Thursday, 11 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 a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law. The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 11 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 276 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 extend 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 Messner (from 57 citizens), Missen (from four citizens) and Peter Rae (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over the importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from the moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 21 citizens) and Sibraa (from 57 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 Kilgariff (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 130 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Government for its false and misleading advertisements for Medicare, in particular: (i) the claim that 'Medicare provides everyone with the essential health insurance cover they need, and (ii) the further claim that 'For all Medicare services you have the right to choose your own doctor.'; (b) notes that: (i) Medicare does not provide essential health insurance for those people who need physiotherapy, dental or other specialised health services, and (ii) Medicare does not allow free choice of doctor in hospital unless additional private insurance is held; and (c) calls on the Hawke Labor Government to clearly indicate to Australians the real nature of Medicare. The PRESIDENT —I call on Government Business, notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, relating to days and times of meeting next week. Is this motion formal or not formal? Senator Gietzelt-Formal. The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —Minister for Veterans' Affairs)-On behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, I move the notice of motion as set out on today's Notice Paper relating to the order of business and the hours of sitting of the Senate commencing next week. The PRESIDENT —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Senator Harradine —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —There can be no debate on a formal motion, Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine —I take a point of order then, Mr President. I understand, as the Minister has mentioned, that this motion relates to next week. Is that correct? The PRESIDENT —Yes, next week. Senator Harradine —It does not apply this week? The PRESIDENT —It covers General Business this afternoon too. Senator Harradine —Then that motion is not formal, Mr President. We have been deceived by the Minister at the table because he said this is a matter that will cover business next week. I heard the Minister say precisely that. He did not say anything about this week. Therefore, on a point of order, I say that in fact the Government has misled the Parliament. The PRESIDENT —I asked whether Government Business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government relating to days and times of meeting next week was formal or not formal. The matter was declared formal and Senator Gietzelt moved his motion. In moving his motion he mentioned that the matter related to next week. I shall put the question again to save any confusion. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, perhaps I might help. If the Minister could indicate-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Carrick, I am going to call the matter again to see whether it is declared formal or not formal. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, I am aiming to help the Chair and the Senate on this matter and I was speaking in a helpful fashion. There appears to be a lack of understanding in the Senate as to whether the matter before us affects business this afternoon. The PRESIDENT —I will put the matter again and ask whether it is formal or not formal. The matter raised by Senator Sir John Carrick can be discussed if it is declared not formal. Is Government Business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, relating to days and times of meeting next week, formal or not formal? Senator Harradine —Not formal. Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Hill, and read a first time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.07) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the granting of proprietary rights to breeders of new horticultural plant varieties. For the purposes of this legislation a horticultural plant variety includes all new varieties of fruit, vegetable, ornamentals and cut and fresh flowers. The Bill does not provide for the granting of proprietary rights for new varieties of fodder, pasture or field crops. The Bill has been introduced to meet the need horticultural industries in Australia have for a system of plant variety rights. With the passage of this Bill Australia will join the great majority of developed nations who have had some form of statutory rights for plant breeders for well over a decade. Given the number of countries which have had plant breeders rights for so many years it remains a paradox as to why Australia-a leading agricultural nation has been so tardy in adopting its own plant variety rights system. Under the horticulture plant variety rights scheme a breeder of a new horticultural plant variety will be entitled to apply to a registration authority for the grant of a right to confer sole ownership of that variety on the breeder. The scheme is voluntary and the conferral of sole ownership rights will allow plant breeders to collect royalties if they so wish. All genera of horticultural plants are included in the Bill. Although the issue of Plant Variety Rights has been the subject of public debate for over a decade its legislative history is more recent. Honourable Senators would be aware that the former Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, introduced legislation for the granting of Plant Variety Rights in May 1981. The Bill was allowed to lie on the table for 12 months to provide the opportunity for public comment. Following a number of amendments moved by the Government, the Bill was debated in Parliament and was passed by the House of Representatives on 24 April 1982. The 1982 Bill was subsequently debated in the Senate and was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources for inquiry and report on 15 September 1982. The Committee's deliberations were interrupted when the Thirty-Second Parliament was dissolved on 4 February 1983. On 19 May 1983 the re-constituted Standing Committee on National Resources resumed its investigation under a wider reference on the need for and the implications of the introduction of a system of Plant Variety Rights in Australia. The Committee's report was subsequently tabled in the Senate on 10 May 1984. The Report stated inter alia: After considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of PVR and a number of alternatives, the Committee has concluded that PVR is the most appropriate means of improving access to overseas varieties and stimulating plant breeding in Australia. (p. IX) The Standing Committee made some 24 recommendations, the most important of which was that the Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia. The recommendations made by the Standing Committee addressed a number of concerns expressed about the introduction of PVR in Australia. Other recommendations sought to improve certain aspects of the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982. The Bill now before the Senate retains the general structure of the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982, although it limits the granting of Plant Variety Rights solely to horticultural varieties. The Bill also includes a number of changes to the 1982 Bill as recommended by the Standing Committee on National Resources in Chapter 6 of its report. In granting proprietary rights to new horticultural varieties the Bill has two objectives. First it seeks to encourage the development of horticultural plant research and breeding in Australia through the financial incentive provided by the grant of proprietary rights. Secondly, the Bill seeks to provide Australian horticulturalists access to improved overseas varieties of fruit, vegetable and ornamental seeds and plants which have been denied them due to the absence of PVR in Australia. Appendix 3 in the Standing Committee Report provides an extensive list prepared by the Department of Primary Industry of overseas varieties of grape, nectarine, peach, cherry, pome fruits, tree fruits, rapesweed, potato and peas which have been denied access to Australia due to the absence of a PVR system in Australia. In a submission to the Committee Mr K. O. Campbell, Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics at Sydney University pointed to the significance of such a list of varieties denied access to Australia: As the list provided by the Department of Primary Industry shows, the real difficulties with the vacuum as regards Australian Plant Variety Rights currently lie in the horticultural industries and that is where relief is urgently needed (s. 108) Horticulturalists have long argued that without access to improved overseas varieties they cannot hope to compete with overseas producers in export markets. Furthermore the absence of PVR and the consequent denial of access of superior overseas varieties has disadvantaged Australian producers in the domestic market . High domestic costs of production, the inability to obtain improved overseas varieties, and the appearance of some new and improved overseas varieties on Australian markets have created enormous pressures on the Australian horticultural industry. Concern is expressed for example that the Australian stone fruit industry has suffered undue hardship due to improved varieties of nectarine and peaches entering from New Zealand where Plant Variety Rights has been in operation since 1973. Australian fruit growers and market gardeners attribute the significant increase in imports from New Zealand of peas, onions, shallots, stone fruit and other fruit to the availability of better quality varieties which New Zealand growers have been able to obtain through their PVR system. Australian producers can only compete on domestic and international markets if they have access to similar varieties. Furthermore a number of European countries and the United States are marketing Australian flora without any financial benefits accruing to Australia. Under a PVR system Australian breeders of cut flowers, garden and landscape trees, shrubs, forest timber trees, desert reclamation plants and other indigenous and unique flora varieties would find export of such varieties to be financially attractive. The opportunities for increased export activity under PVR is illustrated by the Australian nursery industry which currently employs some 15,000 people. In submissions made to the Standing Committee the Nurserymen's Association estimated that with a PVR system in place and some modification to the tax status of the nursery industry the present export market of $12m per annum would increase to $30 to $40m per annum within three years and possibly to $150m over the longer term. The Bill therefore seeks to facilitate the expansion of the Australian horticulture sector into a viable export oriented industry. Through a horticultural PVR system the industry would be able to gain access to new or improved varieties. Improved access would in turn improve productivity through the use of higher yield and greater disease and pest resistant varieties, and enhance our ability to compete for export markets with better quality produce. It would also provide a greater competitive presence for Australian produced horticultural products on the domestic market. A more competitive market under a PVR system would also encourage an expansion in private research activity in horticulture which to date has not received a high priority in public breeding research efforts. It was also argued to the Senate Standing Committee that the absence of an Australian PVR system for horticulture increases the danger of varieties which are currently denied access to Australia being imported illegally. Quarantine avoidance brings with it the real danger of disease which could easily wipe out large sections of our fruit and vegetable crops. A PVR system would lessen the incentive to obtain new and improved varieties illegally. As stated earlier, the Bill includes a number of changes to the 1982 PVR Bill. These are outlined in greater detail below. In Clause 3 (1) the definition of breeder has been expanded to include organisations employing plant breeders. In submissions made to the Standing Committee, the Industry Committee for Plant Breeders Rights argued that the definition of 'breeder' in the 1982 legislation was too restrictive given that most applications for plant variety rights would be made by organisations employing plant breeders. The definition of 'new plant variety' in Clause 3 (1) seeks to satisfy the recommendation of the Standing Committee that '. . . in any PVR legislation the criteria for determining 'newness' or 'novelty' be clarified'. (p. 30) A determination of whether a new variety is 'new' or 'novel' will be based on whether the variety was clearly distinguishable from other varieties which were public knowledge on the date of application. Clause 6 provides for the granting of PVR to chance findings and natural mutations provided the applicant for PVR has undertaken the necessary test growing of the variety to show the variety is distinct, uniform and stable. Recommendations No. 23 of the Standing Committee stated: 'That further consideration be given to the inclusion of varieties derived from mutants and chance seedlings in any PVR legislation'. (p. 76) Clause 8 of the Bill fulfils the recommendations of the Standing Committee namely: 'That an advisory committee be established under any PVR scheme to assist in its administration'. (p. 74) The Advisory Committee established by Clause 8 would assist in the formulation of regulations under the Act as well as provide advice to the Registrar on matters arising from the administration of the legislation. Clause 10 provides for copies of the Register of Horticultural Plant Variety Rights to be maintained in each State and Territory. This follows from Recommendation No. 18 of the Standing Committee namely: 'That details of applications for PVR be available in all capital cities'. (p. 73) Clause 14 (k) follows from Standing Committee Recommendation No. 17 namely: ' That consideration be given to including in any PVR legislation a requirement that where a variety has been tested under Australian conditions details be included in the PVR application'. (p. 72) Clause 18 fulfils Recommendation No. 19 of the Standing Committee namely: 'As part of any PVR scheme an Australian Plant Varieties Journal be published quarterly to provide information regarding the operation of the scheme'. (p. 73) Finally, by excluding fodder, pasture and field crops the Bill avoids an objection raised in the debate of the 1982 Bill and put to the Standing Committee. That objection concerned the fact that heavy reliance had been placed in the past on public agricultural research institutions to produce seed for fodder, pasture and field crops. Objectors feared that Government support for these institutions might decline as a result of an expected expansion of private research activity following the introduction of an all embracing PVR. Nevertheless, in view of the principal recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources and the compelling arguments presented over the years it would be highly desirable that Australia ultimately adopt a PVR system which provides for all species to be included. In the meantime a system of plant rights for horticultural varieties will help overcome many of the difficulties the Australian horticultural sector has experienced in being able to effectively compete in domestic and international markets. A horticultural plant variety rights system in Australia will give horticulturalists the access to new and improved overseas varieties which are essential for the continued well being of the industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to ensure the conservation of the wet tropics of North East Queensland. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.09) — by leave-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 November 1983 the Queensland Cabinet gave the Douglas Shire Council $100,000 to start building a 33-kilometre track between Cape Tribulation and Bloomfield River. The Democrats are totally opposed to the construction of this road through a national park. Like the proposal to dam the Franklin River, the road through the Daintree Rainforest is an act of wilful environmental vandalism. The economic arguments in support of the road are dubious, while the environmental value of the area is beyond reproach. The Daintree region is a unique area of rainforest. Rainforest contains at least 50 per cent of the world's animal and plant species. The destruction of world rainforests is proceeding at a furious rate. 50 acres disappear every minute in the world. This adds up to an area of rainforest equivalent to the size of Switzerland disappearing every year. Scientists have yet to classify many species of life that are in the rainforests. It is estimated that the loss of rainforests will make extinct between 250,000 and 1.25 million different species by the year 2000. This loss of genetic diversity means that many unknown life forms could disappear before their value is understood. Rainforests have provided substances that have saved human life. In 1960, a child suffering from leukemia had only a one in five chance of remission. Today, thanks to a drug developed from tropical plants, that child has a four in five chance of avoiding leukemia. About half of all modern medicine is derived from plants. In the 200 years since European settlement white Australians have destroyed 75 per cent of this country's rainforests. Rainforests now cover only 0.25 per cent of Australia's land mass. This minute area could be grouped into a circle of 70 km in diameter. Australian rainforests contain at least half of all Australia's flora and fauna . They are believed to be the cradle for the world's flowering plants which evolved between 65 and 130 million years ago. Daintree is a unique area of this unique resource. It is the largest area of coastal rainforest and the largest contiguous area of virgin rainforest in Australia. The area surrounding the Daintree road is already national park and is listed on the Register of the National Estate because of its significance. The Daintree region, however, is not the only threatened area of Queensland rainforest. The Daintree is part of a larger region of rainforest known as the Wet Tropics of North-East Queensland. That entire area of precious rainforest is existing on borrowed time. Logging is taking place in core wilderness areas at Downey Creek. Commercial development is encroaching at a rapid rate. The Australian Heritage Commission recognised the importance of the area and commissioned in 1984 a report on the international significance of the wet tropics of North-East Queensland. That report was unequivocal in its praise of the area. It concluded: . . . the wet tropics of North-East Queensland are of outstanding conservation significance and more than adequately fulfil the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the 'World Heritage List'. The Heritage Commission's report was certified by four international references. Their conclusions were equally enthusiastic. Dr Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, stated: I believe that the report definitely establishes international heritage significance for the area. Professor P. K. Endress, Zurich University, said: There is no question that the tropical rainforests of North-East Queensland are the most important ecosystems with primitive flowering plants in the world . . . World Heritage nomination is highly justified. Professor R. N. Schuster, University of Massachusetts, wrote: The study report . . . establishes the imperative need for preservation status. If economic demands eventually necessitate limiting the area given protection, this should be effected only after we know more about the flora and fauna than is known at present . . . I would argue that the area should be given World Heritage status now . . . James Thorsell of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources concluded: the report is the most detailed evaluation of any prospective World Heritage potential nomination that has been completed for any property. This euphoric worldwide praise has not persuaded this Labor Government to place the fate of a unique area of the world's environment over and above its own political fortunes. This Labor Government has done its utmost to do nothing to save Daintree. It has, I regret to say, succeeded admirably. We have witnessed an extraordinary public performance by this Government to justify their inaction. The Government proposed to nominate the North-East Queensland rainforests for the World Heritage List only with the agreement of the Queensland Government. At the same time, this Government has openly admitted that the Queensland Government has no intention of assisting the nomination of any of its unique environment to the World Heritage List. The Queensland Government has rejected any co-operation in putting the rainforests on the World Heritage List and turned down the Federal Government's $1 million management plan. These outright rejections were contained in a letter from the Queensland Premier on 25 September 1984. These rejections, which further condemn the North-East Queensland rainforests, have not moved the Labor Government into action. It still remains idle while the environment is denuded. The Democrats believe the Federal Government can and must intervene to protect North-East Queensland rainforests. Under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 the Government could proclaim the area to be part of Australia's natural heritage. The Government is able to do that because the 'outstanding universal value' of the area is now beyond question. Such a proclamation would be clearly open to legal challenge. That, however, is not an issue to be determined by politicians but by the courts . The Government's failure to use its legal powers in its own legislation in accord with its advice from the Heritage Commission is reprehensible. The rainforests of North-East Queensland have to be saved. The Democrats' Bill aims to do that until the area is nominated for the World Heritage List. The Democrats' Bill is an interim protection measure designed to overcome the Government's failure to act. The protection is afforded by the High Court or Federal Court issuing declarations of 'natural heritage' status following an application by an interested person. At the same time (or after) an area is declared as 'natural heritage' the High Court or Federal Court may grant an injunction restricting the doing of a specified act that would prejudice Australia's duty under Article 4 of the Convention. The World Heritage Convention imposes a number of obligations on signatories. Australia is a signatory. Under Article 4 we have an obligation to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage. Each nation will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources. The Government's refusal to act in accordance with this obligation deserves vigorous condemnation. It should be stressed that the obligation contained in Article 4 is not limited to properties included on the World Heritage List. Article 12 makes that clear. In this Bill the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is required to nominate the Wet Tropics of North-East Queensland for inclusion in the World Heritage List after receiving a report from the Australian Heritage Commission with material for the detailed nomination. The Minister is required to do this without delay. The protection offered by this Bill-the court declarations and injunctions- cease as soon as the nomination for the wet tropics of North-East Queensland is undertaken. Once that nomination is underway the Government's World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 offers protection. The Wet Tropics of North-East Queensland are, as Mr Cohen as said, 'A complex mosaic of national parks, state forests, timber reserves, vacant crown land, freehold and leasehold land'. It also contains an aboriginal reserve. The Democrats recognise these problems. Unlike the Government, we are prepared to work out these problems. The Democrats' Bill is a measure providing temporary protection. That protection is provided to National Parks, State Forests, Timber reserves and the Aboriginal and Island Reserve all of which are listed in Appendix 1 of the June 1984 'Report of the Society'. These areas are already delineated and gazetted. Private land is not covered. It is the task of the Australian Heritage Commission to determine the detailed boundaries of the area, including private land. Appropriate compensation would have to be worked out. The task of compiling the boundaries is complicated, but could, we understand, be completed before the end of this year. That means it is feasible for the nomination of this area to be forwarded to the World Heritage Bureau by 31 December 1984. Any destruction of the rainforest environment from now on in will be the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. They have attempted to get the Queensland Government to co-operate but that has failed. They have to take the initiative and act according to their responsibilities to secure this area for future generations. The farce of the opening ceremony on the Daintree Road demonstrates the construction of the road was a political exercise. There is no way that a dangerous quagmire after one inch of rain can be regarded as a tourist attraction. The environment must be preserved for this and future generations. While we inherit the earth from our parents we merely borrow it from our children. We have to recognise that the natural environment is a finite resource capable of being destroyed by careless and greedy policies. Australia has a unique natural heritage. We must recognise that it is priceless and work more rapidly to protect those areas under threat. Daintree and the North-East Queensland rainforests are priceless world heritage . They are under threat now. This Bill will protect them. I urge all Senators to support this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 10 October. The Bills. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.12) —I want to raise one matter which has been referred to me by the Victoria College. It concerns a letter sent to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on 4 October 1984 . Can the Minister say whether any response has been given to the college? Could she, either now or later, give me some information relating to the Victoria College's financial difficulties outlined in that letter? In its letter of 4 October, the College informs the Minister that its financial difficulties are not being resolved. The college has a funding problem which has been indicated to it by the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission in respect of the forthcoming year. The college states in the letter: Although State and Commonwealth authorities have acknowledged the College's unsatisfactory financial treatment during 1982-84, it is now recommended that an increase of 2.3 per cent in student load will be accompanied by an increase of only 0.7 per cent in recurrent funds. This reduces the College's already insufficient per capita funding. The letter continues: By contrast with the prediction that new opportunities would be created for young people to obtain lecturing positions in higher education, the financial situation created for Victoria College raises the necessity for further staffing reductions. The college comments in the letter that the Commonwealth proposes to reduce the funds recommended for the college by the State by $800,000. The advice to the college from the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission on this matter was sent to the Minister with the letter of 4 October. The college points out that the overstaffing problem already explained to the Minister will not have been eliminated until 1990, and that this currently causes an excess salary expenditure of $500,000, declining steadily to the end of the decade. The college stresses to the Minister that special assistance is needed to cover this handicap. In view of the increased numbers of students at the college and the reduction of funds provided to the college, the college points to the extreme difficulty it will experience in the next few years. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to advise whether any information or response has been given to the Victoria College, or whether I could be provided later with the Government's response to the request made to the Minister. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.14) —I did not have lengthy prior notice of the matter that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has just raised but my office is receiving a delegation from the Victoria College this afternoon to discuss these matters. I understand that the problems to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred arose after the amalgamations and that the College has some very genuine difficulties and will be seeking some sort of emergency funding. After we have discussions with the College this afternoon I will be able to give a more detailed response. Perhaps I can inform Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle of the outcome of that meeting. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.15) — On the same point, what has the Government 's arrangement been for multi-campus funding, particularly where amalgamations have taken place, as is the case with the colleges in Victoria? We have no history up to date of that type of institution and those types of activities. What has been the Government's general approach to that funding? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.16) —Senator Macklin will be aware that the amalgamations were carried out under the previous Government. They were carried out as a cost cutting measure as part of what we call the razor gang exercise. So no special funding was provided under the previous Government to cope with some of the difficulties caused by the amalgamations. Since we have been in Government there have been no further amalgamations but neither has there been any special funding, so those institutions are funded in the same way as any other institution. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator R. C. Elstob) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— 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. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)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. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Tate, M. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill, as amended, agreed to, and reported with amendments. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and States Grants (Education Assistance -Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) agreed to, and reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.25) —I move: At end of motion, add ', but the provisions in clause 11 (Schedule 2) and clauses 28 and 29 (Schedule 9) of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984, concerning per capita funding levels for government and non-government schools in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, should be fully reviewed by the Parliament when the 1985 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation is considered, with particular reference to- (a) the overall cost to the Commonwealth of the per capita allocations, in the light of projected school enrolments; (b) the needs of schools and their students; and (c) the desired balance of emphasis, in Commonwealth schools funding, between government and non-government schools'. As the Senate is aware similar Bills to those we have been dealing with and of which we now have the report come up each year for discussion. However, in these Bills the Government has indicated some range of activities which proceed beyond the financial year we are now discussing. It seems to us that the points they raise and put in train are useful ones to be reviewed also at that time, particularly in relation to movements between the government and non-government school sectors; in light of the needs that may arise in subsequent years, which needs doubtless will be changing; and whether or not the Government at that stage also believes that it wishes to continue with the emphasis it has embarked upon in relation to funding between the government and non-government school sectors. Undoubtedly the funding will be reviewed. Hence, we move this amendment at this point to emphasise that all these matters should be subject to general review although these Bills contain items which proceed beyond this year. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs)(10.27) —in reply-Senator Macklin's amendment is totally unacceptable to the Government. It seeks to undermine the stability and security the legislation provides and is directly contrary to the intent of the legislation, which is to give a clear indication to schools, government and non-government, of what the Commonwealth commitment to them will be over the next four years. So, anything that would undermine that stability and security is entirely unacceptable. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: ALIENS ACT REPEAL BILL 1984] Consideration resumed from 9 October. (Quorum formed) Clause 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.31) —I move: Page 3, paragraph (1) (f), proposed new sub-sections (5), (6), (7) and (8), lines 28 to 42, leave out the proposed sub-sections. This amendment seeks to leave out proposed new sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) of clause 4 paragraph (1) (f) of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. In the second reading debate I foreshadowed that I would be moving this amendment. Clause 4 provides for a number of amendments to section 5 of the principal Act. Paragraph (f) of clause 4 proposes that new sub-sections (5), (6), (7) and (8) be added to section 5 of the Act. I do not have any quarrel with new sub-section (5). I am, however, very concerned about new sub-sections (6), (7) and (8). These new sub-sections provide fixed rules for the purpose of decreeing under the Act the descent or immediate ancestral line of a child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination by donor or in vitro fertilisation. During the second reading stage when I raised this matter I indicated that I believed this Bill was not a suitable vehicle for seeking to settle or even contribute to the current public debate on the acceptability of AID or IVF procedures generally and or on how those procedures should be regulated by law. I think it is generally conceded by both sides of the chamber that these procedures should not be used as a means of taking a definitive approach in respect of these matters on an ill-informed basis. I think the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in his thoughtful response did acknowledge that there was no intention on the part of the Government to do that. The provisions are consistent-I think that was the word the Minister used-with their incorporation in certain other pieces of legislation by the Commonwealth. The difference is that it may well be suggested that it is necessary for them to be incorporated in other pieces of legislation whereas it is not necessary for them to be incorporated in this legislation. I remind the Committee that the principal Act does have this provision in section 32: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Minister may, upon application in accordance with the approved form, grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person with respect to whose status as an Australian citizen a doubt exists. It is therefore available to the Minister to resolve those doubts in accordance with section 32 of the legislation. This would not be a major administrative job because the cases would be few and far between. Also, the Minister has the power to delegate his authority in respect of this matter. I suppose that I would reluctantly accept provisions in line with the new sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) if the Minister did not already have the power to resolve those doubts under the existing section of the legislation. I reiterate that the reason for my concern about clause 4 is that the medical procedures of artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation raise bio-ethical questions of considerable importance to the whole of the community. They are questions on which public debate is continuing amongst well-informed sections of the community. They have not been resolved in an informed and responsible way by legislation or otherwise . In these circumstances, this Parliament should not seek to contribute in a wholly uninformed way to the resolution of these questions. Unless the paragraphs that I propose be omitted from the Bill are omitted, their existence in the legislation could well be used by those who would seek to legitimise AID and IVF procedures, in their totality, as legislative recognition or endorsement of their legitimacy. A citizenship amendment Bill is not the occasion for this Parliament to get itself involved in bio-ethical issues raised by AID and IVF. The cases, which would be few and far between, can be dealt with under the existing section 32. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.38) —As I said in my second reading speech, these references in this legislation were inserted because it is believed by the Government and its advisers that they are necessary for the purpose of removing any doubt as to the legal relationship between a child and its mother or father, particularly when matters of descent come into consideration. I recognise Senator Harradine's very strong views on artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation. I certainly accept, as he says, that we have some way to go before we sort out the bio-ethical and legal problems associated with both those procedures. The fact is that these procedures exist and they are occurring and have been occurring for a long time. The fact that this is happening is not something that we should ignore. I am also aware that there is a possibility that in future debates some people, for a debating point, may suggest that because there is reference to AID and IVF in this legislation, this provides some legislative recognition, or legislative approval-I suppose that is the important thing-for those procedures in the way that they are being utilised now. This is in fact a debating point. It is a debating point that I will not use, and I am sure members of the Government will not use, in this place. It is a debating point that I think can easily be put aside. I do not believe that we should omit references such as this in the legislation because in the future someone might misuse them in debate in the way that many things are misused in debates in this place and other places. For that reason, I do not feel that Senator Harradine's proposition has as much weight as he may put on it in this debate, and we are not inclined to accept his amendment. As I said, I accept the strength of his feelings on the matter and I accept the fact that we have a long way to go in the future is sorting out the legal and other problems in this area. For the reasons I have just given and the reasons I gave in my second reading speech, we are not inclined to accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause 4 agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Repeal of Part II). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.42) —I rise only to ask a question. Clause 7 seeks to repeal Part II of the Australian Citizenship Act, which relates to the status of a British subject. It is a fact that State legislation will have to be changed as a consequence of our removal of that Part relating to British subjects. The original intention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the previous Government, Mr Macphee, was outlined in an undertaking he gave that the legislation would be proclaimed as soon as State governments passed similar legislation to enable a uniform Australia-wide commencement date. There is widespread use of this term in other legislation. I think it is desirable that the removal of the concept from the Act should be timed to ensure that there are no undue adverse implications in the operation of affected legislation. Can the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) indicate what plans the Government has as a consequence of repealing Part II of the present Act? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.43) —As Senator Martin said, the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said, and in fact the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has said, that this section of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill will not come into effect until we have uniform State legislation. Of course other changes will need to be made to various references in other legislation-I have no idea of the number or the details. Departments and Ministers will be made aware of that and we will proceed with those changes. In fact, it is my understanding that the planning is proceeding in that regard already. We certainly have no intention of doing it in a hotchpotch way, as the honourable senator would accept. The intention is that when we get that uniform legislation in other areas the section will be proclaimed. Clause agreed to. Clauses 8 to 11-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 12 (Effect of grant of certificate of Australian citizenship). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.44) —Clause 12 is the critical clause in relation to the proposed new first form of pledge of Australian citizenship and second form of pledge of Australian citizenship, which used to be known as the affirmation of allegiance and the oath of allegiance respectively. As has been indicated in the second reading debate, the Opposition opposes the change in the form of the pledge in such a way as to remove reference to swearing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. The subject was canvassed at length in the second reading debate. During that debate I put on record my views on the subject so I do not intend to repeat them. I just point out to the Committee that if this clause is not carried it will be necessary to move a series of consequential amendments. One of our deputy clerks was kind enough to draw up a list of them and show it to me. I suggested that she take the amendments to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) because I did not want to take responsibility for them. I thought it was the Government's responsibility. Another small matter has arisen since then to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention. It may be that after consulting his officers he can give an answer. Apparently, the principal Act originally contained three Schedules. One of those Schedules is no longer in the Act. The Act lists a Schedule 2 and a Schedule 3. Schedule 3 will become irrelevant because the clauses that it is relevant to at present are transitional provisions which will be removed from the Act by amendments that are in this amending Bill. So Schedule 3 will disappear. The effect of our opposing clause 12, if the Senate supports it, and I understand it will, would be to leave intact the present Schedule 2. I hope that means that everything will be in order. I hope the Minister follows this argument; because of changes in the numbers of Schedules there may be some other effects elsewhere in the Act. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.47) —Like Senator Martin, I think I have said enough about the reasons for the Government's wishing to proceed in the way it has with this clause. We went through that debate during the second reading stage of the legislation. I accept, as Senator Martin says, that it is the feeling of the majority of the Senate that this clause should be opposed and that therefore we will revert to the previous situation. As a result, the consequential amendments which Senator Martin, the deputy clerk, the officers and the rest of us have all had a look at will, of course, be necessary. I accept that too. I have it, on the advice of departmental officers, that the amendments are all correct and proper. The buck has to stop somewhere; it will eventually stop with me. Senator Macklin —How are we going to deal with them? Senator GRIMES —I suggest that, after the inevitable happens, either Senator Martin or I move the consequential amendments in toto, but that will be a matter for the Committee. As for the Schedules, I can see the point of what Senator Martin is saying. I will have the departmental officers look at that immediately . We certainly do not want to be left with a defective or too untidy piece of legislation. Perhaps I can put that matter on hold for a moment and make sure that any answer I give has a better chance of being accurate rather than trying to give it off the top of my head. We will return to this matter if we can. Clause negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Is it the wish of the Committee that the remainder of the Bill be taken as a whole? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.49) —Mr Temporary Chairman, it seems to me that in terms of procedure, it might be better to go to the substantive clause, if that is permissible, because otherwise, as I understand it there is a series of amendments. We are going to get ourselves into a dickens of a trouble if we support clauses that are actually going to be amended at a later stage of the Committee's consideration. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.50) —If it is satisfactory, and if the Committee agrees to accept the rest of the legislation as a whole, then I suggest that in the consideration of the rest of the legislation Senator Martin could move the consequential amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 circulated in her name. Certainly we have no objection to those amendments because they are necessary amendments in the light of the amendment already made . Clause 11. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.51) —I have just discovered that clause 11 of the Bill is one which contains provisions to which the Opposition objects. I thought those matters were contained in some later clause. I refer to the required proficiency in English. I have already indicated that the Opposition is proposing three changes to the Bill. The first change concerns the oath and affirmation of allegiance; the second is the change in the required standard of English; and the third is the change in relation to length of residence. I have searched valiantly to see where the latter time provisions appear and discover that they are in clause 11. I seek leave of the Committee to have clause 11 recommitted. Leave granted. Senator MARTIN —The Opposition opposes two changes contained in clause 11, although I make the qualification that if we could get a satisfactory undertaking from the Government in relation to one part then we indicate that we may not oppose that. Clause 11 concerns conditions of citizenship. We support proposed new section 13, with the exception of paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of sub-section (1). The effect of the proposed new section is, among other things, to reduce the residency requirement to qualify for Australian citizenship, stated in the simplest terms, from three years to two years. It was under the Whitlam Government that the residency requirement was reduced to three years and we supported that. We believe that the reduction from three years to two years is not appropriate. There is no comparable country in the world that requires a residency of only two years before someone can qualify for citizenship. There was some reference in the second reading debate to why people take citizenship. There has been an acceleration in applications for citizenship, which I believe is a consequence of two things. Firstly, one cannot now enrol on the electoral roll, as a new enrollee, unless one is an Australian citizen. Secondly, one cannot be employed by the Commonwealth Public Service unless one is an Australian citizen. I think those two actions taken under the Fraser Government have put a higher value on Australian citizenship. We have said that we want progressively to raise the value we as a nation place on the privilege of citizenship. We have given people incentives to take citizenship if they qualify and, in so doing, we have put a higher value on citizenship. It is my opinion that the higher rate of applications for citizenship from certain people has been as a consequence of their needing to be citizens to have at least those two opportunities of being able to vote and be employed by the Commonwealth Public Service. To reduce the qualification period from three years to two years is a devaluation of citizenship. I say that in terms of the requirements that other comparable countries put on citizenship. Such countries have at least three years, and in some cases considerably longer, residency requirements before someone can become a citizen. We are certainly not indicating that we think it should be longer than three years but we think that three years is reasonable. To reduce that period we think would devalue the importance of citizenship. We think a shorter period is inappropriate. I will deal later with proposed new paragraph (g). The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Senator Martin, if you are not going to oppose the whole of clause 11, would you indicate the paragraphs you propose to leave out? Senator MARTIN —We oppose proposed new section 13 (1) (d) and (e), which refers to a reduction in the term of residency. I also will be speaking on paragraph (g ), but I prefer to speak to that separately. I therefore move: Page 8, proposed paragraphs 13 (1) (d) and (e), lines 10 to 17, leave out the proposed paragraphs. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.56) —Referring to paragraphs (d) and (e) of proposed new section 13 (1), these have been the subject of considerable debate both in this place and outside it. I suppose it is a matter of judgment as to whether the reduction of the qualifying period from three years to two years is a reasonable thing. I cannot agree with Senator Martin that it somehow reduces the value or the worth of Australian citizenship. As Senator Martin would know, the Bill proposes that the residential eligibility period be reduced from three years in eight years to two years in five years. It also proposes to relax the continuous residence requirements because of the difficulties that has created for previous immigration Ministers and, indeed, for applicants for citizenship in this country. As the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said in his second reading speech, the change is a recognition of the increasing difficulty the current requirements can cause to people in this internationally mobile world of ours. As Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I have had representations from time to time from honourable senators on both sides of the chamber on behalf of people who are involved in establishing businesses in this country. These are people who have come in under the entrepreneurs sections and who particularly are involved in establishing importing and exporting businesses. I point out that the Bill proposes that in future only legal permanent residence will count. Applicants will have to satisfy the minimum requirements before they can apply to overcome some of the difficulties that have been created in the past. The Minister is obliged either to approve or reject each application when processed. I suppose it gets down to a matter of judgment as to what is a fair thing. In the view of the Government, the ethnic community, and probably the majority of the Australian community, this is a fair thing and therefore we oppose Senator Martin's amendment. I suggest that if Senator Martin also objects to paragraph ( g), it may be better to put her amendments to delete paragraph (d) and (e) separately. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.59) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your guidance. We are opposing paragraphs (d), (e) and (g). Paragraphs (d) and (e) refer to qualifying periods for residency. I indicated that I would prefer that we debate and vote on paragraph (g) separately. I have moved an amendment to the effect that paragraphs (d) and (e) be deleted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.00) —The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the Opposition on this amendment. It is not that we are wildly enthusiastic about the Government's propositions in regard to the two to three years provision, but it seems to be a marginal proposition one way or the other. If we were talking of a radical reduction from 10 to five, I think that probably we would be able to have some type of general discussion. Already the period required for residency in this country is quite small. I think the additional reason one would be inclined to accept that position is that the historical pattern of settlement in Australia has tended to be very much on the basis of people seeking citizenship because they had made a deliberate choice when they came here. It is not so much a matter of their coming and then deciding to be citizens, as occurs, for example, in the historical pattern in many countries of the European Economic Community, and even in the United States of America. The historical development of Australia has involved people making a deliberate choice to come here to settle permanently. Those people tend to take citizenship at a later stage. The other point to be borne in mind is that this legislation is looking at our largest group as well, and that is British citizens. Again, the historical development has been that they have made a deliberate choice in coming to Australia. Taking up citizenship is a purely voluntary matter. There is no obligation once one is able to settle here to take up citizenship. Hence, because it is a voluntary matter, I think historical development in Australia would indicate that the time frame is nowhere near as important as it is in many of the other countries we have discussed in this debate. It is peculiarly Australian inasmuch as it derives from our geographical isolation in the past, and that is still the case as a nation that exists on one continent. By and large the vast number of people who eventually take up citizenship have made a decision to settle permanently in Australia at the first occasion. Therefore, the discussion of the residency period in the Australian setting is somewhat academic. The number of people who may decide one way or another on the residency qualification will be small. It was on that basis that the Australian Democrats decided to support the Government and not so much on whether or not the period is two or three years. It just so happens that is the way Australia has worked in the past and is still operating. At some stage in future, of course, particularly with the growth in travel and the development of the size of the Australian population that may very well change, but that may be a matter for another parliament at another time. Question put: That the paragraphs proposed to be left out (Senator Martin's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator R. C. Elstob) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. 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. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Tate, M. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.11) —Clause 11 refers to proposed new section 13. I seek to amend proposed paragraph 13 (1) (g) by replacing the word 'basic' with the word 'adequate'. The subject of the change in the standard of English again was debated at considerable length at the second reading stage. I wish to refer to what I said in the second reading debate and then to the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I ask what the change in the standard of English from 'adequate' to 'basic' means. Mr Macphee, when he was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in his statement to the House of Representatives on 6 May 1982 on the proposed amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act, gave an indicative point of view for the purpose of discussion of a standard of English that might be reasonably required. It is the requirements of the Australian second language proficiency ratings, speaking and listening Level 1+. When I received the daily Hansard, which was, of course, a proof copy, I found it necessary to make a small amendment because what I had said was not accurately recorded. I think it is possible that level 1+ did not appear in that form. I just indicate that because it is possible that if the Minister has looked at that daily Hansard he might have an incorrect version. However, it should be correct in the weekly Hansard. I specified in my remarks that we were talking about the ASLPR, level 1+, speaking and listening. The Minister, in his reply, after pointing out that this rating had been developed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for use in adult migration education program, said: The '1+' described survival English, and there are four parts to that test, to each level of that scale. One is spoken; two is listening; three is reading; and four is writing skills. I never suggested that the reading and writing parts of that test should be applied and neither did Mr Macphee in the statement he gave in the House of Representatives to which I have previously referred. I say again to the Minister : If we had been given assurances that that was the test that would be applied then we would have accepted this amendment. We have involved ourselves in a debate of semantics on what is 'basic' English and what is 'adequate' English. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) when challenged on this debate in the House of Representatives on 2 May this year would not be drawn on his intention in changing 'adequate' to 'basic'. Senator Macklin —He was smart. Senator MARTIN —Senator Macklin thought he was smart. That is what we fear. Mr West then said that an appropriate test would be worked out in the meantime, and we have had plenty of time. I understand from what Senator Grimes said in the second reading debate earlier this week that a test has been worked out. If I could get an assurance that it was the ASLPR, level 1+, we would accept that. If it is just a question of semantics, if the Government says that the ASLPR, level 1+ is what is meant by basic English then we would not continue with our opposition, although I do not see why the Government changed the wording from ' adequate' to 'basic' if that is the case. I move: Page 8, proposed paragraph 13 (1) (g), line 19, leave out 'basic', insert ' adequate'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.16) —I do not want to rehearse the basic argument again but the background to this proposition is that many of the ethnic community groups wanted the word 'basic' inserted, as I understood it, to provide a lesser requirement. However, when we sought from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) the regulation which would replace the one which is currently in place we were given exactly the same regulation with the ' adequate' taken out and the word 'basic' put in. That was quite illuminating. I am not sure whether anybody at the moment really understands why we are changing this wording. I toyed at one stage with moving an amendment to the effect that the wording would have to include 'adequate' and 'basic', and I do not think that would have made any difference either. The word 'adequate' as we have it at the moment has to be a relation term. The language is adequate to what? It is a relational proposition. In the case of an older person who has come here, for example, a grandmother who would be staying at home in a Greek community looking after the younger children, which is still fairly typical in that community, then what is adequate English for her is nil because she will always be speaking in her native tongue. However, basic English for her would not be nil. In that circumstance it would be a tougher requirement . Basic English is a criteria-based proposition. It has to be. It is in reference to certain established norms. It seems to me that if we change the wording of this legislation-this is what I am hoping-to 'basic', the Government is compelled to come up with a criterion. To give a piece of anecdotal evidence, I had a great deal of difficulty with my English language test when I became an Australian citizen because I could not quite understand the lady who was speaking to me. It turned out that we both came to Australia at roughly the same time but she came from Italy and she had very heavily accented English. We had a lovely time discussing it but I do not think I was doing terribly well. I was a bit worried about my test, but it turned out that my English language was adequate. I think the Government's move is a good one. I think if it goes into legislation the regulation we were given as replacing the current one is totally inadequate. I think the regulation to replace the one that is there at the moment would have to be criterion-based in accordance with the obligations of the Act. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.19) —I take issue with some of the things that Senator Macklin said. I noticed when re-reading Mr Macphee's speech of 6 May 1982 that he said: The requirement that an applicant possess an adequate knowledge of English is a controversial issue but should not be so. The Government believes that a basic proficiency in English is necessary . . . So there can be that sort of confusion about 'adequate' and 'basic'. However, in relation to a proficiency in English being necessary Mr Macphee went on to say: . . . to fulfil the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Included in these rights and responsibilities are jury service, the right to stand for elective office and the right to vote. It is surely incontestable that these rights can only be exercised and the responsibilities discharged when an effective knowledge of English is possessed. Mr Macphee, the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, went on to say : The Australian second language proficiency rating scale developed for the Adult Migrant Education Program offers a simple method of conducting such assessments. He also went on to say that, for certain ages and in certain circumstances, exemptions ought to be granted. We have no problem with those sorts of exemptions. We are concerned that there be an objective, measurable test. It may be that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has some other test that is objective and measurable. We are just asking that it apply the test it already has available to it. We believe the appropriate test is ALSPR Level 1+, speaking and listening. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.21) —I am reminded of the time when, soon after Senator Martin and I came into this place, we had, I think, a two-hour debate in this chamber with six lawyers and Senator Cavanagh, who was a lawyer in every sense but degree, over the meaning of the term 'of the '. I sat here fascinated, as did everybody else. At the end, no one knew what the term 'of the' meant in the legislation in any case. I think I had better go through this step by step. The reason-the basic reason-that the term 'adequate' was changed to 'basic' is that the Government was convinced by those who administered the Act that the term 'basic' was a better description of the guidelines for knowledge of the English language than was the term 'adequate'. Senator Macklin now says that the term 'basic' means that the guidelines are not adequate. The preliminary statement concerning those guidelines is: Apart from certain statutory and discretionary exemptions an applicant for Australian citizenship must satisfy the Minister that they have a basic knowledge of the English language. For this purpose a basic knowledge of English may be demonstrated by an ability : (a) to respond in simple English to questions in simple English about personal particulars during the citizenship interview (b) answer yes or no, or in simple English to factual questions on the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. (c) respond in English when taking the Oath/Affirmation of Allegiance. It is particularly important that an applicant's ability to respond to questions not be confused by the interviewer's use of complex words or sentence structures. It is essential that where an applicant's proficiency in English is limited, interviewers- (a) speak slowly and carefully, saying each word clearly but without losing the continuity of sentences; (b) looks directly at the applicant when speaking. Now that is the sort of test, if you like to call it that, that applies now. The thing about that, the thing about what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future, is that adequacy in English or whether a person has the capacity to handle basic English is a judgmental thing. It will depend on the judgment of the person conducting the interview. What is set down are certain guidelines, certain parameters, not only about what is necessary from the applicant but also what is necessary from the interviewee, which is fair enough. What Senator Martin and her colleagues want to do, I suggest, is to apply the Australian second language proficiency rating standards, and apply them only partly. These were a development of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. They were developed for the purposes of adult education in English. They are not a test as such; they are a means of observing language behaviour and coming up with some assessment of a person's capacity. But in those cases when the ASLPR scale is being used, the interviewee is not necessarily aware that his or her language proficiency is being assessed. It is a tool which is being used increasingly to assess people's proficiency for those educational purposes. To take that tool, chop out the written and the reading capacities of it, and just use the spoken and listening capacities that are being observed in it and somehow try to develop an objective test to what is and was and always will be, I suggest, a subjective test by the interviewer who is interviewing people for citizenship applications, that is not the correct way to go about it. I would not have thought, until we were convinced-I wish to heavens we had not been convinced-that we should change the term 'adequate' to the term 'basic'. But there has really been no argument in this area. I cannot remember any discussion in this area since the days of the 'white Australia' policy when we used to give people tests in Welsh and ancient Gaelic. I cannot remember any discussion or controversy. We became convinced by those in the bureaucracy and others that the term ' adequate' was not adequate to describe the test that we were using and we had better use the term 'basic'. We put in the term 'basic' and Senator Martin then says: 'That is really not good enough. You need a more objective test'. Senator Macklin says: 'Basic does not describe the regulations you are using adequately. You will have to change the regulations'. It is a bit of a mess. Quite frankly, I cannot get terribly excited about the whole business, having been through this debate and the legislation. What we need is some sort of guidance for the people doing the interviewing as to their responsibilities in assessing a person's capacity to respond in simple English, to answer in simple English and to understand basic English, with the exceptions that we all know about of elderly people and others. Whether we call that basic or adequate I really cannot get myself into a lather about it. But I am not convinced-certainly the Government is not convinced-and nor is the Department, which actually developed the Australian second language proficiency rating test, that its test should be used in some objective way. It seems to me that, in a genuine attempt to get everything into neat little boxes, Mr Macphee, Senator Martin and others have tried to make this more exact, and I do not blame them. But I do not think it is an area where we can be exact. I think it will always be an area in which sensible, humane, sympathetic interviewers will assess people's capacity to cope with the language of this country, which is English. For better or for worse the guidelines that we have now are as good as any we are likely to get. Whether we describe them as adequate or basic, I really do not care. But we came to the judgment-we were convinced by those who have to administer the legislation is that the term 'basic' is a better one. I can assure honourable senators that, if anyone tries to change anything from adequate to basic or from basic to adequate in the future and I hear about it, I will really want to know why it is being done and I will really want to know whether it will cause the sort of debate that it has caused in this place. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.29) —I wish to make two quick points. The Opposition's first point is whether the standard of English required is adequate for the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship and adequate for someone to be able to exercise his or her rights and responsibilities; that is, adequate to the purpose. The second point is that Mr Macphee did not think of this recommended standard of English by himself. I assume that, when he made his statement to the Parliament on 2 May 1982, that speech had been written by the very bureaucrats who are now feeding information through to the Minister for Social Security who is replying. Under those circumstances I go along with the information that was given to Mr Macphee in 1982. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.30) —I make a further point. We again run into problems. Senator Martin can correct me if I am wrong, and I certainly was wrong when I said in the second reading debate that I thought she was talking about the whole of the Australian second language proficiency ratings. I meant to acknowledge that previously. Senator Martin, in talking about the rights and duties of a citizen, mentioned jury duty and such things. If we provide in this legislation or in our regulations for the standard of English to be adequate to cope with jury duty at all times, we really might be excluding a lot of people. I understand the obligations of citizenship to serve on juries, but even people born in this country get off jury service because of all sorts of incapacities with English and comprehension. I think we run into trouble if we try to set down rigid guidelines of this type. I repeat what I said previously. It will always be a matter of judgment. The Department has operated pretty well in the past. I certainly take Senator Martin's point. Like her, I am sure that if we went back into the matter we would probably find the same people who were advising Mr Macphee are in some cases advising Mr West. That is a problem we will always face. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.31) —Is the Committee to understand from the information provided by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) that changing the word from 'adequate' to 'basic' will not affect the exceptions that are already able to be granted because the word 'adequate' is in the legislation ? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.32) —That is right. In fact, in one case the age limit is extended from 65, I think, to 50. Question put: That the word proposed to be left out (Senator Martin's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. Crowley, R. A. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Mason, C. V. J. Evans, Gareth Primmer, C. G. Evans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, G. W. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.38) —by leave-I move: (2) Page 13, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: '12A. Section 15 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph 1 (b) ''sub-section (2) of section 14'' and substituting ''sub-section 13 (2)''; (b) by omitting from sub-section (3) ''sub-section (8) of section 14'' and substituting ''sub-section 13 (9)''; (c) by omitting from sub-section (3) ''paragraph (d) of that sub-section'' and substituting ''sub-paragraph 13 (9) (d) (ii)''; and (d) by omitting from sub-section (4) ''sub-section (9) of section 14'' and substituting ''sub-section 13 (10)''.'. (3) Page 18, clause 27, lines 24 to 27, leave out the clause. (4) Page 19, clause 31, paragraphs (c) and (d), lines 33 to 35, leave out the paragraphs. (5) Page 22, clause 37, sub-clause (1), paragraphs (a), (c) and (d), leave out the paragraphs. (6) Page 22, clause 37, sub-clause (2), lines 11 to 17, leave out the sub- clause. (7) Page 22, clause 38, lines 18 to 20, leave out the clause. (8) Page 22, clause 40, line 24, leave out 'Schedule 2', insert 'The Schedule'. (9) Page 25, Schedule 1, leave out the Schedule. (10) Page 25, Schedule 2, leave out 'SCHEDULE 2', insert 'THE SCHEDULE'. As a result of Senator Martin's detective work we find that we will end up with two Schedule 2s, and I have moved amendment (8) accordingly. I might add that amendments (2) to (7) have been circulated in the name of Senator Martin. Amendments agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.40) —I wish to make a very brief statement on behalf of the Opposition. When the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 was debated in the House of Representatives debate concentrated on those areas of the Bill with which the Opposition took issue. As a consequence the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) subsequently claimed that we were opposed to significant sections of the Bill. That was simply because the opportunity did not arise, or had not been taken, in the House of Representatives to state whether we agree with, or at least have no objection to , all of these other changes. In the interests of the speedy passage of Bills through the Senate today so they can be returned to the House of Representatives for it to consider the amendments made to the Bills in the Senate before rising today for the election, I have not sought to speak on other significant sections of the Bill. My reason for this is simply the Opposition's desire to co-operate with the Government. I put on record that the Opposition supports the other significant changes in the Bill. Indeed they were initiated under the Fraser Government and the full view of that government, the present opposition, on those additional issues is contained in a statement by Mr Macphee to the House of Representatives in 1982. It is a statement to which I have referred on numerous occasions. I now look forward to the Government giving credit where credit is due. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.41) —in reply-I thank Senator Martin for her co-operation and acknowledge that co-operation. I thank Senator Macklin for his co-operation and acknowledge that co-operation. I hope that Senator Martin will not think I am churlish to point out that I am not thanking those other, I think, 17 Opposition senators who spoke only on those sections with which they took issue and in doing so accused us of creeping republicanism, socialism by stealth and all the other colourful representations. I thank, in particular, Senator Martin, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine who, for much of the time, did not say anything. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.44) —I 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, the routine of business be as follows- (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (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. When giving notice of my intention to move this motion I identified its important points. They are: Firstly, that the Senate sit at 10 a.m. next Tuesday ; secondly, that the Senate meet on Wednesday night next week; and, thirdly, that Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays. I emphasise the words 'take precedence,' and that is the intent of the motion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.45) —I move: Delete paragraph 4. The effect of what is proposed by the Government is to ensure that my Bill relating to de factos of parliamentarians will not be debated before we rise for the election. Everyone knows that the first item to come up under General Business this afternoon was to have been my Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2). As far back as Monday of this week it was understood by all concerned that that would be the item which would be dealt with this Thursday night. Indeed it was listed for debate last Thursday night after the Flags Amendment Bill 1984. There were a number of speakers on the Flags Amendment Bill. However, that speakers list was not exhausted at the expiry of the time allowed for General Business on that day. Afterwards I was clearly given to understand that my Bill would be debated this week. It is necessary to remind the Senate that the matter we are talking about is one of major public importance. It seeks to undo what was done by the Remuneration Tribunal at the request of the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, and the Government to clothe a de facto relationship with the same status as a legal marriage for the purposes of overseas travel. The Tribunal included this proposal in a determination covering other unrelated matters such as stamps and entitlements. That action by the Tribunal hindered in practical terms the free exercise of the critical and control functions of parliament in respect of this matter of major public importance. A course of action which I would have had to take, and which was available to me until the day before yesterday, was to move a motion for the disallowance of the whole of the Tribunal's decision. I did not do that because I was quite clearly under the impression that my Bill would be debated either last Thursday or today. The time for disallowance has now gone. No honourable senator may move a motion for the disallowance of that Tribunal's determination. Therefore it is even more essential that if Parliament is to face this matter of major public importance, if it is to be able to direct its attention to this matter of major public importance and if we are not going to allow our rights to be circumvented by the Tribunal's acting as a legislative pacesetter in this major matter of public importance, we must deal with my legislation. It is a matter of major public importance, because the decision publicly demeans the institution of marriage. It strikes at its legislative recognition and it flies in the face of the responsibility of parliamentarians to give an example in matters of principle underpinning the laws that they pass through the Parliament. This is amongst the matters which surely the Parliament has a responsibility to consider as soon as possible after the decision has been made. That is why I presented the Bill on 24 August, soon after the Parliament met, and made my second reading speech on that day. That is why I believe that we ought to deal with it as soon as possible and that 'as soon as possible' would be this afternoon. Now, however, the proposal is that Government Business take precedence. In effect, unless I am mistaken, what that means is that the Government will have its measures on during General Business time and will probably then enable debate to go on to this matter at a time when it will not be possible to deal with it and to take the matter to a vote. If we had two and a half hours this afternoon for this matter, that would give honourable senators adequate time to consider it and take it to a vote. But what is clearly the tactic of the Government-I have yet to hear in this debate openly the attitude of the Opposition and of the Australian Democrats on this matter-is to eat into General Business time this afternoon and then to enable some time for the debate on this particular matter, but so little time as will enable it to be talked out. If that is the case, I just indicate that in the first day or so of the new Parliament I shall again propose a similar Bill and at some stage it will have to be dealt with. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.53) —I appreciate what Senator Harradine has said, in the spirit in which I believe it has been said. However, I want to correct one thing that he said. It is not the tactic of the Government in making this move relating to General Business to try to bury the issue which is at the central point of his Bill. Senator Harradine said that if it is not dealt with in this Parliament he will bring it on in the next Parliament. It would be our anticipation that he would do so, as he is absolutely entitled to do, and the issue would have to be dealt with. The tactic of the Government is to get a number of items of Government Business through. Senator Harradine referred to what his anticipations had been up until last Monday. Of course, on Tuesday an election was announced and the House of Representatives will presumably rise today. It is in that atmosphere that we are concerned that we do what is very frequently done by governments at this time of the year in similar circumstances and with an election in the offing and that is to try to dispose of essential Government business. I particularly noted Senator Harradine's point about the time having expired for a move to disallow certain regulations. I have accepted that the issues in his Bill have to be addressed by this Parliament. That can be done in one way or another, be that by his Bill or the move to disallow the regulations. Senator Harradine —That's gone. Senator BUTTON —I understand that, but the same issues will be there, and the same members will have to confront them in one form or another. I apologise to Senator Harradine in the sense that we have a different set of priorities in terms of Government legislation from those which he has indicated in relation to his Bill, but I am afraid that that is inevitable at this stage. I put those matters on record. I recognise that, of course, the Bill has to be dealt with in due course. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.55) —I should indicate the position of the Opposition. The Opposition will be supporting the Government's motion and will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Harradine. It is important that I say that the Opposition takes that view on the basis that the Government is doing what is normal at this stage of the session but, I suppose more markedly, is taking action which is very normal when we face an election and when we still have a fairly large amount of Government Business with which to deal. The Opposition would certainly not have been a party to any tactic on the part of the Government to bury this matter. The Government raised the question of putting aside General Business with me on , I think, the day that the election was called. The manager of Government Business called to see me and said that the Government was seeking our consent to that. I told him that that was not a matter on which I could consent unilaterally but that I would go back to my Party to check with my colleagues and discuss the matter with them. At our Party meeting earlier this week I advised that that was the Government's intention. I advised on the outstanding items of General Business which remained to be dealt with, and after consideration the Party determined that we would go along with what we accept is the normal procedure of giving precedence to Government Business. In my earlier dealings with Senator Harradine, I indicated that I would co- operate with him to bring his Bill on. I think that I should say that, because it is a matter which was between us but one on which he might say: 'I am entitled to rely on that undertaking'. Last General Business period I withdrew a Bill of Senator Durack's-I think that it contained some constitutional implications-in favour of listing the Harradine Bill following the Flags Amendment Bill, which was another Bill which had been introduced by Senator Durack. As it happened, a very large number of Opposition senators chose to make speeches on that Bill and we did not get to the second Bill which was listed for General Business. In retrospect, I suppose that that is a matter for regret. I note the point made by Senator Harradine that he is perfectly at liberty to bring forward the same or, indeed, some wider Bill in the next Parliament. Senator Harradine —The same Bill. Senator CHANEY —Whatever the outcome of the election, we all know that Senator Harradine will be here. The Bill which Senator Harradine has brought in and the provision of the Remuneration Tribunal order to which it relates is but one tiny aspect of a very much larger subject. There are half a dozen other areas of entitlement which are affected by the same question. Senator Harradine —Parliamentarians? Senator CHANEY —Yes. Senator Harradine —Superannuation. Senator CHANEY —No-within our general entitlements as to travel, the use of cars , the ability to take people on charter aircraft, and so on. Senator Harradine —That is not specifically in the determination. Senator CHANEY —No, but there are other entitlements. Senator Harradine —No, they are not entitlements; that is the whole point. Senator CHANEY —Perhaps we can debate that on a later occasion. Perhaps it is something that I should discuss with Senator Harradine. The point is that there are a dozen or more pieces of legislation which also deal with this matter. Sometimes, to provide benefits in circumstances in which there are bona fide domestic relationships or de facto relationships, or whatever one might care to call them-various terms are used-there are provisions which exist to reduce entitlements which would otherwise apply. The social security legislation is an important example of that. Senator Harradine —I explained that when I introduced my freedom of information legislation. Senator CHANEY —Certainly. The point I am making is that it is a very large area involving a range of legislative provisions. I note that Senator Harradine, in his second reading speech on the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill, referred to the Seamen's Compensation Act, which has quite specific provisions of a different sort from that which is contained in this Tribunal finding. In any event, this is not a time for an extended debate on the matter. What has happened today has not taken the issue off the parliamentary agenda. Its consideration is simply postponed. That is perhaps a matter for regret, but the Opposition believes that in all the circumstances the Government's request is a reasonable one and it will support the proposition which has been put forward by the Government with respect to the program. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.01) —It is my understanding that, whilst the red sheet suggests that the Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984 should be taken together in cognate debate, it is generally agreed that they should not be. Therefore, we are proceeding with the Automotive Industry Authority Bill. The Bill as I understand it proposes to establish the Automotive Industry Authority, with the following functions: To conduct investigations into automotive industry matters, to and 'automotive industry matters' are set out in very broad terms in the definitions in the Bill; to monitor and analyse automotive industry matters; prepare and give to the Minister reports as required by the Government; to provide or to support by way of financial or other assistance services that could contribute to improvement in management efficiency in the automotive industry; to seek and receive information on automotive industry matters from relevant persons; to consult with State governments on automotive industry matters; to monitor developments and policies of other countries in relation to the automotive industry and advise the Minister on the relevance and possible application in Australia of such policies ; and such other functions as are conferred on the Authority by an Act. The Bill provides that reports by the Authority will be on the effect of regulatory policies. That is dealt with in clause 10. Under sub-clause (4) of clause 10 'regulatory policy' is defined as meaning a regulatory policy of the Commonwealth in relation to trade practices, consumer protection, environmental protection, prices surveillance, foreign investment in Australia or-this is the one to which I draw particular attention-any other matter. That will mean that the proposed Automotive Industry Authority will be able to be involved in any other matter which it thinks is of interest to it. Presumably the meaning of that is that it is to be in some way associated with regulatory policy. That is an extraordinarily wide power to give to a body such as this. When we see what powers are provided under the Bill we become even more amazed. Clause 11 provides: In addition to any other power conferred on it by this Act, the Authority has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions. I emphasise, that the Authority will have the power 'to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions'. The performance of its functions can be in relation to a number of specific things or in relation to any other matter. I cannot think of a way in which a body could be given wider powers than those. I cannot think of a good reason why it is necessary to give it such wide powers. It is not necessary to enable the Authority to carry out its functions for it to have absolutely unlimited powers. The only good part of the Bill is clause 32, which is a sunset clause and states: On the expiration of 31 December 1992, this Act shall cease to have effect. I am glad to see that the Government is introducing a sunset clause in legislation such as this. As it is part of a plan which had a time scale, it is appropriate that it does have a sunset clause. However this, I think, shows something of the sham in what the Government has been talking about in recent times, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular has spoken of his concern and his Government's concern about deregulation. Deregulation? This is corporatism at its best. This is the imposition of government control by a government-created authority over a very significant sector of Australian industry. It is the very antithesis of deregulation. I believe it shows the sham in the Government's statements, repeated as recently as today when it talked about holding conferences. Obviously the Government is trying to catch up with the fact that there has been widespread acceptance of the Opposition's strong moves towards placing a heavy emphasis on deregulation. In our industry and commerce policy, details of which were released in August, and in our industrial relations policy, details of which were released much earlier this year, we gave specific recognition to the very heavy need in Australia for positive deregulation as well as reform in the making of regulations, in the regulatory process. We said in that industry and commerce policy document: 2.30. The Coalition believes that one of the major inhibiting and cost-inducing factors in both the operation of Australian industry and in entrepreneurial activity is excessive regulation. 2.40. Various assessments have been made of the rate of growth of regulatory activity. It is important to remember that it is at a Commonwealth, State, and Local Government level. 2.41. The Confederation of Australian Industry Report, published in July 1980, indicated that for every one dollar of net income, business, on average, spent 13 cents in complying with Federal and State business regulation. It is also indicated that the rate of regulation-making had increased by 62% in the past two decades. As I mentioned earlier, we have paid a great deal of attention to regulation, to the extent that we have a policy on regulation, deregulation and reform of the regulatory process due to be published within the next 24 hours or so. The policy has been carefully prepared and is part of the total policies of the Opposition. It is not something that was dreamed up at the last minute as a means of finding a way to gain a temporary advantage, which appears to be what the Government is doing whilst at the same time going ahead imposing more corporate state-type institutions on the Australian industrial scene. We already have the Steel Industry Authority overseeing all the steel industry. We now are to have the Automotive Industry Authority. Yet we had talk about deregulation. I refer again to what the Opposition sees as some of the ways that need to be taken towards deregulation or regulation reform. I quote again from our industry and commerce policy document: 2.42. As has been found by those States such as Tasmania who have commenced a program of deregulation and regulation reform it is not going to be merely a matter of eliminating or abrogating various regulations without careful study of the consequences. 2.43. Four different methods of approach are necessary: (a) the identification and supervision of regulatory control must be brought firmly under Parliamentary control. Several possibilities for this exist and we shall at the time determine which form of Parliamentary Committee supervision is both most readily available and suitable. As I said, a policy statement in relation to that will be made within, I anticipate, 24 hours. That statement has been prepared and accepted. It has gone through all the policy making processes. The statement goes on to say: (b) (i) we shall adopt regular reviews of regulation by the use of a system of advisory bodies. (ii) each advisory body will be chaired by the Minister. It will be comprised of the 'victims' of regulation as well as the 'beneficiaries' rather than by the regulators themselves, and its membership will be changed according to the area of regulation being reviewed. We would wish to ensure that we avoid the creation of simply another QANGO. Those who have to work within the regulation and those for whose benefit it may have been created will have the opportunity to recommend upon its value, simplification or abolition. (c) through the Council of Ministers, we shall consult with the States to encourage removal of any unnecessary State regulation, particularly where it is possible, by co-operation, to avoid duplication by the Commonwealth and the States. (d) we will require a 'Regulation Impact Statement' with every proposal for new regulations. This will identify what existing regulation has been superseded and can be abolished, and ensure that 'as you create so shall you terminate' regulation. 2.44 Further continuing attention on deregulation and regulation reform will be achieved through a requirement that each Department, Statutory Authority, or other Government agency shall include in its Annual Report (or where not presently required to report, then make an Annual Report) upon the following: (a) steps taken to reduce the burden of and to simplify 'the paper war'- particularly so far as this imposes costs rather than benefits upon the private sector; (b) the initiation of more simplified processes and services to the public; (c) the extent to which they have undertaken any, and if so, what, program evaluation and the progress and results, if any, obtained; and (d) the proposed order of future program evaluation. I think that statement shows that the Opposition is serious about the question of regulation, regulation reform and deregulation. We have given a great deal of consideration to these matters and have come out with firm proposals in relation to them in particular policy areas. These are drawn together in an overall policy document. I make that point firmly because I believe that a sham is taking place so far as the Government is concerned in its trying to catch up with the attractiveness of the Opposition's policies in this area by pretending to be doing something while at the same time creeping socialism is taking place. The Automotive Industry Authority Bill is a good example. If one is having this sort of legislation, why on earth does one have to have the extraordinarily broad powers given by this Bill? I wonder how the Government justifies the incredible cost of the various authorities which it is establishing as part of its corporate state. Some $4m is identified for only a relatively small group of the industry authorities which are to be imposed upon the freedom of decision- making of industry in Australia. Whilst the motor vehicle policy was welcomed in broad terms by the Opposition, we thought it was extraordinary that the Government failed to do anything about one of the most important ways of making the industry competitive, that is, by doing something to free up the constrictions imposed by the prices and incomes accord, the whole of that cosy arrangement between the administrative or parliamentary arm of the Australian Labor Party, that is, the Government, and the industrial arm, the Australian Council of Trade Unions which comprises the majority of trade unions. When the policy was produced we pointed out that what Australia needed most to be able to make itself competitive in various areas of manufacturing industry was a sensible wages policy and not a centralised, indexed wages policy. We find that the Government is indexing not only in relation to wages costs but also all sorts of other costs, so that automatically next year we will have the sort of thing that is feared by so many people. Syntec and other bodies have expressed their views and fears about what will happen to this economy next year as more and more of these automatic costs increases start to bite. The Government's high borrowing requirements to enable it to engage in its various types of corporatist state activities will also have their impact. I fear that we will find that the situation Australia enjoys at the moment, having recovered from the drought, having had the benefit of the wages pause introduced by the former Government and having had the benefit of the recovery in world trade, will no longer continue. If the present Government's policies are continued we will have a depression of that recovery to the degree that Australia will suffer severely. That will happen unless the Government's policies are changed. That is why we would prefer to see the automotive industry freed from some of the controls which have been imposed on it and not have more controls imposed on it. The automotive industry has been a troubled industry. It is necessary to have a plan. The Opposition had a plan which was due for review this year. This Government is not doing something novel in introducing a plan for the automotive industry. It is not novel that that plan seeks to overcome some of the problems between the manufacturers and assemblers on the one hand and the automotive parts manufacturers on the other. I am more than curious as to why it is necessary to have this extremely powerful Automotive Industry Authority presiding over that plan. We hope to find that, in the second half of 1985 and in 1986, as the plan develops and when the real crunch hits, members of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers will not be adversely affected by the problem of imported components, that is, by manufacturers who have the entitlement to do so importing completely built up units as opposed to components. A number of welcome changes have been going on in the industry. The car companies have got together as a group to tackle problems that arise in the industry on an industry rather than a company basis. John Lysaght (Aust.) Ltd has been involved in discussions about reducing specifications on steel from some 200 to 40 or 50. That again is a means of reducing the cost of production and making Australian industry more efficient. The Opposition believes that the various steps being taken to make manufacturing more efficient, such as inventory control, flexible manufacturing systems and Cadcam generally will all help the industry to become more competitive with other sectors of the industry in other parts of the world. The Opposition, of course, believes that it should support steps that can be taken. However, I do not support steps being taken in isolation to impose more regulation on the industry while there is an inflexible wages policy which can only increase the cost and undo the advantages which are being achieved by other means. Sections of the automotive industry have expressed their considerable concern that the Chairman of the Automotive Industry Authority will be totally independent. One of the problems within the industry is that there are significant differences between various sectors of it, particularly between the manufacturers and the members of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers. A number of sectors of the industry are concerned about the potential for government interference in the self-help programs being developed within that industry. I also understand from reports I have received that the very wide powers given to the Authority and to which I have already referred have been a matter of concern to sectors of the industry. It is for those reasons-that we see this Authority as an extension of the corporate state, as a form of unnecessary intervention and unnecessary cost as something that will restrict rather than assist the development of a flexible and successful automobile industry in Australia-that we do not propose to support this legislation. As was indicated earlier, we support in broad terms the Government's motor vehicle policy plan. We have criticised previously, and I made reference to them again today, some specific areas where we believe the plan could be improved. As to this aspect of it, the imposition of a body to second guess, to control, to slow down the decision-making process within the industry, to give the Government a controlling influence on the industry without it actually acquiring the industry, is typical of the worst examples of the development of the corporate state where government obtains control, government intervenes with government-imposed costs on an industry, and then pretends to leave the industry free of government intervention. The fact is that something which is an expensive and unnecessary cost, with extraordinarily wide powers-obviously the most extraordinarily wide powers in any legislation to come before this place-is something which the Opposition does not see as contributing to the restoration and development of the automobile industry in Australia. For that reason we will be opposing the legislation. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.23) —What a disappointing approach from the Opposition to the Automotive Industry Authority Bill. I was going to say that it is a dog in the manger approach because I am sure that much of what has been done with this legislation the Opposition parties would love to have introduced and implemented themselves, particularly as it has the support of the industry and I believe has the general support of all consumers. Certainly it must have the support of potential consumers, who will benefit in the future from the policies set out in this legislation. I think it is time that all of us in this Parliament recognised that the automotive industry has been in serious decline for many years and has needed the sort of guidance it will get from the Automotive Industry Authority to be established under this legislation. Senator Peter Rae —A good socialist democrat approach. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Rae indicated during his speech that his Party was quite antagonistic towards any interference with this industry. Senator Peter Rae —I didn't say that. I supported the plan. I said we did not want a corporate body over the top of it. Senator JACK EVANS —What Senator Rae's Government and most previous governments of both complexions have done over many decades to the automotive industry is to interfere by chopping off a leg here, an arm there, an ear somewhere else, until we have virtually no cohesive industry, certainly no viable industry, left in this country that can survive without massive government support. It is time we moved away from that approach, and this Bill is a first step. No matter what label Senator Rae might put on this legislation, it is a step towards a comprehensive automotive industry plan. The good thing is that it comes about as a result of consultation with the industry itself, and the establishment of the Car Industry Council moved in this direction. I think there is no question by anybody in this country that the automotive industry, probably above and beyond any other industrial group, needs a long term plan. It needs to be able to see ahead to its own future and therefore needs a bipartisan plan. That was the disappointment in hearing Senator Rae put the Opposition's attitude to this legislation. A number of things proposed by the Opposition when the original paper was put down in May have been picked up. During that debate I felt we had some constructive proposals from Senator Rae which the Government has taken on board. I believe the legislation before us goes as far as it is possible to go at this stage, retaining that degree of independence for the industry but with that element of monitoring and guidance from government working with the industry to ensure that we will still have an automotive industry 10 years hence. At present our protection policies for this industry are costing $1.97 billion. That was an Industries Assistance Commission estimate in 1981-82. The industry is inefficient. It still provides too many models for a small domestic market. Its locally manufactured products have not been able to compete on overseas markets. Without any changes and given the high levels of protection the industry currently enjoys, the industry recently has been shedding labour and therefore exacerbating unemployment in Australia. We need a long term plan if the industry is to attract investment and create jobs. I repeat that we need a bipartisan policy. I ask the Opposition again to look at its attitude to this plan because it may be re-elected to government within the currency of this plan . Everybody, particularly those people within the industry, would like the reassurance that we will not have another U-turn on the automotive industry in this country should the Liberal and National parties be re-elected to government . The good features of this proposal are that it aims to encourage the industry to concentrate on areas where Australia has the skills and can hope to develop a competitive advantage. It passes on some of these benefits to the consumers, and as the penalty tariff for imports is reduced and import quotas are abolished, with total abolition in 1992, then consumers should end up paying less for their cars. Certainly the Australian Democrats have been very concerned at the potential for transfer pricing in the industry. The monitoring of transfer pricing with the establishment of the Automotive Industry Authority will be a vital and valuable improvement for Australia. The allocation of $150m over five years to assist the design of components in vehicles is another useful step forward. However, the Australian Democrats would raise some questions. Despite the Government's expectation of greater Australian equity in the industry, we believe that foreign board rooms will continue to see Australia as a target market rather than as a base from which to export to other markets. Despite government involvement in planning, that will be a very difficult problem to overcome. To develop an Australian industry with Australian priorities we need to encourage, even to demand, Australian equity in the industry. I believe that parliaments will not be able to ignore the reports that will come from the Automotive Industry Authority every year covering both what has happened in the industry in retrospect and also looking to the future year by year. Each year we will have the opportunity as a parliament to assess the industry. I hope the Government will bring down the modifications necessary within the industry and gain the support of this Parliament for those modifications. I do not think the Government has gone far enough with its provisions to help those who will lose their jobs as a result of industry restructuring. The extension of the labour adjustment training arrangements program to include those workers retrenched in the passenger motor vehicle industry, which qualifies an individual for a training allowance if he attends an appropriate course, on today's values will add only $46.35 a week per person over and above that provided on unemployment benefits. That is a start, and it is certainly moving in the right direction. The Democrats believe that if society is to benefit from increased productivity and the increased wealth in the long run resulting from restructuring of industry then those who lose their jobs in the process must also benefit. We must not just throw them on the scrap heap. We must help them to adapt, help them through the restructuring process and allow them to enjoy the benefits we expect from it. I believe that this move sets a very useful pattern for a lot of other industries. I conclude by congratulating the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) and compliment him on the realisation of what we all know has been a dream of his. It is a concept he has helped to evolve into this stage where we will set about establishing a thriving, viable industry out of an industry which , based on past patterns, interferences and the external controls, had only a limited future. The industry now has a chance to get on its feet as a result of the guidance and support that will flow from the establishment of this Authority . I compliment the Government on the legislation and congratulate Senator Button on the achievement of a dream. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Jack Evans attempted to suggest that in my comments I was opposing the automotive plan. What I indicated was that the Opposition supported the general thrust of and the need for a plan, and indicated that we did not deem it necessary to have a corporatist body sitting over the top of it. That was the Opposition's concern with the matter. To have the matter misrepresented in the way that it was can cause unnecessary alarm and concern among people associated with the industry. I want to make that point quite clear . It has already been made clear in previous speeches and I make it again. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.33) —First, let me say that I am sure the whole of the Australian automotive industry, and industry generally, will be pleased to hear that the plan has the Opposition's support. One thing that has been lacking in relation to industry policy is continuity and predictability. I am sure it will be encouraging to everybody that, whatever government is in power, the right steps will be taken in the industry. The Automotive Industry Authority is in some respect integral to the plan. Senator Rae indulged in a lot of rhetoric about corporatism, creeping socialism , and about bodies standing over the industry and telling it what to do, and so on. I suppose that is very attractive stuff when delivered over port in some exclusive club, but it is not borne out by the facts or circumstances. The industry is not worried about the Automotive Industry Authority standing over it and interfering, as Senator Rae suggested. The industry asked for the Authority- it was not my idea. What the industry said-and it is very much related to what Senator Jack Evans said-was that it recognised the industry was in a mess and was not performing well. The industry asked for a plan and an authority so that the industry could work to improve its competitiveness and efficiency. Senator Rae based the rhetorical part of his speech on certain clauses in the Bill, but built the foundations of his argument on sand. With respect, he has not read the Bill correctly. I agree with much of what he read from the Liberal Party platform about regulation and so on. I think it is good stuff and we can agree about that. The only point he was seeking to make, I suppose, was that he thought of it first, or something on those lines. That is a point that is always open in the cut and thrust of debate. He can say that his side thought of it first and I, of course, will say that we thought of it long ago. That does not matter because it is not important. Senator Rae, in constructing his monster image of the Authority, relied on clause 10 of the Bill. I invite him to read that clause. If he had been concerned to mount a serious argument, he would have looked at the functions and objects of the Authority dealt with in clauses 6 and 7. The objects of the Authority are to provide for the monitoring of the performance of the industry and its output, to encourage the development of the industry and to promote changes. The functions are set out in clause 7. Instead, Senator Rae sought to rely on clause 10 which is headed 'Reports on effect of regulatory policies'. With respect, if he reads that clause carefully, he will see that it means exactly the opposite of what he was arguing. It means that the Minister of the day can say to the Authority: 'What regulations or policies of government are inhibiting the competitiveness of this industry? Give us a report on it and tell us what is wrong. Tell us what factors are inhibiting the growth, development and competitiveness of the automotive industry in Australia'. The Authority of its volition can say: 'This industry is being adversely affected by trade practices policy, by consumer protection laws, by all the things that are set out in clause 10'. It is for precisely that purpose-an anti-regulatory rather than a regulatory purpose-that clause 10 is included in the Bill. Senator Rae spoke of the powers of the Authority. The Authority is essentially a monitoring, persuasive body. It has no real powers at all. Its powers are to make public the issues, to report to Parliament-those are the sorts of powers it has. Senator Rae acknowledged in his speech that in the last year the industry has indulged in a number of programs which were improving the competitiveness of the industry. I ask him, in all charity, to say where he thought those suggestions came from. Did he seriously think that they came from this industry after 20 years of mucking about in the way the industry has mucked about? Some came from industry bodies which are doing things with government participation, but many of the suggestions to which he referred with approval came from government. They are the sorts of things the Authority can do. Senator Peter Rae —I would say that it came from both sides. That is my understanding, that it was a participatory thing. Senator BUTTON —I concede that. We pressed for those sorts of changes and industry was concerned to bring them about. In a sense, the role of the Authority will be to try to facilitate such changes. The alternative to having an authority is to have nothing and merely to hope the plan works. The plan will not work if it is not integrated in this sort of way. The will for it to work will not be there, nor will the guidance. Who will provide the guidance, the monitoring and the facilitation? The Government feels that it should be the Authority, not the Government. The alternative is for the Minister of the day and his Department to be trotting round the industry day after day telling it what it ought to do and asking what it is doing about this or that. I think that is undesirable in terms of the philosophical approach suggested by Senator Rae-a theory which in general I understand and support. The Government sees this Bill as an important and integral part of the motor vehicle plan. We hope that, with the establishment of this Authority and implementation of the plan from the beginning of next year, this country can look forward to a motor vehicle industry of which it can be proud rather than an industry of which in the past it may in some ways have been ashamed. We look forward to a better future. It will not be easy; it will not be easy at all. The industry has to be firm in terms of attitudes and it has to be sensible. We believe that this legislation will help with that process. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Button, J. N. Giles, P. J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Lewis, A. W. R. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W. Reid, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.46) — Mr Chairman, I seek clarification on clause 3 which provides that the Automotive Industry Authority Act will have effect subject to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. One imagines that that is intended to ensure a separation of functions between recommending assistance to an industry, which is an IAC function, and the reporting aspects which are set out in this Bill. I would like the Minister to clarify the impact of that. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.48) —The Bill gives no particular powers other than the essential ones of monitoring and so on which are referred to in the second reading debate. The regime of assistance that is being put in place and which has been referred to as the plan, which Senator Rae supports, derives from Industries Assistance Commission reports which are still alive from an earlier inquiry. I refer particularly to the report on light commercial vehicles. Clause 3 simply means that if there are to be variations in the levels of assistance those matters will have to be referred to the IAC. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by honourable senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator JONES(Queensland)(12.50) —Mr President, I take this opportunity to outline just some of the details of the Government's housing policy. I think it is worth while recording at this stage the very fine job that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has done during his period of office and during the period of office of the Hawke Labor Government. In its first year the Hawke Labor Government increased the appropriation for public housing by 50 per cent and in the 1984-85 Budget by a further 9 per cent. Between 1 October 1983 and 30 June this year $141m was spent on the first home buyers scheme, assisting some 55,000 applicants. Since the introduction of the changes to the income limits this year 80,000 people will be helped to gain their first home under this scheme. When one compares that performance with the empty rhetoric of the previous Government one realises that this Government has done something to assist first home buyers to gain accommodation and purchase their own dwelling, I know this is a non- controversial debate so I will not say too much about that. It is thanks to the policies of this Government that we are now seeing housing commencements rising from a 20 year low of 105,000 in the final year of the Fraser Government to 135, 000 in 1983-84 and to an expected 140,000 to 145,000 in the current financial year. Estimated expenditure on the scheme in this Budget is $265m in Queensland alone and $54m has been earmarked, more than one fifth of the national total. Some 16, 800 applications for home owners assistance were received in Queensland last year, of which some 10,900 have been approved to this date. The Hawke Government must be congratulated for the introduction in this Budget of a new and innovative scheme known as the local government and community housing program. The Government will provide funds to the local authority and community groups including co-operative housing societies through State governments to build, buy , lease or upgrade houses for low cost rental housing. Some $7m has been approved by the Government in this Budget for that program. The scheme is designed to expand and diversify the range of low cost housing available and broaden the range of specific housing requirements such as house accommodation, group housing and housing for single persons. The Government has given an enormous boost to public housing through the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. It has developed a program which aims to ensure as far as possible that housing assistance is delivered to those in need and in forms which are appropriate to their needs. Let us consider the Opposition's approach firstly to public housing when it was in government. Public housing received $377m in the 1975-76 Budget which was progressively reduced to a paltry $264m in 1981-82. Ignoring the effects of inflation, this represents a nominal reduction in expenditure of some $133m in six years. In the first Hawke-Keating Budget grants and net advances to States rose by a massive 55 per cent. In the second Labor Budget there will be a projected increase of 18 .5 per cent over the 1983-84 allocations. We have allocated some $500m to public housing in 1983-84 and $624m in 1984-85. The renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement of course is the centrepiece of this Government's policy for achieving satisfactory housing arrangements for low income groups in Australia and provides the basic framework for delivering a national housing policy. There is a guaranteed minimum funding base of $500m per annum by the Federal Government over the first three years of the Agreement, compared with $200m a year under the 1981 Agreement. All this funding will be in the form of grants. Rent level for public housing will be based on the cost of production and administration rather than market levels as was the 1981 Agreement. There will be provision for reduced rentals for those unable to afford the set rent, broadened criteria to include single persons and youth, specific grants to pensioner housing and Aboriginal housing and the establishment of new local community housing programs with a total funding allocation of $27m over the three years. The Agreement also includes the incorporation of other specific assistance schemes such as the mortgage and rent relief system and crisis accommodation programs. The crisis accommodation program involves the purchase, construction or renovation of dwellings to be used for short term emergency accommodation, a need that is required in Australia. About $12.6m will be made available this year, with additional funds coming from supported accommodation assistance programs for operational and administrative costs. These programs are funded by social security. The 1984-85 increase for crisis accommodation is some 19 per cent in real terms. This allocation is a step towards arresting the growing problem of youth and their opportunity to gain a home in our society. It is only a step, more funds will be made available in the future. The last two Budgets brought about a 53.4 per cent increase in funding for public housing, with a guaranteed minimum of a further $500m in 1985-86. There are still some 138,000 householders on the waiting list, representing an increase in demand for public housing of some 64 per cent since 1980. I think the downturn in the building industry was clearly shown during the final years of the failed Fraser Government. The increase is a direct result of people being forced out of the private market by rents that are too high. Decent affordable housing is the right of every Australian. The public housing policies of this Government are the first positive genuine step in that direction. Further Budgets of the next Hawke Labor Government will ensure even greater allocations which will enable us to keep our election promise in doubling the proportion of public housing stock over the next 10 years. One has to realise that the upturn in the building industry at the moment, brought about by the allocation of extra funds by the Hawke Labor Government and the Keating Budget, will allow an increase of employment in those areas that are tied to the building industry. There are, I believe, some 26 allied trades-I refer to carpenters, plumbers and electricians and the manufacturing industries which produce furniture, carpets, curtains and all the fittings, including plumbing fittings, that go into a house. There will be an increase in demand for those particular items produced by the trades tied to the building industry because of the increase in funding by the Hawke Labor Government. I believe that the upturn in the building industry will be of great advantage not only to those trades that are tied to the building industry but also to those people who require accommodation for the future and those young people who find it very difficult to find affordable accommodation at this time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.58) —I wish to say a few words about malaria, one of the great imposters in medical practice and one of the great preventable diseases. My contribution has been provoked by a letter I received from an old colleague in the practice of medicine, practising as a consulting physician, who drew my attention to his dissatisfaction with the level of knowledge available at present to practitioners of medicine, and certainly the lack of knowledge available to those who travel. It seems that very little publicity has been given to the possibility that malaria can be contracted and, indeed, is being contracted by Australians in countries in this region to which they go as tourists and from which they come without proper treatment. The high risk areas include the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu and they are places particularly where Australians tend to concentrate a lot of their travel. The numbers are very considerable. Other countries about which Australians should be aware in which malaria is endemic at present include China, India, Bangladesh, Kampuchea, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. In other words, the region in which we live is one in which malaria is endemic and, indeed, in certain parts of northern Australia one has to think of this illness whenever someone presents with an unexplained fever. It would not be my intention to raise unnecessary fears about travelling from Australia to these areas but there is a legitimate concern that not enough is being done to publicise the possibility that malaria might occur and to publicise the very legitimate actions which might be taken at an individual level or a national level by way of prevention; not enough is being done to advise people on the treatment they might receive on returning from these endemic areas. We simply cannot be sanguine about a situation where malaria could exist and, in fact, be increasing in Australia. I remember, before I came into the Senate, being called upon to give advice about a person who had a fever in a surgical ward. This gentleman had decided to hitch-hike from the country. He had been picked up by a truck driver; he later woke up in hospital after a period of unconsciousness, the truck having crashed. The interesting thing was that this man was unfortunate enough to have contracted malaria from the transfusion of blood he was given to treat the effects of the road accident. That is just one of the bizarre effects that can occur. Someone had come from a malaria endemic area with an infection unrecognised and had then carried on with his normal practice of being a blood donor. I well remember that particular case with an interesting twist on worker' s compensation, third party compensation or whatever it was. My colleague, the one who wrote to me and provoked this speech, has drawn my attention to several examples which have come through his practice of Australians who contracted malaria in Papua New Guinea. One of them actually died of cerebral malaria and the other man-the patient of my friend-indicated that he was totally ignorant about malaria. He was ignorant about the fact that he was entering a high risk area. He was ignorant about the fact that malaria presents with certain symptoms which we can recognise. He was ignorant about the ready availability of treatment and the simplicity of treatment but really that patient would be the rule rather than the exception in our society. In fact, an eminent Australian practitioner, Dr Robert Black, suggested some seven years ago that the problem, in fact, is becoming more serious and the problem is increasing rather than diminishing. At that time, seven years ago, Dr Black estimated that there were about 200,000 people coming into Australia each year from areas where malaria is endemic. He pointed out that only special people- certain designated classes of people-were being given treatment as a matter of course. The classes of people would include soldiers returning from active duty who are treated with a drug called primaquin which has the effect of eliminating any residual malaria of a kind called vivax malaria which people can sometimes carry and which may not manifest itself for some time. Dr Black observed at that time that it may be too difficult to treat all the 200,000 people but that our level of consciousness is not high enough. It seems that more must be done by the Department of Health to help the doctors who carry the burden of diagnosis, treatment and advice and also to help inform the public of what are the high risk areas, what are the available means of prevention and what are available treatments. It has been suggested by my colleague-the one who wrote to me-that the Australian Medical Association, in conjunction with the Department of Health, produce a booklet about these matters for wide distribution within the profession. Many doctors feel uncertain and unhappy about the occasional treatment of malaria. Drugs continue to be developed but for many doctors it is years since they studied malaria in medical school. This booklet could be available to doctors. It can also be available from medical practitioners to the public; it could also be made available through large employers who regularly send members of their work force into malaria endemic areas. The booklet could be made available from travel agents to those members of the public who are travelling and perhaps it could even be handed out to individuals or family groups who are leaving Australia, particularly for holidays where they might be going into high risk areas and where they imagine that there is no need for them to cover themselves against the risk of malaria. It is suggested that any such book should emphasise prevention, that it should encourage travellers to malaria endemic areas to use either chloroquine or a combination of pyrimethamine and dapsone. They could use one of the modern drugs, such as fansidar, which is likely to be effective in the prevention of malaria. Combinations of drugs are needed in areas where malaria tends to be chloroquine resistant, and that is something that is occurring more and more throughout the world. But advice about these drugs, advice about their use and their effects, should be carefully set out in layman's terms and made available because as part of the region of South East Asia we will become increasingly part of the problem of malaria. As travel increases and travel times diminish we will get more and more people presenting in this country with the effects of the infection which they have picked up as tourists or travellers en route to Australia. We should also look at treating as a matter of course a wider variety of people who are returning from high risk areas. People who have suffered an attack of malaria while they have been away would be one group of people; another group would be those who have lived overseas for longer than a brief moment of time; longer than perhaps a short vacation. Particularly worrying might be those tourists who are going on boat trips to remote areas of Papua New Guinea or who are going off to new holiday resorts in the Solomons and who may be aware that they are likely, almost inevitably, to be exposed to the plasmodium. We should consider giving primaquin treatment to these people. Finally, more information should be available generally about the effects of malaria on those who may be particularly sensitive, and it would be very good if any booklet that could be produced through the Department of Health and readily available included advice for those who wish to take infants into endemic areas or those who may be pregnant and who will be travelling into the areas. They should be given advice about drug prophylaxis, about the correct way of using the drugs. The advice would also need to be given to those who are nursing mothers who are taking children into the same areas. My medical colleague has raised with me a very important matter. He has raised it as a matter of public interest and done so in an extremely positive way. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Evans) will be able to pass my comments on to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). They are offered in a spirit of goodwill on a bipartisan basis and I hope that Senator Evans will pass them on on my behalf to see whether the Minister for Health will respond to what is essentially a very positive suggestion. Sitting suspended from 1.08 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In ascertaining the truth or otherwise of pensioners' statements with regard to the assets test, will the Government have access to, firstly, the tax records of the pensioner; secondly, bank, building society and credit union accounts; and, thirdly, investment registers in fixed trusts, stocks and shares or any other records of asset holdings? What powers of search or inquiry are available to the Government under existing legislation? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the first part of Senator Messner's question is no; the tax records are not available to us. I am not sure about building society accounts but, as Senator Messner will know, under the income test pensioners must give information to the Department about the contents of bank accounts. Senator Walters —That is not the question. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator should wait a minute. Off the top of my head I am not certain about building societies. I will certainly find out about that. Perhaps Senator Chaney can help us. There is limited access to bank accounts by the Department of Social Security. But there is nothing in the legislation, as Senator Messner knows, which changes the situation this year; the situation remains as it was before. I am uncertain about investment registers in fixed trusts, stocks and shares. I will find out the answer before the end of Question Time today. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I ask him to confirm his earlier comment that tax records would not be available. In view of the fact that there is legislation under the income tax Act and since valuers from the Australian Taxation Office will be used, is there provision for cross-referencing to the Department of Social Security in the sorts of circumstances which we envisage? Senator GRIMES —The valuers from the Australian Taxation Office who will be used to value assets where that is necessary will be operating under the social security legislation, not under the taxation legislation. That is why, under those circumstances, they will not have, for instance, access to properties in the way in which they do under the taxation legislation. The cross-referencing, as much as it exists between the two departments, is for the benefit of the Australian Taxation Office, as I understand it. It is my understanding that taxation records are not available. That has always been my understanding; I know of no changes which have been made to alter that. I will confirm all that too for Senator Messner. But I am as certain as I can be. Senator Messner —So it is not a categorical no. Senator GRIMES —It is at the moment. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the labour force figures released today? Do the figures confirm that there is a continuing recovery in the labour market? Senator BUTTON —Clearly, all sorts of interpretations can be given to these matters, but there is probably only one interpretation which is correct, and that is the one I am about to give. In seasonally adjusted terms, during September there was a rise in employment of 27,000 and a fall in unemployment of 6,200. There was a rise in the participation rate from 60.4 per cent to 60.5 per cent and a fall in the overall unemployment rate from 8.9 per cent to 8.8 per cent. The September results now mean that 264,000 new jobs have been created since April 1983 and that the Government is well on the track towards achieving its promise of 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of government. The September quarter result has seen Australia's unemployment rate below 9 per cent for the third consecutive month and at its lowest since November 1982. The present rate of 8.8 per cent was 10.2 per cent when this Government took office. One of the most encouraging things about the figures is that youth unemployment also showed the greatest significant improvement. Unemployment among 15-year- olds to 19-year-olds looking for their first full time job fell by 8,300, or 11 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis, in September. The unemployment rate among teenagers seeking full time work fell from 25.1 per cent to 24.1 per cent, a fall of a full percentage point. The rate is now 2.9 per cent less than in April 1983. I said yesterday in answering a question in relation to unemployment figures that, in my view, it is unwise to seek to make capital out of or to read too much into any one month's figures. The figures which are revealed for the month of September are very satisfactory to the Government but they are no cause for being satisfied, if I can put it in those terms. We have a very long way to go towards reducing unemployment to a desired level. I just make the point that there has now been a consistent pattern over the three-month period, which is encouraging to the Government and an indication that the Government's policies appear to be on the right track. Again I say that one would not seek to record those figures with great satisfaction but with some comfort. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, relates to the figures he has just given. I note the cautious comments at the conclusion of his answer but I ask him to confirm that the most recent figures show that the number of people in full time jobs fell by 25,300 in the September seasonally adjusted figures and that the increase which he referred to is, in fact, an increase which occurred because there was a rise in part time employment of 52,300. I accept his statement that there was an increase in total employment, but does he confirm that that is because of a rise in part time employment of 52,000, cancelling out the number in full time jobs of something over 25,000? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I confirm that insofar as the September figures are concerned. But if Senator Chaney examines the figures for the quarter I think he will find that it is a much more comforting picture than the one suggested by his question. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to Press articles indicating that the Australian Teachers Federation will no longer support the Government's education policy? Are there any valid grounds for such a decision? Does this mean that the Australian Labor Party's vote may well go up by 2 per cent at the next election if the Teachers Federation fails to campaign for us? Senator RYAN —I do not think I will address the last and rather provocative part of Senator Robert Ray's question. I met with a very large delegation of the Australian Teachers Federation executive yesterday. Members of that delegation explained to me that they would not actively support the Australian Labor Party in this campaign because they were dissatisfied with some aspects of our funding policy. What I said to them I am prepared to say in the Senate. I think they have every reason for supporting the re-election of the Hawke Labor Government as actively as they are able to because we have fulfilled our basic commitment, which was to improve the level of resources going into the government school system. We have acknowledged that our primary responsibility is to assist the achievement of higher standards in public education in a number of ways. In the funding package which passed through the Senate today we gave a 10 per cent loading on the per capita grant to government schools. We are providing over a long funding period for a 100 per cent increase in per capita grants to students in government secondary schools, and in the new special purpose programs we have introduced, especially the participation and equity program, the vast majority of funds go to the public school sector and to the more disadvantaged schools in the public school sector. I have also appointed Mr Van Davy from the ATF as a member of the Schools Commission. In many other ways I, as the responsible Minister in the Hawke Labor Government, have fulfilled our commitment to upgrade the quality of public education and to improve the morale of teachers, parents and students in the public sector by acknowledging the tremendous achievements of public education. I think it is somewhat incomprehensible that the ATF has decided not to campaign actively. However, even without its active support we will continue our commitment to improving public education in this country because that is the policy of our Party, regardless of any criticism of it that any interest group may care to make. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the United States base at Watsonia outside Melbourne is the single link between three transmission intercept stations in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, and the United States Pacific Fleet Ocean Surveillance Centre in Hawaii? Is it true that information from these bases passing through Watsonia can be used for targeting of nuclear weapons? Does not this targeting information contribute to the technical capacity of the United States to launch a counter force nuclear first strike against the enemy, thereby increasing the risk of nuclear war? Does Australia have any knowledge or control over the information passing through the Watsonia base? Given the crucial information passing through Watsonia and given that the base is the link between intercept stations and Hawaii, is it not reasonable to assume that Watsonia is a nuclear target? Senator GARETH EVANS —Given the fact that Watsonia is in the electorate of Jagajaga, I am perhaps slightly less passionately concerned with the last part of Senator Macklin's question than I might have been three weeks ago. As to parts 1, 2 and 4 of that question, which sought detailed information as to the function of that base, I have to say that this Government, as have previous governments, will neither confirm nor deny details relating to intelligence matters. The problem in dealing with claims is that, if they are accurate and the Government confirms their accuracy, potential enemies will be provided with valuable military information. Conversely, if they are inaccurate in part or in whole, denial of such claims will over time allow potentially unfriendly governments to build up a picture of which intelligence capabilities are or are not possessed. I am sure that Senator Macklin will appreciate the good sense of that proposition, even if he will not concede it publicly in this chamber. As to the third part of the question, I refer Senator Macklin to the 1984 fiscal year United States defence report, which states quite unequivocally that United States strategic policy is defensive and excludes the possibility that the United States would initiate a war or launch a pre-emptive first strike against the forces or territories of other nations. As to the remaining part of his question, part 5, which relates to nuclear targeting, if global nuclear war were to occur we cannot exclude the possibility that Australia would come under nuclear attack since we cannot know the strategic targets of Soviet planners. However, there would clearly be many targets of higher military priority. It is the Government's view that there would be no reason for Watsonia to be selected as a nuclear target. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the introduction of provisional electoral enrolment for 17-year-olds following changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Can the Attorney-General confirm that 17-year-olds can still take advantage of provisional electoral enrolment for the 1 December election? How many 17-year- olds are estimated to be eligible for provisional enrolment, and how many so far have taken advantage of the new system? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Maguire's question highlights a very important initiative the Government has undertaken for the youth of Australia under the provisional enrolments scheme. As most honourable senators will be aware, youths who are 17 years old and who otherwise meet the eligibility criteria of residence, citizenship and so on may apply to the divisional returning officer for provisional enrolment. Provisional enrolment does not entitle young people to vote until they actually turn 18, so in that respect the minimum voting age is of course not altered. What it does guarantee is that people who turn 18 after the rolls close but before the polling date of an election and who are provisionally enrolled automatically become enrolled and, therefore, entitled to vote. If 17-year-olds take up the opportunity to become provisionally enrolled, never again will we have the callous and outrageous situation which occurred when the Fraser Government called the snap election in early 1983 and gave one day between the announcement of the election and the closing of the polls. Because of the, by contrast, statesmanlike and responsible attitude of the present Prime Minister in playing completely straight the announcement of the election and the accompanying referendums, the electoral rolls do not close until 2 November, allowing eligible citizens time to get on the rolls before 1 December. Under the 17-year-olds provisional enrolment provisions, accordingly, anyone who is 17 now and who has a birthday between 3 November and 1 December can enrol provisionally now and become fully enrolled on his or her birthday. As to the latter part of Senator Maguire's question, I have some figures to the end of August which indicate that as yet not very many 17-year-olds have availed themselves of the provisional enrolment scheme. For the information of honourable senators the figures are: New South Wales, 160; Victoria, 842; Queensland, 39; Western Australia, 207; South Australia, 96; Tasmania-democracy once again triumphs, as it does in Queensland-13; the Northern Territory, 7; and the Australian Capital Territory, 43. Senator Walters —The kids know you are not interested in them. Senator GARETH EVANS —I can understand why they would not be interested in voting for a ticket with Senator Walters on it, with respect. The total overall is 1,407 out of approximately 250,000 17-year-olds. That is of course only a very tiny proportion of the 17-year-olds in the country. We hope that many more, inspired by the honourable senator's question and enthusiasm for this important and significant scheme, will contact their local post office or the Australian Electoral Commission office so that their voices can be heard as soon as possible after they turn 18. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. Senator Crowley —Oh! Senator WALTERS —Well, it is a change. I refer to the Minister's statement that under the assets test there will be no inspections of pensioners' homes. Does this mean that the assets in question will never be inspected and that the Department will accept a pensioner's word as to the nature and value of all assets? Senator Gareth Evans —Boring. Senator Ryan —Tedious repetition. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, would you like me to start again? The PRESIDENT —No, I would not. Just continue, Senator Walters. Get it over as quickly as possible. Senator WALTERS —I am sure that Senator Grimes has not been able to concentrate for so long, so I will start again. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator WALTERS —Does this mean that the assets in question will never be inspected and that the Department will accept the pensioner's word as to the nature and value of all assets? How can the Government possibly know without inspection the true nature of the assets? If the Government cannot inspect, what is the sense of having a test? Senator GRIMES —I hope I have less difficulty with the answer than the honourable senator had with the question. First of all, the Government has a belief, which I know is not shared by Senator Walters and others, that the vast majority of pensioners and potential pensioners in this country are honest and law abiding citizens. Senator Chaney —Like the vast majority of taxpayers. Senator GRIMES —Of course. If Senator Chaney wants to use that analogy, we provide in the social security and assets test legislation for those pensioners to give information to the Government. There are penalties for those who wilfully give wrong information. Senator Archer —How do you know? Senator GRIMES —Senator Archer would be an expert on this. I will give everyone a little lecture on the honourable senator's expertise in this area if he wants, but I do not want to take up Question Time. There are penalties, but the vast majority of pensioners or applicants for pensions, firstly, will not be affected and, secondly, are honest. Quite clearly, there may be some people who, as I said yesterday, will try to get around the test. On the whole they will not be trying to get around it by filling their houses with Rembrandts, Renoirs and whatever else Senator Walters may think. Quite clearly, there will always be someone who lives in Vaucluse, Sandy Bay or Toorak, who has a very expensive house and who will declare that he has very few assets. Under those circumstances they will be questioned about those assets. If they wish to have an independent valuation because they claim that their valuation is right and if the Department thinks they should have an independent valuation, they can have it. We will not be sending officers of the Department of Social Security or officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs around knocking on people's doors and going into their houses against their will to- Senator Messner —What about officers of the Australian Taxation Office? Senator GRIMES —Nor will officers of the Australian Taxation Office go into people's houses, against their will, to go through their assets. The only people who are likely to be in these circumstances are those who are dealers in various goods that can be held in a house. I point out that if people have very large asset holdings and if they do not want to apply for the pension, they do not have to. They do not have to fill out a form; they do not have to declare their assets if they do not want to apply for a pension. One would think, from the way the Opposition was going on, that everyone in this community is forced to fill out these forms. The simple fact is that, as I have said, in general we will accept the pensioner's assessment of his or her assets. If there is clearly an anomaly between the value of those assets and other things we will ask for further evidence. If people want a valuation they can have it. But inspectors of the Department of Social Security, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Australian Taxation Office-to satisfy Senator Messner-will not be going around, knocking on people's doors and going into people's houses; nor have they the power to do so. They have no power to insist on going into people's homes at all . Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that the pensioners who receive the simple form will never have their assets inspected unless they invite inspection? Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters must remember that those who get the letter and the more complicated form are selected by both departments. Those who fill out forms and put down their assessments will have their assessments accepted. They will be reviewed, as all pensions are reviewed now and have been reviewed except for a short period in the late 1970s when the previous Government cut down the number of staff so much that no reviews could be done. All assessments will be reviewed on an annual basis. If any anomalies appear then or initially further questions will be asked. But inspectors will not be going around knocking on people's doors, nor will they be going into people's houses as they would if the Opposition were in charge of the whole exercise. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people in this country-including taxpayers-happen to be honest, law abiding people. If we start making laws in this country just to pick up and restrict the rest of the community because of those few who are dishonest we will end up in a fearful situation. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government and relates to the current shortage of housing in the Australian Capital Territory and the prohibitive prices for house and land packages. To what extent did the inaction of the previous Government in the provision of serviced land contribute to the current shortage? What steps has the Government taken to alleviate the shortage of land and housing in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator GIETZELT —When the Australian Labor Party came to government in March 1983 the Australian Capital Territory had some clear problems associated with both serviced land and accommodation. There was an acute shortage of land and housing and this, as I think I have indicated in response to a question previously, resulted in prohibitive increases in the price of land and rented accommodation. One of the reasons for this, I think, is that for the seven years of the Fraser Administration there was a deliberate policy of neglect in respect of providing serviced land in the Australian Capital Territory. For example, when we came to office only 549 standard residential blocks were available for sale, compared with 5,000 blocks which were available for sale when the Whitlam Government left office in 1975. During the seven years of the Liberal Government construction was started on only 2,500 standard blocks and between the 1977-78 and 1981-82 financial years servicing was started on only 18 blocks. By comparison, between March 1983, when we came to office, and August 1984 servicing started on 3,870 standard residential blocks and 1,200 medium density unit blocks were also available. During the same period over 2,000 standard residential blocks and sites for 560 medium density units were completed, which indicates, of course, that something in excess of 5,000 blocks and allotments had become available in our first 15 months of office. In addition the Government began negotiations with the Housing Industry Association and the Australian Gas Light Co. for the development of an additional 130 standard residential lots and 13 medium density sites at Latham and 179 standard residential lots at Evatt. Approval in principle has also been given to the Housing Industry Association to undertake a further development at Florey, comprising 287 standard blocks and 279 medium density sites. We have increased the number of public housing commencements in 1982-83 by 73 per cent in 1983-84 and a further 25 per cent increase is anticipated for 1984-85. Over this period we will have commenced construction on almost 1,200 public houses compared with only 470 commenced by the Fraser Government in the four financial years 1978-79 to 1981-82. Senator Missen —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is obviously reading a ministerial statement which should be made at another time. Surely Question Time is for honourable senators and this is an example of why we are not able to ask questions. Surely the Minister can incorporate this information in Hansard without tediously reading what is obviously a prepared answer to a dorothy dixer. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GIETZELT —I thought the Senate would be interested to know that since we came to office we have increased by 37 per cent the number of dwelling commencements and we are anticipating in the next financial year a further 50 per cent increase, which compares with a 20 per cent decline in dwelling commencements under the previous Government in 1982-83. So it is clear that the shortage of land and accommodation and increased prices can be directed solely at the inaction of the coalition Government in the seven years in which it was in office. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of another group of parliamentarians from various parts of the Commonwealth who are in Canberra attending the regional seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I also notice the presence in the gallery of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Association, Mr John Henderson. To all those parliamentarians and to Mr Henderson, on behalf of all honourable senators, I extend a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What checks, if any, will be made to determine the value of real estate, furniture, antiques, works of art, jewellery, cash or other assets in the possession of a pensioner? How will the Government know what is inside the pensioner's home or elsewhere? Will the Government simply adopt the hit and miss approach that a home in a low income suburb will have few assets, while a home in a high value suburb must be suspect? Senator GRIMES —To take up the final point that Senator Lajovic makes, the Department will not just assume that because a home is in a low income suburb it will have low assets and that a home in a high income suburb will have high assets. Senator Lajovic knows, as I know, that this must be done on an individual basis where necessary, because there are people who live in suburbs with relatively high values and in which over the years the value of those houses has changed through no fault or no action of the owners, and similar things happen in low income suburbs. In many cases the valuation of land accepted will be the valuation of the pensioners. Where there is any doubt Australian Taxation Office valuers will be used to value that land and other properties. I dare say that in some cases, in outlying places, we will have to get independent private contract valuers, if that is necessary. I know that it is very hard for Opposition members to understand this, but I have said before that in the vast majority of cases, in the valuation of personal property, the individual things are not as important as the total valuation. In the vast majority of cases we will do something which I know that Opposition members would never do, because they do not trust anyone. We will accept the valuation of the individual pensioner. It is only in a few cases around the fringe that the valuation will be important. We will therefore not need to send people in to look at people's jewellery, as Senator Walters is so keen for us to do. Senator Walters —So it is not an assets test. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Walters keeps making noises like that, she will lay an egg and spoil the furniture. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters —And he's a Minister of the Crown. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters. Senator GRIMES —She is at it again. Senator Chaney —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! A point of order. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I did not rise on a point of order because the Standing Orders, as I have said previously, do not prohibit rudeness; but when the Minister is entitled to make the sort of crack that he did and Senator Walters is not entitled to retort, 'And he's a Minister', this place is not following rules which I find acceptable. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order; but I would ask Senator Grimes to ignore the interjections and answer the question. Senator GRIMES —I make the point, Mr President, that I was replying to a series of rude interjections, and they are also out of order, as you know. If there is a doubt, we again will ask the pensioner to give us another assessment of the values of those possessions in the house. If there is further doubt and if it is obviously out of proportion-I dare say there will be very few cases-we will see whether the pensioner wants to have an independent valuation. I repeat again-no matter how many times I have to say it-inspectors of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs or inspectors of the Australian Taxation Office will not be going around knocking on doors trying to get through those doors, nor will they have any right to do so. They cannot enter people's houses unless people ask them to do so. Senator RICHARDSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the recently announced decision by the Department of Health to purchase three nuclear magnetic resonance scanners which use computer-controlled radiation waves and magnetic fields. As these machines are still in the development stages, has the Australian Government considered sending a group of Australian scientists abroad to study the nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner? What advice has the Government received from the National Health Technology Advisory Panel regarding the efficiency and implementation of the program? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health informs me that nuclear magnetic resonance imaging is regarded as a promising new diagnostic technology. It is no longer solely in the development phase and there is already some routine clinical use overseas at a number of centres, in addition to the research for which it has been used for some time. There is still some uncertainty as to the true costs and benefits of the technology in terms of the overall effect on patient care, as to the most effective and appropriate areas of clinical application, and as to the status of NMRI in comparison with the other diagnostic technologies which are already in use and which it may replace. Following a study by the National Health Technology Advisory Panel, an evaluation program was proposed to address these areas of uncertainty in terms of the Australian health care system. Members of the National Health Technology Advisory Panel who were formed into a technical committee to look at NMRI were in fact sent overseas as consultants earlier this year to report on the status of the technology in North America and Europe. Their findings were taken into account in the development of the details of the project. They were also assisted in their discussions of this matter by a senior British health administrator experienced in the examination of this technology. The view of the Panel, supported by the consultants, was that it would not be sufficient to draw on the limited experience in other countries to determine how the technology should be used and funded in Australia, and that an evaluation in this country was necessary. It has been recommended that three scanners be installed in teaching hospitals in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, and that the technology be evaluated over a period of two years with particular regard to specific disease groups and the overall costs and benefits of this type of diagnosis. Data will be collected as part of the evaluation process, which will enable the Government to formulate appropriate policies as to the use of this expensive, high-cost technology in Australia. Because of the need to restrict Government expenditure and other priorities within the portfolio of the Minister for Health, it was not possible to provide support for the project in the recent Budget. Discussions with the States concerned are now in progress with a view to determining ways of providing the necessary support so that the evaluation can proceed on the lines recommended by the committee. Whilst funding was not provided in the 1984-85 Budget and there may be some delay in the Sydney project, it was always intended that the Brisbane and Perth projects would be set up in 1985-86. We are hopeful that these projects will proceed on schedule as planned. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the establishment of an office of aged care which was an election commitment at the last election of the Australian Labor Party and of the Liberal Party of Australia and The National Party of Australia. Given yesterday's report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which called for the Government to honour its election promise, when will the office be established and in which Department will it be placed? Senator GRIMES —The Government still has a policy of establishing an office of aged care. The present situation, whereby there is divided responsibility between the Department of Social Security, for instance, in nursing homes, that Department providing the capital funding for nursing homes, and the Department of Health, which provides the initial approvals in principle and the recurrent funding in these areas, is not a very satisfactory situation for the administration of this area, and it is not very satisfactory for future policy development. Of course, aged persons accommodation in this country and services for aged people through the various States Grants (Home Care) Act, et cetera, provide services not only for the aged but also for younger people who are disabled. Similarly, there is a need for a development of services across the whole community for those who are disadvantaged, for the disabled, and for those who need assistance in this way, and the development of those services should be performed in a co-ordinated way. Therefore, the question arises not just that there be an office of aged care-we intend to establish an office of aged care-but also what are the best administrative arrangements for considering aged care, child care pehaps, care for the disabled, and all the other services. In the 18 months that this Government has been in power we have been carefully looking at the administrative arrangements. We are looking at the repercussions of establishing an office of aged care and where that office should be. There have been other priorities this year, particularly in the areas of the economy but also in other areas, including social security and health in establishing Medicare, et cetera. We still intend to establish an office of aged care. I cannot put an exact day and month on it, but Senator Collard need not be concerned; the administrative arrangements under the new Government when we are elected on 1 December I am sure will reflect a further step down the track in this regard. Senator HEARN —I ask the Attorney-General whether he has seen the section of Mr Peacock's 'broken promise' Press release yesterday headed 'Attorney-General's Portfolio' under which he lists nine separate items and says: 'None of these promises have been implemented'. Can the Attorney-General confirm the truth or untruth of that statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is that here, as so often, the Leader of the Opposition is not telling the truth. The longer answer, which I cannot forbear from sharing with the Senate, is as follows: Nine matters are listed. I shall read the first, second and ninth of them and set a little test for honourable senators opposite and see whether they can detect any similarity in them. The first and second read as follows: To progressively establish an integrated Commonwealth/State no-fault accident compensation scheme. Progressive establishment, in co-operation with the States, of the national no- fault accident compensation scheme. The ninth alleged broken promise is: Progressively establish an integrated Commonwealth/State no-fault scheme. That, for a start, represents another triumph of the staff work of the Leader of the Opposition, which has become justly famous around the nation. In answer to that question I simply say that a great deal of work has been done and discussion held, at both an official and a political level, with the States on the implementation of that project, which is for the co-operative establishment of a no-fault accident compensation scheme. Consultation has been held in particular with New South Wales. In July the Prime Minister wrote to all States opening up the question on a formal basis. Certainly nothing has been established but the steps have been taken. As to the third alleged broken promise on the list, which was to 'ensure the final abolition of appeals from State courts to the Privy Council', at the 1982 Premiers Conference agreement was reached to abolish all residual links, including the abolition of Privy Council appeals. The delay in implementing this agreement has not been caused by the Commonwealth but rather by a desire of the States to be satisfied as to the mechanisms proposed, in particular the desire of two States to keep imperial honours. Discussion on these matters is continuing and hopefully is getting very close to final fruition. The next matter on the list is 'Review the terms of Australia's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'. There has been a review of that. It has been completed. It has been announced to the States, although not yet publicly, and as soon as certain formalities are concluded I hope to make it the subject of a public announcement. As to the alleged broken promise of the enactment of a Federal criminal investigation Bill, certainly it has not yet been enacted, but I can assure the Senate that its introduction remains a matter of high priority. In the John Barry Memorial Lecture I will be delivering next week in Melbourne I will be identifying the issues to be tackled in this particular respect and forecasting a specific course of action. Senator Missen —Why don't you put it down here? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Missen can curb his enthusiasm he will be enlightened no doubt quite considerably next week. The establishment of the Federal sentencing council certainly has been set in train by a series of communications going back to as early as May 1983 to the States. Regrettably here, as so often, there has not been the enthusiastic response one might have hoped for from the States and as a result that project has been deferred until completion of the interim reference on sentencing by the Australian Law Reform Commission on that subject is received. Certainly steps have been taken. The next alleged broken promise was to 'Expand the jurisdiction of the AAT, the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Ombudsman in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council'. Here the absence of any kind of sensible staff work on the part of the Opposition and any capacity for truth on the part of the leadership does make itself apparent because we have taken in fact implementation action in respect of seven Administrative Review Council reports during our term of office, several of which have been outstanding since 1979. We have announced the intention of implementing another one in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. There have been over 30 enactments which have conferred additional jurisdiction on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We have also expanded the jurisdiction of the AAT under existing enactments and I have requested the ARC to review, as we promised, the operation of the AD(JR) Act, with a report expected early next year. Finally, as to the alleged failure to 'Establish the Matrimonial Property Inquiry', I remind the Opposition that a reference was given to the Law Reform Commission in June 1983 for the purpose of undertaking a major national inquiry into matrimonial property law. Professor David Hambly from the Australian National University was appointed commissioner in charge of the inquiry and the project was announced with a good deal of fanfare on 15 June last year. It is a pity when these sorts of extravagant claims are made by the Opposition about failure to undertake promises that no greater concern is given to the truth of the allegations than was apparent in the context of my portfolio. If the rest of this document, which was put out yesterday, bears any resemblance to the farrago of half truths, errors and sheer incompetence demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to my area it is a very shabby document indeed. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Minister that yesterday in Question Time he said he would not comment further on remarks by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, on the Senate inquiry into allegations concerning a judge until he had read Mr Wran 's comments. I ask the Minister: Has he examined the Premier's words and, if so, does he believe that Mr Wran's support for Mr Lionel Bowen's attack on the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and the Premier's own call for the inquiry to be wound up amount to yet another unfortunate set of remarks by Mr Wran? Is the Minister aware also of the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald which quotes Mr Wran as having said that he will have 'a few things to say' about Chief Magistrate Mr Clarrie Briese when he returns to the protection of parliamentary privilege next week? Does the Minister agree that that statement is a continuation of the campaign of intimidation against Mr Briese which the Premier has been pursuing in recent times? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I understand that the Premier of New South Wales is sometimes colloquially known as Nifty. I do not know how the name arose, but let me say in relation to statements made about the Senate Committee and other matters by Mr Wran that I heard Mr Wran on the AM program this morning when he said in essence that the remarks he had made the previous day in support of Mr Bowen's remarks of the previous day were unfortunate and he had changed his mind about that matter. Insofar as any comments reported in the Sydney Morning Herald are concerned, I really have no comment to make about that. However, I did say yesterday and I say again that as far as this Government is concerned the integrity of the Senate Committee will be protected. I have nothing further to add until the remarks are at least clarified when Mr Wran returns. I do counsel against following Mr Wran's meteoric voyage around the world and plucking bits of alleged remarks from here, there and everywhere. I think it is better to wait until we have a final version before we determine any attitude on that matter. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy and refer the Minister to recent reports in the Northern Territory Press indicating that the Northern Territory Government is stepping up its campaign to attract to the Northern Territory an aluminium smelter, the electricity for which would be supplied by local gas fields. I ask the Minister: What is the likely magnitude of operating subsidies required to make the proposed aluminium smelter viable? Senator WALSH —Such a report was published in the Sunday Territorian of 7 October . Indeed, it quoted Mr Tuxworth as saying that he will be visiting South Korea in November. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. These are the valuable last hours of Question Time. I think that the same question was asked in Question Time yesterday. I ask the Minister not to give us all the information he gave yesterday in answer to virtually the same question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —It is a quite different question, Mr President. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a different question but the same answer. Senator WALSH —The Attorney-General is not right, either. Mr Tuxworth said he will be going to South Korea in November to begin the process of setting those projects in place. Those projects include an aluminium smelter. The smelter is, of course, associated with the Northern Territory Government's pipeline in the sky. It has yet to be demonstrated that there are adequate reserves of gas for the current demand in Darwin, let alone for Gove or an add-on aluminium smelter. Returning to the central point of Senator Robertson's question, if the proposal for an aluminium smelter is to be taken seriously, the approximate cost of electricity per tonne of aluminium smelted is $250 per cent charged for electricity. The price paid for electricity for aluminium smelters is of the order of 2c to 3c per kilowatt hour, usually towards the lower end of that range . A very optimistic assessment of the likely supply cost of electricity in the Northern Territory, if it had adequate gas to justify the construction of a pipeline, is of the order of 8c to 9c per kilowatt hour. It follows, therefore, that the difference between the likely price received and the supply cost is of the order of 6c per kilowatt hour, of $1,500 per tonne of aluminium smelted, which I note for the record is the approximate present market price. If the smelter proposed was to be 200,000 tonnes, which is a common size for an aluminium smelter, the total subsidy required of the taxpayers of the Northern Territory would be $300m, which is in excess of $2,000 a year or $35 a week for every man, woman and child in the Territory. If this is the way that the Government of the Northern Territory is conducting its affairs I can sympathise with-I do not know whether he is the present or the former leader of that Government-Mr Everingham and his desire to escape from the sinking ship of the Northern Territory and the financial conditions into which it has been sunk by his mismanagement. However, I am sure that he will certainly not manage to clamber aboard the life raft of the Commonwealth Parliament after he has jumped off the sinking ship of the Northern Territory Government. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask him: Is it a fact that 80 valuers presently employed by the Australian Taxation Office are to be seconded to the Department of Social Security for the purpose of valuing assets of pensioners for the assets test? I ask the Minister: How will the valuers form professional opinions as to the value of those assets without obtaining access to them to establish the facts? I further ask the Minister: While I understand him to have said that valuers working for the Department of Social Security will be working under social security legislation and not under the tax Act, is it not a fact that under the Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation is authorised to provide Australian Taxation Office information to the Department of Social Security and that those valuers and, indeed, the Department of Social Security can obtain directly from the Australian Taxation Office any other information they wish about the pensioners who are being subjected to the assets test? Senator GRIMES —I thought the figure was 90 rather than 80, but Senator Chaney may be right. I think that Senator Messner also thinks the figure is 90. I think there are 90-odd valuers-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GRIMES —I am giving honourable senators accurate information, if that is what they want. The valuers, by and large, will be valuing assets such as land and buildings. Senator Chaney knows as well as anyone else that when his house is valued by the Valuer-General and others in this country they do not go walking through his house to make that valuation. I think mostly they value from standing out in the street. Sometimes they do not even get that far. I repeat what I said previously: Those valuers will not have access to Australian Taxation Office records. For the record, the only taxation information at all that is asked for by the Department of Social Security, and it had been asked for by the Department of Social Security well before I ever became Minister for Social Security, is when pensioners who own businesses are asked to supply their latest tax return. That is nothing new. That was quite happily administered by Senator Chaney when he was the Minister for Social Security and it did not worry him then. I am informed that the Department of Social Security does not have access to tax records held by the Australian Taxation Office. Valuers from the Taxation Office who will be operating as part of the assets test will do so under the Social Security Act. They will not have access to tax records for that purpose. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy, possibly in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Has the Minister seen the report in today's Age headed 'Australia delays N-fuel for ''unsafe'' Philippines reactor'? The article states that the Age believes the Australian Government is withholding approval of administrative arrangements that would clear the way for the sale of Australian uranium to fuel the Bataan nuclear plant because of doubts about its safety. Can the Minister indicate whether there is any substance to the claims of the Australian delay and/or of the unsafeness of the plant in the Philippines? Senator WALSH —I have not read the article in question but I am aware of its existence and that it is of the type outlined by Senator Crowley. The fact is that in August 1978 an agreement was drawn up between Australia and the Philippines regarding co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the transfer of nuclear material. That agreement came into force on 11 May 1982. I stress that that agreement was not an agreement to supply Australian uranium. Therefore, no Australian company has negotiated a contract to supply uranium to the Philippines, which is believed to have purchased its requirements to date on the international spot market. No government approval for a contract has been sought. Australian uranium cannot be transferred to the Philippines until an administrative arrangement is established pursuant to article IX (3) of the agreement. In March last year the Philippines advised of its willingness to sign a text. The signature, however, has been postponed because of nuclear safeguards policy reviews which this Government has undertaken and which involve issues that the Government currently has under consideration. There is no immediate requirements for such a signature. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that one of the major areas of concern of many aged pensioners is the withdrawal of fringe benefits under the assets test? Will the Minister urgently consult with the State governments to enable fringe benefits to be paid to all aged pensioners in the knowledge that such a proposal would have the wholehearted support of the Australian Democrat senators? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the first part of Senator Evans's question is yes. I am aware that many pensioners are concerned about the withdrawal of the fringe benefits card, and not only under the assets test; they are concerned about it under the income test and always have been. Under the assets test, fringe benefit entitlements cease at $80,000 for a single person and $115,000 for a married couple. For non home owners, $50,000 can be added to each of those sums. These benefits will be indexed to inflation as they are at the moment. I am not sure that major concern about the fringe benefits cut-off point has been expressed as a concern about the assets test. As Senator Evans realises, although many honourable senators who ask questions on this subject do not, the fringe benefit card is of importance to pensioners not only for the benefits it provides from the Commonwealth Government, in particular the pensioner health benefit card-the worry about health care has largely been removed because of the issuing of the Medicare card-but also for the many fringe benefits which are available from State governments and which are attached to those cards. It is required that State governments be consulted before there is any general handing over of fringe benefit cards to pensioners. For instance, in New South Wales, where rate rebates from 50 per cent up to, I think, a maximum of $300 or $400 are available to all pensioners with a pensioner health benefit card, the extension of the pensioner health benefit card to all people over the age of 65 would be of considerable concern to that Government, as it would to the other State governments. If in particular eligibility for fringe benefit were to be altered in the way that Senator Evans suggested there would be quite considerable cost implications for the States. If the States were not prepared to talk turkey on that issue, the problems that currently exists in relation to the pensioner health benefit card would largely remain. I thank the Australian Democrats for their proposal and for their suggestion that they would support such a proposal. It is a proposal that is attractive to all of us. We will continue to keep that under consideration. When I meet with the State Ministers I will continue to talk about that possibility. However, I am afraid that the State Premiers are not very interested in that sort of possibility unless the Federal Government hands over the funds so that they can carry on their benefits. Those funds would be very considerable in the present budgetary situation. Senator SIBRAA —I ask whether the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer has been drawn to a report in today's Australian in which a leading British economist, Mr Philip Shrappel of Bis-Shrappel Economic Forecasters, is reported to have said that the re-election of the Hawke Government would result in a wave of euphoria and a spending spree and that the mood in Australia was such that it was almost disloyal, if not illegal, to vote against Mr Hawke? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the essence of Mr Shrappel's remarks is transmitted to the Australian electorate during the period leading to 1 December ? Senator WALSH —I am aware of that report. Indeed, I think a good deal of what Senator Sibraa said in his question was in fact a direct quotation from Mr Shrappel. I will certainly take steps to ensure that the electorate is made aware of Mr Shrappel's views as expressed in that article. I expect that the Prime Minister and Mr Keating will also exert themselves to make sure that the electorate is made aware of it. While some people might think the language is a little glowing, it does remain an objective fact that when this Government was elected the Australian economy was in the worst condition it had been in for nearly 50 years. Unemployment and inflation were both above 10 per cent and on a rising trend. Some quarter of a million jobs had been lost in the last year, interest rates were at record levels, and we were facing a prospective deficit of $10 billion for the next financial year. Since that time-I will go through the major economic indicators-unemployment has fallen from above 10 per cent to below 9 per cent and the trend is downwards , not upwards. By the implicit price deflator, inflation has fallen from above 10 per cent and rising to below 7 per cent and falling. The quarter of a million jobs lost in the last year of the Fraser Government have been more than recovered in the 18 months of this present Government. Interest rates, which had previously been at record levels, have fallen between one per cent and 1.5 per cent since this Government was elected. Clearly, they too are on a downward trend. The $10 billion prospective deficit which we inherited has been reduced this financial year to something below $7 billion. Although Mr Shrappel's language is laudatory, there is undoubtedly a very sound, substantial and objective base for the praise he has heaped upon this Government. Senator GRIMES —Earlier today in Question Time Senator Messner asked me a question about the powers of the Department of Social Security to seek information in individual cases in banks, building societies and, I think, investment trusts. I would like to clarify and expand on the information I gave earlier. As I think Senator Messner knows, the Department has such power and has had for many years. The powers under the assets test are no different from those available under the income test. Basically, they are not different from the powers available to the previous Government. I point out that these powers to a large extent are reserve powers and are there for the odd circumstance where they would be necessary and are not used on any regular basis. As I said to Senator Chaney, as far as tax records are concerned people owning their own business can be asked to supply their latest tax return when they return their assets or income test form. At present this also applies under the income test. The Department of Social Security does not have access to tax records held by the Australian Taxation Office; nor will valuers doing valuations for the Department of Social Security have access to records held by the Taxation Office. Such access is available only when tax officers are undertaking duties relating to income tax matters. That is certainly not the case with the assets test. Senator Chaney —The Act says that you can. Is it a matter of policy that you will not seek that information? Senator GRIMES —I will check up on it. Senator RYAN —Yesterday Senator Reynolds asked me a question regarding the Government's intentions for the South Pacific Festival of the Arts in 1988. The Government considers it would be appropriate for Australia to make a formal offer to host the 1988 South Pacific Festival of the Arts. However, Australia will remain sensitive to the interests of Pacific states on the location of the 1988 festival. At this stage it is envisaged that Australia will make a bid at the Pacific Council of the Arts meeting in December 1984. A small working party has been established, chaired by Mr Chicka Dixon, Chairman of the Aboriginal Arts Board, and it includes representatives of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The working party will be assessing likely costs and locations this month with a view to reporting to the Government. I understand that the Aboriginal Arts Board of the Australia Council has designated the Aboriginal Artists Agency as the organising body for Australia's participation in the 1984 festival in Noumea. The Australian program has been developed in consultation with the festival organisers. A large contingent of Aboriginal and Islander people will be attending the festival to represent both the traditional and contemporary forms of Aboriginal and Islander arts from all over Australia. Questions of detail as to who will be part of that membership should be directed to the Aboriginal Arts Board. Senator WALSH —Early today Senator Crowley asked me a question about a reactor under construction in the Philippines. My attention has been drawn to a minute from the Minister for Foreign Affairs which adds to the information I gave. The minute states: The Government is aware of criticism of the Bataan reactor because of escalating costs and alleged deficiencies in structure and design, particularly in a region of potential geological instability. The Government is also aware that, following an IAEA review and US National Regulatory Council recommendations after the Three Mile Island accident, design features were implemented especially in relation to the plant's ability to withstand earth tremors. While it is for the Philippines Authorities to ensure that these matters are properly addressed, the Australian Government will continue to monitor developments. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Martin asked me a question as to why the depiction of the crown had been removed from the front of Australian passports. I now assure Senator Martin that, far from being a demonstration of creeping republicanism, the decision to do so represents a deference to the traditions of the monarchy and heraldry that would make an editor of Debrett's Peerage blush. The situation is as follows: On the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking conducted by Mr Justice Stewart a passports committee was formed in 1983 to supervise matters relating to the security of Australian passports and visas. As part of its initial examination of the then current passport the Committee noted a number of deficiencies in respect of non- observance of the usages and requirements of protocol and the rules of heraldry. One of the deficiencies was the superimposition of the Royal Crown of St. Edward above the coat of arms of Australia on the cover of the passport. This was an incorrect depiction of these two heraldic symbols. In addition, there was no record that royal approval had ever been obtained for the use of the Royal Crown of St Edward on Australian passports. The Crown was excluded from the new series passports introduced in March 1984 to correct this deficiency, in recognition of the principles involved in the depiction of the coat of arms of Australia. The PRESIDENT —On the subject of Question Time, I want to make a short observation. I know that we are all entering an election period and I understand the desire of Ministers to give the Parliament an account of their stewardship. But I remind them that Question Time is the time when the voice of backbenchers is to be heard in the Parliament. Therefore, I ask both those asking questions and those responding to them to restrict their remarks as much as possible so that everyone can get a better go at Question Time. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.11) —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- MEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on the export from Australia of meat that is intended for human consumption. This charge will complement the charge imposed on the slaughter of livestock at an abattoir used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughtering and dressing of animals from which meat for export is obtained under the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979. In brief, the overall charge for the inspection of meat for export will, as a result, have two elements, all meat that is inspected by the Commonwealth will bear a slaughter floor charge. For meat exported, an export charge is to be imposed to recover part of the costs of inspection incurred between the abattoir and the point of export. At the request of the Government, the Interim Inspection Policy Council reported on 1 May of this year on the impact of meat inspection charges on the viability and competitiveness of the meat industry. The council recommended to government that certain costs of providing the meat inspection service for industry should be removed from the cost base on which charges against industry are determined. These exclusions related to the costs of surplus inspection staff, abnormally high short-term costs of meat security, abnormally high research and development costs and the cost of servicing the Government. The Government agreed to exclude these cost items from the charging base and took early action to reduce the existing meat inspection charge effective from 1 July 1984. The previous charge of $5.40 per adult beast equivalent was reduced to $4. 35 per adult beast equivalent, a reduction of 20 per cent. This action by the Government will save industry an estimated $6m in a full year. The council also recommended that a new charging structure for meat inspection be implemented consisting of a base charge per carcase for inspection on the slaughter floor and an additional charge per kilogram for exported product. The Government has agreed to this recommendation. Because of budgetary restraints, however, the Government did not agree that there should be a two-year moratorium on implementing the export charge nor that the reduced cost base be made retrospective to 1 October 1983. A major problem for industry identified by the Policy Council was the inability of export abattoirs to effectively compete with domestic works for the purchase of livestock. The two-tiered charge will enhance export abattoirs ability to compete for stock for processing for sale on the domestic market because of a significant reduction in slaughter floor charges. The intention is that this two -tiered charge will also closely relate to the costs of inspecting stock slaughtered in export works and to the costs incurred beyond the slaughter floor to the point of export. As the operative rate of the proposed export charge is intended to be 2.4c/kilogram, the livestock slaughter component will be further reduced with effect from the date of commencement of the new legislation to $2. 55 for cattle and proportionately for other species. The new component of the inspection charge will be imposed on an application for the issue of a certificate of fitness for human consumption under section 23 of the Export Control Act 1982, commonly known as a health certificate. Where no such certificate is needed, the charge will be made on an application for the grant of an export permit for the purposes of section 7 of the Export Control Act. The health certificate is the preferred vehicle for imposing the charge as it covers meat which has been exported. However, not all exports require such a certificate. In these cases the charge will be made on the quantity of meat covered by the export permit. Where some or all of this meat is not subsequently exported, provision has been made in the associated Meat Export Charge Collection Bill for refunds of charge. The new charge will apply to meat and meat products containing more than 5 per cent of meat that are intended for human consumption. The new charge will not apply to meat of game animals, rabbits, hares or birds as export inspection services in relation to those kinds of meat are provided by the Commonwealth in a contractual basis that will be charged for separately. The maximum rate of the charge will be 4.8c/kilogram. In order to calculate the weight of meat or a meat product for the purposes of the charge, the weight of any covering in which the meat or meat products is packed or any other substance packed with the meat or meat products, including bones, will be disregarded. This Bill provides that a person who makes an application upon which the charge is imposed may lodge a certificate as to the proportion of meat in a meat product and the charge will be calculated accordingly. The charge Bill also provides for regulations to prescribe the manner of determining the net weight for bone-in or carcase meat. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. The passage of this Bill and the associated Meat Export Charge Collection Bill will allow an estimated $8.2m of revenue to be collected during the remainder of 1984-85 for inspection of meat exported for human consumption. The intended operative charge of 2.4c per kilogram that will be set by regulations is designed to recover 50 per cent of the cost of inspection undertaken beyond the slaughter floor. The export charge will not increase the total cost to industry for the provision of meat inspection services because livestock slaughter export inspection charges will be reduced accordingly. It is simply a restructuring of the charges on industry for inspection of meat by the export inspection service. The combination of a reduced slaughter floor charge per adult beast equivalent and the export charge per kilogram will raise approximately the same amount as the existing charge of $4.35 per adult beast equivalent so that industry will continue to pay only half of the costs of the inspection service. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for collection of the charge to be imposed as a result of the enactment of the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984. This Bill makes provision for collection of the export charge on meat using existing export documentation. The Bill provides that payment of charge shall be at the time of issue of a certificate of fitness for human consumption under section 23 of the Export Control Act, or, where no such certificate will be applied for, the charge will become payable upon application for an export permit for the meat or meat products. Where the export permit is granted at a place other than an office of the Department, the proposed charge will be payable within 28 days of the end of the month in which the application for the permit was made. The Bill provides that no certificate or permit will be issued or granted to a person who has not paid any charge or penalty in relation to a past certificate or permit. The provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that liability for charge will not arise where an application for a certificate or permit has been withdrawn, refused or rejected. Where part or all of a consignment for which a certificate has been issued is not exported, a refund of the charge will be made . Provisions in the collection Bill dealing with penalty for non-payment of charge and access to premises are drafted in similar terms to existing export inspection charge collection legislation dealing with other primary products. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.13) —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- DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend charging procedures for export inspection to reflect changes to export inspection practices for dairy products that are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. Establishments and goods prescribed under orders made under the Export Control Act 1982 will be categorised on the basis of product out-turn and the inspection intensity varied accordingly. The new inspection procedures will replace on-line inspection during manufacture with a monitoring system involving sampling of the final product. One effect of these new inspection practices will be that a large quantity of dairy products will be exported without physical examination by the export inspection service being necessary. In particular, this will apply to goods produced at registered establishments with a record of good quality control performance. Another effect of the new practices will be that inspection effort should decrease as the new system is progressively developed. It is expected that this will be reflected in reduced costs of inspection services. In summary, it is proposed to introduce substantial changes to export inspection that are designed to make better use of resources more closely attuned to industry needs. These new procedures have been developed in close association with the dairy industry. The Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 and the associated collection Act need to be amended in light of these proposed changes to inspection practices. The Acts at this time provide that a charge is applied only to the product that is physically inspected. This Bill will amend the charge Act so that the dairy products in relation to which liability for the charge will arise will instead be those in respect of which an export permit is issued. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. The changes proposed are necessary to continue the recovery of 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection for dairy products following the introduction of orders made under the export control Act that will vary the method of inspection of dairy products. The changes will also allow charges to be set which reflect the differential inspection effort for each category of export establishment. Without these amendments, there would be an expected loss in revenue to the Commonwealth, during the remainder of 1984-85, of approximately $260,000. This arises because costs of inspection could otherwise only be recouped in respect of the proportion of dairy products that was physically inspected and examined prior to export. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend export inspection charge collection procedures for dairy products to reflect changes to export inspection practices that are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. The amendments contained in this Bill are complementary to those that have been proposed to the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982. The effect of this Bill will be to amend the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982 so that not all dairy products being exported will have to be physically inspected and examined by an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act. The products for which the charge will be collected will instead be those for which an export permit is issued. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all of 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 Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.14) —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- EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend charging procedures for export inspection to reflect changes to the export inspection practices for eggs that are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. Establishments and goods prescribed under orders made under the Export Control Act 1982 will be categorised on the basis of product out-turn and inspection intensity varied accordingly. The new inspection procedures will replace on-line inspection during manufacture with a monitoring system involving sampling of the final product. One effect of these new inspection practices will be that a large quantity of eggs will be exported without physical examination by the export inspection service being necessary. In particular, this will apply to eggs processed at registered establishments with a record of good quality control performance. Another effect of the new practices will be that inspection effort should decrease as the new system is progressively developed. It is expected that this will be reflected in reduced costs of inspection service. In summary, it is proposed to introduce substantial changes to export inspection that are designed to make better use of resources more closely attuned to industry needs. These new procedures have been developed in close association with the egg industry. The Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 and the associated collection Act need to be amended in light of these proposed changes to inspection practices. The Acts at this time provide that charge is applied only to the product that is physically inspected. This Bill will amend the charge Act so that the eggs in relation to which liability for the charge will arise will instead be those in respect of which an export permit is issued. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. The changes proposed are necessary to continue the recovery of 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection for eggs following the introduction of orders made under the export control Act which will vary the method of inspection of eggs. The changes will also allow charges to be set which reflect the differential inspection effort for each category of export establishment. Without these amendments, there would be an expected loss in revenue to the Commonwealth, during the remainder of 1984-85, of approximately $40,000. This arises because costs of inspection could otherwise only be recouped in respect of the proportion of eggs that was physically inspected and examined prior to export. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EGG (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to amend export inspection charge collection procedures for eggs to reflect changes to export inspection practices that are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. The amendments contained in this Bill are complementary to those that have been proposed to the Egg (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982. The effect of this Bill will be to amend the Egg (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 so that not all eggs being exported will have to be physically inspected and examined by an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act. The eggs for which the charge will be collected will instead be those for which an export permit is issued. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EGG EXPORT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Egg Export Control Act 1947 and the Egg Export Charges Act 1947. The Egg Export Control Act 1947 established the Australian Egg Board, AEB, with a membership of nine persons. Finance for the funding of the operations of the Board was initially met from a charge, imposed by the Egg Export Charges Act 1947, on all eggs, including egg products, exported. In recent years Board administration costs have been met from proceeds of export sales and lately by contributions from States. This Bill seeks to abolish the Australian Egg Board and remove the provisions for the associated charges on export of eggs. Provision is made in the Bill for the Egg Export Control Act 1947 under which the Board operates to be repealed from 31 December 1984, but enables the Board to continue for a period thereafter to complete winding up procedures such as auditing and preparation of a final report to the Minister, and financial statements for presentation to the Parliament. Abolition of the Board arises from the Minister's policy of reviewing, on an on-going basis, the operations of all statutory authorities in his portfolio. The AEB was established in 1947 and commenced operations on 1 January 1948. It was created to ensure continuity in orderly export marketing of eggs and egg products and to provide safeguards for contracts between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth following termination of control under war time arrangements. The Board is empowered to purchase and sell eggs intended for export, subject to any direction of the Minister for Primary Industry. In practice, the Board set the terms and conditions of export but the State egg boards carried out the physical packaging and handling of eggs or egg products to be exported. In recent years production controls, hen quotas, administered by the States have resulted in a reduction in export quantities and in the number of States wishing to export. An internal review by the AEB in 1982 concluded that substantial cost savings could be effected if the Board and State board activities were rationalised. From 1 July 1983 States who exported took over some administrative functions previously carried out by the AEB, for example, shipping arrangements, insurance cover, meeting of export marketing expenses, while the Board continued to act as sole selling agent for the State boards and conduct overseas sales promotion, market discovery and monitoring of export markets. In the light of the much reduced and essentially agency type role of the AEB the Commonwealth, States and Industry gave further consideration to the question of the need for the Board to continue in operation. All parties saw little need for maintaining the AEB and supported its abolition. Future export marketing is to be co-ordinated by a non-statutory exporters committee under the aegis of The Australian Egg Marketing Council which is representative of all State egg marketing boards/corporations. Funding of these arrangements will be met from proceeds of sale. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 [No. 2] Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the question 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.15) —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- DRIED VINE FRUITS (EQUALIZATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to make certain minor amendment to the provisions of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978. The amendments are essentially of an administrative nature, and concern the timing of payment of the equalisation levy. Together with the associated Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act 1978, this Bill provides a statutory scheme for equalising the returns received from domestic and export sales of dried sultanas, dried currants and dried raisins. The Scheme is designed to prevent destructive competition within the industry on the domestic market during periods when prices in Australia are above those obtainable from export markets. Under the Scheme a levy is imposed on dried fruit sold on the Australian market. The levy proceeds from each season's crop are then redistributed to producers pro rata to their total production in that season. The levy is payable by the packer of the dried fruit. The Act presently provides that the levy becomes due for payment three months and 14 days after the month in which the leviable fruit 'ceased to be in the custody of the packer'. This time lapse was provided at the request of the industry to provide time for the packer to receive the proceeds of a sale before being required to pay levy on that sale. In particular it was designed to cover situations where a packer sent fruit to another firm for re-packing or for storage by an agent prior to sale. The Australian Dried Fruits Association, on behalf of the industry, has requested an amendment to the due date provisions aimed at speeding up levy collections and disbursements while still allowing reasonable time for packers to receive sales proceeds before levy is due. The Association claims that under present arrangements there are many instances where packers receive the proceeds of domestic sales well in advance of the due date for levy payment. The Association is anxious that there should be no undue delays in disbursement of equalisation payments especially when so many producers in the industry are in desperate financial straits. The Government has agreed to the ADFA request and accordingly proposes that the levy due date provisions be amended in two ways. The first element of the amendment is to provide that the levy is to become due for payment one month and 14 days after the month in which the fruit leaves the packer's custody. That is to replace the present provision for a delay of three months and 14 days. The second element is to provide that dried fruit shall be taken to continue to be in the custody of the packer so long as it is in the custody of or is in transit to an agent appointed by the packer to sell the dried fruit or a person to whom the dried fruit is sent by the packer for re-packing on behalf of the packer. Provision is made in the Bill for the new arrangements to apply from 1 December 1984. In selecting that commencement date we have in mind that liability for levy is related to movement of fruit in discrete calendar months, and that levy payers should desirably be given reasonable notice of their liability for levy under the new arrangements. The amendments are to apply only to fruit that was in the custody of the packer immediately before 1 December, or came into the custody of the packer on and after that date. The existing arrangements will apply to fruit that ceased to be in the custody of the packer before 1 December. The proposed amendments will expedite payments of levies into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the consequent redistribution of equalization monies to the industry. The amendments will have no other effect on Government revenue and expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. CANNED FRUITS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to extend the marketing provisions of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 for three years ending 31 December 1987, and to implement a number of changes to the Act which are designed primarily to improve the operation and commercial flexibility of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The Bill will come into effect on 1 January 1985. Honourable senators will know that the canning fruit industry is important to the social and economic well-being of the Goulburn Valley in Victoria, the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in New South Wales and the Riverland area of South Australia. The industry comprises four co-operative owned canneries and some 950 orchards employing 2,300 persons full time and a similar number seasonally. The industry is a major employer in the towns of Shepparton, Mooroopna, Leeton and Berri. Since 1 January 1980 the marketing of canned deciduous fruit produced in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia has been controlled through the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation under the terms of agreements between canners and within the legislative framework provided by the Commonwealth Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 and complementary State legislation in New South Wales , Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. Under these arrangements, the Corporation acquires and arranges the marketing of canned deciduous fruit, sets minimum selling prices, equalises returns to canners from domestic market sales and sales to certain export markets and arranges for the provision of seasonal finance to canners. In addition to the extension of existing marketing arrangements, this Bill provides for a number of changes to the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation which are designed to improve its operational performance and to enhance its commercial flexibility. The Bill provides for Corporation membership to be strengthened by the appointment of two additional specially qualified members and for the Corporation to draw up plans of its activities over the three year extension period. Presently, apart from the Chairman, the Corporation has four canner members, three grower members, a government member, and one member with special qualifications in commerce, finance or economics. This Bill provides for the addition of two more members with special qualifications to strengthen the opportunities for independent business judgment in Corporation decisions. The selection of the extra members will be on the basis of their professional qualifications, expertise and ability to make a positive contribution to the workings of the Corporation. The overall performance of the Corporation and its ability to assist the industry to adjust to changing market circumstances will be enhanced by its being required to develop a corporate plan setting out its objectives, including its marketing strategy, for the three years ending 1987 and for this to be supplemented by annual operational plans. These plans are to be submitted for approval by the Minister and, once approved, significant variations from them are also to be approved by the Minister. The Minister for Primary Industry attaches particular importance to the development of these plans. They will enable the Corporation to address the strategy, structure and programs for the marketing of canned fruit appropriate for the market circumstances that are likely to develop over the next few years. The Corporation's powers are also to be changed in a number of ways to improve its commercial operations. The Bill expands the borrowing powers of the Corporation by ensuring that it may raise finance by the use of more contemporary financial instruments, such as the discounting of commercial bills and the issue of promissory notes, as well as from more traditional borrowing methods. In line with consultative arrangements agreed between the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry, the Bill provides that all Corporation financial raisings are to be subject to approval by the Minister and not of the Treasurer as provided under the current Act. The Bill enables the Corporation to undertake in its own right hedging operations on foreign exchange and financial futures markets subject to any guidelines approved by the Minister. In addition it provides for more flexibility for the Corporation to decide on the extent to which it is fully covered by insurance. Subject to any guidelines approved by the Minister, the Corporation will have flexibility to arrange for its insurance needs in respect of the canned fruit it has acquired. However, the Corporation will be required to establish an insurance account for the purpose of making adequate provision against risks to the extent that these are not covered by insurance. It is understood that the changes to the insurance provisions could reduce significantly the costs to the Corporation and the industry of protection against risks or loss or damage of the canned fruits. The Bill provides the Corporation with increased flexibility to allow canners and marketing agents to retain premiums obtained from the sale of canned fruit. As a general principle, it is considered appropriate that premiums realised above the Corporation's minimum prices be retained by the canners and marketing agents who earn them. These arrangements have worked well. A greater measure of stability in marketing has returned to the industry compared with the late 1970s . The industry has met a particularly difficult period of adjustment with a substantial cut in production having occurred and with one major cannery ceasing to process deciduous fruits. Sales to overseas markets are forecast to continue to decline, indicating there will be continuing pressure on the industry to adjust progressively the amount and composition of is production to meet the changing market requirements. The Government recognises the adjustment pressures faced by the canned fruits industry and the need for continued stability in marketing to allow this adjustment to occur in an orderly manner. The Government had decided last year, following its review of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the industry, that the statutory marketing arrangements needed to be extended for a further period beyond 1984. This Bill now provides for there to be a three year extension to December 1987. The Government is of the view that by that time the industry would be in a position to manage its own marketing without the benefit of statutory arrangements. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. The Corporation's marketing and related costs are met from the proceeds of sales of canned fruit. Its administrative and promotional costs are met by a levy on canned fruit production. Continuation of the marketing arrangements requires legislative action not only by the Commonwealth but also by the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia to extend their State Acts which are complementary to the Commonwealth's Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. The States are expected to put into place complementary legislation. Finally, the opportunity has been taken to update the Marketing Act in a number of ways including describing members in non-sex-specific terms, adjusting the membership of the Australian Canned Fruits Industry Advisory Committee, providing that the Deputy Chairperson of the Corporation shall be the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee and act as Corporation Chairperson when required, and adjusting the sizes of penalties in the Act. Overall, the proposed changes to the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation are part of a general program of review and restructuring of statutory marketing authorities within the Primary Industry portfolio. Changes are being made progressively to these authorities to ensure that the commercial operations they conduct are more effective in a competitive market environment and to make them more accountable to both industry and government. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. CANNED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL The purpose of this Bill is to redefine the term 'season' in the principal Act so that it is more closely aligned with the actual canning season for deciduous fruits. The existing legislation provides for a calendar year season for the imposition of levy to fund the operations of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. However, cannery intake and the canning of apricots begins in early December. As a result, it is possible that levy may be imposed on apricots at two different rates for the one canning season. The Bill re-defines 'season' as the period 1 December to 30 November. This will ensure that one standard rate of levy is applied to all canned deciduous fruit production of a canning season. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 [No. 2] The purpose of this Bill is to change the due dates for payment of a levy imposed under the Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979 on canned deciduous fruits produced in Australia. Under the existing legislation, levy currently becomes due and payable on 15 July and 15 January. In compiling its financial statements , the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation has followed the practice of including expected January levy receipts in its calendar year accounts on accrual accounting grounds and queries have been raised as to whether this is strictly appropriate. The Bill overcomes this problem by providing for levy to be due on 15 June and 15 December and payable by 15 July and 15 January respectively. In addition, the opportunity has been taken to update penalty provisions and procedures relating to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the Principal Act. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(3.33) —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- BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to implement a number of recent government decisions in relation to the supplementary licence scheme, loopholes in the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and recommendations of the Administrative Review Council regarding Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry procedures. I shall be shortly introducing related amendments to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964. The proposed amendments can be summarised as follows: In relation to supplementary licences the Bills will implement government decisions on three issues. These are, firstly, insertion of concentration of media ownership as a factor to be considered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in considering supplementary radio or television licence applications; secondly, the aggregation of gross earnings to determine total licence fees payable by those holding both a supplementary and commercial station licence; and thirdly, empowering the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to determine progressive commencement dates for transmission facilities required to provide a supplementary radio or television service; The Bill will also close certain ownership or control loopholes relating to the acquisition or increase in a prescribed interest by means of voting control, and indirect acquisitions of excess prescribed interests in licensee companies. In relation to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiries this Bill includes amendments to provisions which prescribe the composition of the tribunal for the conduct of inquiries as well as amendments to provide for extension of a licence pending completion of a renewal inquiry. There is expected to be an increase in government revenue arising from the proposed amendments of the licence fees Acts. However, it is not possible, at this time, to provide a realistic estimate of the extra revenue which may be obtained. The other amendments which I have briefly outlined will not result in any significant costs, revenue or savings to the Government. I now turn to the detail of the proposed amendments. (A) Supplementary Licences Concentration of Media Ownership I remind honourable senators that the major purpose of the supplementary licence scheme is to provide a greater degree of commercial programming choice to people living in areas which are outside the mainland State capital cities and which could not support an additional commercial radio or television service, without threatening the viability of existing services in the area. Honourable senators will recall that, in a parliamentary statement on 30 November 1983, my colleague the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) indicated that the supplementary licence scheme would proceed. The Minister also foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to make explicit the need for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take concentration of media ownership in an area into account when deciding whether it should grant a supplementary licence or recommend that applications for an independent commercial licence should be invited. The Minister pointed out that, just as the Government is committed to the proposition that the greatest possible diversity of programming ought to be available to audiences wherever they live in Australia, so we are also committed to the proposition that, in any area, programming diversity ought to be provided by as wide a range of competitively and independently owned media outlets as possible. The Labor Party, when in opposition, supported the broad thrust of the supplementary licence scheme. However, at the time, concern was expressed that the scheme had the potential to exacerbate concentration of media ownership in a number of areas. For example, in some areas, one company could own or control the sole commercial radio station and the sole commercial television station and , in some instances, the local newspaper as well. Sub-section 83 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to specific public interest criteria when it is considering whether to grant a supplementary licence application or to recommend that applications be invited for an additional commercial licence. This Bill will also add concentration of media ownership or control in the area to be served, to the public interest criteria to be considered by the tribunal. The term ' media' has been defined so as to include Press, radio and television. This amendment is consistent with the Government's policy of encouraging diversity in programming and control. It should be emphasised that this amendment does not purport to empower the Tribunal to regulate Press ownership or control. It merely directs the Tribunal to take account of all relevant media interests in determining whether a supplementary licence should be granted or whether it considers that a fully competitive service would be both viable and in the public interest. Aggregation of Licence Fees In the Minister's statement on 30 November 1983 he also foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to require that revenues earned by a company holding both a commercial and a supplementary licence, whether for radio or television, be aggregated for the purpose of determining the total licence fees payable to the Commonwealth. In a case where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies, licence fees will be calculated for each member on the aggregated gross earnings from its commercial licence and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary licence. The Government considers that these proposals are fair and equitable. Supplementary licences represent a benefit which is available only to those who already hold a licence, and aggregation of earnings accurately reflects the total use made by the licensee of the radio frequency spectrum. I will shortly introduce amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Stations Licence Fees Acts to provide for these proposals. This Bill includes a consequential amendment of section 106 of the Broadcasting and Television Act to enable the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to request both aggregated and separate accounts and other records for related commercial and supplementary stations. This amendment ensures that the Tribunal can obtain all financial information which is relevant to the calculation of licence fees. Progressive Commencement of Transmission Facilities for Supplementary Services The service area of a supplementary service will be substantially co-extensive with the area served by the related commercial station and any associated commercial translator stations. Multiple transmitting facilities may be required to deliver the service to the whole of the service area but, in contrast to other services, supplementary translator stations will not require separate licences. Section 89C of the Act presently requires that all transmission facilities required to provide a supplementary service must be brought into operation on a single date for commencement of the service, as specified by the Tribunal. The Government recognises, however, that where multiple transmission facilities are required, it may not be practicable for the supplementary licensee to commence the service throughout the service area on a single commencement date. The Bill therefore provides for amendment of section 89C to empower the Tribunal to determine dates for progressive commencement of supplementary licence translator stations. The amendment will enable the Tribunal to evaluate the economic arguments associated with any application by the supplementary licensee to phase in the operation of supplementary translator stations. If these arguments are accepted, the Tribunal may determine that supplementary translator stations shall be brought into service progressively over the five- year period for which a supplementary licence is granted. (B) Ownership or Control Loopholes On 19 July 1984 the Minister for Communications announced the intention of this Government to introduce amending legislation in order to close two potential loopholes in the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Minister indicated at that time that the necessary amendments would take effect from the date of his announcement to prevent exploitation of the loopholes before legislation is in place. Voting Rights Loophole The first potential loophole in the Act may have allowed a person who acquired voting rights, rather than a shareholding interest, in a licensee company to avoid those provisions of the Act which were intended to require a process of approval by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to an acquisition of, or increase in, a prescribed interest, in a licence. The effect of the loophole is that significant changes could occur in the control of licensee companies without the approval of the Tribunal. In such an event, the Tribunal's role in overseeing changes in ownership or control, in accordance with the public interest criteria set out in the Act, would be undermined. The Bill closes this loophole by extending the requirement for Tribunal approval to cover any transaction by which a person acquires a prescribed interest in a licensee company or, being already the holder of interests in a licence of a kind amounting to a prescribed interest, acquires further interests of that kind in the licence. The Bill provides that the relevant amendments apply to any transaction which has taken place since 19 July 1984, being the date of the minister's announcement of the government's intention to close the loophole. Indirect Interest Loophole The second potential loophole is the unintended result of amendments introduced in 1981 by the previous Government. Those amendments were intended to provide a six months period of grace to persons who unintentionally breached the ownership or control limitations of the Act by virtue of share transactions to which they were not parties. The loophole occurs in a situation where a person or company acquires a prescribed interest in a licensee company as a result of a transaction to which they themselves were not a party and where the parties directly involved in the transaction do not require Tribunal approval under the Act. Using this loophole, it may be possible for a company, through acquisitions by its subsidiary companies, to acquire any number of prescribed interests in radio and television licences and therefore to completely nullify the multiple ownership or control provisions of the Act. On a literal interpretation of sections 90C and 92 of the Act a third party who acquired excess prescribed interests in this way would not commit an offence under the Act. The Bill closes the loophole by providing that, where a party to a transaction does not require Tribunal approval of the transaction, but a third party acquires an excess prescribed interest by virtue of the transaction, the third party must reduce his holdings to the prescribed limits within six months of a Tribunal decision to either approve or not approve the transaction in relation to the third party. An application for approval must be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days of the transaction. However, if the third party fails to lodge an application with the Tribunal within 28 days he will be in immediate breach of the Act and no period of grace shall apply. These amendments also apply to any excess interest acquired in this manner since 19 July 1984, when the Minister announced the government's intention to close the loopholes. (c) Tribunal InquiriesI turn now to proposed amendments relating to recommendations of the Administrative Review Council contained in its report on Australian Broadcasting Tribunal procedures. That report was submitted in February 1981 to the then Attorney-General in the previous Government. In its report, the Council recommended amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act and the introduction of associated regulations to establish uniform procedures for the conduct of inquiries by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. On 10 September 1984 the Minister for Communications announced that, subject to some minor modifications, the Government accepted the Council's recommendations. The present Bill covers only two of the Administrative Review Council's recommendations which are considered vital to the efficient operation of the Tribunal and which are severable from other matters. These measures relate to the constitution of divisions of the Tribunal, and provision for extension of a licence until the Tribunal has completed an inquiry. In the short time available since the Government's decision, it has not been possible to prepare all of the necessary amendments. It is expected that the drafting of legislation for the remaining matters will be completed in time for the 1985 autumn parliamentary sittings. Constitution of Divisions for the Conduct of Inquiries by Tribunal Members The Broadcasting and Television Act, at section 15C, empowers the Tribunal to constitute divisions consisting of one or more members or associate members for the purpose of holding an inquiry, except for inquiries into renewal of a metropolitan commercial radio or television station licence or into the suspension or revocation of such a licence, which must be conducted by a majority of Tribunal members. In 1982 the maximum membership of the Tribunal was increased from five to eight members. Having regard to the significant increase in the Tribunal's work load in recent years, the increase was vital to the effective functioning of the Tribunal. However, the benefits of the increase in membership have been significantly reduced by the requirement that a majority of Tribunal members must sit in all metropolitan commercial licence renewal inquiries. There are presently seven members on the Tribunal requiring at least four members to sit on metropolitan renewal inquiries. This would increase to five if the Tribunal was at full strength. The Administrative Review Council recognised the clear need for the Act to be amended in a manner which allowed for efficient allocation of Tribunal resources . It recommended that the Chairman of the Tribunal be empowered to determine the number of members who would constitute a division for the purpose of an inquiry. While accepting the need for flexibility in this area, the Government considers that statutory safeguards are desirable to ensure that licensing decisions affecting substantial commercial interests are made by more than one Tribunal member. It has been decided, therefore, to retain a requirement that a minimum of three members must sit on inquiries in relation to a metropolitan commercial licence renewal, or a suspension or revocation of a licence. Apart from this qualification, the Bill provides that the Chairman shall determine how many members are to comprise a Tribunal division in each case. The Bill provides also that in special circumstances the Chairman of the Tribunal may add members to a division or replace a member of a division after the commencement of a hearing. An example of circumstances which might warrant the addition of a member to a division would be a case where a single member is appointed to a particular inquiry, and substantive issues are raised after the hearing commences, such as a serious breach of a licence condition. If the membership of a division is increased then the hearing will recommence unless all parties to the inquiry otherwise agree. A member of a division cannot be replaced after the commencement of a hearing unless the member has ceased to be a member, or has ceased to be available, for example, due to illness. In accordance with a recommendation of the Administrative Review Council the Bill provides that, in most circumstances, only members of a division may participate in the decisions, reports or recommendations in relation to the relevant inquiry. This ensures that members who did not participate in the relevant inquiry and who may be unfamiliar with all of the relevant material, are not able to override the views of the members of the division. The only exceptions to this rule will be in the case of an inquiry held pursuant to a ministerial direction under section 18 (2) of the Act, or inquiries in relation to the determination of program or advertising standards under section 99 and section 100 of the Act. In these cases the Chairman of the Tribunal may direct that the full Tribunal shall make the decisions, reports or recommendations if he considers it desirable to do so. This may be on the basis that it involves major policy issues in which all members of the Tribunal have an interest. Short Term Extension of Licences Pending Completion of a Renewal Inquiry Section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act requires applications for licence renewals to be lodged with the Tribunal not less than 20 weeks before the expiration of the licence. In most cases this provides adequate time for the Tribunal to complete an inquiry and to make a decision. However, in some cases, renewal inquiries raise complex and important issues which cannot be considered fully by the Tribunal before the licence expires. Also, in some cases, it may be necessary for the Tribunal to refer a question of law to the Federal Court, or a legal action may be launched by a party to the inquiry. In order to remove the pressure on the Tribunal to renew the licence before satisfactory completion of its deliberations the Administrative Review Council recommended that the Tribunal should have power to extend a licence until it had made a decision on the inquiry. The Bill implements the Council recommendation by providing that a licence is automatically extended until the Tribunal takes a decision on whether or not to renew the licence. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of the Bill is to require that the gross earnings of a company holding a licence for a commercial radio station and the related supplementary radio service be aggregated for the purposes of calculating the licence fee payable each year. The proposed amendments also cover the situation where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies. In these cases the licence fee payable by each member of the consortium will be based on the aggregation of gross earnings of the member's commercial radio station and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service. Each member's share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service will be determined by reference to the proportionate share of the profits of the supplementary service to which the member is entitled. The existing provisions of the Act which provide that the licence fees payable each year are based on the gross earnings in the immediately preceeding year shall continue to apply. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of the Bill is to require that the gross earnings of a company holding a licence for a commercial television station and the related supplementary television service be aggregated for the purposes of calculating the licence fee payable each year. The proposed amendments also cover the situation where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies. In these cases the licence fee payable by each member of the consortium will be based on the aggregation of gross earnings of the member's commercial television station and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service. Each member's share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service will be determined by reference to the proportionate share of the profits of the supplementary service to which the member is entitled. The existing provisions of the Act which provide that the licence fees payable each year are based on the gross earnings in the immediately preceeding year shall continue to apply. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present an interim report on non-statutory bodies of the Commonwealth. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-Since 1977, the Committee on Finance and Government Operations has maintained a continuing oversight of the financial and administrative affairs of Commonwealth statutory authorities. However, the Committee has been aware that another large group of bodies, those which are neither departments nor statutory authorities, has remained outside its area of investigation. These bodies, the so-called non-statutory bodies-NSBs-are established by a method other than legislation, for instance by Order-in-Council , by agreement between Federal and State governments or by ministerial announcement. The Committee regards this report as an introduction to its work on NSBs. The data collected through a survey conducted by the Committee has been used to establish some of the background facts on NSBs. The Committee has also analysed the data to indicate areas where further investigation is required, and 307 NSBs were identified. In future reports, the Committee will investigate the accountability of non-statutory bodies; the need for guidelines for their creation and operation; the mechanism for review of NSBs; the financial arrangements of NSBs; and their categorisation. In the meantime the Committee recommends that each department include in its annual report a list summarising all NSBs in that portfolio. The Committee believes that this will at least make the task of monitoring NSBs a little easier in the future. I express the Committee's thanks to Gary Simpson, who was temporarily a research officer with the Committee, for his work on this subject, particularly in analysing the results of our survey, and, of course, to the continuing members of the staff of the Committee. I also table on behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations a list of Commonwealth statutory authorities and I seek leave to make a statement about that report. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The Committee, as part of its continuing scrutiny of the affairs of Commonwealth statutory authorities, has maintained a list of authorities. The Committee published the complete list in its fifth report presented to the Senate in September 1982, and alterations to the list were tabled in December last year. This report contains a summary of alterations to the list since December 1983. Two authorities have been abolished, while the Australian Electoral Office was abolished and re-established as the Australian Electoral Commission and the Australian National Railways Commission was re-established under the Australian National Railways Act 1983. Twenty-three new authorities were established during the same period. The report also contains a categorised list of all authorities which updates the list contained in the Commitee's fourth report and incorporates alterations to categorisation suggested by particular authorities with which the Committee agrees. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.27) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of both reports. In doing so I very briefly congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on continuing what I believe to be a most important task to have been undertaken in the past and on having added to the continuous listing of the existing statutory authorities. It has now prepared a list of just over 300 non-statutory bodies. I look forward to the further work that the Committee may do in relation to the identification of those bodies and of some guidelines and rules in relation to them. It is obviously an area which has received relatively little attention as it has grown over the years and it is of bipartisan concern to ensure that there is some rationale in relation to what is done with regard to the development of such bodies. Some attention needs to be paid to what they are, what they do and whether they should continue to do it in the way in which they have done in the past. With those few comments I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the thirteenth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade I present the first report on the Development of Closer Economic Relations Between Australia and New Zealand. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLEMAN —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I have the honour to present to the Senate the first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade's inquiry into the development of closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand. The Committee proposes in the course of this inquiry to table a series of reports rather than present a final report after the completion of public hearings and a thorough examination of the evidence. This approach will enable matters of concern or matters requiring urgent action to be brought to the notice of the Senate and the Government at the earliest possible opportunity. Australia and New Zealand entered into the closer economic relations trade agreement, commonly known as CER on 1 January 1983. The CER agreement is by far the most significant and detailed trade document ever signed by either country. Therefore it is the Committee's firm belief that the success or otherwise of CER will greatly influence the development of relations between both countries over the next 10 to 20 years. Because it is such an important agreement, I believe the continual re-examination and close monitoring of developments is both logical and necessary. The on-going success of CER will depend very much on the ability of parties on both sides of the Tasman to identify, discuss and resolve any problems that are likely to impact on the development of trade between both countries. Much has happened since the agreement came into force on 1 January 1983. Not only have we seen a change of government in both countries, but also we have witnessed the ending of a severe drought in Australia, there has been a general world-wide recovery in economic growth, both countries have undertaken major reviews of a number of key industries, and in more recent times the New Zealand Government has devalued its currency by 20 per cent and has announced a major restructuring of its global trade protection policies. Unlike the New Zealand- Australia Free Trade Agreement, CER is outward-looking and it is aimed to encourage the gradual opening up of both economies to international competition. Instead of building incrementally upon NAFTA, CER seeks to break boldly from it by being comprehensive in coverage and open-ended in duration. Whereas NAFTA excluded all items unless specified, CER included all items unless specified. CER calls for a progressive and automatic elimination of bilateral tariffs, quantitative import restrictions and export subsidies and incentives. Whilst CER in the strictest sense endeavours to achieve free trade between Australia and New Zealand by 1995, it is difficult to envisage the achievement of a free trade area without the development of other common policies. My Committee believes that compared to NAFTA, CER does offer greater scope for resource efficiency and industry rationalisation. However, the possibilities appear somewhat limited if no further harmonisation is achieved. The Committee referred to this factor in its first report on CER and no doubt the Committee will wish to explore in greater detail during its inquiry the scope for further harmonisation in areas such as external trade policies, trade practices, industry assistance, standards , et cetera. The development of other joint agreements between both countries will no doubt enhance CER and help improve economic welfare and resource efficiency in both countries. In our first report the Committee has listed several issues which it believes will greatly influence the course of CER over the coming years. I do not want to discuss these issues in any detail today, but let me say that the Committee has found at this early stage of its inquiry a number of matters that it believes require immediate attention. Briefly, these include the following matters: Australia's lack of preparedness to pursue the possibilities under CER; the very poor utilisation of the exclusive Australian licences in the first 18 months of operation of CER; the time taken to finalise agreement on how goods such as motor vehicles, iron and steel, rubber goods, apparel, tobacco, and taps, cocks and valves should be phased into the agreement; the likely disruptive effects resulting from the New Zealand 20 per cent devaluation; the need to reach agreement on foreign investment guidelines to be applied to each country; the existence of widely differing standards and labelling requirements in both countries; the need to commence formal discussion of second generation issues; the real prospects for allowing free trade between both countries in such goods as wool, lamb, sheep meat, dairy products, horticultural products, et cetera; the need to get together to establish common practices towards the development of third country trade; the high cost of sea transport between Australia and New Zealand; and the need to ensure that manufacturers of like products in both countries can compete on equal terms without the need to resort to hidden forms of assistance. Finally, the Committee has made a number of first round recommendations which it believes should be addressed by the Government in Australia and hopefully in consultation with the Government of New Zealand over the coming months. The Committee will be watching with great interest during this time and will no doubt be reporting back to the Senate in due course on the actions taken by both governments. Because of the forthcoming Federal election, the Committee will not commence its round of public hearings until early 1985. Therefore, it is the hope of the Committee that the tabling of this report will enable intending witnesses to be in a better position to provide a full and frank exchange of views concerning matters pertinent to the Committee's CER inquiry. I take this opportunity of thanking the members of the Committee and particularly the members of the Secretariat. Given that it is only six weeks since I introduced the reference to the Committee in this chamber I believe we have done a sterling job in presenting a report to the Senate at this time. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present a report entitled 'The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report follows a reference by the Committee to the Sub-Committee on Defence Matters on 1 December 1983 to inquire and report upon: The capability of the Australian Defence Force to fulfil its role, with particular reference to force structure and command and control arrangements. This is a particularly important report with significant conclusions bearing on the defence of Australia. It covers a broad range of issues relevant to a detailed consideration of the Australian Defence Force structure, and the command and control arrangements necessary for that Force to fulfil adequately its role. Ideally, the Defence Force structure should reflect, and be logically derived from, considerations of our national interests and our projected strategic and geopolitical circumstances. Such a process would incorporate a wide spectrum of views and interests and would typically involve the following steps: Firstly, determination of Australia's national interests and objectives; secondly, delineation of a strategic or national defence concept describing how the national interests and objectives are most effectively and efficiently promoted and defended in the light of the strategic assessment; thirdly, delineation of an appropriate military strategy and concept of operations, describing how the strategic concept is to be achieved; fourthly, development of an appropriate force structure-encompassing organisation, capabilities and doctrine-with which to carry out the military strategy; and, fifthly, the procurement and maintenance of the forces and supporting infrastructure and their deployment in peace. In practice, the development of the Defence Force structure is more complex. Not all elements of the ideal planning process are present and others are poorly defined. Decisions are often constrained by external factors or by past choices. Moreover, the process itself is inhibited by strong interest groups which have a particular concern with advancing favoured roles and functions. In Australia's case, the planning and development of our Force structure is complicated further by the absence of any clearly defined present threat to national security. The Defence Force must be structured, therefore, to meet a wide range of potential threats without knowing what form these threats will take or when they might occur. While these factors constrain the operation of the rational model of force structure development, they do not detract from its importance. Unless each of these steps is present and structured together in a clear and coherent manner, the structure of the Defence Force is likely to evolve more by accident than by design and the probability of achieving an optimum force posture will be reduced. In order to provide a systematic and comprehensive review of Australia's Defence Force structure, this report follows the broad format of the rational model just described, moving from a discussion of Australia's national interests and objectives, through an examination of our overall military strategy to a detailed consideration of the functional capabilities required for the defence of Australia and how these should be grouped together. At each level in this process, the considerations were both analytical, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of our present position, and prescriptive, examining alternative approaches and options. The report begins with a brief survey of the various factors that influence the development and maintenance of Defence Force structure. A complete understanding of our present position and where and how we should move in the future is not possible without being aware of past and projected developments in our strategic environment. Any future changes to our force structure will also be subject to a range of basic constraints arising from such factors as Australia's alliance relationships, the nature of our physical environment, the resources that are available for national security purposes and the nature of the defence decision- making process. A discussion of the external and internal factors influencing Australia's Defence Force structure is followed by a brief description of the current functions, roles and capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. The findings of the Committee's detailed examination of the Australian Defence Force structure and capabilities are then outlined with a definition of Australia's national interests and objectives. From a consideration of our military role in global and regional affairs, the Committee developed a national defence concept for Australia and its off-shore Territories. A key element in this consideration is the definition of an area of principal defence interest on which our military strategy should be focused and within which Australia's military forces would be required to operate. The Committee examined Australia's overall military strategy for achieving our national defence concept. It concluded that our current approach is inadequate in a number of important respects and recommends that we should change the present emphasis of our military strategy from one of reacting to threats, as they emerge, to controlling our threat environment. This would be achieved by giving priority in peacetime to deterring threats to our national security and by providing a rapid response to those low-level threats that may not be deterred. The report examines the capabilities required for this revised strategy under the broad functional categories of intelligence, surveillance and early warning, strategic strike and interdiction, maritime defence, land warfare and air defence. A number of important functional deficiencies in our present inventory are identified and an order of priority for the acquisition and development of new capabilities is suggested. One important limitation of our existing Defence Force structure is its system of command and control. The Committee, after detailed consideration, has concluded that we should move away from the current single Service command structure towards a structure emphasising joint Service roles and tasks, with a direct line of operational command from the Chief of Defence Force Staff. A principal finding of the report, and one that is generally recognised, is that Australia's military capabilities will increasingly depend on a range of non-military factors and capabilities such as our industrial capacity and our ability to mobilise civilian resources and services. The integration of our military and non-military capabilities into an effective whole is examined in the latter stages of the report which deal with national security policy-making and the development of Defence Force structure. The Committee is particularly concerned at the lack of clear policy guidance at all levels within the force development process which has led it to conclude that our force structure is not being developed in a clear and logically coherent manner. The Committee appreciates the ready assistance given to the Sub-Committee throughout the inquiry by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and his Department. The co-operation and assistance given by members of the Australian Defence Force with whom the Sub-Committee dealt in the course of the inquiry was particularly noteworthy. It has not been an easy task to analyse the range of issues relevant to a detailed consideration of the terms of reference, and the Committee is particularly grateful to those who have assisted, by making submissions and by giving evidence. The nation's defence is of fundamental importance, and the Committee trusts that this report will contribute to public awareness and discussion of the issues involved. I also take this opportunity to congratulate all the staff responsible for this report. I was not a member of the Sub-Committee, therefore, I will leave it to Senator MacGibbon, who was a member of the Sub-Committee, to thank the individual staff members concerned. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.39) —It is impossible in a few minutes to precis adequately a very large and complex report. In a way, that parallels the difficulty that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence had in satisfying its reference, which was: The capability of the Australian Defence Force to fulfil its role, with particular reference to force structure and command and control arrangements. As Senator Sibraa said in the final part of his statement, the nation's defence is of fundamental importance. Defence is a very dynamic area for two reasons-one old and one new. The old is the ever-changing pattern of alliances between the nations of the world which has been with us from time immemorial. The new is the rapidity of change in and development of new weapons systems based on high technology which render obsolescence part of daily life. Historically the Australian armed Services have been involved in two world wars . This major involvement has formed and shaped them on a certain path. In those two world wars they acquitted themselves with distinction and created the military traditions for which all Australians can be grateful because they are of inestimable value in our cultural ethos. That involvement left three legacies because the three Services operated within the numerically stronger force structure of our allies. Those three legacies were, first of all, the reinforcement of the distinctive and separate difference of the three Services, which saw themselves as the Australian Imperial Force, the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force rather than brothers in arms in the Australian Defence Force. The second legacy was that the exercise of high command by Australians had not been developed to the degree that it could have been because of the attachment of the Australian Services to the larger allied Army, Navy or Air Force commands. The third legacy was that, as a consequence of the association with these major forces and from the ability and reputation of the Australian forces in combat fields, we did not develop a requisite and parallel ability in logistic capabilities. In the last decade the three Australian Services have recognised the changed circumstances in which they find themselves. They have recognised that Australia must have a self-contained defence force and they have made great strides to achieve that goal. The Committee has looked at this change which is occurring and has focused on issues which it thinks important to aid the Services and the nation to bring about this desired goal. The Committee is well satisfied with and has no doubts at all about the potential within the Australian defence forces, but it finds that the capability of the forces as it exists at the moment is not adequate. The Committee makes recommendations as to how those current deficiencies should be addressed. As Senator Sibraa said, there are two salient issues in the eyes of the Committee. The first point is that the structure of the Defence Force in relation to external threats, particularly when no external threat is evident, is not a tenable basis on which to operate, and because that has been adopted there has been a negative influence on defence planning. A positive role must be for the Government to define Australia's essential defence interests and task the armed Services to defend them. The second salient point is that, since Australia must be self-reliant, a command structure must be set in place in peacetime which will mirror that which will be required in a war. That means that joint force headquarters must be set up, refined and developed in peace. The Committee proposes that, rather than this being done on a functional or geographic basis, it be done by a development of the headquarters of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. There are many detailed recommendations for each of the Services, individually and collectively. The first of two principle needs common to all three services is the provision of adequate maps and charts for the Australian region. If things are left at their present intensity of operation the task of adequately mapping and charting Australia and the regions near it will take between 30 and 50 years to complete. The second need is for the provision of AWACS-airborne warning and control-aircraft for surveillance on land, sea and air, for communications and for command and control in the north of Australia. We view that as a matter of priority. I urge anyone interested in this report to take the time to read the whole report rather than the introductory chapters, to follow the evidence that was given to the Committee and the line of argument developed before the Committee. I do not expect that everyone will agree with the report, but that is immaterial . The important thing is that, if people read this report and debate it, it will raise the level of understanding of what needs to be done for the Australian defence forces. I would like to put on record publicly the gratitude and appreciation of members of the Sub-Committee and the main Committee for the staff support we had from Mr Peter Gibson, secretary to the Defence Sub- Committee, to Dr Graham Cheeseman, adviser on defence matters, to Mr Phil Bergin , secretary to the main Committee, and to Miss Yvonne Allison, steno-secretary. They have rendered the Committee outstanding service, not least in the last 24 hours, because this report was approved only at 10 o'clock or 10.30 yesterday and they worked through the night meeting the deadline to table it today in the Parliament. I would like to finish on a personal note which I am sure is shared by all members of the Committee. I was involved in all the meetings of the Committee, the many visits we had to defence establishments, and the meetings with the defence personnel. Those meetings reinforced my intense pride in the professionalism of members of the Australian Defence Force, both male and female . Nothing in this report must be construed in the slightest way as any diminution of respect for the abilities of the members of the Australian Defence Force. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry on disarmament and arms control, together with the minutes of proceedings of the Committee and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Sibraa)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry on the Jackson report on overseas aid. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Sibraa)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —The President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) nominating senators to be members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, Senators Crowley, Haines, Hill, Missen and Georges be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984. Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill 1984. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.52) —The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984 follows the report which was prepared by Mr John Uhrig as a review of the operation of the Industries Assistance Commission. As may be anticipated, that report was a very detailed and well considered review of the operation of the Industries Assistance Commission which has played an extremely important part in the development of Australian industry over the past decade of its existence. The principal amendments which are proposed in this legislation include a new definition of industry specifically to provide for primary, secondary and tertiary industries, including service industries, to be within the purview of industry as defined for the purposes of the Industries Assistance Commission. There is also provision for the simplification of the Industries Assistance Commission policy guidelines to require the IAC to provide options in its reports to the Minister including the IAC's recommended option. That is something which I imagine will be looked at with very considerable interest by those concerned. It also provides measures to abolish the Temporary Assistance Authority and introduces new policy guidelines relating to inquiries for temporary assistance. The Temporary Assistance Authority has served a purpose but the recommendation is that its functions can be carried out in another and better way. We do not have any quarrel with that recommendation. There is also provision for temporary assistance to be limited to 12 months. Again, not only is that something with which we do not have any quarrel but it is part of the Opposition's policy that that should be the situation. There is provision to dispense with public hearings prior to the publication of IAC draft reports, and many sections of the industry will welcome the cost saving that will be involved in relation to that. Also a number of outdated provisions in relation to the transitionary arrangements which were to apply between the IAC and the then tariff board, will be repealed. Obviously it is appropriate that that be so. In general the proposed changes comply with the Liberal and National parties policy on industry and commerce in relation to short term assistance to which I will refer in more detail in a moment. We would seek to change, perhaps for cosmetic reasons or perhaps for much more than cosmetic reasons, the Industries Assistance Commission to an industries development commission. One of the reasons why we would change the name of the body is that we seek to change and develop its role into one of developing and playing a part in ensuring that Australian manufacturing industry is restored to a competitive, profitable and expanding role in the total Australian economy. One of the criticisms which has existed is that there has been too much emphasis on the negative or on the side of people who are wanting assistance to overcome what have been claimed to be temporary problems but which convert into permanent problems and require permanent assistance. We see the policy of the Government as one which we would support in many ways, if one takes what is stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). If one takes it as being the policy stated by the Australian Labor Party's conference industry policy it is certainly far more interventionist than would be supported by the coalition parties. The proposed amendment to delete the power of the Commission to initiate its own inquiries is opposed to our policy and is one about which I will be saying more shortly. Senator Button —That will be new, Senator. Senator PETER RAE —I am fully aware of that. It is a little like a spare tyre. I will return to that matter in more detail in a moment. The Bill has been brought on after relatively little consultation with industry. I think it has probably been caught in the rush of the Government to the early and unnecessary election. It is unfortunate that there has not been greater opportunity for the Government , which has prided itself on consultation, to have consulted with industry in relation to the proposed changes, although people did have an opportunity for what amounts to consultation by putting in submissions to the Uhrig review of the Industries Assistance Commission. Many industries and many industry organisations put in submissions. I will refer to those in a moment. One of the problems to which we must pay attention in any consideration of the role of the Industries Assistance Commission, or as we would have it, the industries development commission, is the causes, not simply the symptoms, of declining international competitiveness. We must look at those causes. What we need to do if Australian manufacturing industry is to be able to change that trend from one of a decline in its relevance in Australia to an increase in its relevance in Australia, which is something we warmly and firmly believe must happen, is look to the development of international markets. We have to look to the development of those sectors of Australian manufacturing industry which have a capacity to be able to produce, on a competitive basis, goods which are desired within the market areas which we can best serve. It is for those reasons that the Opposition's industry and commerce policy, in referring to the Industries Assistance Commission, states: The Industries Assistance Commission has fulfilled an important role in the decade since its establishment. It has filled an important gap in the knowledge that Government and the community has about the nature of Australian industry. Its recommendations have not always been acceptable to all, nor accepted by Government. It has, inevitably, been the subject of both praise and criticisms. It is important that the function be carried out with due regard to the current world industry environment and that it be responsible to the changing needs of the community. The basic thrust throughout the Coalition's manufacturing industry policy is to develop an export oriented manufacturing industry. This will require changes to the structure or structural adjustment or structural change (whatever term you may wish to choose probably has the same fundamental meaning). We do not propose to impose any such transition. However, we will assist this transition by noting the change from the emphasis of the previous 'import substitution' assistance approach to a more 'competitive export-oriented' approach by some fundamental changes. I was disappointed, and I am sure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was disappointed, to find that the recent Australian Labor Party conference would not accept that type of approach and insisted on the retention of the importance of import substitution and the relative downgrading of export orientation as being fundamental to the restoration of the fortunes of manufacturing industry. In noting what the Opposition would do, the policy states: First, we shall amend the IAC Act to change the emphasis to that of an Industries Development Commission. We shall encourage the Commission to take evidence and recommend accordingly on industry structure and on the causes of declining competitiveness, including labour costs, Government charges and regulations. We shall encourage the Commission to take evidence on the measures employed by other countries to encourage development of and export of goods under reference. We shall encourage the Commission to investigate and report on the impediments to a more export-oriented industry structure. We shall retain the independence of the Commission by enabling it to initiate its own inquiries. The Commission will also be able to appoint particular staff with special expertise on a consultancy or temporary basis for particular inquiries. Without giving directions to the Commission as to the results, we see it as desirable that it be required to take into account the desire to achieve an export- oriented manufacturing sector and its commitment to bring Australia's trade practices more into harmony with existing world trade practices. The Uhrig report on the IAC has provided some valuable information and guidelines to assist in the development of the new broader Coalition Parties' approach to structural change. The Industries Development Commission will operate as an objective, effective, independent, investigative, and advisory body. I believe that a number of the proposals in this Bill will serve towards the achievement of those objectives. It is for that reason that the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill as it stands, although we would have preferred industry to have had a greater opportunity to see the provisions of the Bill and to comment, and particularly the cross-section of major industry organisations which are concerned. The Opposition has also, in its policy, made provision in relation to short term assistance to industry. The current procedures, which are noted, are deficient in two areas. One is in time delays before assistance arrangements are introduced; the other is that temporary assistance tends to become long term assistance. So provisions are set out there which include that such assistance as is deemed necessary by the Government be for a period of 12 months and not be extended unless previously reviewed by the Commission which is something akin to the provisions in this Bill. We have also a commitment to the Commission reporting on short term assistance arrangements within 45 days, and the Commission reporting on long term assistance arrangements within nine months of the receipt of a reference. Where the Commission indicates that the report on long term measures cannot feasibly be completed within the nine-month period and requests an extension, due consideration will be given to such a request. There is also a reference to quotas and to the disaster which quotas have brought to so many sectors of Australian industry and commerce, and to the fact that whilst they may serve as a useful quick, short term measure associated with our defence against other nations' unfair trading practices, they are not a measure which it is desirable to apply on a long term basis. In support of what I have said about the desirability for the Industries Assistance Commission to be able to have the right to be able to conduct an inquiry-Senator Button has pointed out that it has not exercised it-I should like to refer to some of the submissions that were made to the Uhrig report. First, however, I should like to refer to an example of the sort of annual report which the Industries Assistance Commission has made and in which it has followed the practice of drawing to the attention of the Government the areas in which it believes that investigation should be carried out. Although in the past it has had the right, it has not exercised it because it has not needed to. It has rather taken the more conciliatory role of pointing out to the Government areas in which activity is desirable and then seeing what sort of response comes forth. At page 30 of the Industries Assistance Commission Annual Report 1982-83, in paragraph 3.24, the Commission states: One industry where a review of the structure of assistance is overdue is the chemicals industry. The industry as a whole has not been reviewed since the Tariff Board inquiry in 1966. A review was scheduled to take place in 1975 but was deferred. In 1979 the Government again deferred a review, but indicated that the timing of the review should be considered in 1984. A little later in that paragraph the Commission states: The Commission proposes to prepare a discussion paper which will examine the current structure of assistance accorded this industry and its implications. That is, in effect, saying: 'We are going to conduct our own inquiry'. It has not formally done it, but, in effect, it has been doing it. I want to refer to a number of the submissions which relate to the importance given to the right of the Commission to initiate inquiries. The first one to which I refer is that of the Australian-British Trade Association, which, at page 3 of its submission, under the heading 'Power to Initiate Inquiries' said: This should continue to reside with relevant Ministers, for example, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, both on Industry Assistance and problems of Customs Administration, which would be better resolved by the Commission after public hearing. There should be no barrier to the Commission being given a reference on a broad economic subject affecting the costs of Australian industry such as the transport industry of Australia. The Commission should also be encouraged to draw attention to any particular industry or subject which it believes should be the subject of a reference for inquiry and report either in its annual report or if the matter is considered urgent, by a communication to the relevant Minister preferably made public or tabled in Parliament at the time. That is the approach which was preferred by that body. On the power to initiate inquiries, the Australian Retailers Association said: The Association believes that these powers should be maintained and suggests that where there are very high levels of protection, such as the levels in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, a period of six years and not ten should apply. I now refer to the Australian Chamber of Commerce. Under the heading 'Power to Initiate Inquiries', it said: The IAC's power to initiate inquiries should not be curtailed. The minimum periods of 6 or 10 years of assistance, (depending on the form of assistance provided), before the IAC can initiate its own inquiries are excessive and represent an undue restraint on its responsibilities. These periods should be reviewed with a view to reducing them. One is starting to see some of the difference of view that has existed in relation to this matter. We find that the CAI suggested at page 9 of its submission that the powers of the IAC to initiate inquiries should be revoked and that the IAC be empowered to request a reference from the Minister to permit an inquiry to be held, and where a request for an inquiry is refused by the Minister, that the Minister be required to set out in writing his reasons for so doing. But then one comes on to the PVC Pipe and Fittings Manufacturers. They say in their submission: It is generally felt that the Commission has been remiss in not initiating more inquiries in its own right . . . There they are criticising the Commission for not initiating inquiries. They say : Provision exists for the Commission to inquire into matters brought to its attention either during the course of other inquiries or by representations from parties affected by changes in economic circumstances. The Commission should be encouraged to fully use the legislative powers conferred on it by the Parliament . That is a view strongly put by a wide cross-section of industry. I quote what Cramb Corporate Services said in its submission made on behalf of the Cramb Tariff Group of companies, which has provided Australian industry and commerce with industry policy advice for almost 40 years. It says at page 7 of its submission: While it is acknowledged that the Government would wish to maintain a broad control of policy development for industry, there appears to be reasonable grounds for the IAC having a much greater flexibility in the initiation of both appeals type inquiries and minor/single Commissioner inquiries covering anomalies and emergency protection issues. At present it is necessary for prima facie cases to be developed with the Department of Industry and Commerce which are then presented to the Minister for approval. The prima facie case procedure can take much longer to process than the IAC inquiry itself and there appears to be no particular benefit in maintaining this procedure. The IAC is quite capable of conducting a prima facie vetting of applications and it is noted that the Trade Practices Commission conducts substantial inquiries into major industries, without any reference whatsoever from Government. I refer honourable senators to that quotation in particular. I rely upon it most strongly. I think it summarises the sort of attitude which we believe ought to be adopted. In these days of fast movement in trade and fast changes in trade we need to expedite proceedings in relation to what is happening with regard to dumping and other unfair trade practices. Their impact on Australian industries should be examined and steps should be taken to expedite the Australian capacity to react quickly, firmly and fearlessly in relation to that. I particularly wanted to quote from the Cramb Corporate Services submission to the Uhrig inquiry because it sums up the reasons why I will later be moving an amendment to delete the provision which takes away the power of the Industries Assistance Commission to move expeditiously of its own volition, even though it may not have done so in the past. I will not read all the quotations I noted, but let me read part of the submission from the Department of Industry and Commerce, which I thought again raised some quite interesting and important matters which should also be placed on the record of debate on this matter. Paragraph 6.21 reads: A disadvantage however, particularly if the IAC were to be given a general investigatory role, would be the loss of the capability to derive from the Commission an overview, based on its inquiries, of all relevant aspects of business and industry development. A solution to this could be to require the Commission to submit an annual assessment to EPAC. This assessment would also be publicly available and other organisations would be encouraged to submit comments to EPAC. EPAC could also, if it wished, advise the IAC on any aspects of the assessment or its basis for compilation with which it disagreed or wished to question. Paragraph 6.22 reads: The sixth question is whether the IAC would be free to initiate inquiries or would only conduct inquiries in response to a reference from the Minister. I think those two things are somewhat associated because there are various suggestions that the role of the IAC should be linked to the role of some other organisations-the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Bureau of Labour Studies and the body created by this Government, the Economic Planning Advisory Council-so that there will be a greater interrelationship between and an exchange of expertise between those bodies. One would hope that if that sort of thing were to happen there would be a reduction in the total cost and duplication and, possibly, greater expedition. It is one of the areas on which I certainly propose to continue to have discussions with as wide a cross-section of qualified people as I can to explore further the potential advantages of going down that track. I think Senator Jack Evans also would like to see that sort of step taken, that of bringing together a little more the expertise available in government-the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Bureau of Labour Studies and the Bureau of Mineral Resources or whatever-and the Industries Assistance Commission so that we can more expeditiously deal with some of the problems which arise so quickly in modern trade. It is interesting that the Department applied itself to that aspect. Paragraph 6.22 of the Department's submission continues: The principal disadvantage of self initiated inquiries is that they are costly to those involved and add to the lack of predictability in industry assistance matters which has been of considerable concern to business and trade unions in the last decade. I find it curious that the Department used such words because the fact is that, as the Minister pointed out, during the past decade, there has not been any exercise by the Industries Assistance Commission of its right to initiate inquiries; therefore it could not have been responsible for any of the lack of predictability in industry assistance matters which has been of considerable concern to business and trade unions in the last decade. I think it is probably unfortunate drafting of the submission, but I do point out that it is quite obviously not because of the existence of the right that there has been concern about the lack of predictability. I agree, however, that it is important for industry planning, with heavy investment and long lead times, that there be as much predictability as possible and that the lack of predictability and certainty has been a matter of concern. The Department's submission went on: The advantage of requiring a reference from the Minister is that it is consistent with the primary role of the Commission as an instrument of Government policy. I pause to say that I am curious again about the choice of words: 'it is consistent with the primary role of the Commission as an instrument of government policy'. I thought that there was an attempt to retain a degree of independence and arm's length advice as far as the Industries Assistance Commission was concerned. I thought it was not merely an instrument of government policy. The submission continues: If the Commission is to become a general investigatory body then it would be appropriate for it periodically to submit to the Government for consideration and direction as to priority, a program of inquiries into industries where direct assistance would not be the principal issue involved. I can see the sense of that comment. I refer also to the submission from the Queensland Government which, at page 18, also refers to the power to initiate inquiries. It reads: The Queensland Government believes that the Commission currently has adequate power to initiate inquiries. There is certainly no need to give more power to the Commission in this area. However, the Queensland Government did not go on to say that it should be curtailed. It talked about the need for fast track steps to be able to be taken, so that it would seem to me to be supporting the continuation of the status quo. I refer also to the fact that Professor Freebairn in his submission to the Commission made reference to the importance of the continuation, as did Mr W. A. McKinnon, who has great experience. I was also fascinated by some of Mr McKinnon 's other comments. Even more, I was interested in the submission of Mr Geoff Miller of the Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council and a lot of the suggestions he made. He said, amongst other things: A low-cost way of substantially improving the efficiency with which EPAC discharges its responsibilities would be to loosely network the Bureaux with the office of EPAC to form an Australian Bureau of Applied Economic Analysis. He was referring to what I was referring to just a moment ago, that is, bringing together all of the various bodies. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations also had a view to express in relation to the Commission's functions. It said: The Commission's value lies in its ability to report comprehensively, independently and objectively with respect to the guidelines set down in its Act . I believe, therefore, that the preservation of the independence of the Commission to have the capacity if it needs to act is of importance. As my time has expired I shall leave the remainder of my remarks to the Committee stage in relation to the amendment which I propose to move then. The Opposition will support the Bill with the intention of moving that amendment during the Committee stage. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.22) —I wish to speak only briefly on the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984. The Industries Assistance Commission, as has been acknowledged by earlier speakers, plays a very valuable role in exposing the cost and effect of government policies on industry. The IAC has been attacked traditionally because it tends to recommend lower levels of protection. That makes it a very valuable ally of the Australian Democrats because we envisage a very rapid move towards much lower levels of protection in line with the attitudes of the IAC. Of course, because of that attitude the IAC is most often attacked by narrow sectional interests. The costs of protective measures are borne by the whole community but the benefits of those measures are concentrated in particular industries. In the past, far too frequently, decisions have been made with a view to bolstering industries in marginal electorates. Those decisions are often not in the wider interests of the nation. The IAC points out the cost of such decisions in terms of the whole economy. This piece of legislation will ensure that not only will we know the costs of a primary recommendation of the IAC but also that we will be able to assess the costs of alternative steps that might be envisaged and considered by the Government and, indeed, by the Parliament. Specifically, this Bill will change the traditional process whereby the IAC holds one set of hearings, issues a draft report and holds another set of hearings before issuing its final report. Now there will be only a draft report followed by a set of hearings and then a final report. Certainly this will be more efficient. However, it creates a problem for the IAC in getting information from a wide section of interested parties. To the extent that sectional interests are not represented we fear that industries will tend not to co- operate with IAC findings. Organisations and industries tend to work much more harmoniously with a decision in which they have had some involvement. It is good that the IAC will now be required to take into account the desire of the Government to facilitate adjustment and to encourage efficiency and international competitiveness. However, there is an intrinsic conflict between those aims and full employment. If jobs are lost as a result of achieving greater efficiency, and this is likely in the short run, we must be prepared to offer those unemployed adequate income and retraining. It is good that the amendments will formalise the situation so that when the IAC provides a report it will also provide in that report options to its own findings. I believe that that will have benefits that flow on through the whole community because it will give the community and industries in the IAC itself a great deal of confidence in the decision that is taken ultimately by the Government. We believe that the abolition of the Temporary Assistance Authority and its incorporation into the IAC should help provide greater consistency in IAC recommendations between industries and also between the long term and short term requirements of a particular industry. We see the Temporary Assistance Authority as being redundant. Frankly, it could quite easily be in competition with the IAC in its objectives and recommendations. That does not serve the nation's interest. The inclusion of tertiary and service industries in the definition of an industry for IAC purposes was obviously necessary, given the direction of Australia's industrial development. We certainly applaud the inclusion of those industries. I should speak briefly on the amendment which was flagged by Senator Peter Rae. My understanding of this legislation is that the Government's adoption of the recommendation that the Commission's power to initiate its own inquiries be revoked was based on the understanding given in the second reading speech of the Minister that the new arrangements will not prevent the Commission from suggesting to the Government the need for an inquiry where it is considered to be warranted. Ultimately, the crunch decisions will be made by the government of the day. That government needs to have recommendations and options presented to it by the IAC. For the IAC to be haring down tracks in which the Government has absolutely no interest seems to me to be a futile and wasteful exercise. Provided that the IAC has the ability to recommend to the Government areas of inquiry which it considers are justified, I believe that the amendment is a move in the right direction. Therefore we will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment. However, I need to have that assurance from the Minister before making a final decision. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.28) —I thank honourable senators for the generally supportive comments they have made about the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984. Senator Peter Rae keeps reading to us selected passages from the industry policy of the Liberal Party of Australia. I must say that it does not make my hair stand on end. I do not want to make any further comment than that. Senator Peter Rae —I will read it more slowly next time. Senator BUTTON —I think there is a lot of good sense in it. However, I do not mean that to be taken as general endorsement. Honourable senators generally support the Bill apart from the amendment which Senator Peter Rae intends to move. I think the comments that have been made have been generally constructive and helpful. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.29) —For the reasons I outlined during the second reading debate, on behalf of the Liberal-National Party coalition Opposition, I move: page 6, sub-clause 13 (1), line 30, leave out 'Sections 23A and 24 of the Principal Act are repealed', insert 'Section 23A of the Principal Act is repealed'. The effect of this amendment is that, section 24 of the principal Act, which gives the Industries Assistance Commission power to initiate its own inquiry being repealed, will remain in the principal legislation. Section 24 of the Act provides: 24. (1) Where- (a) duties are imposed on goods of a particular description imported into Australia; and (b) a period of not less than ten years has elapsed since- . . . . (2) Where- (a) assistance, other than assistance by way of the imposition of duties on goods imported into Australia, is provided to an industry by the Commonwealth Government; and (b) a period of not less than six years has elapsed . . . . the Commission may on its own initiative inquire into and report on the assistance that should be provided to that industry. The Commission may on its own initiative inquire into and report on certain other matters in relation to dumping. I simply refer to the submissions from various bodies to the Uhrig Committee from which I quoted. They all believed that it was desirable and in the best interests of flexibility and expedition that the Industries Assistance Commission should have the right to inquire, even though for the past decade it has not found it necessary to exercise that right. It is the very existence of the retention, which does not do any harm and has not been found to be necessary, which may enable at a particular time an important expeditious inquiry in relation to some unfair trade practice and the effect of that on Australian industry to be undertaken immediately by the Commission. I believe it is important to preserve that. It also preserves a feeling of autonomy so far as the Commission is concerned, and the arm's length objectivity of the Commission is an important part of the faith which people can have in its functioning. I believe the very idea that it is an instrument of government policy means that we should not have it; all we should have perhaps is the Bureau of Industry Economics and the Department of Industry and Commerce; we would not need this separate body to conduct hearings and proffer findings of fact and suggestions as to what steps ought to be taken in the best interests of a particular industry and of the country as a whole. It is for those reasons that the Opposition feels quite strongly about the importance of the retention of this degree of independence and flexibility. It is on that basis and that basis alone that we wish to see it retained. The amendment I have moved is for the purpose of retaining that degree of flexibility and independence which arises from the right of the Commission, as described in the side note to section 24: 'Power of Commission to inquire and report on its own initiative'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.33) —The Government does not accept the amendment moved by Senator Rae. The legislation before the Senate is, if I might say so, redolent with the notion of the independence of the Industries Assistance Commission. The Uhrig committee of inquiry recommended that the IAC should retain its independence. The essential reason for that is the public inquiry process of the IAC, which is very important. Decisions are not made about industry policy issues which are not susceptible to public scrutiny, analysis and the provision of varying views about a particular industry assistance matter. However, to say that the IAC relies for its independence on a provision which would enable it to conduct frolics of its own, inquiries of its own, is really drawing a long bow, with respect. The Government's view is that what the IAC does from day to day, what issues it addresses and so on, are matters of policy. Our policy is that such decisions to conduct inquiries in relation to industries are more appropriately made by the Government itself, in part for the reasons Senator Jack Evans put, and particularly under the new IAC legislation to refer questions to the IAC in relation to industries, questions relating to competitiveness and the capacity of industries to develop. Senator Rae may be familiar with some of the references recently sent to the IAC which have specifically addressed those questions. That is the spirit, if you like, of the Uhrig inquiry and the intention of the Government following the passage of this legislation. I make the point that the provision to allow the Commission to initiate its own inquiries has been there for a long time but has never been made use of. The independence of the IAC was not challenged on that basis. In the Government's view, and this is a matter of fact and practice in which Senator Jack Evans will be interested because he asked for an undertaking on this matter, whenever it is discovered that an inquiry may be needed the IAC has had in the past and will have in the future the capacity to make that suggestion to the Government. The new arrangements would allow that to continue, and the Government would welcome such suggestions. It is important that the various industry bodies, and there are many available to the Government, work in some degree of harmony and consultation. I make the point also that even under the existing legislation, which Senator Rae seemed to be happy with for seven years in government, the power of the IAC to initiate inquiries was really a limited one anyway. Such a power could be exercised where an industry had not been reviewed for 10 years or, in some limited situations, where an industry had not been reviewed for six years. I think in practice those matters have been addressed since this Government came to office. Industries such as the chemicals industry, to which Senator Rae referred, are in the process of being removed. I make the point that the right which is said to be being removed is in fact quite a constrained right in any event. I think it is much better for the IAC, if it wants to do so, to come to the Government and say : 'We think this matter ought to be reviewed'. That has been the practice in the past 18 months; it will be the practice in the future. The legislation before the Senate allows that to happen. In all circumstances the Government is opposed to the amendment. It does not think it is appropriate that an instrumentality of the Government should be in a position to determine policy issues. That has nothing to do with independence. The IAC is not an academic institution. Under Senator Rae's own terminology, which might be better than ours, it would be called the industry development commission. It has a function which is set out in the Act. The IAC is not for purely academic purposes; it is an advisory body to government. The Government in all cases should be seen, in our view, to be consulted by the IAC about the nature of the advice-not the content, but the subject of the advice-that it intends to give. For those reasons the Government will not support the amendment . Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.38) —I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for his assurance and indicate that the Australian Democrats will be opposing the amendment. We see no point at all in having a body such as the IAC haring off in a variety of directions when the Government has to make the final determination as to whether it will move on any of those items the IAC might refer to itself for investigation. Senator Watson —Does that take economic circumstances into account? Senator JACK EVANS —If we were talking about a different kind of body, that might be appropriate. For a body which has the responsibility for investigating those areas which are of concern to the Government before it determines its policy on those areas, it becomes irrelevant for the IAC to examine those areas which are of no interest to the Government. We will not support the Opposition's amendment. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.39) —As one of the spokesmen for small business in this place, I am surprised at the attitude taken by Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. I think that what Australia needs, what small business needs, and what industry in non-metropolitan areas needs, is a recognition of social conscience in regard to economic deliberations. All too often we have seen the Industries Assistance Commission operating on hypothetical and idealistic assumptions. The result has been the closure around Australia of industries that would otherwise be viable. It disturbs me somewhat to find the Democrats, who have always taken on the attitude of trying to assist and protect industry throughout Australia, taking this attitude. They are the protectors of industry. I think that Senator Rae has a point. Senator Macklin —Which attitude? Senator WATSON —The attitude of not widening the role of the Industries Assistance Commission. Senator Evans is saying that he is not prepared to widen it because it should be a different body; he would support it if it were a different body. I support the comments made by my colleague Senator Rae. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.42) —I am sorry Senator Watson came in at this stage in the debate. If he had heard my contribution to the second reading debate, which I am sure the Committee would not want me to repeat, he would understand the rationale for the decision I have made and expressed on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I invite Senator Watson to read my speech. He will then understand the full reasoning behind the Democrats' decision not to support this amendment. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.43) —I want to make quite clear the proposition put forward by the Opposition. The position is not as was so lyrically put by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button)-a tune taken up by Senator Jack Evans-to the effect that this body would be haring off in every direction here, thither and all over the place. If after 10 or 11 years the Industries Assistance Commission has not used it, it is hardly likely suddenly to become a body of irresponsible joy trippers going down every possible byway. Senator Macklin —If it hasn't used it, why does it need it? Senator PETER RAE —Because it is there as a reserve power, and reserve powers may be of extreme use. It adds to the flexibility and confirms independence. If the Democrats do not want the IAC to be flexible or independent, they should not support our amendment. They should do what they have indicated they are going to do. They want a body that is not flexible or independent, a body that is not capable of acting quickly in the interests of Australian industry to protect it against unfair international trade practices. That was the basis on which the amendment was moved. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Rae's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. [COGNATE BILL: CHRISTMAS ISLAND ADMINISTRATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.50) —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984 and the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 really have nothing in common except that each contains amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. They do not really have any relation to each other. However, the matters have been dealt with cognately in another place and it seems convenient to do so here. The first Bill is to amend the Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act by removing from those Acts provisions which were placed in them last year to prevent misleading advertising in the course of an election campaign or a referendum campaign. These new provisions were inserted into the legislation as a result of the major review last year following the report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. For some time there had been criticism of the fact that there were no effective provisions in the Electoral Act concerning misleading advertising and it was presumably thought by the Joint Committee and the Parliament last year that this should be rectified. However, adequate enforcement of laws of this kind during election or referendum campaigns has always been a matter of grave difficulty. Claims, counter-claims and so on, sometimes of a rather extravagant nature, which are part and parcel of electioneering, are virtually impossible to control by any legal process. Obviously the major sanction in regard to these matters is the vote of the people. The judgment that they make will no doubt be determined by the extent to which they believe material that is put before them. We trust the people and I think we can trust them to see through extravagant statements made by parties or candidates. I think this is the most effective sanction. Parties and candidates are encouraged to be cautious in their statements during an election campaign simply because of the ready exposure that can now be given to falsities and extravagant promises by the modern media and the speed with which corrections can be made and the readiness with which interviews can be conducted on radio and television and by the print media. We are now in an age when false or totally extravagant claims or promises can be very quickly and readily challenged and exposed. To have any sort of legal process governing this is not likely to be as effective as those processes. I understand that the Joint Committee has looked at the matter again and has reported to this effect. The Government has now introduced this legislation to remove the provisions which were inserted in the Act only a year ago in regard to this question of misleading statements and advertisements during election campaigns. The Opposition accepts the Government's proposals and will support the provisions of this Bill. The second Bill we are debating is the Christmas Island Administration ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This Bill is designed to give to those Christmas Islanders who are Australian citizens the full benefits of Australian citizenship. Residents of Christmas Island became eligible for the rights of Australian citizenship in 1981 but the island has been under a separate administration from that of the rest of Australia and the full benefits, rights and obligations of Australian citizenship have not been provided to them. Towards the end of the autumn sittings of the Senate we passed legislation giving similar rights to the Australian citizens of Cocos Island. This legislation is designed to have the same effect. In fact, it is very much the same type of legislation. It contains provisions to extend the rights of Christmas Islanders in relation to medical and hospital services and in the Social Security Act and the Student Assistance Act. That is a quite interesting feature of this legislation compared to the Cocos Island legislation because there are courses in technical and further education on Christmas Island and these will be approved for the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. Another feature of this legislation which is different from that of the Cocos Island legislation relates to the acquisition of land on Christmas Island. This is another interesting and important feature of this legislation because as a result of the report of the Sweetland Commission of Inquiry into the Viability of the Christmas Island Phosphate Industry, which was commissioned by the Fraser Government, there has been a good deal of discussion about opening up the island for forms of economic development other than simply the phosphate industry which has been virtually the sole basis of the island's economy. As far as the Island' s future is concerned there are likely to be, and hopefully will be, other forms of economic use on the island and economic activities for Islanders. I understand that this is a matter on which the Opposition in the other place has sought to obtain further information from the responsible Minister. We do not even seem to have a responsible Minister in the chamber at the moment. I do not know whether it is any good referring to questions that have been asked in another place to see whether any further information can be provided, as was sought by Mr Ruddock in the House of Representatives. Senator Peter Baume —Surely there is a Minister, isn't there? Senator DURACK —No, there simply is not a Minister in the chamber. It just shows how much interest this Government has in conferring the benefits of citizenship on Christmas Islanders. Perhaps they will take note of that when they exercise these rights in the election on 1 December and register their view of a government that does not even have a Minister in the Senate when the Bill conferring these rights is being debated. This legislation confers voting rights on Australian citizens of Christmas Island and will take effect at the forthcoming election on 1 December. It is important that this legislation should be passed to enable the Islanders to exercise those rights. The Opposition is supporting this legislation for that reason and also for the broader reason that the Islanders should now be incorporated into the Australian community in the full way in which the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders have been. The Opposition welcomes this measure. We give it our warmest support. However, we raise the question, as we did in relation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, of what is the appropriate Australian electorate for Christmas Islanders to exercise these new voting rights. Of course, Christmas Island is in the Indian Ocean, some considerable way from the Western Australian coastline. Nevertheless , there are air services from there to Western Australia. There is not perhaps the same connection between Christmas Island and Western Australia as there is between the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Western Australia, because there is a Cocos (Keeling) Islands community that has been living for some time in Western Australia and obviously there is a great deal of exchange between the Cocos ( Keeling) Islanders and Western Australians. Nevertheless, the communications to and from Christmas Island are largely through Western Australia. It might well be logical for Christmas Island to be incorporated in Western Australia for the purpose of elections. However, there are constitutional difficulties, as we recognised in relation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Nevertheless, that is a matter which perhaps will be rectified in the future in the Constitutional Convention so that the option would be there. The question must arise as to the suitability of Christmas Island being a division of the Northern Territory electorate for voting purposes. We have pointed out also, in relation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, that the Northern Territory is proceeding towards statehood. When the Northern Territory achieves that status the same constitutional problems will arise in regard to the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands being attached to the Northern Territory as they would if they were attached, for voting purposes, to a Western Australian electorate. This raises the question of Christmas Islanders exercising their voting rights with Australia. We believe that it is appropriate that their wishes be ascertained. As I have said, without constitutional amendment how those wishes can be given immediate effect to is another matter. But at least we believe that , in the long term, their views should be ascertained. Therefore, I propose to move, on behalf of the Opposition, as an expression of that view, an amendment to motion for the second reading of the Christmas Island Administration ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. As I have said, we support the Bill. Our amendment is not in any way a qualification of anything in the Bill. We certainly do not propose any amendment to the legislation to delay it in any way at this stage because we want to see Christmas Islanders exercising their rights in the forthcoming election. When this matter arose in relation to the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands the amendment we proposed was supported by the Senate. I would be interested to know whether the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is able to indicate what attitude the Government has taken in relation to that view expressed in the Senate regarding the wishes of the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders. Of course, we would also be interested to know what view the Government takes to the Opposition's proposed amendment: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that a suitable person should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens on Christmas Island as to which electoral division of Australia they should be included in for the purposes of participating in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament and referendums under the Commonwealth Constitution'. I will be moving that amendment as an addition to the motion for the second reading. I understand that that amendment has been circulated. For those reasons the Opposition will be supporting the second reading but we will be moving, by way of that amendment, an additional expression of opinion to it. When we debated this matter on a previous occasion I think we specified that the views of the Islanders should be ascertained by a Supreme Court judge. I think it was queried whether that was necessary. I take that on board. That is why I adopted the formula of a suitable person in general terms. But I hope that the Government has taken seriously the view of the Senate in regard to ascertaining the wishes of the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders. I hope that the Senate will support the same view in relation to Christmas Islanders. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.06) — The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to amend a section in the Electoral Act which was passed by this chamber last year amongst many of the other reforms to the Electoral Act that took place at that time. The intent behind the legislative requirement was to toughen up aspects of the controls over political advertising. The important section with which we are dealing is section 329-as it will be when we finally get the legislation printed, which I understand is likely to be tomorrow-or, in the amending legislation, section 161 (2). I wish to read that section because I think it is extremely important that everybody realises what this chamber is about to do. It states: A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published, or distributed, any electoral advertisement concerning a statement- (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or likely to be, misleading or deceptive. The definition of an electoral advertisement in this section is: 'Electoral advertisement' means an advertisement that is intended or calculated to affect the result of an election; Currently, under the Act, a publisher can commit an offence against the Act, or a person who authorises the publication of that type of advertisement can offend under the Act. Under the current circumstances, if a publisher actually publishes something which is untrue and deceptive he has a defence. If he can establish that he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the advertisement was untrue and misleading, he will not be convicted of any offence under that section. Many people in the media world, upon reading this and upon seeking legal advice as to what would happen in an election with this law in force, became very worried that they would be in great difficulty. I want to rehearse one line of argument that seems to me to be pretty cogent. If a newspaper, let us take a daily newspaper, published an advertisement from a political party and that advertisement was untrue and deceptive, that publisher would have to prove that he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know. If that newspaper tried to use that defence the difficulty it would have would be that it could be argued that the item contained in the advertisement had probably been reported in the columns of the newspaper at some previous stage. That is, the newspaper would have to be sure with respect to each advertisement placed that it had not previously published a story in relation to that item, which with computerisation may not be such a difficult thing in times to come, and that in doing so it could not reasonably be expected to know from its collective memory, as it were, that the advertisement was untrue and deceptive. When one looks at that type of problem one rapidly comes to the conclusion that the onus we were about to place on publishers, whether in radio, television or newspapers, was unduly onerous and that one really could not expect publishers to have that type of extensive knowledge in the hurly-burly of an election campaign because if they were required to operate with that extensive knowledge base there would necessarily be a delay. In the evidence before the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform it was suggested that that type of delay could very well extend for anything up to a week. If one casts one's mind towards that occurrence one recognises that in an election in which there are likely to be advertisements and counter-advertisements the effectiveness of a counter- advertisement which can operate only at a week's distance may very well be lost. The paradox would then arise that somebody who had published an advertisement which was untrue and deceptive would gain an advantage in law rather than a disadvantage. So, the Australian Democrats support the proposition that a publisher of such an advertisement ought not to be held liable for that advertisement. In other words, a political advertisement ought to fall within the category of all other advertisements and it should be a reasonable defence for a publisher that he received the advertisement in the normal course of business. In receiving that advertisement, all that publishers were really required to do under the Act was to make sure they had the proper authorisation. I remind the Senate that the Act still demands that they actually take some steps to satisfy themselves that the person purporting to authorise the advertisement actually exists and that, if called to account they can demonstrate that they have taken some steps to satisfy themselves that the person authorising it is indeed authorising it. The Australian Democrats support the proposition to remove the onus from publishers of advertisements in relation to an election campaign. What we do not accept is the next proposition. We do not accept that this Parliament, by passing this legislation, should now say that it will be legal to publish an advertisement which is untrue and deceptive and calculated to affect the result of an election . In the words of the Act, that is precisely what the Opposition parties and the Government are proposing to do. I will say that again because it is fairly staggering: The advertisement has to be untrue and deceptive and calculated to affect the result of an election. I find it absolutely extraordinary that we should even be debating such a proposition. If one wants to take the wider view, one has to accept that in a democracy there are two basic elements. One is the right of the citizen freely to elect a government and the other is information. I remember the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), when in opposition, talking for a long time and often in the freedom of information debate, which debate went on for quite some time, about the value and importance of information. He covered many aspects, one of which was the value of information for the support of democratic institutions. I believe that the points the Attorney-General made when in opposition were true. Information is the lifeblood of any democracy. A democracy cannot exist merely by people being allowed to vote. They must know what is going on. They must be able to make an informed choice. When we look at the basis in reality for an informed choice in the forthcoming election campaign, we must ask: Where will the vast bulk of that information to the ordinary citizen come from? It will come through advertisements by political parties. I suggest that political parties, therefore, have a very important obligation to the electorate in this type of democracy. One of the obligations they have-it is not a legal obligation but a moral obligation-is to provide to the electorate as much reasonable information as they can which will inform an elector in the making up of the elector's mind about where he or she will cast a vote. The vast bulk of information to the vast number of people who will be voting on 1 December will come from advertisements placed by political parties. I remind the Government that it argued, when arguing for electoral funding, that political parties were responsible for informing the electorate and that that was one of the reasons why political parties should be funded. The Australian Democrats supported the Government in that proposition. Yet now this chamber will say: 'It is legal to publish an untrue and deceptive advertisement which is calculated to affect the result of the election'. Surely it is a denial of one of the basic elements of any democracy to allow anyone that type of liberty. When the Trade Practices Act and similar types of legislation are discussed, not only in this chamber but also in other parliaments in Australia, one of the points made constantly concerns the privileged nature of information in relation to commercial products; that is, that it is not reasonable to say to the consumer that he should beware, and leave it at that. The Labor Party, at another time and in another place when it was not looking after its own hide, was a champion of those types of consumer rights. In other words, a consumer does have the right to know, when he reads an advertisement from a commercial operator, that that is a reasonable description of the product that he is about to buy. The Australian Democrats support that line too. However, when it becomes a matter of political advertisements a totally different principle is applied. It is not do as I do; it is do as I say. Politicians will have one rule for themselves and another rule for everybody else in the community who is trying to make a living. Politicians will run their own show in a way that suits them, but to hell with everyone else in the community. Surely a very small price to pay for a better informed democracy is that politicians should be required to tell the truth when they put an advertisement in a newspaper or when they put an advertisement on television or the radio. That advertisement is not an off the top of the head, off the cuff, comment. That advertisement is a deliberate act. It is a thoughtful act. It is an act which I assure honourable senators has gone through a large number of checks and balances within any political party. Senator Childs, a Government senator who is sitting here, would certainly know that, being a former Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and a person who has been responsible in the past for a great many election advertisements. He would know that an advertisement is not just something that falls into a newspaper. It is checked and carefully checked. It is a deliberate act. What we are now saying is that a political party is quite at liberty deliberately to sit down and work out an advertisement which is untrue, deceptive and which attempts to mislead the electorate. There is no worry about that; it is perfectly all right to do that. I am not talking about off the top of the head, off the cuff types of remarks which one could have quoted back at one, such as putting one's money under the bed. I am not talking about those sorts of comments. This Bill is not referring to those sorts of comments. It is referring to deliberate advertisements which are authorised under the Act. I will take two substantive statements that may be included in an advertisement . This is the first: The Australian Labor Party will introduce a capital gains tax if it wins the 1 December election. Let us also take the statement that the Australian Labor Party's official policy is to introduce a capital gains tax. The first statement would not be caught up under the Act as it currently stands. In other words it is a statement made amongst the political hurly-burly. It is a statement which has almost as much bearing as Mr Peacock's list of broken promises which he issued the other day. It is of that order. Mr Peacock was rightly picked up in his Press conference, for the Australian Labor Party had not done what he had said it had done in government. In other words, Mr Peacock was saying that the Government was going to break that promise in the next Parliament. It is a political debating point; part of the grist for the mill. The ordinary elector knows that it is the type of comment which is thrown around ; it is not the type of comment which is caught under this Act. However, the type of statement which would be caught up under the Act as it currently stands and which this Government will remove, supported by the Opposition, is a statement such as: 'The Australian Labor Party's official policy document says that it will introduce a capital gains tax when it comes to power'. The only point one can make about that comment is not that it is a debating point; it is that it is untrue. It is deceptive. It is calculated to influence the result of the election. That is what one can say about that comment. It is a comment which would be caught up under this Act as it currently stands and which this Government, supported by this Opposition, will remove. What are we about now? Why are we debating this legislation today? I will tell honourable senators why we are debating it today. It is because an election is on and the Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia want to make this the dirtiest election campaign ever. They are removing the only legislative impediment to making it the dirtiest election campaign ever. That is what we are on about now. Senator Peter Baume —It is unworkable. Senator MACKLIN —It is not unworkable. I have just given an example of the only type of statement which would be caught up, that is, that the Australian Labor Party's official documents state that a capital gains tax will be introduced. A statement which will not be caught up, and one which Mr Peacock and Senator Baume can make is: 'The Australian Labor Party will, if re-elected, impose a capital gains tax'. Such a statement will not be caught up. It does not come under this legislation because it is not untrue, deceptive and calculated to affect the result of an election. It cannot be. It is a statement about future intent; hence it is not something which would come under this legislation. That proposition is accepted by the Attorney. If one looks at the evidence that his Department gave to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform one sees that he acknowledges that point. The next substantive argument is this: If we do not remove this provision people will request injunctions and mess up the whole election operation. I responded to this when I was on the Joint Committee and in my minority report. I now respond with an identical argument, and that is that under the Act the Electoral Commission has been given not simply the power to prosecute if something is brought to its notice. It has been given the power on its own initiative to make sure that this Act is enforced in its totality. It is required to make sure that the Electoral Act and the electoral process in this country is fair and above board. It is required to have that overview on its own cognisance. However, the majority report of the Committee stated that we cannot let the Electoral Commission do that because it would be entering into the political fray. Elsewhere in the Act-it has not been amended-we give the Electoral Commission power. What we are saying is this: The only power, the only area we will exclude from the Electoral Commission, is that relating to electoral advertisements. Surely it is not too much to ask that in trying to make sure that we move to some type of stable and reasonable democracy, this piece of heinous legislation, of regressive legislation of the worst kind, is not passed now. I appeal to the Opposition parties to think again about supporting such an absurd proposition. I appeal to the Government to look again at this proposition. Why are we doing this? I foreshadow that at the Committee stage I will move an amendment so that this Bill does state only this: 'A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under the Act, authorise to be printed, published or distributed an electoral advertisement that is untrue and deceptive and calculated to affect the course of an election'. In other words, if my amendment were supported, the only people who would be affected would be the persons or the political parties that set out to deliberately deceive the electorate-nobody else. Yet the Opposition parties and the Government do not want a bar of that. They intend to publish advertisements which are untrue, deceptive and calculated to affect the result of the election, otherwise they would not be bothered in voting for this piece of legislation. Senator Peter Baume —That is unworthy of you, and it is untrue. Senator MACKLIN —That is precisely what the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party intend to do. There is no other reason. Look at the legislation. That is the only page and what is the only operative piece in that legislation? It is to take out section 161 (2). That section does nothing other than to deal with that matter. They can protect the publishers quite simply. They can do so by either adopting the amendment that the Attorney-General put forward to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform when he suggested a way of amending the Act, or, alternatively, adopting the amendment that I have circulated in the chamber. There are many ways of overcoming the problem of the publisher. As I have said, the publisher should not be caught up in this operation. Publishers are going about their ordinary business and should not be expected to have to vet advertisements from political parties. What I find totally abhorrent is the notion that political parties should be allowed to say to the electorate, in a paid advertisement, something which is untrue, deceptive and calculated to affect the result of that election. Surely that is something that we do not need in 1984. Surely it is something that we do not need in a democracy. We need the truth in a democracy. If Senator Peter Baume wants to interject in respect of this, that is all right. If his party intends to publish only advertisements which are true, which are not deceptive and which are not in that sense calculated to deceive the electorate, he would not even be voting for this . He does not have to do so, because that is all that the Bill already says. The only reason to take out the provision is if one wants to do these things. If one does not want to do them, why bother? The Attorney-General accepts that, in view of the evidence that he gave to the Joint Select Committee. Yet now he is arguing for this absolutely absurd Bill, this retrograde Bill, this Bill which will quite openly say to the electorate for the first time: 'This is what political parties are about. This is what we want to do, and we find, unfortunately, that the legislation will hamper us in that activity, and because of that, we will all join together in a cosy little conspiracy to make sure that we are able to do that.' I have suggested a simple way of doing it and a way which is in total keeping with the Act. That is that one does not have this imposition on the publisher; one has it only on the political party or the person that authorises the advertisement. That person may well be a company or another individual. The only people who would be allowed to do anything about that would be the Australian Electoral Commission. In other words, I am happy to give away my right, the right of my Party and the right of candidates for our Party to take out injunctions on it. As I have said, in the past I have totally supported the independence of the Electoral Commission. From its own knowledge and understanding of the operation of the Act, it is probably best placed to take any action in relation to an advertisement which either it sees for itself or which is brought to its attention. That is a reasonable proposition. So I am saying: 'All right; we will give away that right. We will show our bona fides, in that we will not even be able to take out those types of injunctions; it will be out of our hands'. So that cannot be thrown at us. The only thing that we are saying is that every political party should be made, in its paid and deliberately placed advertisements, at last to attempt to be truthful, at least to attempt not to mislead people in the electorate in relation to the information that it is giving them, so that they may have a better informed judgment when they cast their votes on 1 December. Surely that is not too much to ask. Even at this late stage, surely the Government can think about the matter and put if off until we return on Tuesday, and give it more mature consideration over the weekend. Otherwise, this is a most extraordinary, retrograde and heinous step. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.36) —In speaking on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984 and the Christmas Island Administration ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984, I intend to direct my remarks to the latter Bill. This Bill has a number of purposes expressed in the explanatory memorandum , as follows: Firstly, the Bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 so as to enable the making of ordinances of the Territory to regulate the use and occupation of land. 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. Secondly, the Bill will extend Commonwealth legislation in the areas of health, social security, Federal electoral representation and education to the Territory of Christmas Island, following the decision of the Government to bring living conditions in the Territory into line with those on mainland Australia. The Bill will amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 so as to place residents of the Territory within the boundaries of the Northern Territory for Federal electoral purposes. An amendment consequent upon the amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 will also be made to the Northern Territory ( Self-Government) Act 1978. The Bill will also amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 so as to make residents of the Territory eligible for benefits under that legislation on a basis equivalent to that for mainland Australians. The Bill will amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 so as to place residents of the Territory within the Commonwealth electoral division of the Northern Territory for the purposes of referendums. The Bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1947 so that a resident of the Territory will be treated as a resident of Australia for the purposes of that Act. There are also some amendments in the area of student assistance, so as to permit certain institutions in Western Australia to be able to continue to offer courses of study to Christmas Islanders and to ensure that students may be eligible for the purposes of section 10 in relation to the payment of tertiary education assistance allowances. Whilst I welcome the decision of the people of Christmas Island to integrate with Australia, I have doubts as to the appropriateness of their incorporation into the Northern Territory for the purposes of voting in elections and referendums. I am from the Northern Territory and am one of the two senators representing the Northern Territory. This integration has significant implications for both the people of Christmas Island and the people of the Northern Territory. I will deal, firstly, with the integration from the point of view of the Christmas Islanders. The Government has pursued the integration of this island in the same way as it dealt with the integration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; that is, without consultation with the people of the islands as to which electorate they would prefer integration with. We went through this matter some months ago when we were dealing with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands situation. As I remember, I tabled a letter from the Chairman of the Council on the Islands in which he indicated very clearly that these people had not been consulted. Christmas Island is about 360 kilometres south of Indonesia and 2,623 kilometres from Perth. Commercial deposits of high grade phosphate are the basis of the Christmas Island economy and this is exported as rock phosphate and phosphate dust, chiefly to Australia and New Zealand. The mining is carried out by the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd. Phosphate has been mined on the island since 1897, many years ago. Prior to 1 October 1958 the island was administered from Singapore. However, that date saw it become a territory of the Australian Government. Its population of 3,300 people consists of Chinese, Malay , Indian and European communities, most of which are employed in the mine. In 1958 the island became a territory of Australia. The people of the island were offered the opportunity to take up Australian citizenship and almost every person on the island has now taken advantage of that offer. The only non- Australians on the island, as I said, are a few temporary workers. Christmas Island, like the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, has strong ties with Western Australia and, to some degree, the Australian Labor Party through the trade union movement, but we have gone through that in debate on the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. We have seen considerable movement of people from the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands to Western Australia. To many it seems odd that the first to integrate the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and now to integrate Christmas Island has come at this time. It was rumoured that there would be a Federal election and of course now we know that the election is to be held on 1 December. Presumably the decision to integrate these islands into the Northern Territory is a political move in an endeavour to rescue the Australian Labor Party's Territory member at the coming Federal election. If that is the case, those Islanders, being of an independent view, might have different ideas. I believe that Christmas Islanders will view the ALP warily, particularly following the Hawke Government's actions concerning the island once it was announced that the island would be integrated. I refer to the Government's decision to close the Christmas Island Phosphate Mining Co. if enough workers do not leave the island. That does not seem to me to be a particularly friendly act . It is not an act of consultation; rather it is a very heavy-handed act. The Government is saying: 'Do this or else'. I hope that the people of Christmas Island do not allow themselves to become pawns of this Government. On the comments that have been made by the Cocos (Keeling) Island people, and as I understand it, the people of Christmas Island, this will not happen. They should be given every opportunity by this Government to decide for themselves where their association with Australia will lie. With that in mind I strongly support the amendment foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, Senator Durack-- Senator Gareth Evans —Former Attorney-General. Senator KILGARIFF —He is the former Attorney-General and the coming Attorney- General. He held the portfolio before and he will hold it again. The proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill reads: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that a suitable person should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens on Christmas Island as to which electoral division of Australia they should be included in for the purposes of participating in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament and referendums under the Commonwealth Constitution'. All I can say in supporting this proposed amendment is that if the Government is not going to have the decency-I say 'decency' deliberately-to allow the people of Christmas Island to be consulted I think the Senate should take it upon itself to ensure that those people are at least consulted. I believe the proposed amendment is reasonable. I hope that the majority of honourable senators will support it. Even if the majority of honourable senators do not support it, very clearly the members of the Opposition-the members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-believe that the people of Christmas Island should be consulted. That is why the Opposition proposes to move the amendment. If after the proposed survey is conducted the people of Christmas Island wish to be integrated with the Northern Territory, so be it. They will be very welcome. That will be it. They will be a part of the Northern Territory. However , if they wish to be associated with other parts of Australia, for example Western Australia, so be that too. The argument has been put that, despite the island's strong trade and transport ties with Western Australia, its communications links through Perth and the fact that most of the Christmas Islanders who have moved to Australia now live in Western Australia, the island cannot be integrated into Western Australia because of constitutional difficulties. I do not accept that argument. I believe a referendum would overcome that problem. The Government's offer of integration into Australia is a very hollow one if it is not prepared to allow the Islanders a say in the matter to the extent of allowing them to integrate with the State or Territory of their choice. That brings me to the second matter of concern; that is, the effect this will have on the Northern Territory. I understand that should the Northern Territory attain statehood, which we are certainly on the road to achieving, the Federal representative of the new State would not be able to represent the people of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands unless those people became part of the Territory, hence part of the new State. If the Government is not prepared to take the necessary steps to integrate the Islanders into Western Australia, does that mean that the Government will attempt to prevent the Northern Territory attaining statehood in order to avoid the same constitutional difficulties arising in that event? The Northern Territory is looking to attaining statehood in the not too distant future and the Federal Government is fully aware of that. One would have thought that the Federal Government would be able to see far enough ahead to realise that these constitutional difficulties will arise when the Territory attains statehood. Surely then the most sensible course, the course which is fairest to all concerned, particularly the Islanders, is to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution to permit external territories, including the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, to be attached to electorates on the mainland with which they have the greatest association and community interest. In the case of Christmas Island, as with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I am sure the electorate would be Western Australia. That is where their ties, their people, communications, trade-the lot-are. The same referendum would allow a territory such as Norfolk Island to seek integration with New South Wales if at some time in the future it so desired. I wonder why Norfolk Island has not been mentioned in the past year in the context of the integration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island. Is it because there is just a handful of people on Norfolk Island and that to the Government at this time of harvesting votes they are of no consequence? Indeed, such a referendum would clarify the position once and for all for all Australia' s external territories. I do not believe that any reasonable person in Australia would resist such a move. I urge the Government to take steps to hold such a referendum as soon as possible. I see every reason for every honourable senator- Government, Opposition, Democrats or Independent-supporting the amendment to be moved by Senator Durack. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.49) —I will be debating mainly the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984. We heard from Senator Macklin that the Bill was designed to allow the two major parties to be deceptive in their advertisements prior to the coming referendum and that that was the sole purpose of this Bill being put through this evening. I say to Senator Macklin that in the past we have had the opportunity of taking people to court for unfair advertising, but this has never been able to be accomplished. In Australia we have a system whereby there is a penalty for unfair advertising but it does not apply during election time to major political parties. It never has, because what is unfair advertising? It is always in the eyes of the beholder. I say to Senator Macklin that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform- Senator Macklin —It is not unfair, Senator, it is untrue and deceptive. Senator WALTERS —Okay, we have always had untrue advertising in Australia. Senator Macklin —I am sorry; all we had was 161 (1). Senator WALTERS —That is right, but in Australia under our advertising legislation generally we have had the ability to take parties, no matter who they are, to court for unfair advertising. Senator Haines —Or misleading. Senator WALTERS —Or misleading advertising-but of course it has never been able to be done. As I say, unfair advertising is in the eye of the beholder. I think honourable senators would agree with me that the original name of the Constitutional Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill, which was the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, was deceiving and untrue. That description is certainly very applicable to sub-clause 5 (a) of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill which repeals section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which prohibits the publication during an election period of material that is untrue and which is, or is likely to be, misleading and deceptive. I believe that the original title of the Bill was misleading, untrue and likely to be deceptive because it had nothing to do with the Bill. As we all know, simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament can be called whenever the Prime Minister of the day wants them to be called. Indeed, that is what this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is doing on this occasion. He is calling simultaneous elections. As I have just pointed out, unfair advertising is always in the eye of the beholder. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform pointed that out very clearly. Senator Macklin —We would never have a court system though, would we, Senator, if that were the case? Senator WALTERS —I do not agree with the honourable senator. I think that there are certain things a court can always come up with answers for. I think that there are other things, and this is one of them, that are in the eye of the beholder. If we start at the beginning we find that the original Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, was also untrue. Sentor Macklin would agree, because the Australian Democrats joined us in changing the name of that Bill. It was untrue advertising; it was deceptive. Senator Macklin —There was nothing in the eye of the beholder in that one. It was deceptive. Senator WALTERS —In the eyes of members of the Australian Labor Party it was not deceptive. Senator Macklin —It was. That is why they put it in. Senator WALTERS —Maybe that is why they put it in. The Bill had been called that for a long time. However, I was giving the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, perhaps a little more credit than Senator Macklin is willing to give him. I thought that with the Attorney's blinkered view he thought it was quite a reasonable title. From our view, however, it certainly was not. If we go through all the things that the Government has done regarding this referendum we will come up with the fact that it could not put out anything. Senator Evans has said that the legislation would reduce the number of elections. We know that that is deceiving; it is untrue. It certainly aims to deceive. Senator Macklin —It cannot be said to be untrue. Senator WALTERS —It can be said to be untrue because Senator Evans says that the legislation will mean fewer elections. It is certainly aimed at being deceptive and misleading. Indeed, the legislation not only could but also, I do not doubt for a moment, will lead to more elections being held. Senator Macklin —I agree, yes, but you can't technically say it is untrue. Senator WALTERS —Should Senator Evans then advertise that this legislation would lead to fewer elections? Does that mean that we could have him before the court? Senator Macklin —That would not be caught by the Act as it is currently drafted. Senator WALTERS —I believe that it would because I believe that it would be misleading and deceptive. Senator Macklin —No, it would not be caught by the Act, I am sorry. Senator WALTERS —This is the problem with Acts. Senator Macklin —I am sorry, but there is legal evidence in the Committee's report that it would not be caught, Senator. Senator WALTERS —This is where we disagree. This is just what I am saying; it is all in the eye of the beholder. What I am saying is that if we pass this legislation we will be setting up a paradise for lawyers. I do not believe that it is right to do so. Let us consider what the Labor Government has already done in its deceptive, misleading and untrue advertising. One could hardly deny that the last debates in this place over the airwaves have not been pretty good advertising. The Democrats, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party would use the airwaves as advertising, if one looks at a debate in those terms. Senator Macklin —No, it is not advertising under the Act. Senator WALTERS —I am not saying that it is under the Act. But if we are going to be true and fair it is all covered by it. Senator Evans has said that unless we have simultaneous elections the process is very costly. He has given us all sorts of figures. He has said that the arguments in favour of simultaneous elections are well-known. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. With respect , Mr Deputy President, I think Senator Walters is being diverted by the wealth of the examples she is now coming up with from the main track of her arguments. Might I suggest that she get back to the argument and abandon the further development of the examples she is now pursuing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters is entitled to develop her argument with examples as she chooses. There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I thought that Senator Evans would possibly like to hear of all the things that I believe he has been deceptive about, one of which is that the number of elections will be reduced, thereby allowing governments to get on with the job of governing as well as minimising inconvenience to electors and significantly reducing the cost to taxpayers. Let us consider how that is deceptive. Indeed, as Senator Evans well knows, the Prime Minister can call simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate so long as he sticks to the terms of senators. He can do that whenever he likes. He can do it every three years, easily. So Senator Evans is being deceptive when he says that the legislation will reduce the number of elections. What would we have if this referendum were successful? We would have a Prime Minister who, buoyed up by his popularity poll , could call an election every six months if he so chose. There would be nothing at all to stop him. He could go to the Governor-General and put a very good case to him. Because tradition says so, the Governor-General would permit him to call an election. So we could have numerous elections. There would be absolutely nothing in the world to stop the Prime Minister from calling them. At the moment the restraining influence is the set terms of senators. Senator Gareth Evans —Back to the Bill, Shirley. Senator WALTERS —I am talking about the Bill. The only restraint the Prime Minister of the day has upon him if he wants to call simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate is that he must wait for the terms of the senators to expire. Senator Evans of course says- Senator Macklin —It is term of senators, not simultaneous elections. Immediately you are getting it wrong. Senator WALTERS —Of course, the Government has been getting it wrong because it has been called simultaneous elections for so long. Senator Haines —It is misleading advertising by the Attorney-General. Senator WALTERS —It is misleading, deceptive, untrue, the lot. However, we will return to the other deceptive things Senator Evans has been saying. He said how much cheaper it will be for the taxpayer. Indeed, what he was saying was that if simultaneous elections were held the total costs reduce $27m. Senator Macklin —What was that? Senator WALTERS —He said there would be a reduction of $27m. Let us look at what this election will cost us, because that was very deceptive. On Nationwide on 9 October Patrick O'Neill said: Now this election will be by far the most expensive election that's ever been fought as far as the taxpayer is concerned. Senator Evans in here has said that simultaneous elections and the passage of the Constitution (Terms of Senators) Bill will mean cheap elections for Australia. However, we now will have the most expensive election Australia has ever faced. To begin with, that election campaign will be fought with public funds, and we have never had that before. This Government has said to the taxpayer: 'You will pay now for all the advertising'. Indeed, public funds are now to be used for an election in this country for the very first time. Taxpayers, who I believe are already paying far too much tax, will have their taxes increased to pay for Australian Labor Party advertising, Australian Democrat advertising and Liberal Party of Australia advertising. It is an absolute disgrace. Senator Mason —What about the National Party? Senator WALTERS —It will also pay for National Party advertising. The Attorney- General estimated that cost at $8m just for starters. He said that amount was for the basic costs-salaries, advertising, printing and so on. At a conservative estimate, the cost is expected to be at least $20m, and then we have the referendum costs on top of that. The cost for the referendum can be broken down to $2.1m for printing ballot papers and pamphlets and $2.9m for postage to about 9.9m electors throughout Australia. That is a total of $33m, and that does not include the extra $1.5m for training officials and another $1m for ballot boxes. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. There is a point at which I suggest even the most tolerant Chair's patience is stretched in the sense that if Senator Walters continues on her present course she will feel herself at liberty to range at large over the whole field of Government activity, pointing to areas of what she might care to describe- inaccurately-as deception. It has only the most tenuous possible connection with the subject matter of the Bill, which is procedures to deal with this. Mr Deputy President, I urge you to call her to order. Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order . I think it is iniquitous that the Attorney-General should get up at this stage and try to prevent a senator going into the full implications of the iniquitous measure the Government is proposing. The Attorney-General has a bad conscience about this, just as the Government has. That is plainly the point. I respectfully suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Attorney has no justification whatsoever for his point of order. I think that Senator Walters is making some interesting points. I certainly am prepared to listen to her. I think the Attorney-General might have the humility and decency to listen to her in silence too. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. However, I ask Senator Walters to keep to the Bill. Senator WALTERS —Indeed I am, because I am explaining to the Attorney-General and to the Senate that the Attorney-General has been very deceptive in his statements to date. He has said that simultaneous elections will be fewer and less costly. I am just pointing out the costs of this particular simultaneous election and mentioning some figures to prove that indeed he has been very deceptive. Senator Sibraa —Democracy comes at a high price. Senator WALTERS —Yes, it certainly does. Of course, under the Government's proposal we will also have the additional senators and members in the Parliament . Let us look at where else the Attorney-General has been deceptive. I remember very clearly indeed that the Attorney-General tried to get his own Party out of a terrible mess. One of his Party's platforms was the abolition of the Senate. We all remember that. Not so very long ago, in 1977, Senator McLaren said that this Bill-the one we are trying to put up again to the people of Australia-was the first step in abolishing the power of the Senate, and the sooner the better. Senator Button's answer was that the Labor Party would take every opportunity to delimit the power of the Senate. We know very clearly that indeed it is the long term aim of the Labor Party to abolish the Senate. Of course, Senator Evans is now saying that has nothing to do with the present legislation. Again, that is deceptive, misleading and untrue . Senator Evans himself at one of his conferences said: 'Let's take it out of the policy. It doesn't go down well with the people. Our public relations is in an awful mess. Let's not change our aim, but take it out of our policy'. To say now that the Bill has nothing to do with the abolition of the Senate is very deceptive, misleading and untrue. I will mention just a few other examples. Senator Haines —Twenty or 30 others? Senator WALTERS —I think 30. The Attorney-General has been very misleading in this area. Senator Mason —Tell us about fixed terms while you are at it. Senator WALTERS —Senator Mason is right. The Attorney was very keen on fixed terms. We seem to have got away from that now because this Bill abolishes the fixed terms of senators. The Attorney was very keen on fixed terms at one stage. Senator Mason —Bob Hawke cut him off at the knees. Senator WALTERS —That was when he was interested in going for Jagajaga. Now he might be more keen on fixed terms for the Senate. There are other matters as well. If we look at the Attorney's second reading speech on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, he said: 'In the Senate the Opposition and Democrats tried to block the Government's advertising its proposals'. How deceiving and misleading can he be? What was the amount of money the Attorney- General was appropriating in the slush fund for the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)? Senator Mason —Millions of dollars. Senator WALTERS —The Attorney-General was attempting to appropriate millions of dollars for the Government's spending only. He did not tell any of us. He waited until the appropriations had been passed, and when I complained said: 'If you had asked me, I would have told you'. What I said was that the Attorney-General hid that money in the slush fund of the Minister for Finance. Why did the Attorney not come out and tell the Senate what it was for? The Attorney-General of Australia said: 'I would have told you if you had asked me'. Indeed I had asked what the amount of money was being used for and was told that it was all for Medicare advertising and things like that. There was no mention of the amount the Attorney-General had put away just for the Government to advertise the yes case. He was scared about the no case. He said that the no case had an advantage. He was scared that the no case might win. We had the advantage because truth was on our side. What else has the Attorney-General been deceptive, misleading and untrue about? He changed the electoral ballot paper, and indeed he did it by regulations. But did he tell us all about it? No. He happened to forget about it. It happened to have slipped his mind. He did not tell us that the regulations had been altered until we found out just in time and were able to move for a disallowance. But the Attorney-General said: 'Good heavens, didn't I do that? I am sorry, I should have done so'. I believe that is the height of deceit, misleading and untruth. These are the sorts of areas in which we as the Opposition would be willing to raise in our advertising; yet I believe if Opposition members did attempt to use these matters in our advertising and this legislation were in place, the Attorney would attempt to take us to the courts, even though it is completely true. I believe the people should be well aware of what is going on. This is a short amendment; it is one with which I agree. I believe it is impossible for any court to make a decision on what advertising during an election campaign is misleading, deceiving or untrue. Therefore, I support these provisions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.11) —I shall resist the temptation to range at large over all the matters dealt with by Senator Walters because very few of them had anything to do with the Bills that are before us. There are two Bills, and only two points of substance have been raised relating to them in the course of the debate. So far as the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill is concerned, the objection is from the Australian Democrats as to that part of the legislation which would repeal the provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act prohibiting false and deceptive advertising. I acknowledge that there was a great deal of merit in what Senator Macklin said on this subject. Indeed, I could hardly say otherwise because what he said was drawn substantially from my evidence to the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. It was my song, or my former song that was being sung by Senator Macklin and he sang it very well. I have to say, however, that on balance and after very careful consideration of all the arguments raised by Senator Macklin, the Joint Committee came out against the proposition he advanced. The position has been accepted by the other major parties and, I believe, in good faith and with substantial reason. It is generally accepted that the provisions are unworkable in their present form. The question goes to whether they are capable of amendment to make them more effective. It is a matter for argument whether they can be made more effective. It has to be acknowledged, when one looks at the very detailed treatment given to this matter by the Joint Committee, that a number of points of real difficulty exist in any possible formulation of this proposal. The basic difficulties tend to arise in the area of determining whether a statement in question is capable of being true or false. That raises particular difficulties when one is talking about statements of opinion and, more particularly, statements in the nature of predictions that X party will do Y, which are the essence of, and staple to, electoral discourse. It is probably the case that the most damaging of the misrepresentations that can occur in a campaign would, if Senator Macklin is correct in his analysis of what is and what is not a statement of fact, be excluded from the operation of the legislation. That is a point made with a great deal of vigour and conviction by the majority members of the Committee. The general position that has been adopted is that after weighing up the principles of free speech, letting a hundred flowers bloom and all the rest of the things that need to be taken into account on the side of deregulation in this area, as against on the other hand the damage that might be caused as a result of deliberately deceptive advertising, that balance ought to come down on the side of free speech. That was the balance struck by the majority of the Committee and that is what has been accepted by the Government. The position has been accepted that judgments as to truth and falsity should remain ones for the voter to make and that it is probably in the most exceptional circumstances that voters will be unlikely to detect the difference between a piece of self-serving puffery on the one hand and something which is more iniquitous or more insidious on the other. A further consideration that has been taken into account by the Government in coming down on the side of this repeal is that the defamation law exists and provides an effective avenue or potentially effective avenue for those with a cause of such action as a result of some peculiarly malicious or odious piece of false representation. It is not as if the political party in question or the candidate in question is left entirely naked and defenceless in that situation. There are opportunities for some forms of injunctive relief, even the law of defamation of which Senator Haines will be well aware, with her new found legal skills. In this respect, although it is acknowledged that it is a matter of balance and is not an absolutely clear cut choice to be made here, on balance we come down on the side of this repeal and I hope the Democrats will appreciate and accept it with all the grace they can muster when the democratic process takes its course, as seems likely in five minutes time in this chamber. The other Bill that is the subject of discussion here today is the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The nub of the attack on that Bill was confined to the proposal that for the purposes of voting in Australian elections, Christmas Island is to be taken as part of the Northern Territory. Some rather extravagant language employed by Senator Kilgariff might lead a reader of his contribution to think that the integration proposed with the Northern Territory is much more far reaching than that associated with the operation of the Electoral Act. That, of course, is not the case. The particular objection to the Northern Territory electorate being employed as the vehicle for allowing Christmas Island people to vote in Australia was much canvassed in the debate in the House of Representatives. The main arguments have all been repeated here today. The essential argument has been that Cocos before it and now Christmas have a great affinity with Western Australia; their transport and communication links are with that State. Many former Christmas Islanders as with Cocos Malays now live in that State. The point that has to be made, however, and made strongly-this is not merely a technical matter-is that the incorporation of a territory within the boundaries of a State for the purposes of voting would require a referendum to amend the Constitution. The only alternative, accordingly, to the use of the Northern Territory as the vehicle would be to include Christmas Island in the Canberra or Fraser electorates in the Australian Capital Territory. Whatever approach one adopts to this matter, it is clearly evident that the Australian Capital Territory electorates are much more inappropriate than ever the Northern Territory could be argued to be on the grounds of remoteness and lack of community of interest. The other points that can be made about the propriety of the association of Christmas and Cocos islands with the Northern Territory are that the Northern Territory has similar education, health, transport and communications problems as has Christmas Island; that the Northern Territory has a number of Chinese and Malays in its population, like Christmas Island; and that, at a more technical level but nonetheless significant from the point of view of the overall argument about the relationship, the Supreme Court judge for Christmas Island is a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The point that was pressed by Opposition speakers on this matter, however, went further than simply arguing about the inappropriateness of the link. It was more a question of an alleged lack of consultation with the Christmas Island people in order to determine their state of mind. The point needs to be made, however, and made very strongly, that inclusion of Christmas Island in the Northern Territory electorate is something that is well understood as a proposition by the people of Christmas Island and particularly by the Union of Christmas Island Workers, to which most adults on the island belong and which has been the main organisational vehicle through which these things have been discussed. I am advised that a great deal of discussion has taken place on this subject, as with all the other matters that are the subject of this legislation, between the island residents, the Minister and departmental officers, and the question of incorporation in the Northern Territory for voting purposes is simply not controversial among the Christmas Islanders. They recognise the force of many of the points that I have just made about the same sorts of problems existing in the respective locations and there is a very real sense in which they not only understand but also accept the desirability and good sense of this occurring. The further point that was made by Senator Kilgariff about the implications for the Northern Territory, in turn, of this integration for voting purposes was, I think, very extravagantly made. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has already written to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory saying that the placement of Christmas Island and, for that matter, Cocos Island, in the Northern Territory electorate will be reviewed should the constitutional position of the Northern Territory change in the future. Of course, the occasion of that change would be an appropriate occasion for any referendum that might need to be held to relocate the Christmas Islanders and Cocos Islanders in some other State constituency, should it become apparent that that is the proper course to follow. The difficulty about not putting them in the Northern Territory-rejecting simultaneously the idea that they should go into the Australian Capital Territory, which I do not think appeals to anyone-is that a referendum would be immediately demanded. Whatever one thinks of the processes of this place, it is highly unlikely that such a referendum could be geared up within the immediate future. The people of Christmas Island and Cocos Island would be very upset if they could not vote in the next Federal election because of a delay that would be caused through having to wait for some referendum process to take its course, quite apart from all the expenses that would be associated with the running of such a referendum. They are keen to participate-God knows why sometimes when I look around this chamber-in the Australian democratic process and that opportunity should not, with respect, be denied them. I am sure that one of the reasons why so much passion has been engendered on this topic on the other side of the chamber is that the Opposition has a pretty fair idea of how the Christmas Islanders are likely to vote in any forthcoming election that might be imagined. I can imagine why there should be alarm in particular at the prospect of their being incorporated in the Northern Territory constituency when I recall, as I hope some others in the chamber will do, that it was Mr Everingham after all who proposed not so long ago that Christmas Island be turned into a staging camp for refugees from South East Asia. In those circumstances, just before the forthcoming election might well be thought not the most impeccable occasion for the Christmas Islanders to be incorporated into the Northern Territory electorate. I can understand the passion that Senator Kilgariff and some others have felt on that topic, but it is a passion which is not well founded in any principle that can possibly be acknowledged in this place. I accordingly urge the Senate when we come to the second reading to accept this legislation in the form in which it is now before us and to reject the second reading amendment as proposed by the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Misleading or deceptive publications, &c). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.26) —by leave-I move: 1. Page 2, paragraph 5 (a), line 6, leave out ''sub-section (2)'', insert '' from sub-section (2) 'print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or' ''. 2. Page 2, paragraphs 5 (b) and (c), lines 7 to 11, leave out the paragraphs. Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1, which is a standard amendment relating to section 161 (2) of the Act. As I made clear in my speech during the second reading debate, we are seeking to delete the words 'print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or'. The case would then be that only the person who authorises the publication or distribution of an electoral advertisement which is untrue and deceptive would run into that prohibition. I rehearsed the reason for that partly in my speech during the second reading debate, but I refer to the majority report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. Paragraph 2.36 makes the following point: Legislative prescription of standards of political advertising is supported by the industry itself. In evidence Mr Patrick Auld, Executive Director, Media Council of Australia, told the Committee that . . . Progress reported. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I move: That the Senate authorises the President to provide a copy to all senators of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in the form in which that report is received by him from the Prime Minister. Mr Costigan has informed the Government that he will present his final report by the end of October. It will be a large report of several volumes and he is likely to recommend that only parts of it be made public. The relevant Commonwealth agencies-the Attorney-General's Department, the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police -will examine the report as a matter of urgency to ensure that what is published will not damage ongoing investigations or infringe civil liberties. This examination, which will be conducted in consultation with the Victorian Government, should take only a couple of days and the report, subject to such deletions as prove necessary, should be available for publication in the Victorian Parliament before it rises. The tabling of the report in Victoria does not of itself attract privilege outside that State. That depends on the relevant laws in each State. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we propose to put the matter beyond doubt in the Australian Capital Territory by making an ordinance to make it clear that privilege attaches to the report, as tabled in the Victorian Parliament, in the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, the motion I am moving today and the parallel motion being moved in the House of Representatives ensures that the report will be available to all senators and members and demonstrates the Government's determination that it be made public as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.30) —I take this opportunity to ask a question of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who represents the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), of which I have given the Attorney due notice. I ask whether the Minister can clarify a direction given to candidates in a booklet, Candidates Handbook, at page 25, under the section headed 'Display of posters and slogans', which paraphrased briefly, states: No one shall write or draw or depict any electoral matter directly on any road, footpath, building, vehicle, vessel, hoarding or any other place, whether it is a public place or not and whether it is on land or water or in the air. The next paragraph states: However, the above prohibition does not apply to all signs. Signs are permissible on or at the office or committee room of a candidate or political party, indicating that it is the office or committee room of the candidate or party, and specifying the name of the candidate or party. I ask whether this effectively means that the traditional billboard advertising promotion election material is no longer permissible under the Act as revised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.32) —Senator Watson has raised a question on which he has been endeavouring to get clarification in the Parliament for a number of days. I think it is a matter of interest to all honourable senators and members to get an understanding of it. It relates to section 334 of the renumbered and revised Electoral Act, which is a simplified version of the old section 164B which has been in force since 1946. The provision, which is summarised in the Candidates Handbook, deals with writing, drawing and depicting, not depositing, as the language in the summary would have it. I think that has created quite a lot of misleading reaction. It is the case, on my reading of the section, and certainly on the advice that the Attorney- General's Department has previously given, that what the new section 334 is about is really graffiti and defacement of public places rather than simply sticking up posters or signs in windows or other public locations. It should be noted that the old provisions restricted posters that could be publicly displayed to those which were smaller than 1,200 square inches-30 inches by 40 inches. Those provisions have been repealed. That makes it even more clear, when one looks at the provisions in its context, that the normal campaign posters and advertisements are not subject to restriction by this section of the Electoral Act, but, to the extent that they are regulated at all, they are simply left to State and local government regulations like other posters. To make the position clear for all honourable senators and members the Australian Electoral Commission is, I understand, proposing to release a fuller summary of this provision. I now read into the record the revised language of this provision as it affects prohibited signs and slogans. On page 25 it states: Section currently headed 'Display of posters and slogans' should read as follows: Prohibited signs and slogans No one shall write or draw or depict any electoral matter directly on any road, footpath, building, vehicle, vessel, hoarding or any other place, whether it is a public place or not and whether it is on land or water or in the air. Penalty: $1000 (CEA s.334) However, the above prohibition does not apply to all signs. Signs are permissible on or at the office or committee room of a candidate or political party, indicating that it is the office or committee room of the candidate or party, and specifying the name of the candidate or party. That is to be found in section 334 of the Act. In addition, it states: Normal campaign posters may be displayed subject to State and Local Government regulations. I hope that that clarifies the position for the honourable senator. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I rise in defence of my colleague the honourable member for Bass, the Hon. Kevin Newman, against a most scurrilous attack on his integrity by the honourable member for Hunter, Mr Robert Brown, in the House of Representatives yesterday in the debate on the Telecommunications ( Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. In that debate Mr Brown said: . . . that Minister Newman in the Fraser Government contributed towards, encouraged and authorised the corruption of a member of the New South Wales Police Force by the Australian Federal Police for which he was responsible. That is a most scurrilous statement. It is obvious that the honourable member for Hunter, Mr Robert Brown, has reverted to a traditional defence of the New South Wales Labor Party. The honourable member for Hunter, like the Premier of New South Wales, is seeking to inflict harsh penalties on honest policemen who were concerned to move against criminals in New South Wales. He is not concerned to do anything constructive whatsoever about the criminality and criminal actions that were revealed in the Age tapes. It should be noted that a number of important figures, including Mr Briese, have vouched for the authenticity of those tapes. But what concerns me is that Mr Brown chose to wait until the former Minister in charge of the Federal Police in the Fraser Government, the Hon. Kevin Newman, was out of Australia and had no opportunity-because of his retirement and the rising of the House of Representatives -to defend himself in that chamber. So I have chosen to raise this matter tonight because I think it is unfortunate that Mr Brown launched such a bitter attack on Kevin Newman. I think it speaks volumes for the ethical standards and desperate actions particularly of the New South Wales Labor Party as it approaches this forthcoming and premature election . The Hon. Kevin Newman is indeed an honourable member who maintains high standards. I believe that Mr Brown's actions were quite irresponsible speculation and nothing more than that. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.38) —I support what Senator Watson has just said. I believe that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) should either put up or shut up. He should publicly apologise if he does not have anything better to support his allegations than that which he has displayed so far. But that is not what I rose to talk about tonight. I rose to talk about the letter I received, dated 30 September 1984, from the Acting Treasurer, Mr Chris Hurford, which states: On 9 November 1983, during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) . . . and again on 16 November- the letter refers to a Senate Hansard- you asked the Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate . . . a number of questions relating to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. You also wrote to the Treasurer concerning this on 28 March 1984. In other words, I have been seeking information for some time in relation to the operation of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. I received a reply from the Minister on 30 September 1984. The Acting Treasurer does say: I regret the delay in responding to your enquiries. I shall seek leave in a moment to incorporate in Hansard the whole of that letter. I briefly draw attention to the fact that I still do not understand, notwithstanding the matters set out in the letter, why the Primary Industry Bank of Australia has to charge somewhere between 0.75 per cent and 1.5 per cent more than the prevailing rates for mortgage moneys for similar types of loans other than those which apply simply because there is an element of longer term loan. If it was a longer term fixed interest loan, one would be able to say that there was some justification, because quite obviously one would have to be an extremely adventurous banker to lend money for a long period at a fixed interest rate. Where the interest rate is adjusted according to market rates applying at the time, I do not understand why PIBA is entitled, and believes itself to be entitled, to charge an extra and significant fee to the farmers of Australia because the loans are slightly longer term than might otherwise be in most of the normal commercial areas. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the answer received from the then Acting Treasurer dated 30 September 1984, a document I have shown to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and which I believe to be suitable for incorporation in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Acting Treasurer Parliament House Canberra 2600 30 September 1984 Senator P. E. RaeParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600 Dear Senator Peter Rae On 9 November 1983, during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84, (Senate Hansard pages 2417 and 2418), and again on 16 November, 1983 (Hansard page 2653) you asked the Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate (Senator Walsh) a number of questions relating to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. You also wrote to the Treasurer concerning this on 28 March, 1984. I regret the delay in responding to your enquiries. The Treasurer has asked me to provide the following information in response to the matters you raised: (i) Is it the policy of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia (PIBA) that approximately ten per cent of its total investible funds be invested in short- term securities of various forms as opposed to investment in primary industry? In asking this question reference was made to the level of loans to authorised dealers ($14.27 million) and bills of exchange etc ($50.72 million) as detailed in the Primary Industry Bank's balance sheet as at 30 June 1983. It is, of course standard and prudent banking practice for banks to maintain an appropriate level of liquid funds to meet contingencies. Funds held overnight by the Bank with authorised dealers are to meet settlement of exchanges. The category ''Bills of exchange and other short term investments'' represented funds held by PIBA to cover (a) long-term loans to the primary sector, amounting to some $39 million as at 30 June 1983, which had been approved but not drawn down; and (b) deposit liabilities maturing in the short term. It should be noted that the actual timing of loan draw-downs rests primarily with agricultural end- borrowers and, once having approved a loan, the Bank must stand ready to provide the relevant funds. (ii) Is it not a fact that the most expensive first-mortgage money a farmer can borrow in Australia to day is through PIBA-PIBA rates have been to, I think, 17. 5 per cent per annum, certainly 17.25 per cent per annum, in the past six months -and, if PIBA money is the most expensive, is it not failing in the primary purpose for which it was established? The bank was formed for the specific purpose of providing a long-term finance facility for primary producers in Australia. The terms of PIBA loans range from 8 to 30 years. Because of the long-term nature of PIBA's loans it is appropriate that the Bank 's interest rates carry a margin relative to short-term overdraft facilities provided by trading banks. The bank's interest rates are regularly reviewed in the light of market factors. The end-borrower rate for large loans (ie $100,000 and over) is adjusted broadly in line with movements in major trading bank large overdrafts and the end-borrower rate on smaller loans (ie up to $100,000) has been adjusted to accord with movements in major trading bank small farm development loan interest rates. For interest, reflecting the general downward movement in interest rates in the last half of 1983, the bank reduced its lending rates on several occasions. In the first half of 1984, there was an upward adjustment in PIBA lending rates in line with the general increase in interest rates. PIBA lending rates have since eased in line with more recent market trends. Maximum end-borrower interest rates in early September were 15.25 per cent per annum for loans of $100,000 and above, and 14.5 per cent per annum for loans up to $100,000. Interest rates charged by the major trading banks for loans of $100 ,000 and above for 'prime' borrowers, in the same period, were 13.75 per cent per annum, with higher rates being charged in other cases. Interest rates charged by the major trading banks on loan of up to $100,000 in early September were up to 14.5 per cent per annum. In summary, the bank's lending interest rates have traditionally been close to those applying to farm development loans provided by the major trading banks and are regarded as being favourable, having regard to the longer-term commitment of the loan. Your suggestion that there is a particularly large margin between PIBA's borrowing and lending rates is not correct. PIBA obtains the bulk of its funding needs at commercial rates and, as already noted, its lending rates are regarded as being favourable when compared to rates charged by the major trading banks on farm development loans. (iii) Why are PIBA rates so high when a large proportion of the borrowings, including Commonwealth deposits (at 10.2 per cent per annum) and Eurodollar certificates of deposit, are at a very much lower rate than PIBA loan rates, and yet the profit declared for the year ended 30 June 1983 is a very modest one? The outstanding balance of Commonwealth loans to PIBA-the present mechanism for providing Commonwealth assistance to the bank-has been reduced, by scheduled repayments by the bank, from a total of $101 million to approximately $59 million at the present time. Although the interest rate on these loans is concessional when compared with market levels, the loans represent only a small proportion of PIBA's total liabilities of over $800 million. The cost of PIBA's other borrowings varies to reflect commercial rates. For example, in 1983-84 interest costs on domestic public borrowings ranged from 11. 8 per cent to 14.25 per cent, depending on maturity. Interest rates on overseas borrowings in 1983-84 were effected at broadly similar levels. In early September the interest rates on public deposits with PIBA ranged from 11 per cent for a 6 months maturity to 12 per cent for a 4 year maturity. The relationship between borrowing costs, lending interest rates and profitability is reasonable compared with other banks. PIBA's ability to tap domestic and international markets at competitive rates supports this judgement. (iv) What are the details concerning PIBA's A$40 million offshore bond issue launched on 10 October 1983? In particular, what is the rate of interest, is it variable rate interest, and does it have a currency hedge? This was a 5 year bond issue at par, carrying a coupon interest rate of 13.625 per cent per annum. The lead manager of the issue was Oirion Royal Bank Limited, of London, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Canada. The issue was listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. A currency hedge was not, of course, required in this instance because the issue was denominated in Australia dollars . It is the bank's policy that the total all-up cost (including hedging etc) of overseas borrowings should not exceed the cost of a comparable domestic borrowing. I am sending a copy of this letter to Senator Walsh for his information. Yours sincerely CHRIS HURFORD Senator GARETH EVANS(Victorian-Attorney-General)(6.40) —I have noted the remarks of Senator Watson, and I will draw the remarks of Senator Peter Rae to the attention of the relevant Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.41 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 October 1984. The following papers were presented: Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No.47-Reserve Allowance. No. 48-Attendance Allowance. No. 49-Operation Anon Allowance. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial determination authorised under Section 106AA. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1110) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Transport, following the recommendation contained in the House of Representative's Standing Committee on Expenditure's report on lighthouses, dated December 1983, that the Minister establish a referral committee, to include the Australian Lighthouse Association, which would explore alternatives for continued manning at lighthouses which are to be automated, advise if the Committee has been established; if so, who are the members; and if not, why not. (2) Has the Minister or the Department of Transport consulted with the Australian Lighthouse Association since the Standing Committee on Expenditure issued its report. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. It would be inappropriate for me to act on any of the recommendations in this report before the Government's decisions relating to the report are announced. (2) No. Senator Gareth Evans —On 2 October 1984 (Hansard, page 1015) Senator Walters asked me the following question, without notice: I refer the Attorney-General to a report in the Age newspaper of last Wednesday headed 'Companies crime cartel' which reveals that a special police squad's investigation has uncovered a network of about 40 companies allegedly involved in drug importation and distribution, large scale fraud and disposal of stolen property. I ask: Is it true that the group of companies has been or is under investigation by Commonwealth instrumentalities including the Australian Federal Police, Customs, the Department of Taxation and the Trade Practices Commission? Is it a fact that, as claimed in the Age report, distrust or jealousies between agencies has hampered the investigations? What action is the Minister, as Attorney-General, taking to resolve the reported conflicts and jealousies and to expedite the investigation? Finally, is it true that this report by the New South Wales Bureau of Criminal Intelligence corroborates material in the Age tapes and transcripts about which the Attorney has been so dismissive for the past eight months? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question insofar as it relates to the activities of the Australian Federal Police: Firstly, individuals and companies mentioned in the Age article have been investigated from time to time by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). However, the AFP is not investigating the people or organisations as a cartel or confederation. In regard to this allegation that distrust or jealousies between agencies has hampered the investigation, I am advised by the AFP that it has not experienced such distrust, jealousies or lack of co-operation by other agencies in the course of those investigations. The AFP has co-operated fully with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) during the course of those investigations, and also in regard to the exchange of intelligence. Likewise, the ABCI has co-operated fully with the AFP. The honourable senator will appreciate from the article in the Age that the Shelly report was compiled by a member of the New South Wales Police Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and is thus unrelated to the operations conducted in the past by the AFP. It is therefore not possible to comment on whether the report by the New South Wales Police Bureau of Criminal Intelligence corroborates material in the Age tapes. (Question No. 1071) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employment in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Word processors and Data processors 512 Stenographers 61 Typists 969 Total staff 1542 (2) 241. (Question No. 1108) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) Has the Government established a target real rate of return for the operation of the Australian National Line; if so, what is the rate, and how is it calculated. (2) If such a rate had or has existed for the past years what was the rate in each of those years. (3) If no steps have been taken to set a real rate of return then why not. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) No such rate was established for the past years. (3) Under Section 29 (1) of the Australian Shipping Commission (ASC) Act 1956, the Commission has to determine a financial target for the ensuing financial year. The financial target may be a specified profit, neither a profit nor a loss, or a specified loss. The Minister, under Section 29 (2) of the Act, may determine a different financial target. The requirement for the Commission to establish its financial target was inserted in the ASC Act by the ASC Amendment Act 1983, which had bipartisan support. (Question No. 1096) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Has a patent been granted to Adelaide Orchids Pty Ltd for the invention of 'Cymbidium Orchid cultivar', an ornamental orchid (Application No. 70089/81); if so, on what date was this patent granted. (2) Have: (a) any other patents been granted for plant life-forms; or (b) any other applications for patents of plant life-forms not been rejected yet. (3) What is the name of the applicant, the title of the invention and the application number of any such patents and patent applications. (4) Is plant variety rights legislation necessary in order for plants to be patented. (5) Is the granting of applications such as the one by Adelaide Orchids Pty Ltd likely to continue, irrespective of whether the Parliament passes plant variety rights legislation to validate such patenting. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The patent, No. 532235, was granted on 1 March 1984 with effect from 22 November 1983. (2) (a) No. (b) Yes. (3) Pending applications for a patent covering a plant are: (i) Michigan State University, Apple Rootstock tree 68799/81 (ii) Wadewitz Pty Ltd, Indoor Plant 73657/81 (iii) Bowker, J. K. Avocado Tree 80221/82 (iv) A. J. Newport and Co. Pty Ltd Exacum Affine Pot Plant 24652/84* (v) Meilland et Cie Miniature Rose Plant 25984/84* (vi) University of Tasmania Chrysanthemum Plant 30741/84* (vii) National Research Development Corporation Mushroom mutant strain 30936/84 * (The applications marked * are not yet open to public inspection.) (4) New plant varieties can be patented if they satisfy the requirements of the Patents Act. The likelihood of this is probably small in many cases since the Patents Act requires an inventive step and disclosure of a repeatable method of arriving at the new variety from available starting stock. Plant variety rights legislation in most countries avoids these difficulties so as to be better tailored to the plant breeding industry. (5) The granting of patents for new plants under the Patents Act is likely to continue until such time as the legislation is amended or a court holds that plants are not entitled to protection under the Patents Act. The potential overlap between patents and plant variety rights has been recognised. I refer the honourable member to page 74 of the report of this House's Standing Committee on National Resources titled 'Plant Variety Rights'. The question of what measures, if any, would be taken in regard to dual protection should plant varieties rights legislation be proceeded with has not been resolved.