringing this matter up and for the clear way in which he presented the arguments setting out some of the wrong ways in which the Australian Labor Party has led Australia already. The consequences of the last 18 months are very considerable in terms of lost opportunity, blighted hopes and economic stagnation for many Australians. I want to spend my time identifying some of the wrong directions which were the subject of Senator Chaney's concern, not all of which he could discuss in the time available to him. The first issue is one which Senator Maguire brought to our attention a few moments ago, the first wrong direction. I refer to the inability, perhaps, and/ or the failure of the Labor Party either to appreciate the extent of corruption in Australian society or to understand the threat that it poses to the operation of a free and orderly society, or to want to do anything about it. The threat exists to an entire society. As a senator for New South Wales, I have been particularly concerned by the increasingly revealed extent of corruption within the State Government, corruption within the State instrumentalities, and the reluctance of this Federal Government to want to have any part of doing anything about it or of knowing about it. It is true that a lot of concern rests properly at the door of the President of the Australian Labor Party, who happens to be the Premier of my State. Many of the matters relate to him and to the Government he leads. They are matters that we might want to raise properly in detail at some other time. However, I remind the Senate that it was he who assured us a few years ago, when he promoted a police commissioner out of order, that he was promoting the best man. I remind honourable senators that it was only after the public outcry was raised and became so great that Mr Allen was retired in disgrace. It was Mr Wran who assured us that the then Chief Stipendiary Magistrate was above suspicion and was being unfairly pursued. Because a court case is pending, I shall do no more than say that that matter has gone further and that Mr Farquhar will have his day in court. Mr Wran defended Mr Rex Jackson, one of his Ministers, a Labor member of parliament, against accusations that were brought out with the greatest of difficulty until he was forced, against his will, to submit some of those accusations to public examination. When the evidence of that became too powerful , that Minister had to resign his commission, and that Minister, too, will have his day in court. But here in Canberra we have seen the evidence of the whole Age tapes matter brought before us. One would have thought that a government seeking to lead the nation would have made it its business immediately to want to get to the bottom of the serious matters raised in those Age tapes. But the approach of the Hawke Government was to try to seek out and to punish those who made the tapes and do as little as it possibly could about any of the allegations contained in them or even to recognise that the matters raised within those tapes went to the administration of justice and proper government in this country. As Senator Chaney has said, the whole handling of this matter by the Hawke Government is, indeed, a wrong direction. The Government resisted taking any action to investigate what was in those tapes. Senator Maguire raised the matter of corruption. It was only when the Senate determined not to be stood over by the charismatic Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or by his Executive Government, when the Senate decided to stand up to them and decided that certain matters would be put to public examination, that these matters started to be revealed. I must say that a certain group of newspapers also made it their business to ensure that the material was presented. There is more to come. There is more investigation to be done and more information to be laid before the Australian people. I hope that this Government will realise that the only proper direction for it to take in relation to all these issues as they affect corruption and public administration is for it to be in the forefront of wanting to see something done about investigating the content of the matters and for it not to have to be dragged screaming all the way. For the Government now to be supporting Mr Wran when he has the temerity to say that a judicial figure in New South Wales may have his career suffer because of evidence he has given before a Senate inquiry is just outrageous. It is almost as outrageous as this Government's inability to deal with the recurrent indiscretions of the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, one of its own Ministers. It has been necessary to drag this Government screaming along the course which the Senate has determined and is pursuing to ensure that the people of Australia have these important matters brought before them. But that is only one of the wrong directions. I mentioned corruption first because Senator Maguire thought it was a good matter to raise. But what about the prices and income accord on which the Government has built so much of its policy and its public presentation, that cosy arrangement between those who have , which has been conducted at the expense of those who have not? That cosy arrangement has shared up the resources available between those who have jobs at the expense of the disadvantaged, the jobless and the poor. I think the phrase has been used already today that in the accord we see the emergence of corporatism with the accommodation of powerful interests, one with the other, where individuals and individuals' needs are ignored. The accord has institutionalised unemployment. It has institutionalised a lack of opportunity. It has institutionalised the blighted hopes and lives of many Australians. It has institutionalised lost opportunity. Honourable senators may recall that of the options put before the accord no option was put which would have meant more jobs or some hope of ending unemployment. No such option was put forward. Option D never appeared. There was no option which would have taken some hard choices. If honourable senators think the accord has been a good thing , as do some honourable senators, they would want to be aware of what the Westpac Banking Corporation had to say in its September 1984 Review which looks at the Budget and at the way in which the accord has locked people into undesirable directions. The Westpac Banking Corporation in Review said: In its present form, the accord may well yield some of these benefits. But substantial modifications are required if all are to be realised. As it stands, the accord is all the about keeping happy the 91 per cent of the labour force which has jobs. It does nothing to alleviate unemployment by, for example, allowing scope to change wage relativities. Centralised wage indexation is the core of the accord. It is a system which virtually institutionalises unacceptably high rates of unemployment among the group which has suffered most, those between the ages of 15 and 19, one-quarter of whom do not have a job. The review goes on to explain why employers are reluctant to take such people on . This is the accord that has formed the centrepiece of Labor's presentation to the Australian people over the last 18 months. It has institutionalised the unemployment of youth. It has institutionalised the jobs of those who are lucky enough to have them at the expense of those who do not. As we say, the accord has been an accommodation of powerful unions, corporations and governments. It has represented a great loss of opportunity and hope for so many people. The third wrong direction which Labor has taken is in the whole area of economic management. Under Mr Hawke we have seen Labor become the highest spending government in history. There has been more expenditure of assets that we do not have. Because of the expenditure of assets we do not have we have seen a greater debt than we have ever had previously. This debt is a mortgage on the future of our children, a debt which they will have to repay in their lifetimes. It has been an unnecessary profligacy of this country's assets. This Government has also imposed more taxes. It is the highest taxing government in the history of Australia. While it has appeared to give some kind of tax cuts, in fact, because of rising wage rates, the average taxpayer is now in the 46c in the dollar tax bracket or very close to it. As I think Senator Chaney has told the Senate already, the average taxpayer now pays $87 per week in tax, every week. This is a high spending, high debt, high taxing government which has been trying to pay off vested interests across the country with the losers being those who are not able to compete with the powerful unions or other powerful interests. We have seen so many things fall by the wayside. We have seen a poorer defence capacity. We have seen the ANZUS treaty put under threat, partly by our neighbours, with this Government reacting inadequately to try to protect us. We have seen the assets test with its new tax on gifts and capital if those gifts are given by pensioners and if that capital is owned by them. We have seen the education efforts of this Government. Today we have had the Australian Teachers Federation here in the Parliament trying to bring this Government to account for promises which it made to Australian public education and to teachers before the election and which it has shown no intention of redeeming whatsoever. One of the directions the Government has taken is to show remarkable disregard for its promises and obligations. We have seen trade failures so that we can no longer sell our beef. We have seen promises of new steel sales which never transpired or proved to be a reality. We have seen Australia's pathetic efforts in relation to Kampuchea and North Vietnam. We have seen a failure to support the United States in positions of sensitivity which it has taken. We have seen this Government totally unable to find ways to maintain even the research expenditure of our own national research institutions. During a recent Estimates Committee hearing we heard officer after officer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation tell of the way they were treated in the last Budget which provided an inadequate sum for them to carry on their work of researching in the national interest. We have seen a manufacturing sector which is contracting, not expanding. We have seen a mining sector which is also contracting and not expanding. We have seen an agricultural sector which in this coming year will start to contract and whose export activities, particularly, will be affected adversely. We have seen a Government which in the Australian Capital Territory has been prepared to oversee a gross interference with the rights of students. I refer to the Government's acceptance of a decision last year to mark up all girls in the Australian Capital Territory in the Year 12 examination on the basis of their gender. What kind of fairer society is this? Quite recently we have seen new suggestions that the Higher School Certificate marks should be fiddled to take account of disadvantage. Equal opportunity is one thing, equal numbers are quite another. We think this Government has to get some of its priorities right there. More important than the political advantage of the moment is the kind of Australia that we will have in 10 years or 15 years time; the kind of Australia that my children, who are now growing up, will be able to inherit. What we look for in the policies of this Government, or any government, is some hope for the future. We see very little to be proud of in what the Hawke Government has done. We see a very smart, skilful and slick trading-off of interests for immediate political advantage. What worries us is that this will not be the kind of advantage that will help the nation over the longer run and for that reason we believe this to be an important matter of public importance and one which my Leader did well to bring before the Parliament and the people of Australia. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.31) —What a remarkable thing that we should take up time considering in the dying hours of this Parliament, which has a massive legislative program before it, a matter of public importance that is blatant political campaigning. I suppose it is not really all that remarkable when we consider the motivation behind the matter of public importance. As one would expect, of course, the Liberal and National parties have lined up on one side castigating the Labor Government and on the other side the Labor Government claims to have remedied most of the problems confronting this country. From my point of view the Hawke Government has not been all that bad. It has been an approachable government, a government with which we find we can reason, just as we have been able to reason with the Liberal Party front benchers and the National Party leaders. In fact, we have found that all the parties have some quite good policies. The function we have tried to perform is to push them into implementing their better policies, many of which of course were introduced in the first instance by Australian Democrats. The primary Australian Labor Party objective is identical to the primary Liberal Party objective-winning elections. That is rather a sad reflection on their responsibilities as they perceive them to the Australian people. The question that flows from the matter of public importance is whether Labor is good for Australia. Let us face it, Australia was stagnating under the previous Liberal-National Party Government. A lot of people felt that Labor brought a breath of fresh air into the parliamentary and the government system of Australia. Unfortunately in that fresh air there were far too frequent bad odours. A lot of that came out of ill-conceived moves which may have had good intentions. I think the assets test was a classic example of something which frightened a lot of people and which, although it was brought on for public debate in a very respectable and responsible way, did leave many people, particularly elderly people, very concerned. There have been some ill-conceived moves by the Australian Labor Party for which it deserves the severest castigation by the people of Australia. One of those was its willingness to proceed with uranium mining at Roxby Downs. This is a party which was elected on a pledge gradually to reduce uranium mining in Australia then immediately set about opening up the biggest uranium mine in the free world. Of course that made the remaining uranium mining applications quite redundant because Roxby Downs will supply all the foreseeable needs of Australia 's potential market places. Also we were very disappointed with the Australian Labor Party's attitude to environmental issues. We were disappointed at the way it allowed the Daintree Rainforest road to proceed without intervening with the powers that we believe it possessed to prevent that road from destroying a substantial part of that forest. However, the Labor Government had made some good moves and some brave moves. It freed the foreign exchange rate. I believe that was a bold move and certainly a very valuable move from the point of view of Australia's future relationships with other nations and with the financial systems of the rest of the world. The Government introduced human rights for a lot of women in this country with the Sex Discrimination Act. The Government is to be commended for that. Again that was a brave move and a bold move because it drew a lot of flack. The Government continued to fight against tax evaders. Here I have to give credit to both parties because I think John Howard finally realised that the tax evaders/ avoiders of Australia were destroying our economy and not just ripping off the rest of the Australian taxpayers. The Labor Party continued that fight, and, in fact, has increased that fight against tax evaders, a fight for which it deserves commendation. In the environmental area we give the Government full marks for saving the Franklin River. The Australian Democrats were very proud to be associated with all the moves to help save that valuable area in the south west of Tasmania for all future generations. There is not much doubt in my mind, and the minds of all intelligent people, that the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission management will change before the policy of one of the present leaders and directors of that Commission will have an opportunity to implement his plans for that region which would result in its destruction. The matter of public importance refers to the wrong direction that Labor is taking Australia. To be able to speak to that matter one has to know the direction that Labor is taking Australia. I put it to the Senate that it is very difficult to perceive just in which direction Labor is trying to take this country. Frankly I believe that this Government and previous Liberal-National governments have not pointed in any direction consistently because they have had the principle of pragmatism as their governing force. Lest I be taken to task for not giving an alternative I spell out that the Australian Democrats is a party with a clear direction. It is a party which looks ahead and which is concerned for the future. Its whole policy is based on long term planning. It is based on a sustainable economy. It is based on the protection of our environment for the future, not ripping and raping our environment for the present. It is based on decisions for Australia made by Australians, not by foreign boards of directors. We have a very strong commitment to individual rights and an even stronger commitment, if that is possible, to leave the world a better place than when we entered it because otherwise that would interfere with the human rights of all future generations of this country and indeed of the world. As this matter has been brought on for the blatant purpose of electioneering let us look at what will happen after the forthcoming election. I do not think that anybody in his heart of hearts believes that the result will be anything but another Hawke Government, perhaps with an even bigger majority giving the Government more problems with its internal factions. The result of that will be a dispirited Opposition. It does not require a great capacity to look into the future to recognise that within the Liberal and National parties there will be rivalries between the small Liberals and the ultra-right wing conservatives which are already becoming evident within those parties. Because we will have that problem within the major parties of Australia there will be a need for a moderating influence. That influence will be the Senate. The Senate has become a genuine House of Review. I believe that most people who study politics and the parliaments of this country would agree that the Senate is now the principal legislative body because it is the only legislative body in this Parliament which has the power to amend, improve, adopt, reject- independently of the Administration of the country. The reasons for this, I believe are, firstly, that the Australian Democrats in this chamber, holding as they do the balance of power, vote on the issue and not on the basis of party dogma, not just to serve the interests of unions or big business. The second reason is the willingness of both the Government and the Opposition to negotiate with and through the Australian Democrats. I believe that has been a great leap forward, not just for the Senate but for the whole of the Australian Parliament. It has created great benefits for all the people of Australia. The third reason is that interest groups and individuals have discovered that the Senate represents all people and not just the power groups. They now have access to the Australian Parliament. The big fear is that after this election a Hawke government would be dominated by the extremists. Only the Senate can protect Australia and Australians from the Labor Party extremists. Only the Australian Democrats can protect Labor from its own power blocs. If Australia is being taken in the wrong direction, it is because we have a government that lacks vision-in other words, it lacks direction. We see that in the way in which the Government is allowing unemployment, which is so tragic for the young and the middle aged alike, to continue. Band-aid measures are not good enough. There must be longer term planning to help the unemployed to get back into the system. Earlier voluntary retirement is essential, the link between education and training and career is vital, and government can provide some of that linkage. We need to take on board the great innovations that can come out of our own scientific and technological experts around Australia. We need to stop the brain drain which is exporting that expertise at no cost to the importer. We need to adopt a foreign relations policy which is independent. We need to lead this region and, in that way, we can lead the world, particularly in just causes such as East Timor. We need to join the fight against nuclear weapons, as has New Zealand, by banning ships and aircraft. We need to stand independently as a nation and not just hang on to the coat tails of the United States of America or the United Kingdom. We need to look after our aged and disabled, to give a guaranteed minimum income and the fringe benefits to which all at retirement age should be entitled and receive. We need to be innovative and to lead the world in alternative power, such as wind, solar, tidal, and methane gas. We should be showing the world that it can do without uranium. The future direction for Australia can be demonstrated by the Australian Democrats' attitude to this country's potential. We see an Australia which is a free enterprise nation; a country which is an independent leader in this region; a country which leads in human rights, particularly for its underprivileged; a nation with a non-partisan, long term economic strategy, and with tripartisan policies on tax, tariffs and duties, foreign investment, industry restructuring, with retraining and income supplement provisions. We should not be debating such matters on party lines. They should be debated, considered and agreed to as a uniform national policy. We see a nation which recognises the importance of quality of life through the protection of its environment, through the educational opportunities for its young in particular, through a health policy which is based primarily on preventive health and through a freedom from poverty . We see a nation which is a leader in multiculturalism. It has been an inevitability that this be a multicultural nation from the day that Europeans set foot on Aboriginal territory. According to every poll produced over the past year, the next Government will be the second Hawke Labor Government. Therefore, the administration of Australia and the House of Representatives will be controlled by Labor. This election will focus on the composition of the Senate. If Labor controls it, the Senate will become a rubber stamp. If the Liberals and the Nationals control it, it will become chaotic, as it was in 1975. If the Democrats have the balance of power, it will be neither a rubber stamp nor chaos, but a moderating, balanced influence on the Government. This will give all Australians a say in our nation' s future-a consensus system for all. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.46) —I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Robert Ray and Senator Maguire as the third Labor backbencher to reply to the arguments of the three Opposition front benchers-all of whom have left the chamber-in support of this motion of public importance which they have submitted. Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, opened the attack by saying that he did not want to go into the economic details but wished to put forward a few points for the Senate to consider. Well, I do want to go into the economic details because they underpin the direction of Australia. It is important to note that the Leader of the Opposition was disinclined to deal with the evidence. Instead, he was pleased to employ concept, slogan and cheap politicking. Senator Martin talked of the importance of symbols. She spoke of the removal of the crown from the Australian passport as a symbol of the fact that this Government is in decadent decline, and suggested that we had lost any idea of where the Australian community was headed. I do not want to spend much time on that trite type of argument, but would point out that one of the most exhilarating occasions I have experienced in the last 12 months was on the morning that Glynis Nunn won the heptathlon at Los Angeles. I drove to work through Perth and saw on the billboards scattered around the city the legend: ' They're playing our song'. The point is that the symbol of Advance Australia Fair did not have to be explained on those billboards. We all knew it was our song and we were proud of it. If Senator Martin wants to hark back to an earlier age, she should recognise that she does not contend with the essential pluralism of Australian society but seeks to enshrine conservative values. The boxing kangaroo is for many Australians a typical symbol of the fighting spirit of this country. Senator Baume went into an excursion on the sordid, tired old story that he and his colleagues have been purveying in this place for some time-that of organised crime. He tried to scrounge a few points out of a windless windbag of an issue that has been done to death and on which most people in Australia have tuned out . He then, recognising the deficiencies of his argument, moved to attack the accord claiming that it institutionalised unemployment. That came from a man who was a Minister in a former government whose members said: 'We shall fight inflation first'. It did not fight-as has this Government-inflation and unemployment simultaneously. In pursuing its philosophy of fighting inflation first, the former Government pursued an economic path of fighting inflation by increasing unemployment. The comments by Senator Baume on the issues he raised in this debate must be cant and ashes in his mouth. Finally, we have heard a contribution from the Australian Democrats by my friend Senator Jack Evans. He began, interestingly enough, by lambasting the Opposition for bringing forward this tired matter of public importance. Having decried the proposition on the grounds that it was electioneering, he then fell foul of it and, adopting the Democrats' attitude of two bob each way, he electioneered on behalf of the Democrats. The proposition which the Senate has before it relates to the wrong direction in which Labor is taking Australia. I could not believe it when the Opposition put that matter forward. Since the announcement of the election, without question it will try to popularise the fiction that Australia is being misled by the Australian Labor Party. That amounts to trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Many have tried. It has always been a futile effort in the past. All who have tried have failed and the Liberal Party Opposition will fail in this attempt too. Its assertion about a wrong direction is, as I propose to demonstrate, an offence to the intelligence of Australians and their wishes. The scorecard of what Labor has done in honouring the promises that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave in his election speech in the Sydney Opera House in February 1983 is tabulated in today's issue of the Australian. Out of 67 issues tabulated there are 50 yeses to say that this Government has delivered on 50 of the promises that it undertook in that policy speech and there are 17 noes. When we go to the noes we see that more enlightened courses to deliver the spirit of what was intended in a better way have been embarked upon in many cases and that others are still in the process or pending. Senator Gareth Evans —We've been here for only 18 months, after all. Senator COOK —Exactly. If the Opposition contends that Australia has been led in a wrong direction it has to answer the fact that we have in terms of our mandate in the policy speech substantially delivered on what Australian voters voted for . If that be the wrong direction, it is the Liberal Party which is out of step, not the community. As the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, said a minute ago, we have been in government for only 18 months and a score of 50 out of 67 in 18 months is a score of which any government would rightly be proud. The attack, therefore, is in terms of what the Government has been able to achieve against what the voters voted for and is a typical attack in the sense of holding the electors in some contempt and not recognising that essentially they voted for a policy, a policy which this Government has delivered. In talking about wrong directions, one might ask oneself: Do the voters now think they were wrong? Do the voters argue: 'We made a slip of judgment, an error by listening to the Opera House policy speech in February 1983. We elected a Hawke Government and we now believe that we made a mistake'? If that be the proposition the answer is ringingly: No, the voters do not believe they are wrong. On page 4 of today's Sydney Morning Herald is the headline 'Voters prefer Labor's management by 2 to 1'. The article cites the survey showing that the ALP has a 54 per cent approval rating of all voters and that the Liberals have 25 per cent. It is from the Party enjoying the confidence of 25 per cent of the community that we hear the assertion that the Labor Party is leading the community in the wrong direction. The summary by the newspaper of the findings of its survey perhaps should be quoted, and for the record I do so. It states: Australian voters regard Labor as better at economic management than the Liberals by a majority of two to one, the latest Herald Survey shows. The poll, taken late in September, found that 54 per cent of voters think Labor is the party best able to manage the economy. Only 25 per cent think the Liberals are more able economic managers, while 21 per cent were neutral. Elsewhere in the article it is stated: Democrat voters favoured Labor on the economy by a four-to-one margin (46 per cent to 13 per cent) . . . If voters voted for a policy speech which was overwhelmingly delivered, they are satisfied with the result. The survey shows that they are satisfied. If a wrong direction has been taken, perhaps the Liberal Party should look at its own backyard and consider its own direction. It has shown in its 18 months in opposition that it is a party in decline. It is a party which, in constantly being defeated at the polls and in surveys and constantly being defeated in debate in the House of Representatives and here, has turned inward on itself. As a conservative party it seeks to rediscover its right wing roots. It argues bout ideology increasingly these days and addresses itself less to the needs of the wider community. The wrong direction has been taken by the party in defeat, the Liberal Party Opposition. The people listening to this debate should be reminded of what we promised when we sought their endorsement at the polls in 1983. The policy speech delivered by the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, then Leader of the Opposition, posed a question. Mr Hawke said that the Labor Party was asking for this: . . . a decision from the Australian people which will declare to the world that the politics of division, the politics of confrontation-the deliberate setting of Australian against Australian-which have debased the national leadership and disfigured the national life for so long, have no part in the true Australian way. That is what we asked for. The words, the climate, the attitude of the age, 18 months ago was of confrontation and divisiveness, Australian against Australian. We sought a mandate to bring Australia back together again, to bring about national reconciliation. We achieved that mandate. We got the decision, we had the confidence of the Australian people, and we moved to do so immediately through what has been hailed universally by political commentators as a significant national event-the National Economic Summit Conference in April last year. Every commentator has approved the advantages that that has brought to harmonising Australia, to finding a workable compromise. While it has been rubbished in debate here this afternoon as being some compact between corporate interests, it ought to be remembered that members of the business community who attended it and who, with fewer representatives in the committee forum of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, still participate in the consensus, are people who are appointed, who represent business interests and in whom business has confidence. If there were no confidence in those people they would be argued out and it would be demonstrated that they did not represent the business community's point of view. No argument is put that the trade union movement does not adequately represent the point of view of the workers. It is a movement that is required under the terms of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act to register unions as organisations which are essentially democratic. The Commission decides what is democratic. The Commission has decided that Australian unions have that structure and allow for proper participation. The social welfare sector is also represented. We have seen from the basis of the National Economic Summit the evolvement of EPAC, the organisation on the prices and incomes accord, and we have seen acclaim after acclaim of Budgets brought down by this Government. In terms of the consumer optimism-pessimism pendulum, at present consumer optimism is rising consistently. As to Budget reactions, as the Sydney Morning Herald in its survey found, for the first time more people expect to be better off under the Budget than worse off. That compares with the gloom and doom that people in this community felt after the last Howard Budget. Consumer optimism, as I have said, is rising. Retail sales rebounded strongly in July and in the three months to July were 7.3 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of the previous year in nominal terms. This was a substantial real increase. In talking about wrong directions, one casts one's eye over the economic indicators . This is the area on which Senator Chaney did not want to dwell because if he did he would find, apart from the rhetoric, the evidence. The evidence of statistics is strong. Interest rates are down, inflation is cut in half, unemployment is down, employment is up, economic growth is up, industrial unrest is down, private capital spending is predicted to rise and generally the climate of recovery is abroad. In the few seconds left to me I should perhaps comment on a point that is often missed in this general debate. We do not propose that we have solved the problem of unemployment, but we have started to solve it. We let our record stand, in contrast with the record of the Liberal-National Party when in government, which shows increasing unemployment in terms of its performance with the economy. We are beginning to address the problem of turnaround of growth, more jobs and fewer unemployed. The problems are difficult, they are not easy. We have a long way to go, but the prices and incomes accord underpins the ability of this Government to perform and will continue to do so in the future. We talk about rights. The economic improvement this country has enjoyed confers on Australians a healthier, more prosperous economic climate, greater personal rights, freedoms and choices than they would have had and did have in the dying days of the Fraser Government. The tributes to this Government are illustrated by the survey results and are still to be illustrated by the coming ultimate survey when the results are returned on the night of 1 December. I move: That business of the day be called on. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.07) —The matter of public importance this afternoon is the wrong direction that the Australian Labor Party is taking Australia. As there are a few minutes left, it seemed appropriate to deal with some aspects of the direction in which Labor is taking the Australian Capital Territory. There is less time now of course than there would have been because we had a division on the matter. When the Budget was presented we were told by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) that the Australian Capital Territory had $460m. As I have indicated previously, that is, in fact, not quite the case. A considerably lower amount is available for development of the Territory. Since the Budget we have had the incredible fiasco of the complete breakdown of the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. Under the Budget a sum of $8m was allocated-- Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is clearly reading her speech, in breach of standing order 406. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That matter has been discussed many times. I think Senator Reid is using copious notes. Senator REID —I do not even have copious notes and I do not have a prepared speech. The Commissioner for Housing loans scheme was allocated some $8m in the Budget and within three days of presentation of the Budget it became apparent that all of the money had been spent and in fact an additional $7.9m had to be subsidised to meet not the 2,000 people who were registered for Commissioner for Housing loans but the 657 people who legally were entitled to the money from the Government because the process had gone wrong that far. At the time of the Estimates committees meetings and subsequently we heard that about 1,300 people who were still eligible for a Commissioner for Housing loan will not be getting the money because there are no funds. The reason this fiasco came about was that the Minister for Territories and Local Government made speeches and statements to the effect that people were encouraged to believe that if they were financially eligible for a Commissioner for Housing loan they would receive one. Many people in this community are sorely disillusioned by reason of the fact that their hopes of getting a home have been dashed. Many of them are in a very awkward situation indeed. As a result of having applied for a loan and ascertained that they were eligible under the means test, they went ahead and made certain arrangements so that they would then be able to proceed to get a house and they have been left completely up in the air. On the present rate of funding it will be two to three years before some of them will have any opportunity whatever of getting into the market. At least one of the auctions last week indicated quite clearly that there has been a reaction in the market as the result of what has occurred in the area of housing. The Commissioner for Housing who has held the job for some years has been shifted from his job into another within the Department. At the same time three inquiries are apparently going on, the results of which have not yet been published. It seems to me a very poor show indeed to imply that the whole fiasco is the responsibility of the Commissioner for Housing by moving him out of his job when the reports are not yet available. I believe that the full responsibility of this ought to be borne by the Minister who was the person who encouraged people to believe that they would get housing if they were in the lower income groups. It was a very cruel situation indeed. We also had a cutback in education funding locally. The Budget was presented initially as though we were getting an increase but the reality is that we are over $1m short and there are three additional schools to be opened in the Territory in 1985. This afternoon I had discussions with the Australian Teachers Federation. It is extremely concerned about the trend in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory, the lack of funding in the area of ancillary staff and the lack of attention to the need to bring primary school class sizes into a better ratio more like those in some of the other States, for example the direction in which the Northern Territory is going at the present time. I believe that we are getting into a crisis in the area of education in the Australian Capital Territory if the sum of just over $1m that we are short is not reinstated and if the Schools Authority does not have the opportunity to prepare its budget on the basis of that money being available. We do not yet know how the Schools Authority will cope with the cutback in funding for the financial year but it is certainly an important issue and parents and teachers are concerned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the discussion of the matter of public importance has expired. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.13) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to implement the government's decision announced on 29 May 1984 to establish an automotive industry authority. The establishment of this authority is an integral part of the government's strategy for the development of the motor vehicle industry in Australia. The basic role of the authority is to encourage development of the industry along lines consistent with the government's objectives and in particular to encourage changes designed to improve the efficiency of the industry and reduce its dependence on government support. As a necessary part of this role the authority will conduct investigations and monitor the performance of and the outlook for the industry. It would be helpful in putting the authority's role in perspective if I were to first re-iterate the elements of the government's motor vehicle industry policy. The government's policy has two fundamental objectives; to preserve a substantial vehicle manufacturing industry in this country and to place the industry in a better competitive position against imports. The Government believes that it is imperative that a substantial vehicle manufacturing industry is preserved in Australia. We feel that the expectations of Australian consumers are more likely to be realised if there is a strong vehicle manufacturing industry able to compete vigorously with imports. To achieve this we consider that the local industry must become more competitive in all aspects, particularly price. One of the Government's policy aims is to reduce production costs. With this aim in mind the Government announced on 29 May 1984 that it would be: Modifying the export facilitation scheme to place greater emphasis on the export of high value added components; putting the industry on notice that the number of models produced locally must be reduced; and changing the motor vehicle plan to enhance the ability of plan producers to supplement their local product range with imports. The change to the motor vehicle plan will enable companies to avoid the need to manufacture small volume models which cannot be produced economically in Australia. We also decided to provide $150 million over 5 years to assist the industry in upgrading design capabilities and to establish the automotive industry authority as proposed by this Bill. These measures are aimed at overcoming the underlying causes of the industry's competitive problems. Their purpose is to reduce the industry's dependence on high levels of import protection by encouraging the industry to concentrate on its strengths, and promoting greater integration and co-operation within the industry. I particularly want to emphasise the latter point. Some of the barriers to the industry's progress can be effectively tackled only through co-operative action. The proliferation in component specifications is an obvious example. Efforts are being made within the industry to come to grips with this problem. These have been welcomed by the Government, and we have given practical support to these endeavours. But there are other areas which also need attention. I refer again in particular to the question of model rationalisation. The Government realises that the changes needed in the industry will take time. We are confident however that the policies we have adopted will enable the industry to lift its international competitiveness and bring vehicle prices in Australia more into line with those overseas. This confidence can be seen in the arrangements for the gradual reduction in the barriers restricting access opportunities for imported vehicles. Reduced barriers against import competition will serve to ensure that the industry vigorously pursues the opportunities that are available to reduce production costs and that consumers will share in the savings achieved. The Government's policy has been the subject of considerable consultation with interested parties. It has been well received both in the industry and the general community. Plan producers in particular have welcomed the Government's measures as a practical and appropriate response to overseas developments. Component producers, through the Federation of Automotive Products manufacturers, have commented and I quote 'the new policies are for the component sector a vast improvement on those adopted by the previous Government' . Some sections of the union movement have questioned aspects of the policy but the Federal Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, Mr Len Townsend, spoke I believe for the majority of informed opinion when he commented and I quote '. . . the plan was a commonsense policy that would benefit everyone , including consumers'. The widespread endorsement of the Government's policy rests on the recognition that the policy is a real attempt to come to grips with the basic problems facing the industry. The policy sets a framework for constructive change which will provide a more secure future for the industry. There can be no security in the industry if its products become increasingly uncompetitive in the market. I now turn to the Automotive Industry Authority as proposed by this Bill. The Authority is an integral part of the Government's policy framework. Its central role will be to promote desirable rationalisation and co-operation in the industry. Establishment of such an agency with this responsibility was recommended by the Car Industry Council in its report to the Government in December 1983. The Council included representation from all sections of the industry. The functions entailed in this role were foreshadowed in the Council's report and I quote from that report: 'The Council recommends the establishment by the Government of a small (say three person) automotive industry authority, with statutory powers allowing it to encourage rationalisation of model ranges and sharing of production facilities and product amongst the plan producers. The Council envisages regular and confidential discussions between this authority and each producer, with the authority becoming fully privy to each manufacturer's plans as to how he will maintain or achieve profitability and viability. Specifically, the authority should discuss with each producer the future of low -volume product lines. The authority should assess whether or not there are national benefits in continuing the low-volume production. If not, the authority should discuss with the producer the future of the line and if necessary put the producer on notice that volume must be increased within a reasonable time or the line closed. The authority should also play the role of a marriage broker, encouraging the sharing of product (including vehicles) among the five producers and the joint use of production facilities.' It will be apparent from those comments that the concept of the authority envisaged by the Council was of an 'honest broker' acting primarily through persuasion. But the Council also recognised that the authority should not be reliant on persuasion alone. I quote again from the Council's report: 'While rationalisation may well be in the national interest it might equally, in many of its forms, be against the interest of individual plan producers. The authority should have the power, therefore, to recommend to the Government incentives to encourage a particular rationalisation. Such incentives might take the form of minor variations to the rules of the plan, adjustments to tariff quota entitlements and so on. Sanctions would also be needed to ensure that firms acted to the benefit of Australia. The Council considers that a set of such sanctions should be drawn up , that the producers be informed of their content and that they then be set aside, to be invoked when necessary.' The concepts suggested by the Council are reflected in this Bill and in the Government's decisions on the assistance regime for the industry. The motor vehicle industry is a significant part of manufacturing industry in this country and receives high levels of Government assistance. The Government expects the industry to make real efforts to improve efficiency and reduce its dependence on public support. There are sanctions that can be invoked if the industry fails to co-operate with the authority's efforts to progress necessary rationalisation. These sanctions will not be available to the authority direct but the views of the authority will obviously have an important bearing on judgments by the Government in these matters. As part of its monitoring function the Authority will be required to provide an annual report to the Minister on developments in the industry and the outlook for the industry. The reports which will be tabled in the Parliament are to include an assessment of the industries progress in achieving the Government's objectives. The reports are also to identify the basis of the Authority's assessment. Including, where appropriate, identification of instances where members in the industry have failed to co-operate with the Authority. The annual report is not the only medium available to the Authority to bring such instances to the Government's attention. Provision is also made for the Authority to report to the Minister either on its own initiative or on matters which the Minister refers to it. In particular, instances of failure by any part of the industry to act consistently with the Government's policy will be brought to early attention. The major matters likely to be referred by the Minister were foreshadowed in the Government's 29 May statement on its automotive industry policy. That statement indicated that the Authority would have an advisory role in relation to the operation of the export facilitation arrangements, and the arrangements put in place to safeguard against transfer pricing. Prime responsibility for the administration of the arrangements will however, remain with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Provision is made in the Bill for the publication in whole or in part of the reports I have just mentioned. Other reports may be made by the Authority on the effect of Commonwealth regulatory policies on the achievement of the objects of the Authority. All of these reporting requirements are an important element in the Government' s overall strategy and have considerable significance for the relationship between the Authority and the industry. It is important that I mention that any information given to the Authority on a confidential basis is required to be treated by the Authority as confidential. One of the Authority's functions will be to provide, or support, services that could contribute to the improvement in management efficiency in the industry. The extent to which the Authority develops this aspect of its role will be a matter for its own judgment within the funds available. New assistance measures to encourage the industry to give greater emphasis to local design of vehicles and components are being introduced. The Authority will have a role in the administration of these arrangements but details have not yet been finalised. The Authority's precise role in the administration of the arrangements will be settled in conjunction with the taking of final decisions on this matter. And there will be an opportunity for debate on this when the necessary legislation on the arrangements comes forward. While the Authority will have an advisory role in the administration of aspects of assistance arrangements for the industry there is no intention that it will substitute for the Industries Assistance Commission in the policy review process . The requirement for a report from the commission before making changes in the assistance arrangements for the industry is unaffected by this legislation. The Government wishes to have the Authority operational as early as possible and appointments to the Authority and arrangements for recruiting staff will proceed as quickly as possible following passage of the legislation. The operation of the Authority will require close contact with those in the industry and for this reason it is planned to locate the Authority in Melbourne. Clause 28 of the Bill is a 'sunset' provision terminating the Authority as from 31 December 1992. This provision reflects the principal task for which the Authority is being established-to promote necessary rationalisation and co- operation within the industry. The Government believes that this can be achieved within the 8 year time frame. The Government's policy for the automotive industry beyond 1992 will be determined following a further review by the IAC, to be initiated in 1989. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Budget allocation for the Authority in 1984-85 is $0.5 million. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 as a consequence of an independent review of the functions and operations of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). The Government's election platform included a commitment to review the role of the Industries Assistance Commission to ensure that its operations are directed towards the development and extension of industry. The independent review conducted by Mr John Uhrig was announced on 3 August 1983. Mr Uhrig presented his report to the Government on 16 December 1983. The Government's major concern in initiating the review was to maximise the effectiveness of the IAC as a provider of practical advice to Government on questions of industry assistance. In the past, the Commission has tended to focus on tariff and other related forms of protection, with the result that its recommendations have often been stereotyped, with lower levels of protection frequently being put forward as the sole solution to an industry problem. In the Government's view, the restructuring and revitalising of Australia's industrial base will require that there be a much greater emphasis on the development and implementation of a wider range of positive industry assistance measures. In agreeing with the thrust of the Uhrig report, the Government concurs that it is now time to make changes to the Commission so that it will be able to contribute more effectively to the formulation of the Government's industry policy. Changes are proposed to the Commission's approach to the inquiry process and the nature of its advice, but not to its basic independence. The Uhrig report called for a re-orientation towards industry-wide references which specified in greater detail the information needs of the Government. In addition, it proposed that references should normally require that options be provided (including the Commission's recommended option), and that the Commission's advice should extend beyond its current somewhat narrow focus on barrier protection to cover other forms of assistance. The Government has accepted these recommendations and believes that they should lead to the Commission providing considered advice on a number of methods by which the Government can pursue policies to facilitate structural change and industrial development. The Government has also accepted the report's recommendation that while no formal link should be established between the IAC and the industry councils, there is scope for increased use of the Commission by the industry councils. In particular, the councils may find it useful to draw on the extensive information base built up by the Commission during the course of its inquiries. They may also see benefits in requesting the Commission, through the Minister, to undertake research tasks which complement the Commission's work schedule or require some of the special skills of the Commission's staff. The Government believes that its acceptance of the vast majority of the review' s recommendations will result in an emergence of a new era in the industry assistance advisory process. In particular, the improved operations and procedures of the Commission should allow it to become more effective in meeting the Government's industry policy objectives and needs. These objectives stress the need for industry to become more internationally competitive, more flexible and better able to take advantage of technological developments. In pursuit of these objectives, the government wants to shift the focus of industry assistance away from the past concentration on protection to more positive forms of assistance which will actively assist industry to restructure. This includes measures designed to stimulate investment, increase industrial research and development, provide more and better training and retraining facilities, upgrade export support services and provide industry with easier access to development finance. It also involves developing mechanisms which will ensure that the benefits of restructuring are realised, and the economic and social costs of adjustment are not borne disproportionately by those at the face of change. The government has agreed that the commission's policy guidelines should be simplified to reflect widely supported industry policy objectives. Accordingly, the new guidelines as set out in clause 11 of the bill, are cast in terms of facilitating adjustment and encouraging the growth of efficient and internationally competitive industries having regard to the interests of other industries and consumers. Clause 13 of the bill proposes to implement the acceptance of the recommendation that the commission's power to initiate its own inquiries be revoked. Such decisions are policy matters and are more appropriately made by the government itself. However, the new arrangements will not prevent the commission from suggesting to the government the need for an inquiry where this is considered to be warranted. A major recommendation by Mr Uhrig was the abolition of the temporary assistance authority and that the IAC be responsible for advising on all temporary and short-term assistance matters. The government has agreed to this and to the related recommendation that a separate set of guidelines be developed to apply to all temporary assistance matters. The guidelines proposed in clause 17 of the Bill are based upon those proposed by Mr Uhrig. The government's decision to alter the temporary assistance arrangements reflects its concern that the current provisions provide opportunities for assistance to be granted where the underlying problems are not temporary but of a long term structural nature, or reflect an economy-wide problem which is impacting adversely across all sectors. We have therefore decided to make temporary assistance available only in cases where serious injury is occurring or threatened to an industry by circumstances largely outside its control, and where the circumstances are peculiar to the industry or are impacting with particular severity on the industry. Further, the form of such assistance is not to seriously disadvantage other Australian industries. The Government has also decided that where temporary assistance is recommended by the IAC it is to be limited to a maximum of twelve months and the Commission will be required to report on whether circumstances warrant a subsequent inquiry into longer term assistance. The Commission is to also report on whether in their view an inquiry into the need for further temporary assistance would be likely to be required prior to the expiry of any temporary assistance already granted. This provision is to cover those situations where 'temporary' problems may exist for longer than a 12 month period. In addition, the Commission shall report on what actions it considers the industry should undertake during the period of temporary assistance. A further recommendation accepted by the Government is to make specific reference to tertiary and service industries in the Industries Assistance Commission Act. This reflects the importance of this sector to the Australian economy and the higher priority the Government will be placing on examining issues which may be facing tertiary industries in Australia. Also by agreeing to eliminate, in most instances, first round public hearings as proposed by clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill the Government is seeking to improve the efficiency of the Commission's operations and reduce the costs incurred by many interested parties in presenting evidence. In line with its objective of increased consultation in the decision making process, the Government has further agreed that, in most cases, final reports will be published prior to a Government decision being taken. The only exception to this will be those occasions where significant commercial gain could ensue, or where international negotiating positions might be jeopardised. The Government is confident that the changes to the IAC's charter and operations as proposed by this Bill, will enable the Commission to provide a more valuable input to industry development in Australia. Together with other changes occurring in the advisory and consultative process, these changes further reflect the Government's consensus-based approach to industry policy formulation and economic policy generally. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have not yet had a chance to read this report although it is now available to us. I did want to say a couple of things about this question of prices surveillance and, in particular, to mention it in the context of the petroleum industry. We face a situation in Australia where there has been a significant duplication of price control in the petroleum sector. The arguments about whether or not we should have any price control at all are dwarfed, I think, by the arguments about whether we should have two systems of price control, one at a Federal level and one at the State level with a consequent squeezing of prices and a squeezing of margins with a very severe effect on the profitability of the companies which are operating in this field. It is a difficult field for governments for the simple reason that the electorate is sensitive to the price of petroleum. It is seen as very good politics to exercise control and to appear to be reducing the price of petrol to the consumer. Clearly, that is seen as attractive in electoral terms and it has resulted in a series of State measures being taken which have overlapped with Commonwealth control of prices in this area. That has been a matter on which there have been very loud complaints by the companies in the field. Those complaints are borne out by the profit figures which have been released by many of the companies over recent years which show either no profitability or a very small level of profit. The companies have regarded the dual system of price control as a very significant contributor to their difficulty. Obviously State governments do not make any political points with their electorates unless they push the retail price of petrol below the level which is established by the Commonwealth Prices Surveillance Authority. So , in a sense, there is a political competition for being seen as the saviour of the motorist in this area, to the great detriment, I think, of the long term health of the industry and, ultimately, the long term interests of the consumer. I acknowledge that the present Government has been concerned about this problem . In its establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority it has worked towards achieving the removal of that difficulty. There has been a voluntary stepping aside on the part of State governments over recent months. That is a matter which I think has been welcomed by industry and which I think, if we move towards a more deregulated economy-there appears to be growing common ground about that-that is a matter which should be welcome and certainly I welcome it. I note with some concern that there is an element of fragility in the consensus which has been established in this area. I think the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, has threatened to move away from the agreement which was made or the understanding which was entered into if the retail price of petrol exceeds a certain limit in his State. On behalf of the Opposition I express the view that, quite apart from any question of whether the regulation of the price itself is a good thing at any level, dual regulation is, by definition, wasteful and likely to lead to inefficiencies and circumstances which are extremely unfair to those who are involved in this trade. However, I think there are broader considerations which arise when we are considering the question of prices surveillance in the petroleum industry. In the policy which the Opposition parties released recently in the field of resources and energy the point is made that the oil industry is extremely heavily regulated from wellhead through to pump. It is indeed one of the most regulated industries in Australia. The degree of regulation is, in the view of the Opposition, not in the interests of Australia and not in the interests of those who are engaged in the industry, although as with all forms of regulation, once people become enmeshed in it they devote a good part of their energies to ensure that the regulation is to their advantage. But I think the important point for Australian consumers to note is that at the moment the overall pattern of regulation of the oil industry is such that-I do not think there is any doubt about this-they are paying more for petrol today than they would be if the industry was totally deregulated. In other words, with the very substantial web of regulation which has been erected, including the regulation which requires Australian refiners to take Australian produced crude, which places limitations on the importation of crude, which has limits on the right to export Australian oil and so on, the fact of the matter is that Australian prices for crude oil are being maintained at a price which is higher than the price which would obtain if the market were allowed to be free and if there were genuine competition in this area. I do not believe the recent decisions of the Government in this area will get over that problem at all. Senator Walsh said that he would like to deregulate the industry in 1988. He is like St Augustine: He would like to be virtuous, but not yet. It is a pity that in this area the Government has not adopted the more thoroughly deregulatory approach that it has adopted in some other areas. 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. This is the first report to be presented in the name of the new Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, and we wish him well in his office. At the same time we give recognition to Mr W. J. O'Reilly who in the middle of 1984, having reached retirement age, retired after long and distinguished service to the Commonwealth of Australia. The report is noteworthy in as much as the Commissioner, in his overview of the activities and developments in the Taxation Office during the year, comments with regard to the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes of the kind experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s that at the time of the retirement of Mr O'Reilly it was able to be said that schemes of that kind were a thing of the past. He says: That elimination of 'paper' schemes is one of the success stories of the last decade. They have been beaten by a combination of legislation, administration, changes in attitude and sheer hard work. In speaking to that comment I think it fair to pay tribute to the work of Mr W. J. O'Reilly as Commissioner and to John Howard as Treasurer for the many pieces of legislation brought into and passed through the Parliament to deal with these paper schemes and with the various ways in which tax avoidance and evasion were practised. Mr Boucher, the Commissioner, in this report says: Collecting taxes sought to be escaped through these schemes has been and continues to be a problem, despite significant progress. A legacy of work remains. While the boom was on, the whole tax administration system was strained and the Australian Taxation Office was unable to get done all it wished to do, and all that-by some standard of perfection-it 'ought' to have done. Mr O'Reilly's earlier annual reports made reference to these problems and to the way in which the Taxation Office was seeking to deal with them. So Mr Boucher is able to say: The legacy that remains continues to affect our ability to achieve all we would like to achieve. Then he is able in this report to point to the numbers of things that have been done with regard to additional staff and systems and expresses the hope that the Office will be able to give the kind of service in the collection of the revenue that it would wish to see as the body administering the tax laws on behalf of the Commonwealth. Mr Boucher refers to the fact that, when the ordinary collection of revenue work is added to the abnormal work that has come the way of the Taxation Office as a result of the avoidance and evasion schemes referred to, it is more a case for congratulations that the system was made to work as well as it did than a matter of censure that particular things were not pursued in the way they might have been, taking that factor in isolation. He makes the plea that a person who is minded to criticise the Taxation Office for perceived shortcomings in one or another area of operations does a grave injustice to the Office and its staff. As a member of the Government during the period he is referring to in the 1970s and early 1980s, I would like to say that there was a great deal of effort by the Taxation Office to work with the Treasurer of the day to overcome the very problems that have been mentioned. I think it was not fitting that a very selective quotation from that Commissioner's overview was given at Question Time today by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) who represents the Prime Minister. One other matter I will refer to in the minute left to me is the company statistics given by the Commissioner under the heading of 'Recoupment Tax'. He refers to the assessments that have been given since companies were identified as subject to the recoupment tax legislation introduced by the Fraser Government . He says that since June 1983 a further 542 companies have been identified as being subject to the legislation and that the task of ensuring that the legislation is applied to all companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits is continuing. He gives a breakdown showing the total number of companies identified at 30 June 1984 as 6,206. He refers to the numbers of assessments and the amount of revenue collected as a result of that legislation. I think these matters are of interest to the Senate, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.25) —I also wish to speak on the sixty-third report of the Commissioner of Taxation for the year 1983-84. In particular I wish to focus my remarks on the prescribed payments system, otherwise known as deductions at source for certain payments for work. These notably apply now in respect of the building construction, road transport, motor vehicle repair, cleaning industries and so forth. The prescribed payments system has operated since the beginning of September last year. It is interesting that in the report it is documented that in the 10 months since then $251m in revenue was collected by that tax. As a result of the introduction of the prescribed payments system thousands of taxpayers have been identified who failed to lodge income tax returns previously. It is interesting that the report indicates that applications for taxation file numbers have been received from 55,900 individuals and companies since the introduction of the scheme. The Commissioner has examined about a quarter of those 55,900 applications for new file numbers to ascertain exactly which tax returns are outstanding from those companies and people. So far it has been discovered that of the one quarter examined 11,000 or 71 per cent of the total had failed to lodge taxation returns previously. I think that is an indication of how necessary this system was. At page 24 the Commissioner points out that the prescribed payments system has made an auspicious start since its introduction in September last year I believe that the introduction of this system has had no dire consequences on industry or on employment in this country, the reverse of what was predicted in the Senate last year by opponents of the legislation. The system has had no dire consequences on economic activity but so far has netted the taxpayer $251m from people who were possibly not paying tax previously. At another point in the report the Commissioner points out the number of people who yet again have filed false applications for dependent spouse rebates. It seems to me that some people never learn. In the last financial year 16,300 Australian taxpayers submitted false claims for dependent spouse rebates. As a result of those claims being detected, those individuals were required to pay an extra $2.5m in income tax. People do not seem to realise just how simple it is these days to match up spouses' tax returns by computer technology to detect false applications. The report is also extremely interesting in that it documents that the total outlay on staff and resources to collect Australian taxes is still running at only one per cent of total tax revenue. Interestingly, the cost of the collection of income tax is just above the one per cent average; in other words, just over one dollar in every $100 collected in income tax goes on the collection itself. But it is striking that the cost of collecting the bank account debits tax and sales tax is now well below the one per cent average. Overall it is still costing Australia, at the national level, $350m to collect taxation. One of the interesting features of the Commissioner's report appears on page 173. It is possible to calculate from the table under the heading 'Sales Tax Collections' that while in the late 1970s sales tax collection revenue grew by about 12 per cent a year in 1981-82 revenue leaped by 35 per cent and it leaped by a further 22 per cent in 1982-83. In other words, over two financial years there was a compounded 66 per cent lift in sales tax revenue. Of course the reason for that was the last two Budgets of the Liberal Government brought down by Mr Howard. In both the 1981 and 1982 Budgets there were very large increases in the range of goods subject to sales tax and significant lifts in the sales tax rates. As a result of those actions of Mr Howard there was a 66 per cent increase in revenue from sales tax in just two financial years. The overall effect of that was to lift the effective rate of sales tax in the community by four percentage points in just two years, from an average of 13 per cent to an average of 17 per cent, effective sales tax, with inflationary consequences. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.31) —I rise to speak briefly on the report of the Commissioner of Taxation. In the time available I have not been able to read it in detail. Nevertheless I have been impressed-I believe the public would be impressed-by the clear statement of the Commissioner of Taxation that the bottom of the harbour schemes have now been thoroughly dealt with, that that episode in Australia's history has been put to rest. The Commissioner has emphasised what, quite some months earlier, the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins , had said. He indicated quite some time ago that the effect of previous legislation had been that the issue of the bottom of the harbour schemes was now resolved. I think it is important for the Senate to understand this. Mr Boucher, the Commissioner of Taxation, has said that the primary reason for this is, of course, the legislative actions that were taken by the previous Government, as well as the reorganisation of the Australian Taxation Office to deal with the matters. Quite clearly this situation in 1983-84 resulted from legislation which was introduced and passed by the Fraser Government. It has been recognised by the accountancy profession and the legal profession that the legislation introduced and passed by the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, was totally effective in destroying those schemes. No action on a legislative level by the Hawke Government could have had that effect in the year under review. Quite clearly the effect is one that was set in progress by the previous Government up to and including March 1983. Therefore it influenced the results for this financial year. I say this because we are repeatedly told here that the bottom of the harbour schemes must still be pursued and that the Fraser Government did little or nothing. We now have the clearest proof. First of all we have the proof of a statement by the Minister for Finance, made some months ago and therefore made on the basis of the actions of the previous Government. They were scarcely actions which could have come to fruition had they been the actions of the Hawke Government. Mr Dawkins stated that the bottom of the harbour schemes had been put to rest. We now have a clear statement by the Commissioner of Taxation that the mechanisms within the Department of the Treasury that were basically established under the Fraser Government worked with the legislation of past governments to bring about this situation. I hope that we will no longer hear from Government senators what must now be regarded as propaganda-the suggestion that nothing was done by the Fraser Government, that we were the friends of tax dodgers. What Mr Dawkins has said in the past and what the Commissioner of Taxation has now said is that it was the Fraser Government that was the active and effective enemy of tax dodgers. Let that be quite clear. Never again should any suggestion be raised here-it could only be propaganda-that we were the friends of tax dodgers. The Commissioner of Taxation, an independent statutory officer, has made a clear statement. I ask that it be accepted and acknowledged that the Fraser Government, and specifically Mr Howard as Treasurer, did an outstanding job, a job that had been commended by the accountancy and legal professions, a job now confirmed by the Commissioner of Taxation. I stress that we should no longer hear any propaganda on this matter. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.35) —I think it is important to note one or two of the statistics that are included in the sixty-third report of the Commissioner of Taxation. It just so happens that I have opened it at page 57, where I find that the number of people employed in the Australian Taxation Office is now 14, 866, plus 725 officers and employees absent on extended leave or attending full time training courses. The tax collection business has grown to enormous proportions. The complexity of the Income Tax Assessment Act must be largely responsible for the number of people involved in the collection of tax and the very size of this report. It now takes nearly 200 pages to produce the annual tax report. If we were to grapple properly with the tax Act and the whole system of taxation we may well be able to reduce the size of this report. One has to look only at the considerable listing of people who suffered prosecution for various reasons under the Act to wonder how many of them made errors or were given confusing information by professionals or whatever. There must be all sorts of reasons why some of those people are listed, besides the fact that they flagrantly, wantonly or knowingly understated or mis-stated their financial position. We need to do a lot of work on this matter to see what can be done to improve the situation. I also notice that the Commonwealth Ombudsman got behind in his inquiries involving the Taxation Office. At 1 July 1983 he had 111 incomplete cases in hand. He received 99 during the year but he completed only 57. So at the end of the year the position was 57 per cent worse than it was at the beginning of the year. On this basis one wonders whether the system is being bogged down or whether the priority which is given to settling these matters is very low. The same applies to freedom of information. The number of incomplete cases on hand at 1 July 1983 was 285. Some 3,472 were added during the year and 398 were left outstanding at the end of the year, which is 50 per cent more than the number at the beginning of the year. I think it is important to acknowledge that if we are to have this sort of legislation and if it is intended that people should have access to information it must be given. The fact that the Ombudsman, in dealing with taxation and freedom of information inquiries, finished the year with 50 per cent more inquiries than he started the year with is a matter that must be of some concern to the Government. The decisions of the courts, which I have not as yet had a chance to read closely, always make interesting reading. One sees what the interpretations currently are. Five taxation appeals were decided by the High Court of Australia , 23 by the Federal Court of Australia and 46 by various Supreme Courts. That is a remarkably small number for the number of complaints and objections that exist . I am not sure whether this indicates that people have a genuine reluctance to test their rights in court or whether it indicates that the system provides adequate ability now for people to be able to get reasonable discussion on their taxation position and are able to resolve their problems at that point. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.40) —I take the opportunity of the presentation of this report to refer to a matter which needs attention and which, as events unfold in the near future, will again draw attention to the need for action. I speak of the position in relation to the expenses of a member of parliament who votes on a referendum Bill and is then a signatory to either the Yes case or the No case, and, having been a signatory to that case, in the course of the carrying out of his duties as a member of parliament, is bound to pursue the referendum question and to take action to ensure that the people of Australia who will be voting in the referendum know what the arguments in relation to either Yes or No might be. Such persons ought to be entitled to a tax deduction for the expenditure in which they are involved when they are pursuing the case. In 1977 there were people who spent a very considerable amount of their funds who were amongst that minority of senators who signed the No case and put the No case to Australia. They did so at very great expense to themselves, but they were denied by the Commissioner of Taxation any right to deduct those expenses because it was said that they were not incurred in the course of their duties. Yet one of such a person's duties as a member of parliament is to vote on legislation. One of the consequences of voting on a referendum Bill is that one becomes a party to the referendum action. That action includes the preparation of a Yes case and a No case. It is all right, perhaps, if one is a member of a party or a government which is proposing a referendum and if that party or government will pay the expenses of the Yes case. But what if one happens to be one of a minority of about 12 or 14 senators who put forward a No case and spend a very significant amount of their personal funds in pursuance of their duty as a member of the Senate, having voted against the referendum proposal, and one then tries to ensure that the case against that proposal is known to the people? I note that we are to have again some referendum proposals put to the Australian people, this time on 1 December. One of them is, again, this proposal that the executive Government of Australia should be able to take control of the Senate; that it should be able to hold over the heads of senators the threat that it can call out the Senate whenever it wishes; that it can shorten senators ' terms; that it can prevent senators from exercising the freedom to fulfil their duties as representatives of the States in the way in which they see fit by threatening to take action. Such action is sometimes absolutely misleadingly called a simultaneous elections proposal. In the past, when it was put forward in the Parliament, in 1973, 1974, 1975 and again in 1977, it has been called a proposal for simultaneous elections, but it is nothing but a confidence trick. It is an attempt to make people believe that they will have fewer elections rather than more elections if they vote in favour of the proposal. Not only should people recognise that what is being put forward is a confidence trick-- Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, perhaps I will gently raise a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I do not think that you need to take a point of order, Minister, because I was about to say that Senator Rae's time has expired. Senator PETER RAE —I hope that the expenses will be tax deductible and that the proposal will be shown to be a confidence trick. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allotted for the consideration of papers has expired. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for the construction of a building in the Parliamentary Zone to house the National Archive and Exposition. In doing so, I include my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has ministerial responsibility for the Australian Archives. The views of the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek approval of the work by the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I table the report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: Inquiry into Television and Radio Broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament. I also table minutes of the Committee's meetings as well as the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.46) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to make a couple of comments about the report. It is not a report of great substance. I do not say that critically; it is not of great substance because, although the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings is dealing with major issues, it has been overtaken by the calling by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of an unnecessary early election, and therefore , the work of this Committee will have to stand over until the election of a new House of Representatives. The Committee is in the course of examining the whole question of the televising of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and of the radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament . That is a matter on which there are, I think, very mixed feelings in the Australian community. The national broadcaster is required to broadcast the Parliament while it is sitting, other than the adjournment debate. It is required to use virtually the whole resources of one of its radio channels for that purpose. It alternately broadcasts the Senate and the House of Representatives. That is a matter which causes some people edification and causes others enormous annoyance. I am somewhat surprised at how often, as one moves around Australia, one meets people who say: 'I heard you say something on the broadcast the other day'. So it is clear that there is a listening audience. Much of that is perhaps a captive audience, people in their cars travelling to or from work, or commercial travellers and the like; but there is a listening audience for the broadcast. The difficulty for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is that it is such a pre-emptive arrangement. I can understand that there would be a very strong wish on the part of the ABC for a little more room to move in this area. At the same time, while the law requires the ABC to extend so much of its facilities in broadcasting the Parliament, there are also restrictions on the availability of those broadcasts to broadcasters other than the ABC. We have the rather peculiar situation in Australia today in which there are limits, on the one hand, for commercial broadcasters which are not able to use extracts from the parliamentary broadcasts, and yet, on the other hand, we find that extracts from the parliamentary broadcasts in the United Kingdom are available. Senator Grimes —And ours are available over there. Senator CHANEY —Yes. So it is an oddity. I also find it odd that for the whole of the time that the Parliament sits we are presided over by members of the Fourth Estate, the journalists who sit up in the gallery above us and who write down some of what we say, leave out all the good bits I think most of us feel, and report the bits that we often would least like reported. We allow the print media absolutely free access to this place and the right to report wholly or in part what we say and do. I would hate to be thought to be criticising that arrangement. I think it is absolutely essential that we should be subject to the scrutiny of the Australian people. It is clear that the people will not sit down and read Hansard every day, and it is clear that most of them will not sit and listen to the parliamentary broadcasts. It is utterly essential to the operations of democracy in Australia that there should be the access to us which the print media enjoy. I speak now personally rather than giving a total party position or a position from which I can speak on behalf of the official Opposition, when I say that I find it logically strange that we allow one section of the media such total access and we restrict so heavily both radio broadcasters' and television broadcasters' access to this place. Under your Presidency, Mr President, there has been some slight opening of the place to television. I think it was during your period as President that television cameras were allowed into the chamber to take stock film which is used as part of news broadcasts. But in the main television cameras cannot come into this place. Indeed, many honourable senators and, I think, many members of the House of Representatives believe that television cameras should not be allowed in the chambers. There are severe restrictions on commercial broadcasters in regard to the use of the broadcasts or sounds which come from this place. At the end of the life of this Parliament I simply ask: Why do we restrict some sections of the media and not others? I pose that question not in the interests of introducing further restrictions on the print media, but rather in the interests of seeing us more open to the public. There are very good reasons why we should give this matter careful and, in my view, favourable consideration. All of us in political parties are careful students of what influences the electorate, of where it is that people get the information of which they take notice. It is common ground in this place that television is an enormously important medium for the transmission of information in Australia. The evidence that I have seen suggests that people rely very heavily upon television news for their view of the world and what is going on. It seems to me that if the parliamentary chambers remain insulated from direct access for the medium of television we will continue to render Parliament less and less relevant to the debate which goes on in the community. The fact is that if one wishes to make a political point or if one has an interesting report to make it is probably more productive to go out and call a Press conference and to have one's say in a room which is crowded with nobody but reporters, television cameras and radio microphones, and then to appear, for better or worse, in the lounge rooms of literally millions of Australians, than it is to come into this place and face the Opposition if one is in government, or the Government if one is in opposition, and put a view and seek a debate on it. As one who thinks that the institution of parliamentary government has many advantages, I think we need to consider very carefully how we can keep this chamber and the other chamber as places which really matter, whose debates are an important part of both informing and forming public opinion. So on this occasion I am putting something of a personal view which is that it is only by opening up this place to television and radio in a broader sense that we will continue to ensure that the Parliament is a relevant part of public life in Australia. Many commentators now see the present Government as, in a sense, a non-parliamentary government which is based on the media performances of some of its senior members and its Prime Minister in particular. I, for one, think that, if that is part of the developing reality in Australia, it is a pity. I touch upon the real concerns of many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber about access. There is the understandable concern that the atypical picture can be picked out, that the non-representative portrayal of Parliament on the television screen will, in fact, worsen our reputation, lessen our influence and diminish the quality and standard of debate both in this place and in the country generally. I say only that of course that is possible. It is just as possible for me to be embarrassed by a partial broadcast or television shot of part of what I say as it is for any other senator. I accept that that is a risk. But it is an equal risk speaking here whilst members of Australian Associated Press, who are usually the only people present for the bulk of the debates, take down what they regard as the significant elements of debate. It is in the hands of a single journalist what he or she chooses to put on to the wire services which will appear in the papers around Australia. Quite frankly, I think that is just part of the system that we have to accept, that the members of the journalistic profession will, in fact, pick what they think portrays what is happening in this place. My view is that in the long haul they exhibit a balance which most of us, who are partisan politicians, do not. In other words, whilst one is occasionally outraged and offended by what one sees as their failure to be objective about something which is important to us, in reality it evens out over the long haul and we take our share of good and bad reports. The important point is that this Parliament, which represents the will of the people , a place in which different opinions are exchanged and arguments are held trying to get to the rights and the wrongs of situations, is in danger of become less relevant. I think that is a pity. It is not in the interests of the long term health of government in Australia that that should be so. The last thing I say, and again I must say that this is very much a personal view, is that the standards of both behaviour and debate in this place probably would be improved if we were subject to the scrutiny of television cameras. I say that because I think most of us accept that whilst if one goes to a large public meeting people will accept a lot of the roughhouse of politics, when one is actually being portrayed in people's living rooms they expect a slightly different presentation. If one looks at the way most political interviews are conducted on television, one will find that they are generally of reasonable standard. People behave politely and exchange views. Usually, unfortunately it is all too constricted and potted for the true merits of the situation to be drawn out and debated properly. But all of us who feel that our wide open mouths as we are shouting across the chamber might be portrayed in our own living rooms would feel some restraint. I confess that there would be occasions when I would not particularly want to be televised. It would act as something of a guide to us all as we think about the people who might be watching us in the course of the debates, interjections and exchanges in this place. We would very quickly relax. Senator Peter Baume —Would you want to have it edited or complete? Senator CHANEY —I think that should be up to the media. In other words, I do not believe that it is possible for politicians to put in controls and to say one can televise this or televise that. I do not mind the sorts of experiments which broadcasters undertook with respect to the Budget broadcast where there were strict limits. But my view, and I stress the fact that I am expressing a personal view at the end of a parliament, when I feel I can have some small leeway, is that we should not seek to control that coverage any more than we seek to control the coverage which AAP or any other print media might exercise. I acknowledge the fact that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has sought to advance this matter. Senator John Watson , who is a very enthusiastic member of that Committee, is here. You, Mr President, would have been a senior member of it. I acknowledge that the Speaker wrote to me and other party leaders some time ago, on 20 August this year, suggesting that we experiment in freeing up the controls on radio broadcasting. That is a matter on which there was a delayed response from me and, I suspect, from other party leaders because in my own case and, I think, in the case of others we felt that it was a matter not for a personal opinion but for some party view to be formed. I wrote to the Speaker, Dr Jenkins, only in the last few days telling him that following that party discussion we were agreeable to see the proposal tried out as an experiment. Unfortunately our response was too late for this Parliament. I had a brief oral exchange with Mr Speaker about that . Even though, of course, I hope that there will be a President from another political party in the chair in the next Parliament, I hope that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings will pick up the same experiment next year so that we can try to liberalise the arrangements on an experimental basis for the radio stations. I believe that would be a valuable guide to us and would indicate that we would make parliament more relevant by giving it wider exposure. Mr President, I welcome your report. I am sorry that your work was cut off by the precipitate rush to an election by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I hope that we can pick up where the Committee left off when the Parliament resumes. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.00) —Mr President, before commencing my speech I would like to acknowledge the important part that you have played in the deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. While the Federal Parliament continues to consider whether it should allow the televising of parliament the South Australian House of Assembly has been allowing the televising of its proceedings for over a year now with access allowed to the telecast of any debates. However, the television networks there have until now shown exclusive interest in the film proceedings of Question Time. Discretion as to what is telecast resides exclusively in the television and radio stations. When the decision was made to permit the broadcasting organisations access they were assembled and had explained to them the basis on which access was being granted, namely, the difficulties with defamation, that only qualified privilege applied, that there was to be no ridicule, and that a fair coverage was to be provided with equal time to all parties. On occasions there has been a need to remind the operators, when cameras were obscured and panning about the chamber, that disruptive events were not to be telecast. This Committee has proved very interesting so far as the public has been concerned. A wide range of options have been put forward. Of course, I mention only those options which have been subject to public debate. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has proposed that continuous broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings on the ABC stations be dropped in favour of a program of edited highlights. The ABC also suggested the establishment of a parliamentary broadcasting unit to provide a continuous radio and television coverage of proceedings to all broadcasters. The Corporation also recommends the replacement of the current pattern of broadcasts with regular night programs when parliament is sitting. It is not an easy matter just for a parliamentary committee to give the go ahead to the televising of parliament. There are problems. At the same time there are advantages. For example, at one Committee meeting New South Wales Labor member Michael Maher is reported as saying that he had been told by a friend in the Canadian Parliament that the behaviour of members was said by everyone to have improved once the televising started. However, there are other difficulties. For example, should we allow a panning of what might be an empty chamber during a routine debate? If so, what perceptions would the community have of such a panning of an empty chamber? I think there are other considerations that one has to take into account. If we had only limited highlights, what would be the role of the back bench? Would the television time be taken up entirely with ministerial statements? Would adequate time be given to the role of the back bench? At the same time, if we allowed continuous televising of Parliament I think it would be necessary to make some changes in the parliamentary procedures. We all acknowledge the long time taken, for example, during the forming of quorums. This would not be particularly interesting so far as television viewing was concerned. Also there is the question of divisions. I think it is time that some of our parliamentary procedures were streamlined. I think we could adopt a voting pattern such as that which operates in Westminster where voting takes place at specific times. I believe that would be a desirable improvement. Another issue concerns the broadcasting of Parliament and whether there should be improvements, for example, whether the programmer should be entitled to make comment during quorums, during counting and so on. Some people believe that this would certainly highlight and improve the parliamentary performance and add interest to the viewers. I turn now to the reaction of some people to parliament. One person commented: Continuous broadcasting of Parliament on television would be a revolting mistake. Another person stated: Broadcasting of parliamentary debate should be stopped as soon as possible. It' s a ludicrous waste of the public airwaves to broadcast what is largely routine procedural stuff. While there are a lot of people in the community in favour of the continuous broadcasting or continuous televising of Parliament there are other people who believe that it should be stopped altogether or that there should be edited highlights of both broadcasts and televising at an appropriate time in the evening. If we adopted this procedure the real question is what the appropriate length of time of an evening should be. Should it be 15 minutes, one hour, two hours or even longer? These are issues which the public have to deal with. Another person who made a response to the Committee said that many politicians could not use the English language properly. There are a whole range of issues that are of vital interest to the community at large. I hope that perhaps we could develop some further mechanism in the new year to be able to get a wider input from the general community as to how we should proceed in relation to the possible broadcasting of Parliament. For example, there seems to be a fairly strong view that a special parliamentary unit should be established. However, if we establish a special parliamentary unit should it be as part of Hansard and controlled by Hansard or should Hansard be separate from a special parliamentary broadcasting and televising unit? To what extent do we allow commercial operators to take a segment of a speech and to add something of their own at the beginning or end of the speech? These are pretty important questions because they could significantly alter the twist of the direction or thrust of a member's deliberations. As the Parliament grows with its numbers to be increased by 23 members in the House of Representatives and 12 senators in the Senate, members of parliament will increasingly try to get their presentation both on radio and on television. The question is how the broadcasting unit will make sure there is fairness over a reasonable period between government and opposition members and between respective members within a party. Will the broadcasters tend to focus on the more flamboyant type or on the television-actor type, or will they tend to give undue emphasis to the flippant debate that makes the quick headline in the cheaper newspapers, or will they concentrate on the serious issues? These are fairly important questions. There are also technical issues as to whether the debate should be switched to the FM network or continue on the AM band because there are difficulties in regard to the number of channels available. For example, if a decision were made to select the FM band for broadcasting what about some of the people in the community who do not have the latest radio sets capable of picking up these programs? We have been told that the great majority of people in the community have these sorts of radios but I believe that while that may be the case in the metropolitan area it may not be so out in the bush. The Committee has a lot more work to do. It is a difficult area. We have to recognise that there have to be some sorts of guidelines applied to a television coverage. While a lot of us might feel that continuous televising is important we must realise that if we televise just the head and shoulders of a speaker that will be deadly boring. On the other hand there could be a need for some sort of background shots relating to the sort of material being debated, for example, views of the countryside or detailed excerpts of the report being debated and so on. There is a wide range of issues that must be examined to ensure that the commentary is devoid of bias. If we permit commentary to come in , we should see to it that the summary is unbiased and that the language and procedures should be normalised in a particular way. Senator Hill —Why not give a great deal of flexibility and see how it works? Senator WATSON —In response to that comment by Senator Hill, I believe that, if one is to experiment, perhaps now is the time to do so before we move to the new Parliament House and set up costly procedures. Among the difficulties of experimentation in this chamber are the adequacy of light, the problems caused by increased heat as a result of the need to have a higher level of lighting in existing circumstances, and so on. No doubt the continuation of the Committee's investigations in the new year will bring forth from the community a wide range of views on the televising of parliament. I commend the interim report to the Parliament. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.12) —I support the general comments which have been made in support of consideration of this question. The relationship between the media and the Parliament is important in a parliamentary democracy. One fears that there is always a tendency for parliamentary democracy to be overlooked with the development of the semi-presidential system, which can be so much more readily capable of being the subject matter of media attention and treatment in our current type of technological development. There tends to be a concentration on the leaders of government, the Leader of the Opposition and, to a lesser extent, the leaders of other parties, whereas the real work of a parliamentary democracy takes place within the Parliament and its precincts, within the party system-the caucus system in the case of the Labor Party-and the parties themselves. What comes out from that on to the floor of the chamber is often of great importance, and of very much greater importance than the slanging match that tends to attract the attention of the media. One must remember that the media are limited in the amount of space and time they can give to the reporting of parliament. Newspapers are more likely to sell if an item is a sensation-for example, if it is reported that someone has thrown a glass of water over somebody else in the middle of a dispute in a debate in the Parliament. That incident is more likely to be reported than is a debate dealing with the development of an Australian aerospace industry associated with defence needs, or whatever it may be. If we can find a happy medium between the print media's opportunity, in view of the limited space that is available, and the opportunity for some form of presentation of rado and television reporting of the Parliament, I think that a great deal more information, and perhaps a little less entertainment, about aspects of parliament will become available to the people of Australia. If they obtain more information about what happens in the Parliament, I believe that their respect for and participation in the democratic process will be higher. It is important in a country such as Australia at all costs to preserve the public respect for the freedom we enjoy. It must not be taken for granted. When one grows up in a democracy such as Australia, one tends to think it normal to have the freedoms that we enjoy. But more than two-thirds of the world's population do not enjoy our freedoms. In many parts of the world the media do not have the opportunity to report freely what happens in a parliament that is freely elected. Mr President, having just come back from the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference you will no doubt be fully aware of the difference between the parliamentary democracies and the so-called parliaments in some countries which call themselves democracies, but which in fact do not have properly elected parliaments or any of the checks and balances and the free opportunities contained within our parliamentary system. It would help people's understanding of the operation of parliamentary democracy if they were to see a little more of what happens and hear a little more about these things directly. I do not suggest that the print media, using as they so often do interpretive journalism, are not fulfilling an important role, but that is one aspect of the role of reporting parliament. Another aspect involves some form of direct presentation of what is happening. One can have particular regard to the IPU and the stark differences which are presented of the different systems that operate in the world. Let us cherish the freedoms we have and ensure that the people of Australia understand those freedoms and how they are exercised within the parliamentary democracy. Many people in Australia feel fairly distant from the Parliament. If one reads letters on these matters in the newspapers or engages in discussions with people outside Parliament, one discovers that many people tend to have a fairly unreal impression of what the Parliament is and how members spend their time. What tend to be highlighted are the differences, the extremes, the sensations. I hope that in any consideration of the further development of a relationship between the media and the Parliament consideration can be given to showing people parliament working as a parliament. I remember the great response in 1974 when the only joint sitting that was ever held of the Houses of Parliament was fully televised . That created widespread attention and interest throughout the community. I was amazed that so many people found it fascinating. Many people commented afterwards that they had no idea that that was how a parliament operated. I believe we have an opportunity which has been taken successfully in some other countries to apply the principle of gradualism. That principle, which has already been applied with success to the development of the Senate committee system, could be employed to give the average Australian citizen the opportunity to know something more about the operation of parliamentary democracy in Australia. The Canadian experience is a case in point. Those concerned were surprised at the rating given to the televising of the Canadian Parliament. One wonders whether the extent of the huge swing in the recent Canadian elections was not a reflection of the greater knowledge of the operation of the parliamentary system and what was happening in government and parliament. One wonders whether that would have been the case had it not been for the television presentation. I support what was said by the Leader of the Opposition Senator Chaney and Senator Watson about the importance of matters such as standards of behaviour, the effect the presentation to the public of parliament, other than through the print media, may have on the way in which people speak and generally behave in the Parliament and whether that may not be to the benefit of the parliamentary process as a whole. I support the work that has been done so far and hope that further work will be done as soon as possible with the reconstitution of the Parliament after the election. I join my Leader and say that I have absolutely nothing but admiration for the job you have done, Mr President. I hope that you can continue to participate but not necessarily as a member of the governing party. I trust that, whoever is in government, this work will be continued and that the principle of gradualism, will be applied to it. I trust that we will develop an opportunity for a greater exposure of the Parliament to the people and thereby a greater understanding of the operation and the tremendous advantages of parliamentary democracy over the sorts of systems that operate in the two-thirds of the world which does not enjoy the freedom that we enjoy. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with section 121 (3) of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, I lay on the table the annual report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1984. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —On behalf of Senator Tate, who is engaged in business of the Senate elsewhere, I present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning: Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984, the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984, the Bounty ( Electric Motors) Bill 1984, the Foreign Ownership and Control Register Bill 1984 , the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1984, the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984, the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1984, the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 and the Wheat Marketing Bill 1984. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13 dated 10 October 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 224th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-The 224th report reports on an examination of excise and deferred Customs duties undertaken by a sectional committee of the Public Accounts Committee under the chairmanship of Dr Theophanous. Since this report is to be tabled by him in another place, I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report concludes the Committee's inquiry into the collection of excise and deferred customs duties. The inquiry included consideration of excise on beer, tobacco products, distilled spirits and petroleum products as well as the process of deferring customs duties and was extended to include the petroleum freight subsidy scheme. The Committee commenced its inquiry in 1982, however action was interrupted by competing inquiry activities and an election early in 1983. Thus, this inquiry spanned both the previously constituted Public Accounts Committee and the current, Fourteenth Public Accounts Committee. Despite these interruptions, the Committee has had time to conduct quite an extensive investigation into the area . The subject matter of the inquiry, being concerned with revenue matters made a welcome change to the Committee's usual diet of expenditure related inquiries. In carrying out its inquiry the Committee took note of the criticism by some sectors of industry that during the efficiency audit there had been little consultation with industry and the audit had concentrated on one city. Consequently the Committee's inquiry strategy was designed to ensure that the sectors of industry affected by the recommendations of the efficiency audit would have every opportunity to put their view, either directly to the Committee or by submission. Accordingly, in addition to the program of public and private hearings with the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Committee received submissions from representatives of most of the subject areas and undertook visits to industry sites as diverse as the Barossa Valley in South Australia in connection with distilled spirits, a Darwin bonded warehouse holding beer and the Caltex oil refinery at Kurnell in New South Wales. Excise is a very important source of revenue for the Federal Government which has exclusive power over commodity taxation by virtue of section 90 of the constitution. In 1983-84 net excise revenue from the commodities being considered in this inquiry was $4,083 million representing approximately 9 per cent of total Commonwealth tax revenue. This compares with revenue of approximately $2,400 million derived from customs duties on imports over the same period. The excise inquiry was based on the concerns expressed in the 'Auditor-General' s report on an efficiency audit-the collection of excise and deferred customs duties'. In that report of March 1982 the Auditor-General examined the procedures used in the collection of excise and the operation of the bonded warehouse system which is used for deferring customs duties on imported goods. The aim of the audit was to check that controls and procedures used are adequate to protect the Commonwealth Government's revenue. The system used by customs for excise collection and verification is known as ' commodity control'. Under this system the Department relies on manufacturers' declarations of the amount of excisable product produced to determine excise liability. Audit was satisfied that the principle of commodity control was sound so long as sufficient, rigorous, validating checks of the manufacturers' returns and accounts were made. It was in this area of validation checks that audit found deficiencies. Audit was also concerned that customs had no independent means of determining the amount of excise revenue due to the Commonwealth. In summary, the Committee recommends that the department take action to improve specific controls over the particular excisable commodities considered in the inquiry and to improve their general management strategy. For example, for distilled spirits, the committee recommends that spirits bottling be only permitted on licensed premises which are subject to the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and that resources be applied to ensure proper control over users of pure alcohol sold excise-free for industrial , scientific and educational applications. Among the specific recommendations for distilled spirits are: Urgent attention be given to increasing powers exercised by officers under the Excise Act to make them comparable to those exercised under the Customs Act, particularly regarding the powers of access to documents. The Committee recommends that care be taken to safeguard civil liberties and to prevent the possible abuse of powers. A national loss control strategy for spirits be developed and implemented as a matter of urgency. The Committee reiterates the recommendation of the National Loss Control Working Party that consideration be given to a simplified approach to loss control, involving an adjustment for losses being given in the duty levied. For beer, the committee recommends that: Customs readdress the Auditor-General's recommendations on the possible use of independent sources of data to develop a means of estimating potential revenue due. Adequate resources be made available to the Inland Revenue and Dumping Division to enable prompt implementation of systems based reviews in the brewing industry . The Committee's consideration of material presented to it on tobacco products prompts it to recommend an evaluation of quota controls as a regulatory device when discretionary changes in excise rates are anticipated. Other recommendations made by the Committee following consideration of tobacco include, that: The Department devote greater effort to the identification and use of alternative sources of data on production volumes in order to estimate the excise revenue due from tobacco products. Adequate resources be made available to increase the rate of progress in the development of systems based investigation techniques in the tobacco industry and to allow regular review of companies' systems. The introduction of a computerised inventory control system, to enable proper inventory control of under-bond goods by Customs. The Committee recommends that detailed examinations be made of alternative methods of excise collection including shifting the point of excise collection for beer, tobacco products and petroleum products back closer to the completion of the production process. It is hoped that this would streamline collection procedures by decreasing the length of time that the commodities need to be under customs control. The Committee also makes recommendations to improve the operations of bonded warehouses and in fact suggests that the fundamental reasons for maintaining the facility should be examined. Other recommendations are that: There be a formal ''Entry into bond'' for domestically produced excisable goods with documentation and control comparable to that exercised over imported goods under bond. The Committee considers that the Department's control procedures for bonded warehouses lack sophistication and that better use could be made of ADP facilities in this area. The Committee recommends that immediate attention be given to upgrading control systems for bonded warehouses. Customs promptly develop and implement a computer system which reconciles bond entries and releases to provide sufficient information to allow proper inventory control in bonded warehouses. The Committee endorses the Auditor-General's recommendations that Customs should analyse dwell times of goods under bond and direct investigative efforts to those goods with apparently lengthy dwell times. Similar comments apply to Audit's suggestion that efforts should be concentrated towards those warehouses which yield the greatest revenue. The Committee suggests improvements to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, for example by increasing resources, including ADP resources, for application to this area and by increasing penalties for illegal practices. The Committee also recommends that there be a comprehensive review of the scheme. The Committee recommends the formulation of a detailed plan to co-ordinate the department's operations and its ongoing review processes. The Committee also recommends improvements in staffing in Customs, particularly regarding training and the manner in which staff are deployed. The Committee hopes that implementation of its recommendations will increase the efficiency of Customs' excise collection operations. During the inquiry the Committee received disturbing information regarding illicit distillation of spirit and evasion of duty. This problem has serious implications not only for Commonwealth revenue but also for the health and stability of the potable spirits industry. The Committee considers that Customs' seizure of an illicit still, the largest one ever found in Australia, in July this year highlights the immense challenges facing customs and the need for them to be ever vigilant in their duty. Senator GEORGES —I merely wish to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the research and documentation connected with this inquiry. I place on record the thanks of the Committee for that work and support. I commend the report to honourable senators. I regret that copies are not available because of the haste with which we produced it in order to bring it down in the Senate. Copies will be available tomorrow. I thank the Senate for its consideration. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-This inquiry was based on concerns expressed in the Auditor-General's report as a result of an efficiency audit carried out by the Auditor-General. The audit's main aim was to formulate suggestions for improvement in a number of areas. The role of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was to evaluate the suggestions put forward by the audit. The report takes very much the form of an information-type paper, although it comes down with a number of very firm recommendations and suggestions. Historically, the introduction of excise in many countries was justified initially on moral grounds-to discourage the use of goods considered to be socially undesirable, which included spirits, beer and tobacco. In Australia excise is levied on very few commodities; for example, beer, tobacco, spirits, petroleum products and crude oil. Nevertheless, it is a very important source of revenue for the Federal Government, which has exclusive powers over commodity taxation by virtue of section 90 of the Constitution. When the Federation came into being the respective colonies saw that it was undesirable for each of them to proceed to collect its own excise, as there would then be different rates in the different colonies. Hence the Commonwealth has exclusive powers in relation to the collection of excise, which is very desirable. In summary, as a result of the subject matter of the statement which Senator Georges has incorporated in Hansard, the Committee recommended that the Department of Industry and Commerce take action to improve specific controls over the excisable commodities considered by the inquiry and to improve the general management strategy. I think it was unfortunate that during the inquiry the Committee received disturbing information regarding an illicit spirit distilling operation and an evasion of duty. I commend the report, which is very detailed, to the Senate. As this will be one of the last reports, if not the last, of the Public Accounts Committee to be presented to the Senate before it rises, I wish the Senate to take note of the fact that the size of the Committee was substantially increased during this term of Parliament. As a result, the Chairman's duties became very much more onerous and more difficult and a wider range of issues was discussed. It was necessary for the Committee to divide into a number of sub- committees and this worked very well. I therefore pay tribute to the Chairman, Senator Georges, who found it necessary to devote a considerable amount of time to the operations of the Committee. We have to recognise that when a person takes on the position of Chairman of what is perhaps the most important committee of the Parliament-this fact is recognised by the Parliament's allocation of staff to this Committee-a lot of his personal time, as well as his normal parliamentary time, is involved. I think we have to acknowledge that one of the important roles of the parliamentary process is fulfilled by the committee system. In committees we lose some of the cut and thrust, some of the nastiness that we often see in this chamber, where a lot of point scoring takes place. In committees, and certainly on the Public Accounts Committee, there is a determination to improve the management systems. We do not seek to criticise officers overtly, to stand them up in public; we seek to improve the system, to improve accountability and to make sure that the system works very much more effectively and, consequently, save the taxpayers money. I pay tribute to the staff of the Public Accounts Committee, many of whom come on a secondment basis for six months. It provides valuable training to a number of members of the Public Service, especially those in cadet management and improvement areas. I believe they receive valuable training as a result of their time on the Committee. I also pay tribute to the work of Michael Talberg. Michael has been with the Committee over a number of years. I do not think one would find a harder working public servant than Michael Talberg. It is a difficult job because he has to get the information out of the departments. He has to work very closely with the Auditor-General. In fact, it has been stated that we are almost an arm of the Auditor-General. He reports independently to the Parliament, not to the Executive, and that is the same role as our Public Accounts Committee has. I thank the Chairman and members of the Committee, my colleagues from this chamber and my colleagues from the other chamber because it is a joint committee and I believe it plays a most useful role in the parliamentary process. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to improvements to on- base housing at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Darwin, Northern Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The proposal referred to the Public Works Committee is for the refurbishment of 248 on-base married quarters at the RAAF Base, Darwin, which are below acceptable maintenance and structural standards. The Committee was concerned that the proposal submitted to it did not adequately meet the accommodation needs of married RAAF personnel posted to Darwin. As a consequence of its oft expressed concern that Service personnel should be provided with houses of a standard approaching those available to them in the civil community, the Committee has recommended certain additional works to improve the standard of these houses, reduced the number of houses to be improved under the proposal to 148 and recommended that 100 new houses be constructed. Joint Committee on Public Works Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I will speak briefly to the report of the Public Works Committee. I support the remarks of the Chairman, Senator Foreman. I have not actually seen the tabled report, but being a member of the Sub-committee that has taken evidence regarding the upgrading of these houses in Darwin, I wish to speak on this matter very briefly. I note that in the recommendations of the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Defence three options were given for this upgrading: Firstly, to upgrade to a degree; secondly, to rebuild houses, which would be much more expensive; and, thirdly, to lease more houses in the Darwin community. In supporting Senator Foreman I wish to say, too, that I believe that the option that has been put up by the Public Works Committee is a much more sensible one. It will mean that the Defence Department will have a better asset for the future. I say 'better asset' because not only will many of the houses be upgraded but some will be rebuilt. The option that was given to the Committee was in my estimation of insufficient standard for people living in a tropical climate. There were problems in the reticulation of water and power and there were insufficient power points, which meant that only two types of electrical equipment could be used at once. All in all, I believe that the money that was suggested should be spent in the upgrading of the houses would have been money ill-spent because the standard of housing was insufficient. I have not received a copy of the report, but I understand that the Chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator Foreman, has said that the Government has agreed to the submission, or at least is looking into the matter further. I believe this is most essential. I commend to the Government acceptance of the Public Works Committee recommendation, which is another option. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion for an extension of time for the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Senator Georges —Mr President, I take a point of order. We are about to have before us an application to allow for an extension of time for the sitting of that Committee. This matter is not on the Notice Paper and has suddenly been brought into the Senate. It is a matter that needs to be considered by the whole Senate. I think all honourable senators ought to be aware of the application for an extension of time by this Committee. My view of the matter is that leave ought not to be granted because the matter is not on the Notice Paper. It is a substantial matter of which notice ought to be given to all honourable senators. The reason I raise it at this stage is that I am not inclined to give leave for the purpose; I would give leave tomorrow morning when a warning has been given that this extension of time will be sought. The Senate will be meeting at 10 o' clock tomorrow morning, so that does raise a problem. Nevertheless, I do believe that the whole Senate should be aware of the application being made by the Committee for an extension of time. I think certain questions ought to be asked of the Committee as to why it needs that extension. Certain matters need to be debated. I say to you, Mr President, that there is a very important matter which the Committee has not reported to the Senate; that is, that the direction and decision of the Senate were breached . The PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, you are taking a point of order and not making a speech. Senator Georges —Yes, but, in making that point of order, I just indicate that there is a possibility that I will refuse leave. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. At the moment Senator Tate has sought leave to move a motion. That is the situation at the moment. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Unless Senator Tate indicates that it is not necessary and that the matter can satisfactorily be dealt with tomorrow I would be prepared to move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Tate moving a motion relating to an extension of time for the Senate Select Committee on Allegations concerning a Judge to sit. The PRESIDENT —Do I take it that you are not moving that motion at this stage? Senator CHANEY —I ask Senator Tate to indicate whether he can deal with the matter in the morning satisfactorily for the Committee. The PRESIDENT —Senator Tate, do you wish to respond to that matter? Senator TATE(Tasmania) —The only indication that I can give is that the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge adjourned its hearings for today and is scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow. To that extent members of the Committee would have hoped to be able to attend at that time in Senate Committee Rooms 1 and 2. That was the reason why I thought this motion could be moved in a fairly formal way tonight. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no motion before the Chair at the moment. Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Tate moving a motion relating to an extension of time for the sittings of that Committee. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.42) —I am opposed to the motion. I stated why I am opposed to the motion when I took a point of order earlier, Mr President, and you allowed me to go beyond my point of order. The PRESIDENT —I was trying to stop you, Senator, but I could not. Senator GEORGES —Yes, I know, Mr President. You are very tolerant. I view this matter very seriously. The Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge was established after some debate took place in the Senate and after some caution was expressed about its establishment and what was likely to happen before it. Honourable senators will recall that I had very strong views on the establishment of the Committee and I expressed those views in substantial terms. I now find myself in a position of having to speak again at short notice. I wanted to make some points, perhaps to extend my criticisms, to sound further warnings and to ask a number of questions of the Committee and its Chairman. Mr President, I had a number of questions to ask you concerning the Committee, the manner in which it was proceeding and what was happening to it. I now find that I am required to do that without any preparation whatsoever. My main objection is that some honourable senators are not present in the chamber for party reasons. It might be argued that they ought to be present. But they are not here for that reason. We were given no warning of this motion at all. Senator Mason —You should have anticipated it, Senator Georges. Senator GEORGES —Let me say that it could be argued that it should have been anticipated. It is quite possible that I would not have been in this chamber if it were not for my having to present a report to the Senate. I remember when the previous Committee, the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of Judge, was sitting. It made a number of applications to the Senate to extend its sittings. Those applications got past me. I would have argued against those extensions. We again have the Committee Chairman coming into the chamber at 6.45 this evening, seeking leave at the last moment, without warning anyone that this was going to be done. As I have said, this matter is not on the Notice Paper. It ought not to be done in this way. Senator Peter Baume —How did you know? Senator GEORGES —I did not know. I looked at the Notice Paper. Reports from committees are listed. One of the reports that were put down was my own report. There was a report from Senator Tate on a matter which was presented by Senator Gietzelt and there was a report by the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works . No other report was listed. It is not satisfactory for the chairman of a committee of this sort to seek an extension of time for that committee to report without it being debated by the Senate. In my view this ought to be done tomorrow morning. The Committee ought to postpone its hearings for the half hour or the hour that is necessary for the debate to take place concerning this Committee. I am concerned about the way the Committee is operating, the extension of its operation, the increased number of people who are coming before the Committee as witnesses and the number of counsel who are now representing people who are appearing before the Committee. I want to know exactly where the Committee is going. I also wanted to ask the Chairman of the Committee-this is why I am asking that this matter not proceed at present-that the Standing Orders ought-- Senator Townley —You would like to see it wrapped up, wouldn't you? The PRESIDENT —As Senator Townley is not in his right place, I ask Senator Georges to ignore the interjection. Senator GEORGES —Nevertheless, the interjection has been made. Whether the honourable senator was in his rightful place, I cannot ignore it. All I have to say to Senator Townley and a number of other people is that quite a number of us from both sides of this Senate want to see this Committee wound up. The evidence which is coming before the Committee at present is starting to implicate person after person, organisation after organisation, institution after institution, and all sorts of information is being dumped before the Committee. When I first spoke on this matter I warned the Senate about this. Needless to say, my warning was ignored. But the matters I warned the Senate about have actually happened. We have a clear situation that, no matter what the Chairman of that Committee endeavours to do to restrict the presentation of evidence, it cannot be properly judged to be relevant because of the arguments that are being presented and because of the sudden presentation of material. The Chairman of the Committee is in an impossible situation. We are having judged before that Committee, no matter what the Chairman tries to do and no matter what Commissioners-- Senator Harradine —Mr President, I take a point of order. My point of order relates to relevance. The motion before us is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I cannot see the relevance of Senator Georges's current contribution to that motion. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening to Senator Georges. I have allowed him to expand his argument as to why there should not be a suspension of Standing Orders. I tend to think Senator Georges is going a bit beyond the reasons now. I ask him to restrict his remarks to his opposition to the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator GEORGES —I apologise to you, Mr President. When someone brings a motion into this House, almost by stealth if I might say so-- Senator Chaney —You have been following these inquiries as closely as anyone. Senator GEORGES —I will use the honourable senator's terms now because I am beginning to feel very strongly about this matter. When a matter such as this is brought before the Senate in this way it ought to be opposed in the strongest terms. Perhaps I am transgressing the Standing Orders and moving away from the motion, but if this motion proceeds there is no other way that I can make the statements that I want to make. We would then proceed to a request that the time of the Committee be extended. It is possible that I could pick up the argument at that point. I do not want it to get to that stage because I believe that every honourable senator should be aware of the motion that is before the Senate . Honourable senators are not aware of it. No matter what anyone wants to say, it is not on the Notice Paper. Honourable senators were not made aware of it. It is a substantive matter that ought to be debated. The role of the Committee ought to be re-examined. Mr President, we need to know from you the cost to the Senate of the exercise that is going on. We want to know from you, Mr President, how many more people are going to be brought before the Committee. I want to ask you, Mr President: Is it a fact that Mr Farquhar has been sitting outside this Parliament-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now getting quite wide of the terms of the motion before the Chair. Senator Crichton-Browne —He was at the Lobby today. Senator GEORGES —Yes, for two days he has been waiting in the Lobby for a chance to get in here. We now hear that Mr Barrie Unsworth is going to be brought before the Committee. We now also hear that there is a Mr Baird, a member of the New South Wales Parliament-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I will have to ask you to resume your seat if you do not come back to the terms of the motion. Senator GEORGES —Well, as I say, by the time I have finished what I am saying most honourable senators will know that the motion is before the Senate. Senator Haines —Call a quorum; that's quicker. Senator GEORGES —I cannot call a quorum because it would be unfair to call a quorum at this stage. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I ask you to restrict your remarks to the motion before the Chair. Senator GEORGES —It is no good Senator Chaney counting. He can count as much as he likes. There is a quorum. I do not want to have to repeat my statements later , but I am strongly opposed to the motion for the suspension of standing orders to allow that Committee to bring before the Senate, without proper notice, a very important matter. That is the reason I oppose the proposition before us at the moment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.51) —I rise quite briefly to support the motion for the suspension of standing orders. What happened tonight was not an unusual procedure in this place. Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, sought leave to move a motion for the extension of the time by which that Committee must report. That has been discussed with me not only by Senator Tate but also by a member of the Committee on the other side of the chamber. Senator Georges —You should have taken it more seriously than you did. Senator GRIMES —I do take it seriously; do not go on like that. As Senator Georges was talking about unusual procedures in this place, I remind honourable senators of the number of times he sought leave for the committee of which he was chairman to sit while the Senate was sitting, and when he did not get that permission he just sat anyhow. So let us not talk about people not worrying about the procedures in this place. Senator Georges —If you want a personal explanation you will get one. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry to mention it, but it is no good Senator Georges accusing Senator Tate of not following the procedures properly if he does not do it himself. The simple fact is that this Committee was established with all the misgivings that I, Senator Georges, Senator Evans and others had about it. This Committee was established by the Senate. We should be concerned that the Committee should do its work as expeditiously as possible. We should be concerned that the Committee can get on with its work. If Senator Georges has complaints about the way in which the Committee is operating, there are plenty of opportunities in this place, with due respect, for him to talk about that. I think it is sensible that we deal with this motion tonight. I think it is sensible to give the Committee the extension of time it has asked for. I do not think anyone in this place is surprised that the Committee has asked for an extension of time. I do not think anyone in this place expected otherwise. For that reason I support the motion for the suspension of standing orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.54) —in reply-I merely wish to thank the Government for its support of the motion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.55) —I oppose the motion to suspend standing orders, but not for the reasons latterly expressed by Senator Georges. I believe that it is setting a bad precedent. I know that on this occasion it is not meant to hijack a situation and that it is a genuine matter of concern, but I have to say that the Committee can sit tomorrow. Under the Senate's resolution it has to report by tomorrow. It can sit at 10 o'clock tomorrow. Notice could be given today and we could deal with the notice of motion tomorrow afternoon, after the Committee concluded its hearing, and debate it then. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Tate) proposed: (1) That the time for the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge to report be extended (2) That the Committee report as soon as possible. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.56) —It is now disclosed that the Committee wants to sit for an extended period without any limitation. That is the purpose of the motion. We ought to be asking what the Committee intends. I have said before that I appreciate the difficulties that members of the Committee face, but some of them are of their own making because the Committee decided to keep itself free of any influence, of any material or of any proposition likely to come before the Committee and gave that responsibility to its counsel, Mr Simos. On a previous occasion I said that that would lead to a widening of the inquiry, and so it has. Now the Committee is in difficulties and the difficulties are evident to anyone who is prepared to listen to and watch what is going on. What has happened is what I warned about. I warned that we would have a sophisticated legal exercise, but even I did not anticipate that it would become of such magnitude or that we would have so many learned Queen's Counsel before the Committee with so many supporting counsel and solicitors. Senator Townley —It is cheaper than a royal commission. Senator GEORGES —At $50,000 a day? It might be cheaper, but it involves us and I am concerned. I want to know just how many more people are going to come before the Committee. I want to know how much more evidence is going to be disclosed before the Committee which involves people other than the person supposedly under investigation. Which organisations are going to be questioned? Was it expected today that evidence would be put before the Committee by Mr Briese that the information upon which he based his statement came from a Liberal member in New South Wales and that that information came from Liberal Party headquarters in New South Wales? Senator Crichton-Browne —No, he didn't say that. Senator GEORGES —He did. Senator Crichton-Browne —Being an honest and fair man, you know he didn't say that. He said he assumed that and he said that evidence-- Senator GEORGES —I will withdraw, my learned friend. Since we have taken on judicial methods in this place by way of that Committee down there, let us start to use judicial terms here. He assumed that it came from Liberal Party headquarters. Nevertheless, a Liberal member of the New South Wales Parliament-- Senator Harradine —Mr President, I rise to a point of order. Is it proper for Senator Georges to debate here matters which have taken place before the Senate Committee when other members of the Senate are not aware of what has taken place at the Senate Committee because they have been here doing a job in this chamber? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I support that point of order. It seems to me that we are getting into a debate which is ranging into the Committee evidence. Clearly in a matter such as this, which is one of great sensitivity in which the Senate has delegated the inquiry to the Senate Committee, I think it highly undesirable that we should have a free running debate on evidence which may or may not be given. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order at this stage, but I ask Senator Georges to realise that the motion before the Chair is for the extension of time for the Committee to sit. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator GEORGES —I will endeavour to be as brief as possible because I appreciate the fact that there is very little support for what I am saying here. I am in exactly the same position as I was in when I opposed the setting up of the Committee. I will not go into the evidence that has come before the Committee but I merely indicate that the Committee has spread itself beyond the extent we thought it would; we thought it would confine itself to limited terms of reference and would not allow itself to become a testing ground for counsel for other cases. That is exactly what the Committee has done. Senator Haines-It has not, Senator. It has done nothing of the sort. Senator GEORGES —It has. The Committee has had before it counsel for Justice Foord, counsel for Justice Flannery- Senator Tate-That does not prove your proposition that it is a testing ground for other proceedings. Senator GEORGES —The counsel are protecting their clients, interests, and in order to do so they have to take firm initiatives which are bringing the Committee into difficulties. There are difficulties. What is happening, in spite of all the endeavours to prevent it from happening, is that the Committee is expanding well beyond what this Senate intended. I will move away from that point. Since I am being critical of the Committee let me refer to one matter. The decision was made that the submission by Mr Hughes should not be given to the counsel for Mr Briese. Yet we have found that that submission was posted, apparently from Parliament House, to Mr Briese's counsel. He reported that fact to the Committee. This was a clear breach of the privileges of the Committee and should have been reported forthwith to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Senator Georges is now going beyond the terms of the motion. I ask him to restrict his remarks to the terms of the motion, namely, that the period for the Committee to report be extended. Senator GEORGES —I will accept that. Since I hear the mutterings of shut up and sit down- The PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I ask you to relate your remarks to the motion before the Chair. Senator GEORGES —I will exercise a little more patience. Let me again forewarn the Senate that unless this Committee is brought to an end-I am not for any reason protecting anyone at all-we will get into further trouble. I would like to know from the Committee-we will not get the information-exactly when it intends to finish. If we allow these learned counsel to proceed in the way they are proceeding-they are representing a whole host of people who are appearing before the Committee-it is not likely that the Committee will finish before the Senate rises. It is fairly obvious that we will face another problem later on if the Committee sits beyond the 26th. Senator Missen-Why? Senator GEORGES —The argument will be put as to whether or not the Committee can continue to sit. Because this debate is not taking place in a more relaxed way that information will not be raised in the debate. Quite a number of honourable senators on both sides of the chamber are expressing concern about what is happening and they will not have an opportunity to put a point of view. I again express my concern about the Committee. I will not use the terms I used when I spoke about it last time that it had created a monster. Perhaps I ought not to use those words at all. Senator Missen-Don't do a Neville Wran or a Lionel Bowen. Senator GEORGES —There you are. Senator Missen has just mentioned Mr Wran's name . Is that correct? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I ask you to restrict your remarks to the terms of the motion before the Chair, namely, regarding the extension of time for the Committee to report, otherwise I will have to ask you to resume your seat. Senator GEORGES —Yes, I know that, and you would not want to do that. The PRESIDENT —No, I do not want to do that. Senator GEORGES —Yes, I know that, so I will round off what I am saying. All I am saying is that the interjection indicates that what is happening in the Committee goes well beyond the Committee and beyond the Senate; it reaches well into New South Wales and other places. For that reason I again say 'take caution '. The proper course for this Senate to take is to say to the Committee 'wind up quickly'. The time granted to it to present its report should not be extended indefinitely. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.05) —in reply-In closing the debate I will respond very briefly. The extension of time is needed for obvious reasons which would be a matter of commonsense, I think, to most honourable senators. We hope to finish with witnesses possibly even by tomorrow afternoon, but certainly by Friday. That is our hope and expectation. To allay some fears I will state that the method of deciding which witnesses to call is not one that is in the hands of only counsellors, as I think Senator Georges indicated. The fact is that counsel assisting the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge submits to the commissioners assisting the Committee what he thinks is the best course in relation to the calling of witnesses. Those commissioners then make a recommendation to the Committee which makes the decision. May I say, without revealing any names, that that has not been a process by which either the commissioners or, in its turn, the Committee has automatically accepted the submission or recommendation of the counsel assisting. Senator Haines —Other counsel have put forward names too. Senator TATE —Of course other counsel have the right to approach the Committee to see whether witnesses may be called but it is our decision in the end. We hope to finish with witnesses possibly by late tomorrow or Friday. Counsel will clearly require several days to make their addresses. The whole question of the appearance of Mr Justice Murphy is something which is out of our hands. As every honourable senator would know, he is to be invited, rather than compelled, to appear before the Committee. Of course this is something on which at this stage a decision has not been reached. Commissioners will require time to write up their report which we then have to consider before we determine our report, or reports as the case may be. In the light of all these matters it is quite clear that tomorrow's deadline cannot be reached and it is impossible to put a precise date on the conclusion of the task entrusted to us by the Senate. I also say, to allay some fears, that whilst the setting up of the Committee is a matter of legitimate political controversy I believe-of course some of the procedures were the subject of vigorous debate in this chamber-the fact is that the proceedings of the Committee have been conducted in a way which adheres, as closely as practicable, to those rules of evidence which would be applied in a criminal trial. To that extent hearsay evidence has been excluded despite strenuous and lengthy arguments by counsel that it be admitted, sometimes by the front door and sometimes by the back door. But in every instance where the hearsay material was sought to be introduced as evidence of the issues involved it has been rejected. In relation to the issues, the Committee was at great pains to refine the allegation in a way which kept very closely within the four corners of Appendix 5 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to the extent that many issues have been excluded. Once again we have prevented the introduction of issues irrelevant to Appendix 5 and, in particular, have not allowed the Committee to become a forum where other issues between other persons might, to the public, appear to be up for determination. We have been very scrupulous in allowing only that evidence which is relevant to the allegation which we have defined in a particular and precise way. We have not wandered on a frolic of our own through the many other allegations and pending court cases and prosecutions which are either in train or mooted. In all of those respects I assure the Senate that we are trying to conclude this matter as soon as possible, given the task entrusted to us. In the end, given the controversy as to the setting up of the Committee and putting that to one side, I believe the Committee will be seen to have acted within the parameters set by the Senate and in accordance with the rules of evidence and the principles of natural justice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.10) —Before Senator Tate leaves the chamber, perhaps I could just make a quick comment. I did not make any comment this morning about the matters which have arisen over the last 24 hours relating to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. They have been matters of considerable public interest, and the Senate Select Committee itself chose to make a statement this morning about them. I do not wish to make a speech about them now, but I think that it would be desirable if the record of the Senate for today included the statement which was made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on behalf of the Committee. I simply seek leave, Mr President, to have that statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A JUDGE Statement by Chairman The attention of the Committee has been drawn to certain remarks concerning the Committee made in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Hon. Mr Lionel Bowen. The very establishing of the Committee and the manner in which the Committee should go about its tasks are matters of political controversy. They were so within the Senate itself and no doubt are to be considered legitimate areas of comment both supportive and critical. That area is to be distinguished from the actual operations of the Committee within the terms of the resolution of the Senate. Within the rules of procedure as laid down, the Committee has been scrupulously careful to admit into evidence only those matters which would be admitted before a court in a criminal trial. In this it has had the benefit of the advice of the Commissioners Assisting. Mr J. L. C. Wickham, Q.C. and Mr F. X. Connor, Q.C.-two distinguished retired judges, and the myriad of counsel have ensured that no opportunity to consider the exclusion of evidence is let pass. In particular, it is quite wrong to suggest, as Mr Bowen did yesterday in another place, that any evidence has been improperly admitted. On the contrary, on Monday hearsay evidence was excluded despite strenuous and lengthy submissions that it be admitted. Again, the Committee was at pains last Thursday to suppress the name of a person whose trial might be prejudiced by the publication of his name. The suppression order caused uproar in the media and protest from the Premier of New South Wales. The Committee shares Mr Bowen's concern in that regard. It is a pity others did not. In these respects Mr Bowen's criticism of the actual proceedings of the Committee were unfounded. Neither Mr Bowen nor many commentators are attending to the elementary fact that the making of allegations by way of admissible evidence is the way in which any judicial trial proceeds. It is another question altogether whether the allegations are substantiated at the end of the day, and if so what weight to attach to them. The Committee notes that Mr Bowen, in a statement issued late last night, states that he did not intend to cast any reflection on the integrity of members of the Committee. The Committee acknowledges this somewhat repentant addendum to yesterday's attack. But we emphasise that that attack was mistaken in its suggestions that evidence had been improperly let in and that the Committee had been reckless in failing to protect the fair trial of a person in New South Wales. 10 October 1984 Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.10 p.m. The following papers were presented: Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 275. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984 No. 276. Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 274. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1984- No. 52-Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) (Amendment). No. 53-Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 54-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 855) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: The information requested by the honourable senator is provided in the following table. It should be noted that: For the purposes of this exercise, a statutory authority was defined as being an office or organisation, corporate or incorporated, constituted by or pursuant to powers conferred by Act of Parliament or Ordinance of the Territory, whose functions and authority are derived wholly or principally from the Act or from the Ordinance. Statutory officer holders, that is, those persons who occupy an office formally created by statute ('Controller of Stock' under the Stock Control Ordinance) are not included in the following list of statutory authorities. The detail relating to statutory authorities was correct as of 19 September 1984. DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Name of the Body: ACT Architects Board Statutory Body Appointment Office Name From To Terms of appointment Salary Chairman V. F. Martisius (Subject to reappointment) 23.2.81 22.2.84 Appointed by Minister in accordance with terms of the Architects Ordinance 1959. Part time basis n.a. Deputy Chairman J. B. Redmond (Subject to reappointment) 23.2.81 22.2.84 Appointed by Minister in accordance with terms of the Architects Ordinance 1959. Part time basis Daily sitting fee $128 Member R. Krastins (Subject to reappointment) 23.2.81 22.2.84 Appointed by Minister in accordance with terms of the Architects Ordinance 1959. Part time basis Daily sitting fee $128 Member E. M. Taylor (Subject to reappointment) 23.2.81 22.2.84 Appointed by Minister in accordance with terms of the Architects Ordinance 1959. Part time basis Daily sitting fee $128 Member G. F. Williams (Subject to reappointment) 23.2.81 22.2.84 Appointed by Minister in accordance with terms of the Architects Ordinance 1959. Part time basis n.a. Name of the body: ACT Electricity Authority Statutory Body Chairman W. E. Bolton 23.1.81 22.1.87 Chairman appointed by the Governor-General for a term not exceeding six years. Full time member $65,417 Member P. R. Kobold 4.8.82 Whilst an MHA Member of a House of Assembly nominated as occasion requires by the Assembly. Part-time member $4,487 Member J. A. Turner 21.3.84 20.3.87 Officer of the Department of Territories and Local Government appointed by the Governor-General for a term not exceeding three years. Part-time member n.a. Name of the body: ACT Fire Brigade Statutory Body *Commis- sioner D. Williamson 22.11.80 21.11.87 Appointed under Fire Brigade (Administration) Ordinance $43,974 p.a. * Vacant as of 14 June 1984 when Mr Williamson retired. Name of the body: ACT Fire Brigade Promotions Appeal Tribunal Statutory body Chairman T. R. Rossall 26.5.83 Minister's pleasure Chairman appointed by the Minister. Part-time n.a. Member R. J. Lilley 22.2.84 Minister's pleasure A member of the Brigade appointed by the Commissioner. Part-time n.a. Member W. B. Berry 24.10.83 Whilst elected by the members of the Brigade A member of the Brigade is elected, in accordance with the General Orders, by the members of the Brigade. Part-time n.a. Name of the body: ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority Statutory body Chairman D. J. Crossin 1.9.81 31.8.86 Section 5 of the ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority Act 1981: provides for the appointment of 5 members to the Authority including a Chairman and Deputy Chairman and three members $16,433 p.a. Deputy Chairman P. H. Watson 1.9.81 31.8.86 $8,823 p.a. Member H. J. Hird 4.8.82 Whilst a MHA $6,609 p.a. Member M. C. Woods 5.9.84 31.8.85 n.a. * One additional member is to be appointed. Name of the body: A.C.T. House of Assembly Statutory body Leader of the House Speaker Minority Leader Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member J. W. Leedman H. J. Hird M. Horder Independent J. M. Clements Australian Democrats G. J. Walsh Family Team B. M. E. Cains B. A. Hocking Labor Party S. A. Craven K. R. Doyle J. B. Reid J. M. Taggart P. Vallee R. L. Walmsley P. R. Whalan 5.6.82 5.6.82 5.6.82 5.6.85 5.6.85 5.6.85 General: House of Assembly Ordinance 1936. Composition of the Assembly: Nine members elected from each of the two electorates, Canberra and Fraser, for a period of three years. Should a vacancy occur between the election the Minister may appoint a person to hold office until the next election. All members are part-time Leader- $12161 p.a. Speaker- $11347 p.a. Minority Leader- $9392 p.a. Members- $8904 p.a. Liberal Party Member D. Adams 5.6.82 Member G. G. Cornwell Member T. T. Kaine Member P. R. Kobold Name of the body: A.C.T. Milk Authority Statutory body Chairman Member Member S. F. C. Wilcox B. R. Glanville J. M. Clements 15.3.84 22.9.82 4.8.82 14.3.87 21.9.85 Whilst an M.H.A. The Authority consists of three members appointed by the Minister for a term not exceeding 3 years. The Minister appoints a Chairman from the members. One member shall be a member of the House of Assembly nominated by the Assembly. All members are part-time. Daily sitting fee: Chairman $136 Members $110 Name of the body: A.C.T. Surveyors Board Statutory body Chairman J. W. Sleep Whilst holding the office of Surveyor- General The Board consists of the Surveyor-General and four other members appointed by the Minister for a term of two years n.a. Member Member N. Hall P. B. Daly 9.1.84 9.1.84 8.1.86 8.1.86 Two members shall be nominated by the Institution of Surveyors, Canberra Branch n.a. Member Member J. R. Vaughan J. K. Taylor 9.1.84 9.1.84 8.1.86 8.1.86 Two members shall be registered surveyors Daily sitting fee: $110 Name of the body: Agents Board Statutory body Chairman R. J. O'Connell 26.5.83 At the Minister's pleasure The Board consists of five members appointed by the Minister for a three year term. One member is to be a barrister n.a. Members S. A. Craven J. H. O'Donnell A. V. Curtis M. P. Cummins 4.8.82 12.5.83 15.3.84 17.5.83 Whilst an M.H.A. 11.5.86 14.3.87 16.5.86 The Chairman is for the time being to be a departmental officer (Territories and Local Government) Daily sitting fee Members: $115 Name of the body: Australian Federal Police (Police Liaison Advisory Committee) Statutory body Member First Assistant Secretary (Position No. 6) Whilst Position No. 6, Depart- ment of Terri- tories and Local Govern- ment To act as departmental representative on the Committee n.a. Member Chairman J. M. Taggart J. M. Clements B. A. Hocking S. A. Craven P. R. Kobold 2.11.83 29.4.83 4.8.82 16.5.83 29.4.83 Whilst an M.H.A. The Committee includes five members of Assembly appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the House of Assembly Daily sitting fee: $105 Member V. McConaghy The Commissioner or his deputy to act as AFP representative n.a. Name of the body: Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board Statutory body Chairman R. J. Yeomans 24.9.81 23.9.86 Long Service Leave Building and Construction Industry Ordinance 1981 provides for the Establishment of the Board and chairman position $6,609 p.a. Member M. J. Leonie 12.3.84 23.9.86 Member representing employer organisation $128 p.d. Member B. O'Reilly 24.9.81 23.9.86 Member representing employee organisation selected by the Minister and nominated by Trades and Labour Council of the ACT $128 p.d. Acting Member Acting Member D. G. Strange T. L. White 24.9.81 24.9.81 23.9.86 23.9.86 The Minister may appoint an acting member for each of the organisations referred to in Section 6 and 8 (1) (c) of the Ordinance $128 p.d. Name of the body: Building Review Committee Statutory body Chairman Vacant The Chairman and five members are appointed by the Minister for a 3 year term Daily sitting fee: Chairman $159 Member * R. G. Gallagher 18.9.82 17.9.85 R. S. Sly 12.10.82 31.7.85 Members $128 K. E. James D. Adams 21.7.81 30.6.84 Whilst a M.H.A. The Chairman is not to be a Public Servant (as defined in Public Service Act) *fee does not apply One member must be a House of Assembly Member elected by the Assembly One member must represent the ACT Chapter of the Royal Australian Name of the body: Building Standards Committee Statutory body Chairman G. F. Williams 2.1.73 Whilst the Building Controller Chairman appointed by Minister-must be the Building Controller or Deputy Building Controller n.a. Member J. W. Firth 1.1.82 31.12.84 Appointed by Minister for period not exceeding 3 years - Representing Australian Institute of Architects (ACT Chapter) Daily sitting fee: $115 Member B. M. Griffiths 1.10.81 30.9.84 - Representing Australian Institute of Building Member M. Northrop 1.10.81 30.9.84 - Representing Institution of Engineers Member P. Wyrdeman 17.5.79 30.9.85 Appointed by Minister for period not exceeding 3 years. Is an officer of the Department of Territories and Local Government n.a. Name of the body: Bush Fire Council Statutory body All members are appointed by the Minister for a one year term. All members have a deputy. Daily sitting fee: Chairman $130 Members $105 Chairman Deputy V. M. Jeffrey G. Crawford 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing Southern Rural Brigades $130 p.d. Deputy Chairman Deputy A. Fearnside D. S. Fisher 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing Forests Branch, Department of Territories and Local Government n.a. Member Deputy P. B. Buckmaster B. Champion 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing Rural Lessee Association $105 p.d. Member Deputy N. P. Cheney A. M. Gill 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing the C.S.I.R.O. n.a. Member Deputy A. I. Fleming V. Plumwood 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing the Conservation Council of the South Eastern Region and Canberra $105 p.d. Member Deputy B. H. Leaver R. B. Good 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing the N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service n.a. Member Deputy R. J. Murray T. Barcham 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing City Parks Administration, Department of Territories and Local Government n.a. Member Deputy B. H. Pratt G. A. O'Meara 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing Conservation and Agriculture Branch, Department of Territories and Local Government n.a. Member Deputy E. J. Stokes P. Donoghue 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing A.C.T. Fire Brigade n.a. Member Deputy G. R. Taylor R. Evans 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing the Australian Federal Police n.a. Member Deputy Vacant J. B. Gale 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing Northern Rural Brigade $105 Member Deputy K. J. Anderson W. H. Cotter 14.12.83 14.12.84 Representing the Trades and Labour Council (Employee of Department of Territories & Local Government) n.a. Name of the body: Canberra Commercial Development Authority Statutory body Chairman *J. H. Pead 3.6.83 2.6.86 Appointed by the Governor-General for a term not exceeding five years. Part-time position $6,609 p.a. Member J. M. Clements 4.8.82 Whilst a M.H.A. One member shall be a member of the House of Assembly and nominated by the Assembly $2,729 p.a. Member *D. L. Elsworth 3.6.83 2.6.86 Appointed by the Governor-General for a term not exceeding five years $2,729 p.a. C. W. McDonald 3.6.83 2.6.86 $2,729 p.a. *D. J. Griffiths 3.6.83 2.6.86 n.a. K. O'Clery 3.6.83 2.6.86 $2,729 p.a. A. R. Hedley 16.7.84 15.7.87 Rep. of Department of Territories & Local Government n.a. * In addition a member of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Authority shall receive an additional fee of $5,458 p.a. Note: Messrs Griffiths and Hedley are officers of the Australian Public Service and do not receive remuneration as members of the CCDA. Name of the body: Canberra National Memorials Committee Statutory body Chairman Prime Minister. Minister for Territories and Local Government. Leader of the Government in the Senate. Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and Senate. Secretary Dept Territories and Local Government. FAS Lands. No set term Under National Memorial's Ordinance 1928-1972 n.a. Remuneration Ordinance 1976 has provision for the payment of expenses. Member Sir H. White 18.04.75 Governor Generals pleasure Appointed by Governor General. Part-time basis. n.a. Member Vacant Name of the body: Canberra Public Cemetery Trust Statutory body Chairman Trustees Vacant R. J. John G. W. Graham D.MacDonald S. R. Brown V. J. Kronenberg D. V. Youngman R. J. Murray 26.6.67 04.9.76 19.6.70 09.1.84 09.8.79 29.5.78 29.5.78 Indef. Indef. Indef. Indef. Indef. Indef. Indef. The Trust shall consist of not less than three and not more than 12 members appointed by the Minister. The appointment stands until resignation in writing; dismissal for inefficiency; inability or misbehaviour; or if a trustee becomes bankrupt or is absent from three consecutive meetings without leave being granted by the Trustees. n.a. Name of the body: Canberra Retail Markets Trust Statutory body Chairman Trustees Trustee R. J. Yeomans *J. H. Lowe D. Adams 03.12.82 12.4.83 04.8.82 02.12.85 11.04.86 Whilst a M.H.A. Trust consists of three members appointed by the Minister. Members are part-time . One member shall be nominated by the House of Assembly. *One member shall be an officer of the Department of Territories and Local Government, and is prohibited from becoming chairman of the Trust. One member shall be a person who is not an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act. Daily Sitting Fee (Excluding Department's Representative) Chairman $130 Trustee $105 Name of the body: Canberra Theatre Trust Statutory body Chairman K. M. Stokes 1.10.81 30.9.87 Minister appoints Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Trustees Daily sitting fee: Chairman $130 Deputy Chairman J. M. Taggart 4.8.82 Whilst a M.H.A. Trustees $110 Trustees L. G. Honcope 17.8.83 30.6.85 n.a. C. L. Blunden 14.9.83 30.6.85 R. C. Refshauge 1.7.81 11.9.87 D. Riddell 12.9.84 11.9.86 G. A. Withers 17.8.83 30.6.85 J. Bell 12.9.84 11.9.86 G. J. Fraser 12.9.84 11.9.87 As Dept. Representative n.a. Name of the body: Consumer Affairs Council Statutory body Chairman Members M. J. Vernon K. R. Doyle 26.10.82 4.8.82 25.10.85 Whilst a M.H.A. The Council shall consist of seven members appointed by the Minister for a period not exceeding three years. Daily sitting fee: Chairman $159 R. M. English* 26.10.82 25.10.85 Members $128 G. Lindell E. L. Crook L. M. Webb* P. Goodall 26.10.82 26.10.82 26.10.82 26.10.82 25.10.85 25.10.85 25.10.85 25.10.85 Four of the members shall be representatives of consumers, one of those members shall belong to the ACT House of Assembly and be nominated by the Assembly. Two members shall be experienced in wholesaling, retail- ing, distributing, advertising etc. *One member shall be a representative of the Department of Territories and Local Government. All members are part-time. *Commonwealth Employees fee: Not applicable. Name of the body: Design and Siting Review Committee Statutory body Chairman Member K. Mackay M. R. Hardman 21.11.80 9.12.83 7.3.85 8.12.86 The Committee consists of three members appointed by the Minister for a term not exceeding three years. Daily sitting fee: Chairman $159 Deputy member B. H. McNeill 9.12.83 8.12.86 Deputy member Member D. S. McLagan H. G. Sforcina 9.12.83 9.12.83 8.12.86 8.12.86 There shall be a Deputy Chairman and a Deputy for each other member of the Committee Members $128 Deputy member (Chairman) Vacant One member shall be a member of the National Capital Planning Committee (Hardman and McNeill). One member shall represent the Royal Australian Institute of Architects ( Sforcina). All members are part-time. Name of the body: Land Commissioner Statutory body Land Commissioner E. L. Dunn 1.2.75 No Statutory term. At the Governor General's pleasure. Appointed by the Governor General. Part-time position Daily Sitting Fee: $159 Name of the body: National Capital Development Commission* Statutory body Chairman A. J. W. Powell 20.2.81 19.2.86 Appointed by Governor-General for a period not exceeding seven years. Full-time position. $70,782 Associate Commissioner M. M. B. Latham 2.6.80 1.6.85 As above Commissioners are eligible for reappointment. $56,840 p.a. Associate Commissioner Vacant *Subject to change Name of the body: National Capital Planning Committee* Statutory body Chairman A. J. W. Powell 20.2.81 19.2.86 Commissioner of NCDC is Chairman Ex Officio member. Appointed by Governor- General Part-time member. n.a. Members M. R. Hardman J. W. Lindsay C. F. Madigan J. H. Andrews J. M. McIntyre K. M. Stokes A. Logan B. H. McNeil 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 16.8.84 9.12.82 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 25.8.85 The Committee comprises Two Architects Two Engineers Two Town Planners Two persons with special knowledge and experience in artistic or cultural matters (as per order of names) Members other than the Chairman, are appointed for 3 years by Governor General and may serve more than one term. All members are Part-time. Daily Sitting Fee: $128.00 *Subject to change National Exhibition Centre Trust Statutory body Chairman Members S. G. East B. E. Nicholas 14.7.82 14.7.82 30.6.85 30.6.85 Daily Sitting Fees: Chairman $142 Members $115 P. B. Buckmaster R. P. Woollard J. F. Muir M. E. Grant *R. A. L. Bradford P. Whalan 14.7.82 14.7.82 14.7.82 15.9.82 14.7.82 20.10.83 30.6.85 30.6.85 30.6.85 30.6.85 30.6.85 Whilst a M.H.A. The Trust is to conduct exhibitions, shows, sporting, recreational and cultural activities and other activities as approved by the Minister. * Representative of the Department of Territories and Local Government. Not in receipt of sitting fee. Nominal Defendant Statutory body Nominal Defendant P. W. Clough 5.8.83 No set term Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936 provides that the Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette appoint any person resident in the Territory to be Nominal Defendant for the purposes of the Ordinance. Any such appointments shall be made on the nomination of the authorised insurers or a majority of them, or in default of such a nomination, by the Minister. n.a. Nominal Insurer Statutory body Nominal Insurer L. R. Doig 6.12.83 No set term Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951: Provides that the Minister may appoint a person to be the Nominal Insurer. The appointment shall be made on the nomination of the approved insurers or a majority of them or, in default of such a nomination, directly by the Minister. n.a. Name of the body: Parliament House Construction Authority Statutory body Chairman Sir Bernard James Callinan 11.4.84 10.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General may be full-time or part-time $19,769 p.a. Member Sir John Overall 11.4.82 10.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General, part-time member $8,823 p.a. Member A. J. W. Powell Commissioner of NCDC is to be a member ex-officio. Part-time member n.a. Member N. MacPhillamy 11.4.82 10.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General, part-time member $8,823 p.a. Member L. M. Muir 11.4.82 10.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General, part-time member $8,823 p.a. Member R. J. Ling 11.4.82 10.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General, part-time member $8,823 p.a. Executive Officer G. R. Peatey 14.4.80 13.4.85 Appointed by Governor- General for a period of 5 years. Full-time position $66,557 p.a. Name of body: Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Statutory body Chairman Members G. Howard A. Maybury 8.12.82 8.12.82 7.12.85 7.12.85 Members are appointed by the Minister for a period not exceeding 3 years. They may be reappointed for a further term. Daily Sitting Fee: Chairman $159 Member $128 *Fee does not apply *B. Marcus A. J. Fleming 8.12.82 8.12.82 7.12.85 7.12.85 One member is a representative of the Master Plumbers and Sanitation Engineers Association. Vacant *R. T. Temperley 8.12.82 7.12.85 One member is a representative of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employee Union. Deputy Members *C. J. Dalton 8.12.82 7.12.85 One Member is a representative of the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education. One member nominated by the Board of the Australian Gas Association. W. E. Cleary B. O'Reilly *L. N. Blackley T. Neaves 8.12.82 8.12.82 8.12.82 8.12.82 7.12.85 7.12.85 7.12.85 7.12.85 One member is a Departmental representative (Territories and Local Government) (Question No. 985) Senator Peter Rae asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Was the Public Service Manual on the Preservation of National Security recently made available to the Sydney Morning Herald under the Freedom of Information Act ; if so, does this seem at all curious to the Attorney-General and does he propose to take any steps to amend the Act in the interests of national security . Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Protective Security Manual was made available to a journalist employed by the Sydney Morning Herald in May this year following a request for access to the manual made to my Department under the Freedom of Information Act. The purpose of the manual is to provide to all those officers responsible for formulating departmental security instructions in Government Departments and Authorities a guide to prospective security principles and measures on which departmental security instructions are to be based. The manual does not attempt to provide detailed advice on the technical aspects of physical security, personnel security or on special security relating to international agreements or other specially limited matters. I am informed that the decision to release the manual was taken after appropriate consultation with the other departments involved in its preparation, and was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On that basis, the decision to release the manual is not all that curious. The interests of national security are properly protected by the provisions of the FOI Act. Section 7 (2A), an amendment to the Act introduced by this Government, provides that an agency is exempt from the provisions of the Act in relation to a document that has originated with, or has been received from, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Office of National Assessments, the Defence Signals Directorate or the Joint Intelligence Organisation of the Department of Defence. Further, the Act creates categories of documents which are exempt from mandatory disclosure. One of these categories is for documents the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the security of the Commonwealth. The security of the Commonwealth is widely defined in the Act. In the light of these provisions, no amendment to the Act in the interests of national security is necessary. (Question No. 987) Senator Colston asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Does the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. (2) Does this Act bind the Crown in right of a State or of the Northern Territory; if not, what is the reason for not so binding the Crown and does the Government intend to extend the binding provisions. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. As to the reason for this, the policy embodied in the Human Rights Commission Act was that of the previous Government. However, the Human Rights Commission also exercises functions under the Racial Discrimination Act, the provisions of which are binding on the States and the Northern Territory, and the Sex Discrimination Act, which is binding on the States and the Northern Territory in certain respects. The policy of the present Government is expressed in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which is now before the Senate. The provisions of that Bill dealing with discrimination in employment and occupation are expressed to be binding on the States and the Northern Territory. The new Commission established under that Bill will also, as the present Commission, exercise functions under the Racial Discrimination and Sex Discrimination Acts. (Question No. 995) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: Has an officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation broken the rules over the use of the diplomatic bag as reported in the newspaper, the Sun- Herald, on Sunday July 15, 1984; if so what action has been taken as a consequence of this incident. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am informed that an ASIO officer who was overseas on official duty requested an ASIO officer at an overseas post to arrange for some personal effects which would not fit into his luggage to be sent back to Australia by non-diplomatic freight bag. Unknown to either officer, all bags dispatched from overseas posts are regarded as diplomatic bags. I am of the view that this matter resulted from a misunderstanding, and that there was no intention to avoid Customs examination of the goods, or to infringe the rules relating to the use of diplomatic bags. The breach has been dealt with, by the Director-General of Security, as an internal disciplinary matter. He has taken what in my view is appropriate action . Further, ASIO members serving overseas have been advised of the restrictions placed on the use of air freight and sea bags dispatched from overseas posts. (Question No. 1097) Senator Peter Rae asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1984 the following question which was transferred to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: (1) What is the state of the Harkins inquiry into legal aid. (2) When is it anticipated that the report will be completed. (3) Will the report be made public. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr Harkins has completed extensive visits to all States and the Northern Territory but has still to have discussions with Aboriginal community representatives in the Yass and Queanbeyan areas which he expects to complete in the near future. He has received written submissions and other relevant material from some Aboriginal legal services which receive Federal Government assistance but is still waiting the receipt of submissions and material from others. Mr Harkins is also at present following up matters arising from his discussions and material he has received preparatory to drafting his final report. Mr Harkins has already provided interim and special reports in regard to the activities of a number of services which have resulted in additional funds being provided to most of the services to improve their level of operation in line with priority recommendations made by Mr Harkins as identified by the individual services. (2) Mr Harkins has indicated that he will complete his final report by the end of the 1984 calendar year. (3) I intend to table the report. (Question No. 1104) Senator Messner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: What were the number of bankruptcies classified as business bankruptcies under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for (i) South Australia; and (ii) Australia, for the period 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The number of bankruptcies classified as business bankruptcies administered under Part IV of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the period 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983 was: (i) South Australia-258 and (ii) Australia-2385. It might be noted that the above figures do not include administrations under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act, that is deeds of arrangement, deeds of assignment and compositions with creditors. By their very nature, a large percentage of these administrations would involve the insolvency, without a formal declaration of bankruptcy, of debtors engaged in business activities. Total administrations under Part X for the period 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983 were: (i) South Australia-50 and (ii) Australia-884. (Question No. 960) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: (1) At what venues in the Australian Capital Territory does the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority run evening classes. (2) What courses are available at each venue. (3) How many classes are there in each course. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The venues operating evening classes are: Deakin High School Dickson College Erindale College Hawker College Stirling College, and Weston Creek High School (2) The six schools offer courses in academic and recreational studies. In 1984 , 178 courses were offered by those schools in the following broad groupings: Deakin High School-Recreational and Special Education courses. Dickson College-Academic and Recreational courses. Erindale College-Academic and Recreational courses. Hawker College-Academic and Recreational courses. Stirling College-Academic courses only. Weston Creek High School-Recreational courses only. The academic courses are those oriented towards matriculation studies, and the recreational courses are those oriented, as the title suggests, towards leisure and non-vocational activities. (3) There were 98 academic classes and 134 recreational classes formed at the February school census date across the six venues named. Approximately 4,250 enrolments produced the 232 classes referred to in the six schools. Whilst classes mostly operate during the evening, approximately 30 operate during traditional school hours. (Question No. 975) Senator Coates asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General seen the explanation of a child's domicile in the Australian Taxpayers' Association publication Taxpayer, of 5 May 1984 that it ' changes with the father's and that if a father is alive, the child takes his domicile. If there is no father, only then does the child take the mother's domicile'. (2) Is this explanation correct; if so, does the Attorney-General intend to propose alterations to the law, if not, what is the correct explanation. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I have seen the explanation of a child's domicile in the publication in question. (2) The explanation is not correct, insofar as it fails to take account of the Domicile Act 1982 (Commonwealth) which came into operation on 1 July 1982 with the object and effect of making certain reforms to the law relating to domicile, for the purposes of the laws of the Commonwealth. The Act provides that where, at any time, a child has his principal home with one of his parents who, whether married or not, are living separately and apart, he has the same domicile as that parent. It should also be pointed out that the article fails to take account of the Domicile Act 1982 in another respect. It says that 'in law a wife automatically takes the 'domicile' of her husband' whereas the Act provides that the rule of law whereby a married woman has at all times the domicile of her husband is abolished. All States have now passed legislation similar to the Commonwealth Act, applying similar rules to matters within their own jurisdictions. (Question No. 997) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: For each Australian High Commission and Embassy which (a) have no toilet facilities for visitors to the High Commission or Embassy, and (b) have such facilities. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) the following Australian missions do not have special toilet facilities for visitors: Abu Dhabi; Accra; Algiers; Ankara; Apia; Bombay; Bonn; Brasilia; Caracas; Chicago; Dublin; Geneva; Harare; Holy See; Hong Kong; Honiara; Houston; Islamabad; Johannesburg; Kingston; Kuwait; Lagos; London; Los Angeles; Lusaka; Madrid; Manila; Milan; Montreal; Nairobi; Nauru; New Delhi; Osaka; Ottawa; Rangoon; Rio de Janeiro; Riyadh; Shanghai; Tehran; Toronto; Vienna; Vila. At most of these missions, however, staff facilities are made available at request. This normally entails the visitor being escorted to and from the toilet facilities as they are usually located behind the protective security barrier. (b) The following Australian missions have special toilet facilities for visitors: Amman; Athens; Auckland; Baghdad; Bahrain; Bali; Bangkok; Beirut; Belgrade; Berlin; Berne; Brunei; Brussels; Buenos Aires; Cairo; Capetown; Colombo; Copenhagen; Dhaka; Damascus; Dar es Salaam; Hanoi; Honolulu; Jakarta; Jeddah; Kathmandu; Kuala Lumpur; Lima; Lisbon; Malta; Mexico City; Moscow; New York C. G .; New York U.N.; Nicosia; Noumea; Nuku'Alofa; Paris; Peking; Port Louis; Port Moresby; Pretoria; Rome; San Francisco; Santiago; Seoul; Singapore; Stockholm; Suva; Tarawa; Tel Aviv; The Hague; Tokyo; Vancouver; Vientiane; Warsaw; Washington; Wellington. (Question No. 1105) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce advise whether the Government is aware that the seven-year program currently being pursued by the textile, clothing and footwear industries could result in retrenchments which are most likely to affect migrant women with negligible future employment prospects due to their poor English language skills and limited work experience. (2) Will the Government extend the labour adjustment training arrangements program (LTA) to offset the projected social and economic dislocation the retrenchment victims will suffer. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The seven-year program of assistance for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries was announced on 15 August 1980 and commenced operating under the previous Government on 1 January 1982. On 15 March 1983, I announced the present Government's decision to continue with the operation of the seven year assistance program. This decision was consistent with the Government's pre- election commitment to preserve the basic features of the plan, and was taken in recognition of its central principle of providing a predictable policy framework , bearing in mind that people in those industries had made plans for the future on the expectation that the program would continue unchanged. In broad terms, the seven-year plan is designed to provide a stimulus for these industries to concentrate on the more efficient areas of local production, to encourage cost reductions and to promote greater responsiveness to changing consumer needs. The plan is also designed to provide a balance to the often conflicting interests of Australian consumers, those involved in the industries, importers and Australia's trading partners. The stimulus for improved industry efficiency comes from a number of measures including progressive exposure to import competition under the quota expansion provisions of the plan. Progressive exposure to the discipline of international competition will encourage these industries to become more attuned to the reality of the market place and become less dependent upon Government support in the longer term. The Government is, of course, conscious of the employment significance of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and the fact that a significant proportion of their workforce is composed of female and migrant employees. The Industries Assistance Commission has estimated that the level of assistance accorded these industries is substantially higher than that accorded manufacturing industry generally. The provision of relatively high levels of assistance by the Government under the plan in large measure reflects its appreciation of the social implications associated with assistance arrangements for these labour intensive activities. The Government is aware that some employment reductions are likely to occur both as a consequence of additional import competition and probably to a greater extent, as a result of productivity improvements as these industries move to improve their operating efficiency and competitiveness. Employment reductions may also occur from time to time with sudden, unforseen downward movements in domestic demand. In these circumstances, while for a variety of reasons one cannot rule out the possibility of employment reductions, it would be grossly misleading to attribute any employment contraction in these industries solely to the seven year assistance plan. Indeed the gradualism inherent in the quota expansion provisions of the assistance plan should provide a buffer against excessive import-induced employment reductions. In many ways, the seven year plan provides employees in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries with a greater degree of predictability than those employed in many other industries which operate with much lower levels of assistance. (2) The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has considered a request from the Clothing and Allied Trades Union for extension of the Labour Adjustment Training Arrangements (LATA) to workers retrenched from the clothing industry. After weighing up the issues he has concluded that under current circumstances the provision of LATA assistance would not be appropriate. LATA is a special program intended to assist workers displaced by large scale industry restructuring to retrain, and/or upgrade existing skills, so as to facilitate re-employment. To date the only industries declared for LATA purposes are the steel industry (and firms supplying it) in the Hunter, Illawarra and Whyalla regions, the NSW coal industry, the agricultural equipment industry in Geelong and the passenger motor vehicle industry. In each case eligibility has been related to decisions by the Government on assistance for the sectors concerned with the primary determinants being the scale and pace of employment reductions. The request for extension of LATA to the clothing industry was given careful consideration but considered inappropriate. In this context it should be noted that clothing industry employment appears to have increased somewhat over the last year. In such circumstances, any displaced workers would appear to be adequately catered for by the Government's range of generally available employment and training programs. A further relevant factor is that the findings of the current Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs may result in changes to the Government's approach to retraining assistance, both generally and in regard to specific areas of adjustment such as the clothing industry. Employment trends in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries will continue to be monitored over the remainder of the seven year plan. (Question No. 1142) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment report on the progress of procedures involved in the assessment of the environmental impact statement for the Total mining company's proposed uranium mine at Ben Lomond. (2) Is the company boasting publicly that this mine will proceed in 1987; if so is this confidence justified in view of: (a) present Government policy on the mining and export of uranium; and (b) community doubts regarding the impact of such mining on the Burdekin Catchment. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 25 November 1980, the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment directed the preparation and submission to him of an environmental impact statement (EIS) with respect to the proposal by Total Mining Australia Ltd to mine and process uranium ore from its Ben Lomond project near Townsville in Queensland. The Ben Lomond Project draft EIS was released for public review from 14 November 1983 to 27 January 1984. No final EIS has yet been received from the Company. (2) I understand that Total Mining Australia Pty Ltd proposes to present the final EIS on the Ben Lomond project in the next few weeks. It is announced Government policy not to permit the export of uranium from mines other than Olympic Dam in South Australia and Nabarlek and Ranger in the Northern Territory .