Friday, 19 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 Senators Kilgariff (from 29 citizens) and Walters (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissions 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 Robert Ray (from 38 citizens) and Walters (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That 1. We are Australians who support nuclear disarmament. 2. The world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II. This ultimate catastrophe can and must be avoided by ordinary people raising their voices and taking action against the threat of nuclear destruction. 3. We identify with the massive worldwide movement for a nuclear-free future- for a 'freeze' on all nuclear weapons testing, production and deployment, as an immediate first step towards complete disarmament. 4. Australians are not remote from nuclear danger-we are very much involved and threatened. 5. We can contribute to the growing global movement for a peaceful world by opposing Australian involvement in activities and strategies likely to lead to a nuclear holocaust. To achieve this, we call on the Australian Government to: Support actively the United Nations' World Disarmament Campaign and to commit itself never to introduce, or allow to be introduced, nuclear weapons into Australia. Undertake not to update or expand existing nuclear related foreign military installations on Australian territory nor permit the establishment of any new ones. Remove all nuclear related military installations since these contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks and are likely targets in case of war. End all port-of-call and landing rights arrangements granted to foreign nuclear forces, including nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels and aircraft. Support the establishment of nuclear-free zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including the banning of all nuclear testing and waste dumping. End the mining and export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 247 citizens), Jack Evans (from 257 citizens), Macklin ( from 247 citizens) and Mason (from 1,273 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 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 moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That-the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 79 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: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we who use the Hanover Centre, highly value and need the services it provides in its present location and would suffer considerable hardship should it be forced to close or move. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that the Hanover Centre should remain open in the Carlton Area, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supercede 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 Senators Robertson (from 70 citizens) and Walters (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, ( e.g. x-rated videos), and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Enquiry into the Effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 108 citizens) and Macklin (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 199 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of us, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully shows that we do most vigorously protest and deplore the introduction and availability of 'X' rated pornography, including 'X' rated video cassettes in Australia. We also most strongly oppose all forms of 'R' rated pornography. In addition, we dispute the statement attributed to the Federal Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the great majority of adult Australians do not object to hard core, erotic pornography, and we reject his claim that it is the direct responsibility of parents to control their children's access to it. We, the electors, respectfully beseech you, our elected representatives, to protect our society, especially children, and beg that adequate laws be enacted and enforced to make illegal importation, production, possession or distribution of both hard-core and soft-core pornography in any form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'Upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E ); and will: 'Oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear .... and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E.34); 'Attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E.35c); and 'Oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's ''Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984,'' A BILL FOR An Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a: ''NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE'' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 170 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace supports: 1. A move towards unity, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to the immediate bilateral freeze of the development of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace- keeping force. 2. The establishment of a Ministry for Peace to focus our energies towards non- violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any one polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide. 3. The establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry for Peace. Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 503 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Miles Laboratories Australia Pty. Ltd. located in the State of Victoria, respectfully showeth: That the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products, developed by research-based companies; Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for the continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research- based companies which are product originators. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from a petitioning corporation). Petitions received. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate declares that where the Senate, or a committee of the Senate which is empowered to do so, meets following a dissolution of the House of Representatives and prior to the next meeting of that House, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, of its members and of its committees, as provided by section 49 of the Constitution, are in force in respect of such meeting and all proceedings thereof. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, in the event that the President receives the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the Senate on 11 October 1984: (a) The report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of this report is authorised by this resolution; (c) the President may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) the President shall lay the report on the table at the next sitting of the Senate, (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Government to establish an inquiry into the decreasing cattle herd numbers throughout Australia with particular reference to the ongoing desecration of the genetic herd which has been bred to suit northern Australian conditions; and (b) calls upon the Federal Government to provide adequate finance to those property owners who have been forced to destock as a part of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, to ensure that herd levels are restored to a viable level nationally. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this Senate- (a) notes that the Australian community- (i) in March 1983 was faced with record unemployment, high interest rates, negative economic growth and stagnant business activity; and (ii) in October 1984 is now optimistically facing increased job creation, lower housing interest rates, economic growth of 10 per cent and restored business activity; and (b) congratulates the Government on its outstanding achievement in economic management. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Federal Government stands condemned- (a) for its absolute arrogance in its failure to hand over dam compensation money belonging to the Tasmanian people; (b) for its refusal to fund those development projects nominated by the Tasmanian Government and seen as important to the employment, business and social requirements of Tasmania; and (c) for its proposals to divert Tasmania's funds to projects not given priority by Tasmania for its own electioneering purposes when those projects should have been funded by the Federal Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for grossly abusing the freedom of information legislation by means of politically motivated selective refusal of requested information on pre-Budget information given by the Government to the Australian Council of Trade Unions only. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of sitting of the Senate for the week commencing Monday, 22 October 1984, be- (a) Monday, 22 October 1984- 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (b) Tuesday, 23 October 1984- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (c) Wednesday, 24 October 1984- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m., and the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10 .30 p.m. on this day; and (d) Thursday, 25 October 1984- 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. (2) On Tuesday, 23 October 1984, the routine of business be as follows- (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business; (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business; (e) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper; (f) At 2 p.m., Questions; (g) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64; (h) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; and (i) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Sibraa) agreed to: That the Senate congratulates Bishop Desmond Tutu on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and assures him of the Senate's support in his fight against the evils of apartheid. Motion (by Senator Foreman)-by leave-proposed: That leave be granted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works to meet during the sittings of the Senate during the week commencing 22 October 1984. Senator Harradine-Mr President, I just hope that my silence is not taken to indicate my consent to this motion. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.13) —As I understand it, the Opposition has agreed to the proposal because of the exceptional circumstances which exist as a result of the extended sitting of the Senate to deal with the very large amount of business which is before it and the need for the Joint Committee on Public Works to be able to continue to carry out its important functions. It is an exceptional case and is not to be regarded as being in the nature of the norm or as a precedent for Senate committees meeting while the Senate is sitting in future. It is on that basis, as I understand it, that the proposal has been agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.14) —Honourable senators will recall that prior to the adjournment last night I was indulging myself and providing some riveting listening. I was referring to the Biological Control Bill. In the short time I have remaining to me I shall move as quickly as I can to the various and obvious arguments in support of this Bill, which arises from the-- Senator Haines —There are no arguments in support of this Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I suspect that there are. The Biological Control Bill was originally the result of the problems of Paterson's curse, echium plantaginium or salvation Jane, depending on whether one wishes to express its values or virtues, or its detrimental qualities-depending on what it means to one's State. Management programs and herbicides have not proved completely effective in controlling Paterson's curse and, moreover, are extremely costly. During 1983-84 in Western Australia the State Government contract work for the control of Paterson's curse cost $58,860 in labour alone. That takes no account of the cost to individual farmers who did their own spraying, or the cost of the herbicides and equipment. The Victorian committee estimated that the cost to the State Government of controlling the weed in Victoria was $357,000 in 1977-78. In addition, it conservatively estimated that the cost of control measures to farmers in north-eastern Victoria was in excess of $1m a year. In addition, the repeated application of the herbicide 2,4-D removes all legumes, thereby reducing the value of the pasture and the nitrogen level in the soil. In hilly areas, repeated application of herbicides removes a lot of other vegetation and increases, of course, the problems of soil erosion. The presence of Paterson's curse in pasture land can also prove detrimental to the hay industry because of the dangers of spreading the plant through seeds, and the decreased palatability of hay containing woody Paterson's curse stems. The Victorian committee also noted that some farmers could be seriously disadvantaged because the presence of Paterson's curse on their land meant that they could not necessarily carry out contract work with their machinery on uninfested farms because of the danger of spreading the plant, and the disease. The conclusion of the Victorian Committee, taking into account all of these factors, was that biological agents should be released to control Paterson's curse providing there was no evidence of possible damage to other species of importance. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, as the Senate may know, had started the search for a suitable control agent in 1973, and by 1978 was in a position to start a biological programe for the control of Paterson's curse, and was given the go-ahead by the Australian Agricultural Council in 1979. However, the program was thwarted by the actions of two apiarists and two graziers-I suspect they were both from South Australia-who succeeded in having an injunction imposed to prevent the CSIRO releasing control agents. Senator Haines —A good thing, too. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senator thinks it is a good thing. I think this Bill will have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of graziers and farmers in Australia. Dr Max Whitten, Chief of the CSIRO Division of Entomology, has described how the CSIRO was to defend its position in the Supreme Court of South Australia in May 1982, and was told by the judge that a defence on the grounds of community interest would not succeed because the common law rights of individuals were such that he-Judge Zelling-would not grant a lifting of the injunction. The CSIRO then tried to establish an inquiry, with the intention that its role would be to provide information and advice to help determine whether biological control of Paterson's curse would be in the public interest. However, no agreement could be reached in determining the terms of the inquiry, and the CSIRO remained subject to a permanent injunction, on the understanding that legislation would be eventually put in place which would enable the CSIRO to have that injunction lifted. On the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, a working party was established, comprising members of State agriculture and primary industry departments, to consider a suitable form of legislation. Its report by and large forms the basis of the Bill which is now before the Senate. The Biological Control Bill applies to the Australian Capital Territory and Australian external territories. Complementary State legislation is being prepared to cover the whole of Australia. This form of legislation was recommended by the working party for three primary and obvious reasons: Firstly, a national approach to biological control in Australia is essential; secondly, Queensland would not agree to a single piece of Commonwealth legislation, in other words, legislation that superimposed itself in the States; and thirdly, legislation in the present form would minimise the possibility of a successful constitutional challenge. The Bill establishes a Commonwealth Biological Control Authority which will be responsible for advertising proposals for biological control programs, and considering submissions which are made in relation to them. The Authority will have the power to order an inquiry into the proposed biological control program. Provided the Authority is satisified that the release of a controlling agent and the control of a particular plant or animal will not cause significant harm to persons or the environment, or the harm that is caused is less than would result from not controlling the particular plant or insect, the program may be instituted. The Bill clearly states that no legal proceedings can be instituted which would prevent the release of controlling organisms, and also contains a clause which overrides current injunctions preventing biological control programs which may now proceed according to the provisions set out in this Bill. This will, of course, prevent a recurrence of the Paterson's curse situation, which, as I say, is the reason that this Bill was brought before us. Amendments to the Bill allow provision for damages to be claimed where the release of a controlling agent caused damage, and this effect was known before its release but not taken into account when making the decision to allow the release of the agent or where the state of scientific knowledge in Australia was such that these effects could have been foreseen. Dr Max Whitten, in his speech to the seminar on biological control earlier this year, remarked that proving the public interest question could be difficult and involve the production of impact studies, economic studies and social studies. An article in the British journal New Scientist of January 1981 examined the question of the cost-effectiveness of biological control programs. The article pointed out: The cost of using sprays on enormous areas of land producing relatively low yields is often prohibitive . . . However, the search for suitable insects and diseases is costly . . . to justify such projects in money terms has not proved easy The New Scientist went on to comment on the joint Industries Assistance Commission- CSIRO benefit-cost study of the CSIRO Division of Entomology, which looked at 12 pest management projects. Five of these 12 projects failed to cover their costs and the New Scientist concluded that: A detailed economic analysis of the likely financial benefits early on may well help the scientists to avoid backing the wrong horse. Of course, cost-benefit analysis does have limitations, notably in attaching financial values to non-monetary benefits. But I would make the point that the requirement to prove the community interest value of a biological control program to an inquiry, where this is called for, may well encourage beneficial examination of these sorts of questions. The Bill also makes provision for emergency declarations of biological control programs. This is to enable the release of biological control agents in situations where speedy control of certain plants or insects is thought to be essential to prevent significant damage to humans, animals, the environment or the economy. All existing biological programs are automatically authorised under the terms of this Bill although any new developments in any of these programs must be subject to the Bill's provisions. Turning now to the more general question of biological control, it should be remembered that biological control programs are particularly suitable for Australia because many of our weeds and pests are imported and gained a strong foothold here because of the absence of traditional predators. Furthermore, as I have already noted, control programs relying on pesticides and herbicides are extremely expensive because of the large areas and low yields involved. The establishment of a procedure which will enable authorisation of biological control programs, while giving maximum opportunity for discussion and comment by interested parties is absolutely necessary. The impasse which arose in the case of Paterson's curse illustrates the dangers of the absence of such a mechanism. Additionally, there is the possibility that someone may take matters into his own hands and, finding no legal means to release a controlling agent, do so illegally with unforeseen consequences. Blackberry rust is usually mentioned in this context. While there is no proof that the rust was illegally introduced, Dr Whitten very succinctly made the point: If the initial introduction was legal, it was an act of God or something, then one of his angels quickly recognised the opportunity and spread it. This Biological Control Bill may seem a small matter but will, I believe, be of tremendous benefit to the farming community, both because it will, I hope, enable steps to be taken to control Paterson's curse and because it will facilitate the orderly progress of future biological control programs. For this reason I have pleasure in supporting this Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.24) —I thank all honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. As Senator Crichton- Browne so clearly outlined in his speech, this is an important piece of legislation which should be supported by all right-minded, right-thinking and progressive people. The only opposition to the Bill in this place comes from that small group of conservatives in the Australian Democrats who, for some reason, wish to preserve Paterson's curse. I suppose that Senator Haines would rather refer to it as salvation Jane. The legislation is to establish a system whereby we can introduce biological control in this country with ease, at the same time protecting the country and those who need it. The Government opposes the amendments which will be moved by Senator Macklin. The Bill, despite the beliefs of Senator Macklin and others, is not to deal only with Paterson's curse. Had this been the intention it could have been achieved without providing for extensive public comment and review for all biochemical proposals to be submitted in the future. The Bill does not authorise the biological control of Paterson's curse. It provides for public inquiry to assess whether this should be the case. Speculation or assertions as to the outcome of the inquiry merely expose the prejudices of people who make those speculations. The Bill does not override the existing injunction. Clauses 36 and 37, which the Australian Democrats seek to amend in amendments Nos 1 to 5, merely ensure that the purpose of the Bill is to replace the injunction process with an administrative process in the future. We want this to be fulfilled as, I believe, every sensible person does. Senator Macklin —Nos 1 to 5? Senator GRIMES —If Senator Macklin and his colleagues would forget about Paterson's curse for a moment- Senator Macklin —It is not Nos 1 to 5; it is Nos 10 to 15. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry if I have the wrong numbers, but if Senator Macklin and his colleagues forget about Paterson's curse for a moment and look to the future, which is what we are all about, they will see that these clauses simply prevent legal actions or last minute court orders from effectively blocking an approved biological control program. The Democrats should also note that the injunction does not concern itself with whether Paterson's curse should be subject to biological control. The national spokesperson for the Coalition for Jane, the pro-Paterson's curse group, has consistently stated that the matter can be settled by public inquiry. The Bill provides for such inquiry and enables any subsequent decision to be legally meaningful. The Bill is the result of a lot of thought and consultation. It has, as Senator Crichton-Browne said, general support in the community except from that small group of conservatives opposite. Senator Crichton-Browne —Including the Australian Agricultural Council. Senator GRIMES —It has the support of the Australian Agricultural Council. I do not know why Senator Macklin is taking this attitude to this very important piece of legislation. Whether he is after the basket weaving barefoot vote, I do not know. But I thank honourable senators for their support and announce that we will oppose the amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.28) —I have circulated a whole series of amendments and, with the leave of the Senate, I propose to move them in the following blocks: 1; 2; 3, 4, 5 and 6; 7, 9 and 17; 8 and 15; 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; 16; and 18 and 19. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —I move: 1. Page 2, sub-clause 2 (1), definition of 'Council', line 12, leave out ' Agricultural', insert 'Environment'. At the moment the overarching body dealing with this matter is the Australian Agricultural Council which is made up of agriculture Ministers from each State. The proposal is that essentially the width of problems to be dealt with is not only of concern to agriculture and it would therefore seem that the Australian Environment Council-a body made up of the environment Ministers from each State and the Commonwealth-would be the more appropriate body to use. At present that Council has very good environmentalists on it, for example, the Premier of Queensland. So I do not think that it would necessarily be seen as a radical group or what the Minister referred to as thongs and brown rice. The proposal illustrates the width of the problems that have been raised even in the second reading debate speeches of so many honourable senators here, such that it may be better to look at the environment as a whole rather than simply one element, that is, agriculture. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.31) —The Government does not accept the amendment. In the view of the Government the proper vehicle for this Bill is the Australian Agricultural Council and not the Australian Environment Council. The vast majority of weeds and pests are of agricultural significance. Environmental agencies in the Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory have been consulted during the preparation of the Bill. There was never any suggestion that they should be responsible for it. We see no purpose in such a change. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.32) -I indicate opposition to the amendment. I believe that the Australian Agricultural Council is the appropriate body to deal with the question of control of this particular plant pest. There is no shadow of doubt that so- called salvation Jane has a very distinct throttling capacity. What she throttles is the capacity of the land to produce agricultural commodities. I believe it is also somewhat improper and unrealistic to assume, as this amendment assumes, that people involved in agriculture in this country have no concern for, or capacity to be involved in, the environment. It is the very area in which they operate. I can only say that I believe it is inappropriate to change control from an agricultural concern to an environmental concern because, amongst other things, agriculture has a very great concern for the environment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.33) —The last remarks made by Senator Scott are entirely inappropriate. The proposition I was putting is that the Australian Environment Council covers wider areas than the Australian Agricultural Council, not that it covers areas which are not included by the Agricultural Council or that areas of concern to agriculture are not also of concern to the environment. We are talking about biological control. Quite frankly, the biological agents do not stop at the borders of any town or city. We are talking about something which covers the entire environment. If honourable senators are interested, the largest amounts of money spent on, for example, horticulture are spent by people who live in cities. Anybody having a look at the types of economies should have a look at the horticultural business in relation to gardens in cities, which could be affected. When we talk about biological agents, we are not simply talking about agriculture; we are talking about agriculture and other areas. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.35) —I move: 2. Page 5, after paragraph 9 (c) insert the following new paragraph: ' (d) provides for an inquiry procedure similar in form to that contained in Part VII of this Act'. This amendment relates to the public interest clause. We believe that that public interest clause ought to be inserted into the clause dealing with relevant State laws. As clause 9 now stands it states: Where a law of a State- (a) provides for the control by biological means of organisms causing harm in the State; (b) establishes an authority having similar powers and functions to those of the Authority; and (c) contains provisions by virtue of which the authority so established . . . the Authority may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare that law to be a relevant State law for the purposes of this Act. We believe that provisions for the involvement of the public ought also to be included in that, so that they are included in the relevant State law. As the clause stands, the public do not have to be involved. It is not important under this law that they be involved in the relevant State law because it has not been set down in the Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.37) —There is no need to amend clause 9 in this way, and there would be no purpose in doing so. The complementary State and Northern Territory legislation will reflect the Commonwealth's Biological Control Bill in all respects, including the provision of a public inquiry. The Bill will be accompanied by a formal agreement, which has been drawn up but not yet signed, that prevents amendments being made without the unanimous consent of all parties. That is the protection in the legislation. We believe an amendment of this type is unnecessary; therefore, we oppose the amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.38) —I move: 3. Page 7, paragraph 16 (2) (a), line 14, leave out 'if reasons have been given by the Council for not recommending', insert 'give reasons why the Council did not recommend'. 4. Page 7, paragraph 16 (2) (a), lines 15 and 16, leave out '-set out those reasons'. 5. Page 11, paragraph 25 (2) (a), line 14, leave out 'if reasons have been given by the Council for not recommending', insert 'give reasons why the Council did not recommend'. 6. Page 11, paragraph 25 (2) (a), lines 15 and 16, leave out '-set out those reasons'. Amendments 4, 5 and 6 are consequent upon amendment 3. We believe it is important, in the situation we are talking about, that reasons be given. I am seeking to leave out the words 'if reasons have been given' and to insert instead 'give reasons why the Council did not recommend'. I think the importance of actually drafting it in that way-this is one of the first examples of sloppy drafting that one can see throughout this Bill, which has been thrown together- is that the ongoing nature of the biological control which is required under this Bill cannot be done effectively by the public if they do not know the reasons the Australian Agricultural Council uses in making its decisions, even where the Council may not recommend. That is an important element. If, for example, one wishes to look at a case in the following year for the year after, or even a case relating to a similar biological agent or organism, and if the Government is genuine in seeking the participation of the public, of individuals and of small business in this operation, it ought to be requiring the Council to give reasons. I remind the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) that one of the reasons the Bill came up-the problem a lot of people have been discussing-is salvation Jane. Individuals in small business do not have a great deal of resources. They are not capable of engaging in the massive legal operations that large companies undertake. They would have to band together, as did the apiarists in South Australia, to fight these matters. By and large, because individuals-be they in business, in universities or in colleges of advanced education-have an interest in this matter the reasons that are given at the various stages ought to be given publicly. It should not be good enough to say 'if the Council gives reasons'; the Council should have to give reasons for not recommending, as it does for recommending. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.40) —We believe that these amendments also are unnecessary. The Australian Agricultural Council or any other body interested in biological control will never reject serious applications for biological control without giving reasons, nor would it get away with such a procedure. Senator Macklin —Why would you oppose it? Senator GRIMES —The proposed amendment would oblige the Council to provide reasons for rejecting all applications, including frivolous ones-there will be plenty of those-and we think that would be an unnecessary burden. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.41) —That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes)-that he thinks it would be an unnecessary burden on the Council when making a decision in relation to an application to have to give reasons. That is extraordinary. Even with a frivolous application there is still a reason; it is frivolous. That is pretty simple. It would take the typist only a very short time to type that. We are now saying: 'Leave these councils in their wisdom to do what they know best. Let them get on in secret to do whatever it is they are doing. Let them not bother to tell the public when they do not recommend something'. I believe it is important that the public know what is going on, whether the council recommends or does not. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.42) —I reject Senator Macklin's heated statement. If the Council says that it rejects something because it is frivolous, that is not giving a reason at all. If it is sufficient for the Council to say that, I believe the legislation is sufficient as it is. I think Senator Macklin is getting a bit pedantic towards this late stage of the session. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.42) —I hardly think it is pedantic to require a reason for rejection when every person who spoke at the second reading stage knows that we are dealing with the very serious subject of biological agents, which is a matter of great concern to the entire public. The Minister is now saying that it is a bit pedantic to suggest that the Council has to give reasons for rejecting applications. If that is a statement on behalf of the Government, so be it, but I believe that in terms of this matter-a very serious matter-the Australian Agricultural Council ought to be required to give reasons to the public so that the public knows what is going on. So much for freedom of information. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.43) —I move: 7. Page 11, after sub-clause 26 (1) insert the following new sub-clause: '(1A) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), a notice under that sub-section shall be published in each State and the Australian Capital Territory by being published in at least one newspaper circulating generally in that State or Territory.'. 9. Page 15, after sub-clause 32 (1), insert the following new sub-clause: '(1A) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), a notice under that sub-section shall be published in each State and the Australian Capital Territory by being published in at least one newspaper circulating generally in that State or Territory.'. 17. Page 20, clause 40, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: '(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), a notice under that sub-section shall be published in each State and the Australian Capital Territory by being published in at least one newspaper circulating generally in that State or Territory.'. These amendments seek to systemise the advertising, whether it be for an agent organism, a target organism or the giving of notice to the public that an inquiry is to be held. If we look at page 7 of the Biological Control Bill, we see that clause 17 (1) states: Where the Council has recommended to the Authority that organisms of a particular kind should be target organisms the Authority shall publish in the Gazette and in such newspapers or journals as the Authority considers appropriate a notice that the Authority is contemplating declaring those organisms to be target organisms. Clause 17 (2) states: Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), a notice under that sub- section shall be published in each State and the Australian Capital Territory by being published in at least one newspaper circulating generally in that State or Territory. That is an excellent provision. Firstly, it puts the recommendation in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, that very widely read journal in Australia that is on everybody's lips and in everybody's home! Beyond that very readable journal, it is also going to be in a newspaper, so that Australian citizens who are not so wrapped up as to get a copy of the Gazette will get their daily copy of a newspaper and they will be alerted to what is going on. They will therefore be able to take part in the process which is set down in this Bill. In other words, the public will be involved. Clause 26 (1) on page 11 of the Bill states: Where the Council has recommended to the Authority that prescribed . . . organisms of a particular kind should be agent organisms, the Authority shall publish in the Gazette, and may publish in such newspapers or journals as the Authority thinks appropriate, a notice that the Authority is contemplating declaring those organisms to be agent organisms. The next clause is eliminated. We find an identical situation with clause 40 of the Bill. Presumably what happened was that the person who typed it forgot to type in the next clause because there is absolutely no reason why target organisms, agent organisms and the giving of notice to the public of an inquiry ought not to be done in an identical fashion. I believe that the provisions of clause 17 (2) are the very provisions which ought to be inserted in other clauses of the Bill so that the protection, knowledge and information which are provided to the public, as so ably set out in clause 17 (2) which states that a notice shall be published in every Territory or State in at least one newspaper circulated generally in that State or Territory, would be provided in other areas. As a result very adequate and useful information would be provided to the public. I commend to the Government that it adopt the provisions of clause 17 (2 ) in other clauses of the Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.46) —The reasons for the advertising provisions were outlined in the second reading speech. I point out to Senator Macklin that this section and other sections of the legislation are the result of agreements between all the States and the Commonwealth in an effort to get legislation which will be effective and protect all interests. The Government may not have been able to go as far as it would have liked. But we have an efficient piece of legislation. We believe that the decision to advertise in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette is a sound one. Although, as Senator Macklin quite rightly says, it is not the sort of publication which is on everybody's coffee table throughout the country, it is read by people who have an interest in the subject. Senator Macklin —Why did you do it in 17 (2)? Senator GRIMES —I am just coming to that. It was felt by the States and the Commonwealth in negotiation that the obligation to advertise every one of the possible agent organisms as widely as Senator Macklin would like was impractical and inefficient and would achieve very little. I think that is a matter of judgment, but that is the decision which the Australian Agricultural Council came to. That is why that provision is in this legislation and that is why the Government persists with it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.47) —Is the Minister for Social Security saying that not to publish such information in newspapers, as set out in clause 17 (2), was a deliberate decision by the Government? Was a deliberate decision taken regarding that clause by the Australian Agricultural Council? In other words, did it go through this Bill clause by clause? Did it deliberately make a decision not to systematise the method of publication of agent organisms, target organisms and the inquiries involved with both of those organisms? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.48) —The whole Bill was the result of deliberate decisions. The discretion is still there. Of course it was a deliberate decision. The alternative to that is that it was not a deliberate decision; that it was accidental. It was not accidental. It was a matter of judgment but the Bill is certainly not, as I think Senator Macklin implied in one of his speeches, some type of sleeping clause. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.49) -It is reasonable to suggest that the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, as it is a journal of some significance as Senator Macklin says, would be monitored by probably all the responsible newspapers in Australia. Quite clearly, matters that are of significance in it from time to time will be exposed in that way. If one selects one newspaper only in all other States it will be a question of which newspaper, how widely it will be read in the community and even to what parts of the community it is basically directed. So probably, all in all, the Bill as it exists is sufficient to guarantee a public knowledge of any proposition in this area. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.50) —I hardly think that the reasons given by the Minister or Senator Scott would actually hold up under any scrutiny. Quite obviously, this is a sloppy piece of drafting. The Minister recognises that it is sloppy and he is trying to think up some reasons as to why the sloppiness should be allowed because he wants this Bill to go through. The situation is fairly clear. Already, under the Bill in clause 17 (2) there will be that general operation in relation to target organisms. If we are to believe the Minister that this is quite deliberate, then that is even worse. What I would really like to know is where the Federal Government stood in relation to that. Did it actually lead the move to make sure that this is not published? Did it concur with it or even dissent from it? Perhaps the Minister will give us that information. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.51) —No, not being a party to those discussions I am not free to give that information. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.52) —I move: 8. Page 14, after sub-clause 30 (2) add the following new sub-clause: '(3A) Where the Authority issues a notice under sub-section (1) the Authority shall direct that an inquiry under Part VII be conducted in respect of the declaration.'. 15. Page 19, sub-clause 38 (1), line 12, after '28 (1) (e)', insert '30 (3)'. The Australian Democrats accept that swift action may have to be taken in an emergency. I know that last night Senator Hill suggested there may not be such a thing as an emergency in this area. I replied by way of interjection, which I do not think got into Hansard, that we will probably have an emergency next year with the proliferation of politicians in this place and we may have to act very rapidly to try to stamp that out if it grows. Senator Haines —That is genetic engineering. Senator MACKLIN —It is genetic engineering is it, not biological control? We accept that there may be an emergency and I do not think that one can be as dogmatic as Senator Hill was in saying that one could never have such an emergency in this area. We are happy enough to say that there could be one-one could foresee extreme circumstances. We believe that that provision should be in the Bill. We feel that if those organisms are declared, the inquiry and investigation procedures should be initiated at the same time as an emergency declaration. The reason for that is that it will allow remedial action to take place as soon as possible should that subsequent inquiry find that the declaration is not in the public interest. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.53) —In fact, I am told that there was an emergency in this area a couple of years ago concerning the lucerne aphid. But the Bill provides, in any case, that the decision to make an emergency declaration will always be reviewed and can even be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Therefore, we cannot see that these amendments add sufficiently to the legislation to warrant holding it up in this way. Senator Macklin —Could the Minister point to the part of the legislation showing what actual procedures take place in relation to an emergency? Senator Haines —We will give the Minister 30 seconds to answer. Senator GRIMES —If honourable senators will give me 30 seconds or a minute I will certainly get the advice. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.54) —The proposition we are putting forward is not to run counter to the Government's proposition contained in the legislation; it is to enhance that so that there is an automatic starting of the public inquiry process. We have a public inquiry process going on in relation to something which is not an emergency. It seems to us perfectly reasonable to say that if there is an emergency a declaration must be made, we get the public inquiry going afterwards-because we could not get it going before-and then, if it says that there are no problems or difficulties, that is it. But it may very well be that the public inquiry process turns up something which may need remedial action. We are not seeking in any way to counter what the Government is doing. We just want to make sure that there is an immediate and automatic public inquiry upon the making of an emergency declaration. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.55) —I am not quite sure what Senator Macklin's problem is with the emergency declaration procedures , but I point out that although it is not so that emergency declarations will never occur, as Senator Hill seemed to suggest last night, they will be extremely rare. But when an emergency situation arises, I do not think that it would be a very sensible procedure to have to go ahead and get a public inquiry going, which would inevitably take many months, when we have in the legislation the provision that the whole decision can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator Haines —Do you know what the backlog is at the AAT? Senator GRIMES —It depends on which section the honourable senator is talking about. If she is talking about my section, there is a huge backlog; but I am sure that it will not be too large in areas of biological control. The application for a review, as I am sure Senator Macklin has detected, is available under clause 56 of the legislation. We think that that is sufficient, so we are opposing the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.57) —I thank the Minister. I have no idea what his answer had to do with my question, but presumably it had something to do with it. The proposition was not to do with the right of an inquiry or a review afterwards. It was to do with what the public will get to do. We have accepted the principle of the Bill; that is, that the public get themselves involved in this biological control business. The Government has written that into the legislation. The Government wants the public involved. We support that totally. All that we are saying is that when there is an emergency, the public should still be involved. It would not hold up the release of those things, but it would allow the public to come forward and if people have some specialised knowledge and special concerns they would be able to put those in, and not have to go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Is the Minister suggesting that people should go to the AAT? At what sort of expense would that be? What type of support would they get? Will the small business person be able to afford that? What type of operations would he have to go through to get it on? It puts an individual at a severe disadvantage. Instead of being invited to come in, he must fight through the bureaucracy. The Minister may be very au fait with how to fight through the bureaucracy. I suppose that he does it every day. But most citizens find it a fairly daunting operation, certainly going to that level, and they find it an expensive operation which they do not feel they could afford. The Government, quite rightly, in drawing up the Bill, did not seek to impose that on individuals in the normal course of events. It sought to invite them in, to get the involvement of the public in a very real and important matter. All we are saying is that running parallel with the decision to do that, instead of going through that other expensive operation , we go through the normal procedures that we would go through if an emergency had not occurred. That is all we are suggesting. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.59) —The reason for going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be to oppose the decision. I fail to see what advantage there is in having a provision whereby in an emergency in which an emergency decision must be made to deal with the problem, we would have at the same time a public inquiry running in parallel with that which may or may not agree with the decision, I suppose. I am not sure that there is any evidence, either, that such a public inquiry would be less expensive than going to the AAT. I repeat: The Government and the State governments do not believe it is necessary, nor do we believe it has the anti- democratic aspects that Senator Macklin claims. We oppose the amendments. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.00) —In the anxiety we are developing we are tending to forget the quite extraordinary safeguards in the provisions of the Bill. After all, it does retain all those Acts that are relevant in this area-quarantine, environmental protection, wildlife protection and so on. Over and above all that, the Bill still requires the unanimous decision of the agricultural Ministers from the Commonwealth and all the States before any proposed action is taken. Even if the legislation has a few minor faults, I believe they may be relevant to the emergency of getting it through. People have been waiting literally for years for an opportunity to control, by the scientific methods which we have developed , the sorts of pests that exist and which have been doing almost inestimable damage in some areas of Australia. I think that we should balance our consideration of this legislation by looking at the very real safeguards that are built into it. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.02) —I move: 10. Page 17, sub-clause 36 (1), line 19, leave out 'or continued'. 11. Page 17, sub-clause 36 (2), line 31, leave out 'or continued'. 12. Page 18, sub-clause 37 (1), line 16, leave out 'or continued'. 13. Page 18, sub-clause 37 (2), line 20, leave out 'or continued'. 14. Page 18, sub-clause 37 (3), line 29, leave out 'or continued'. The purpose of the amendments is to delete at the relevant places the words 'or continued'. The first amendment relates to sub-clause (1) of clause 36, which states: No action or other proceeding shall be instituted or continued in any court . . . This is a matter of some difficulty; There is legal advice supporting both sides . As I understand the Standing Orders, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is unable to give us a legal opinion in relation to it. I am sure he will not do so because he will abide by the Standing Orders. Therefore, we need to be very careful in what we do. There is an unusual retrospective element involved in this clause and it involves the issue of salvation Jane. I do not want to rehearse again the debate we had at the second reading stage. I simply say that the Bill will actually remove the effects of the perpetual injunction which was won fairly in the High Court of Australia and in the Supreme Court of South Australia. I will not rehearse the value of the matter or the fact that there will be an inquiry into it. I accept the word of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that there will be an inquiry I am quite sure that the Government will not use the emergency powers which are available to it on this. We have just discovered we cannot attach a public inquiry to it. That is all right. I am not worried about that. It just seems to me that in future one could certainly agree that this is the method to be applied. However, let us look back on the extant case, the only case. Despite the disclaimer by the Minister at the table, Senator Grimes, that case probably provided the impetus to get this Bill on. The clause as it stands would disadvantage the small business people who banded together to take an action to the Supreme Court and the High Court, initially at great expense to themselves, but of course they were awarded costs against the Commonwealth when they won that action. I believe that is the only case. I do not know whether the Minister has a list of others; the advice I received from the Minister's office prior to this debate was that that is the only one which would come under 'or continued'; in other words, that is the only action we are talking about when we say 'or continued'. I believe that that unusual retrospective element ought not to be allowed. I hope that we will have the support of the National Party and the Liberal Party on this matter because when dealing with other Bills in the past they have always been very strongly against retrospectivity. I am sure this will be the case again, even though these provisions do not affect a large number of people. They affect only a small number of people-small business people who are just trying to earn a living. These people should be excluded. The relevant clauses of the Bill should be written as follows: 'No action or proceedings shall be instituted . . .' The phrase 'or continued', which has caused so much controversy, should be omitted and the Bill would then not affect the people who fairly won a perpetual injunction in the High Court and the Supreme Court of South Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.06) —There is a small group of people who have successfully opposed the biological control of Paterson 's curse. In their campaign for this situation to persist they make two claims, both of which have been echoed by Senator Macklin and the Australian Democrats. The first claim, though not echoed by Senator Macklin today, has been implied. He insinuated that the Biological Control Bill authorises the biological control of Paterson's curse. That is not so. No decision will be made on that case until the recommendations of a full public inquiry are known. He said that the Bill not only authorises the biological control of Paterson's curse but also does so retrospectively by overriding an existing court order. That is not true, but his claim raises a serious question and is one that deserves to be put to rest. I suppose the best way to do so is by addressing these amendments. The clauses of the Bill specify that certain classes of legal action concerning an authorised biological control program cannot be continued. This in no way applies to the existing legal injunction preventing the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation from becoming involved in the biological control of Paterson's curse. There is no actual or implied element of retrospectivity. The purpose of precluding continuation of specified legal actions is simply to ensure that if at some future date biological control of a particular pest is to be authorised, a legal action cannot be instituted just prior to the authorisation and then continued, thereby negating the authorisation. It is simply a case of anticipating legal loopholes. It has no connection with the Paterson's curse case or the salvation Jane case, whatever one wants to call it. If we put Paterson's curse to the side and look to the future, although there is no doubt that the Paterson's curse case hurried up this legislation, we can see that clauses 36 (2) and 37 (3) of the Bill effectively provide that existing court orders should not prevent or hinder the authorised release of biological control agents. These provisions do not operate directly against the injunction of CSIRO. They provide only that where a biological control has been authorised in the public interest-I emphasise again the rigorous processes involved in establishing whether the public interest will be served-action subsequently legally authorised by the Bill cannot be stopped by action to enforce an existing court order or injunction. The Bill is not directed against Paterson's curse; nor does it retrospectively nullify the existing injunction. It does have the potential to authorise biological control of Paterson's curse. It is entirely reasonable that, in the event of this ever happening, actions to give effect to this authorisation should not be precluded by the injunction. It is important that the status of the injunction in this affair be clarified. Biological control was recognised to be the most effective means of controlling Paterson's curse in the early 1970s. In 1980 before the effective release of biological control agents was commenced, further action was precluded by means of an injunction against CSIRO. The issue therefore pre-dates the injunction. Furthermore, the injunction was obtained on the grounds of the common law of private nuisance and as such was concerned with the possibility of the plaintiff suffering nuisance as a result of biological control. Public interest was not relevant and was not considered. In the event of biological control of Paterson' s curse ever being authorised under the Bill, the nature of this decision would, therefore, not be in conflict with the nature of the injunction. This does not mean that the question of nuisance or loss could not arise. As provided for in the Bill, a public inquiry would therefore consider whether assistance should be granted to the affected parties. It should be further noted that the injunction applies only to CSIRO. Should it ever come about that biological control is found to be in the public interest and subsequently authorised under the Bill, other organisations could undertake the task of implementing the program. In those circumstances the injunction against CSIRO could remain in force. In other words, there is absolutely no need for the Bill to nullify the injunction retrospectively. If the Bill were intended simply to authorise biological control and nullify court orders it could have done so without providing exhaustive means of establishing public benefit. The various criticisms directed against the Bill, including incorrect allegations concerning retrospectivity, reflect the vested interests of the group opposed to biological control of Paterson's curse. The national spokesman for the group has consistently maintained that the matter could be resolved by full and proper public inquiry. Such an inquiry is imminent. The claim that the Bill retrospectively affects existing decisions of the court is a misguided attempt to exploit the sensitive area of retrospective legislation. The claim is false. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.12) —I ask one question of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in relation to his full response. The proposition that the Minister put up was that the legislation will not affect perpetual injunctions, one such injunction having been granted by the High Court of Australia. Will the Minister tell me whether there are other continuing cases ? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.12) —There are none that the adviser or I know of. However, I will certainly seek information on the matter. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.13) — In that case, why are the words 'or continued' in the Bill, as the Bill will not affect Paterson's curse and Paterson's curse is the only case which is continuing? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.13) —I thought I covered that in the fairly lengthy little homily I just read. Senator Macklin —Do not go through that again. Senator GRIMES —I will go back through it if the honourable senator likes. Senator Macklin —We accept that the Bill will not affect Paterson's curse. Senator GRIMES —It does not affect Paterson's curse but in the future if we-- Senator Macklin —How can you have a 'continued' one in the future? Senator GRIMES —One has to start somewhere. I think I had better read my speech again. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.14) — The relevant clause is clause 36 which states: 36. (1) No action or other proceeding shall be instituted . . . As soon as this Bill is proclaimed section 36 will affect everything in the future. One will not be able to institute new proceedings, so we are not talking about any new proceedings. The Minister has said that there are no other continuing cases other than Paterson's curse and that this Bill does not affect Paterson's curse, in which case why are the words in the Bill? If they are not in there for any reason, can we not take them out because they are superfluous? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.14) —I am advised that the wording, 'instituted or continued' is the wording that is necessary to cover the situation we are trying to cover. Senator Macklin —What is the situation you are trying to cover? Senator GRIMES —We are trying to cover the situation whereby injunctions of that type cannot be taken out after we have had a full public inquiry. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.15) —I move: 17. Page 20, sub-clause 39 (1), line 10, leave out 'he', insert 'the Commissioner'. This is an amendment which will be dear to the heart of the Chair, I am sure. Clause 39 (1) states: A Commissioner shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, if no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. We believe that in this time of liberation we could probably have a female commissioner. This Bill goes to great pains to avoid the male pronoun everywhere except here. We think that at this point it ought to be taken out also because we believe that a female with adequate qualifications could perform this job just as well as a male. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.16) —I hang my head in shame. Being the Minister of a department which is removing-in fact I think it has done so-all such offensive references from legislation, I have no compunction, and my advisers agree with me, in saying that this is one situation where a politician can blame the public servants. Senator Haines —The typist made a mistake when he put it down. Senator GRIMES —I say to Senator Haines that what happened, as always happens in the Department of Primary Industry, was that a group of males ignored the fact that that 'he' was there. Of course there is a necessity to replace 'he' with the neutral term 'the Commissioner'. However, to do so at this stage, without the House of Representatives here, would mean that we would not be able to pass the legislation. We will have to amend the legislation later to incorporate Norfolk Island, I believe, and at that stage we will replace that offensive word . Given that the Acts Interpretation Act states that the term 'he' need not refer to a specific gender, we believe that there is no need to amend the Bill in this respect until that later stage. I apologise to all my female-type comrades in the place. On behalf of the Government, on behalf of the embarrassed public servants, I say that we will amend the Bill later, but to delay it at this stage because of this amendment-- Senator Haines —Biological problem. Senator GRIMES —To delay the Bill because of the biological problem, even though it is an important one, I think is unnecessary. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.17) —I accept the Minister's statement that it is a sloppy piece of drafting. Although he did not give in on the other ones, this is another example of it. I am sure that when we have the next round of miscellaneous amendments, this one will be picked up. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.18) —I am sure the Minister will be very happy that I now move the last two amendments. I move: 18. Page 21, after clause 42, insert the following new clause: '42A. (1) Any person who lodged a submission in response to an invitation referred to in paragraph 17 (3) (f), 26 (2) (f) or 32 (2) (d) may request a Commissioner to summon that person, or that person's nominee, to appear as a witness before the Commission inquiring into the declaration of target or agent organisms of the kind to which the submission referred. '(2) Where a Commissioner receives a request under sub-section (1) and does not summon the person making the request, or that person's nominee, to appear as a witness, the Commissioner shall give to the person making the request a notice in writing stating his decision and the reason for it.'. 19. Page 25, after paragraph 56 (1) (h), insert the following new paragraph: '(ha) a decision by a Commissioner under section 42A not to call a person making a request under sub-section (1) of that section, or that person's nominee ; or'. These amendments seek to provide a right of review where an expert witness is not called by the commissioner and yet it is felt by those making submissions that such a witness is vital to their case. It is a situation that could cause some difficulty. Again I refer not to the large companies which may be involved; I refer to people in small business who may, in relation to some item, believe that the expert witness, for example, is overseas and that that expert witness ought to be called. If one looks at other parts of the Bill one sees that only witnessess who are actually called by the commissioner will have their expenses paid. Thus, if a witness were not called by the Commissioner, it would be very expensive for anyone to get that person before the commission. It is not likely to occur in many cases. I hazard a guess that in most of the public hearings it will not occur because the Commissioner will be seeking a wide range of views and as much information as possible. It may very well be that there is an expert witness who is not called. We feel there ought to be some review of that possibility. We feel that if that expert witness is not called the people making a submission ought to have the right to go somewhere to rehearse their case and to say that that expert witness should be able to make submissions before the commission. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.20) —The Government again does not accept the amendments although we can understand the nature of the reasons for Senator Macklin wanting the amendments. The amendments set up a procedure that, as far as we know, do not apply in any other avenues of inquiry in the public domain, particularly similar inquiries under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Industries Assistance Commission Act. At first blush it is hard to see why such amendments should be introduced here. One can imagine all sorts of administrative problems being faced by people who claim to be experts, not being summonsed to appear before inquiries, going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and claiming they should have been summonsed, for the purpose of being paid. That is a matter that should certainly be kept under review. I will certainly talk to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about this matter to see whether there is an easier way around the problem of the payment of some expert witnesses. I think there would be a great tendency for this matter to get right out of hand if we had a situation where people thought they could by right demand to be summonsed in order to be paid. As I said, I will consult further with the Minister for Primary Industry about this, but we see no reason at the moment to accept such amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.23) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that we will oppose the third reading of this Bill because we believe that the range of amendments moved was reasonable; there is no haste in relation to this item, and some of the Minister's answers did not meet the questions that were raised. We believe that the three or four months delay required for the Parliament to give more mature consideration to this Bill would be well worth it . It is a Bill that will radically alter biological control in Australia. We see no reason why it should proceed at this stage. Hence we will oppose the third reading. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasBoswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Martin, K. J. Coleman, R. N. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: STEVEDORING INDUSTRY FINANCE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.30) — I propose to speak only to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which is being debated cognately with a Bill to amend the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act, which will be dealt with by my colleague Senator Scott. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is of a machinery kind and the Opposition will not oppose it. Its details have been set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The primary amendments seem to be to the various accounting and reporting requirements for Federally registered trade unions. These provisions will simply facilitate the reporting and registration of accounts under the existing legislation which was pioneered by the previous Fraser Government. It is an important step in the accountability of trade unions that they should under this legislation be required to file accounts. The amendments proposed in this Bill are sensible and the Opposition will support them. There are also some amendments concerning the internal administration of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. These also are machinery matters which I hope will improve the administration of the Commission. The Opposition will support them. Other provisions in the legislation are of a drafting nature only. The Opposition is in support of all the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration act proposed in this Bill. Having said that, I must make some general observations about the problems of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act because it seems that these amendments being proposed by the Government are only of a machinery kind. In fact, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act needs very major amendments indeed to deal with a great number of failings of the present arbitration system. It is excessively complex and of insufficient flexibility to cope with sudden changes in the economy or the capacity of individual employers to pay award rates. This inflexibility is accentuated by the accord that has been entered into between this Government and the trade union movement. The Government proposes to maintain and renegotiate that accord if it is re-elected. Other problems in the present arbitration system include a multiplicity of Federal and State awards and jurisdictions, with tribunals competing with each other and being played off one against the other by unions which are intent on a leap-frogging process in regard to wages, and the institutionalisation which has occurred with comparative wage justice which leads to this leap-frogging of wages without any regard whatever for the capacity of industry or individual employers to meet these claims. It is no wonder that unemployment is at the present level in light of current wage levels. Even though some industries and some employers can pay, others cannot. Clearly we have a totally institutionalised system of unemployment in the way the system is operated by powerful trade unions. Another major problem lies in the nature of unions in this country, based as they are on craft or trade lines rather than industry lines. There could be a more intelligent and rational form of industrial relations if unions were based on industry lines. There are, as I said, a number of very major problems with the Act, with its administration, and with the way industrial relations have been structured in this country. There is far too little encouragement of employers and employees to exercise their responsibilities to each other at their work place, leaving industrial relations to a group of professionals in the various industrial organisation of employers and employees. There is far too little encouragement of employers and employees to get together to solve the particular problems that they face in their work places and to resolve those issues by voluntary arrangements with each other, thereby overcoming the problem of institutionalised conflict which our present system seems to have reached. The Opposition believes that legislation of this kind simply tinkers with the Act; it simply tinkers around with the Arbitration Commission, which is now out of date. There needs to be a thoroughly new approach to the process of industrial relations and the resolution of industrial disputes in this country. There is absolutely no sign that this Government understands this problem. Certainly it has established a wide-ranging review of the Act, but no one can really have any faith that this Government is prepared to make any of the major and necessary changes that are required to this Act and to the system. As I said , the accord is the very centrepiece of this Government's economic policy, not just the centrepiece of its industrial relations policy. However, the accord is a most old fashioned document which was designed to meet situations of 30 or 40 years ago. Its very nature simply institutionalises even further the major defects of the existing system which I have just identified. The Opposition believes that there needs to be a completely new approach to industrial relations in this country. There needs to be new institutions to cope with these problems. There needs to be a new emphasis on mutual relations and independence by both employers and employees. There needs to be a new emphasis on agreements entered into between employers and employees, instead of the relationship being taken over by professionals in what have become known as the industrial relations clubs around the country. These matters are fixed up by professional people who have made a career in this sphere. What is required is a far greater emphasis on employers and employees themselves seeking to solve their respective problems together by their own negotiations directly and by agreement between themselves. This is the approach the Opposition believes is necessary. One should be seeking to encourage this new kind of approach rather than the old system which has now become so complex and inflexible. It has resulted in increasing benefits to the few, be they powerful unions or large companies, which can afford to pay. They are able to pass on the costs of the exercise as against those who cannot do so and who go to the wall. This results in greater levels of unemployment than can be either justified or necessary. The Opposition sees the need for a completely new approach to the subject, on the lines I have indicated. We see the need for a new Act and a new tribunal. We believe in the need to maintain an arbitration Tribunal but one concerned simply with fixing floor levels below which wages and conditions will not be allowed to fall. It would fix minimum award rates and conditions but according to the capacity of the economy, the industry concerned and of the various employers to meet such conditions and awards. Conditions would be increased only after a thorough examination of the capacity of the economy. The principal criterion would be that of productivity or growth in order to provide the capacity to increase those minimum wages and conditions. The Opposition believes that such a tribunal should not have power to make recommendations or at least to arbitrate on over-award payments or agreements. Certainly the tribunal should not have power to grant preference to members of any particular union. The Opposition feels that matters which have become accepted burdens on industry, particularly in times of economic downturn-such as annual leave loading, site allowance, new proposals for superannuation agreements, the form of penalty rates in the present system-should not be within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, which should simply determine minimum wages and conditions. Those matters should be subject to agreement. The Opposition does not suggest that it should be illegal to provide for such matters. Many of these conditions are desirable, and if the economy and the industry concerned can pay, that is fine. But the question whether the increases should be paid and institutionalised in the system as it has evolved is a matter for agreement between employer and employee. Overall legal requirements should not be imposed by awards of this kind since they impose burdens that are beyond the ability of certain industries and employers to meet. Such burdens will only result in employers going to the wall and employees losing their jobs. Other employers find it difficult to give jobs to those displaced employees because of the increased add-on costs required by such conditions. The Opposition also believes that even where awards apply in particular work places, employers and employees by unanimous agreement may vary the terms and conditions of any award for specified periods. The parties should be able to enter into voluntary agreements, with the emphasis on the word 'voluntary'. Overall, the system must be flexible. However, the present system leads to greater inflexibility and the institutionalisation of various systems and requirements. Industry is now within a straitjacket of complexity and inflexibility and greater burdens are being put on many industries and employers than they are able to bear. Clearly, the whole approach to industrial relations needs to be given new thought, new procedures should be introduced, and legislation enacted to cover these considerations. It is no good our tinkering around, as we do in almost every session of parliament, with the existing provisions. A new approach along the lines I have outlined-an approach which the Opposition will continue to emphasise in the coming weeks-is required. The Opposition sees no signs that the present Government is giving any new thought to these matters. The Government sticks to the old-fashioned accord, which makes the existing system more inflexible with a greater hardening of the arteries. The Opposition calls for a totally new approach where employers and employees will recognise their mutual interests and their interdependence, instead of emphasising conflicts which are encouraged and which have become institutionalised in the present industrial relations system. Certainly there is no prospect of the Government bringing no new ideas to the present system or seeking to change it. The Opposition calls on those who are concerned in these matters, which are basic to our economic recovery, to accept that the Opposition's approach to industrial relations be implemented as soon as possible. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.49) —I wish to deal chiefly with the second of the two Bills before us this morning , namely, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill. These are important Bills. Indeed, any legislation concerned with industrial relations, and particularly the circumstances on the Australian waterfront, is of great consequence to all Australians. I foreshadow my remarks on this matter by indicating that my Party will be moving an amendment to the second reading in the following terms: At end of motion, add ', but while not opposing the provisions of the Bill the Senate deplores the failure of the Government to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries'. That is exactly why the problems that relate to the stevedoring industry in the narrower field and, more extensively, in the whole area of industrial relations are of such enormous moment to the Australian people. Australia is very significantly a trading nation and if we have circumstances that tend to reduce productivity and our capacity as a trader, the whole community is the loser. That has been occurring very significantly in a number of industries and certainly in a range of primary industries. It has affected our ability to deliver a whole range of grain but in particular wheat. Very serious delays have occurred, costing the industry, even in recent weeks, in the vicinity of $100m. The great mining industries and in particular the coal industry have been very seriously set back by circumstances that relate to the capacity of industry to deliver its goods. The Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill, which the Opposition supports, seeks to enable the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee to refinance a loan of $15.5m to the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour from the Australian Industry Development Corporation which was taken out in May 1983 in relation to the retrenchment of 350 waterfront workers. This matter of paying off, as it were in the business of redundancy, certain numbers from the waterfront was commenced back in 1966, I think, by the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Tony Street. There have been very significant reductions since that year. In something like 18 years the numbers have been reduced from in excess of 21,000 to about 6,500. Now it has been found necessary to reduce that number even further. This is due to a number of reasons but quite obviously the chief reason has been the need for and the fairly rapid extension of the mechanisation of the operations of the waterfront. Of course, insofar as that sort of thing in the immediate future, certainly on the waterfront, will literally cost jobs, it is a sad situation. In the other sense, as it relates to the need for productivity and the capacity to compete, if the whole community is to survive and grow, it is a good thing. But a way in which men could be moved from that occupation to other areas had to be found. Hence the system of redundancy payments was produced and in that period of 18 years that sort of reduction has occurred. Now the group of 350 workers, to which I referred in relation to the original $15.5m loan, is to be increased to 543. The refinancing will enable the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour to borrow to deal with that further redundancy of what is in this case of ancillary labour-the supervisors, the foremen, the clerks, the watchmen and so forth. The statutory arrangements forbid this operation at the moment. The redundancy cost of these 543 people is in the vicinity of $6m a year and I understand that if it were worked out in terms of idle time we would be looking at a figure of some $9.8m. The enormous cost of idle time and the relative immobility of labour in many situations in this field were among the reasons why this program was introduced in 1966 and has been followed throughout the course of governments of both sides of the political fence since that time. The underwriting of financing of redundancies began, as I said, in the days of Mr Street in 1966 and no real difficulties have been found in collecting the levies involved, because the borrowing is financed by levies on the industry. Those levies have been collected and the repayments have been made in due course and at no cost to government. The proposition in this Bill is supported by the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council, chaired by Sir Alan Westerman, and by the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, which represents the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the Australian National Line and the Waterside Workers Federation. So a pretty composite group of people is involved and it is that group's determination that this proposition should be pursued and that the refinancing to which I have referred should be brought about. It is consequently on those grounds that the Opposition supports this Bill. I referred very briefly and I shall briefly refer further to the importance of creating circumstances on the Australian waterfront particularly but also in the whole of the Australian transport industry which provide for an ever-increasing productivity and efficiency and a continuing work circumstance so that we will become, as we have from time to time boasted to be, reliable suppliers on the world's markets. We have a fascinating potential in this country, a potential that can be destroyed only by our inability to exploit it as it should be exploited. In that context, I trust that the Government will look again at its present proposition, as I understand it, to alter or even to get rid of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, which is directed against secondary boycotts, because that, it seems to me, would certainly be an unfortunate step. One of the things that that legislation has enabled to come about is the capacity to deal with secondary boycotts, which seems to be a totally unfair and, I might even say, un-Australian proposition. It seems to involve an innocent third party; it does not relate to problems that lie specifically between an employer or a group of employers and employees. The problems are not in that field. If we lose the section 45D provisions, we may well set Australian against Australian, instead of having the notion of consensus and co-operation that this Government has promoted. The idea of placing the trade union movement or any other movement, whether it be employers or whatever, over, above and outside the law is totally unacceptable to Australians. I hope that the threat that at the moment hangs over section 45D is a threat that will drift away, because I believe it will not contribute to the security of our trading position or the security of our people across the board; rather, it will contribute significantly to disruption and to the inability of this country to play its proper role in a tough and competitive trading world. I close my remarks by referring the Senate to the amendment to the motion for the second reading which I have foreshadowed. I indicate the support of the Opposition for this piece of legislation. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.02) —This legislation is quite obviously non-controversial because neither of the previous speakers has used more than 10 words to refer to it. It is equally obvious that it is an opportunity for political parties to promote their industrial relations policies and to contest the industrial relations policies of their opponents. I will indulge briefly in the latter exercise, because the Australian Democrats are not afraid to indicate to the Parliament that we have an industrial relations policy which varies from the policies implemented by the Liberal-National Party coalition when in government and from the policies implemented by the Australian Labor Party when in government. It was fascinating to sit in this cross bench situation and listen to the two previous speakers, one from the Liberal Party and one from the National Party, about all that needs to be done to improve our industrial relations system. One wonders where this new-found wisdom emanated from. One recognises-it is obvious in this Parliament-that the desire of a party to do things springs to its greatest height when a party is in opposition. The unwillingness to do things seems to stultify that party when it becomes the government of the day. It is patently obvious that that is true in regard to the experience that I have witnessed over the last 18 months. Suddenly, new-found solutions are put forward by the Opposition and the solutions which were being promulgated by the Labor Party when in opposition are now found to be too difficult to cope with. I will illustrate those facts by referring to a few brief items that the Democrats have been talking about in this Parliament and have proposed to the Government. Incredibly, we find that we suddenly have the support of the Opposition on the very issues that we put forward and which the Opposition rejected when it was in government. A good illustration is what was originally the John Siddons industrial democracy plan, a plan which had the enthusiastic support of the Labor Party when in opposition, but which has been consistently put to the back of the back burner by the Labor Party now that it is in government. The Siddons industrial democracy plan which, interestingly, has the support of employers and employees across the nation, cannot get the support of the political party which is in government when the Democrats bring forward the proposal. I have introduced a Bill which is identical to the Bill which was introduced by John Siddons. It has been held in abeyance to the point when the Parliament is about to be prorogued. It will, of course, fall to the ground, as it did when the Liberal-National Party coalition was in government. It is a very sound piece of legislation because it follows the fundamental belief of the Australian Democrats that the participation of employees in making decisions which affect their work place is a basic democratic right, a right which is as important as the right to vote. It humanises the work place. It creates an organisational structure that frees people to use their qualities of imagination, initiative, technical expertise, sociability and leadership during the working day. Nothing, certainly not money, can compensate for eight hours of monotonous, mind-killing work. If people are not free to use their human qualities during the working day, one can expect continuing industrial strife. It is a psychological inevitability. The humanisation of the work place is one of the greatest challenges facing Australia and the Western world today. It is likely to face us for the rest of this century and, looking at the way in which this Government and its predecessor have behaved, it will be well into the next century, because the Government keeps putting it on to the back burner to which I referred earlier. I appeal to the Government to look very seriously at the Australian Democrats' Industrial Democracy Bill-the John Siddons Bill. I refer to it as the John Siddons Bill because within his own enterprise it is functioning now. It is not just a theory. It is a practical policy which can be applied to enterprises today. It needs only the support of a government to make it more feasible and more attractive. The Australian Democrats have also gone down the path that the Liberal Party has been espousing recently. I am delighted that it has picked up the suggestion and the concept proposed by the Australian Democrats for a collective bargaining system. I expect some opposition from certain members of the Government to a collective bargaining system because there are some difficulties in their basic philosophy in accepting collecting bargaining. But we believe that the Bill that I have put before the Parliament-the Collective Agreements (Corporations) Bill- would make it possible to introduce a collective bargaining system to Australia which would provide the safety valve for which there is a very real need in Australia's industrial relations system. We will face a problem in the next year or so, and I suspect that it will blossom vigorously in 1985. The problem is this: How do we cope with the regrowth in Australia's economy? Once people recognise that we are back into a growth regime, everybody will have their hands in the till. Employees, understandably, having had their claims for an increasing share of the cake held in abeyance for the last two years-the first year as a result of the wage freeze and the second year as a result of the prices and incomes accord-will be far more vigorous in their attempts to get an increased slice of the cake in 1985. We can expect that vigour to move into the conciliation and arbitration courts with claims for substantial increases, be they in cash or in kind. There will be claims for a much larger slice of the cake. On the other hand, employers will be saying: 'Our profits have been down for the last four or five years. Now is the time for us to make investment in enterprises in Australia more attractive by having increased profits. We want a larger slice of the cake. We want to prove to investors that it is worthwhile investing in this kind of enterprise or industry. Therefore, we need to demonstrate the viability of this enterprise by making it more profitable. We do not want all of the increased benefits to flow on to employees. We want a lot of it to flow on to shareholders'. That is where the conflict is going to arise. There will be a slightly bigger cake but it will not be big enough to cope with the demands for the much bigger slices that we will hear about in 1985. That is why the Australian Democrats have proposed that safety valve machinery be in place by 1985 to give enterprises, particularly small businesses, the opportunity to sit around the table and reach unanimous agreement. I stress that all employees and employers, together with the unions, which must have an input into discussions, must reach agreement on an alternative to the award conditions and provisions which are set down. Given that that agreement is reached unanimously, we believe that employers and employees should legally be able to break away from the award system which is laid down for an enterprise. We believe that if that opportunity is given many enterprises will survive. We also believe that employees will have improved working conditions as a result of the application of such a proposal. We believe it could be possible for groups of people within the community working in the same enterprise to set their own rules, guidelines standards and conditions rather than their being subject to some conciliation and arbitration system or court which is remote from them and unaware of their particular conditions. As a result, this small group would be able to put the emphasis where it believes it should be put. It may be that members of the group would prefer a different kind of working week or holiday structure. Maybe they would prefer different working conditions. They might want greater ability for and flexibility in shared working conditions and shared work opportunities. Under a collective agreement system a great number of avenues could be pursued which one can understand could not be pursued in a universal context in which everybody had to comply and conform with a particular agreement. The agreement I am talking about would be unique to that particular community. That is the principle behind this collective agreements proposal. I believe that in amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act we should be looking at this type of proposal rather than simply putting another couple of band-aids on a system which is starting to cause very real problems across the nation. One of the reasons for that, of course, is that under our Constitution we suffer from having both a Federal and a State system of conciliation and arbitration. These two systems need to be brought together. In fact, very worthwhile suggestions were made recently to give each State arbitration court power to adjudicate at the same time on matters being considered within both the Federal and the State arbitration systems. I think the Government is probably already looking at that possibility. The whole system is in danger of collapsing if something is not done. One of the reasons I fear that the Government has lost the courage of the convictions it held while it was in opposition is the response to a fervent plea that I made on behalf of the owner-drivers of this country-a small group of individualists and typically Australian small entrepreneurs who invest their life savings in road transport vehicles. These people live in limbo-they are non -employees and non-employers. I suppose if one preferred to be positive, one could say that they are both employer and employee, but I stress the negative because they are not accepted in the arbitration system as employers or employees. They are left out of the whole system. They are left in a position where they are vulnerable to massive pressures from prime contractors and others who use their services. As a result, we have in this country a very real problem not just in terms of the economic viability of these people but in terms of their very potential to stay alive. Some of these people are compelled to be out on the road for 15 hours a day, seven days a seek, 365 days a year just to meet the payments on their vehicles and pay their other overheads, let alone make a basic living out of their business. The Australian Democrats asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to consider the plight of these people and to do what was done in New South Wales and legislate to give them access to an arbitration system. The Minister said: 'No, look, it is a little bit difficult at the moment , besides which we have a committee looking at the whole heavy road transport system and we will wait until it comes down with its recommendations'. We waited and waited. We then discovered that not only did the committee not have any recommendations on this matter; it had not been given a reference on the subject . The whole thing was a sham by the Minister to enable him to avoid his responsibility to the owner-drivers of Australia until this Parliament is prorogued. Therefore, there is still no way in which owner-drivers can go before an arbitration court to get justice. That is tragic, not only for them but also for many other people-people who may suffer death or injury on the roads as a result of actions by owner-drivers who, because of the hours they work, find it impossible to cope and become hazards on the roads. I mention this matter in the context of the debate today because the Government has presented to the Parliament a little bit of patchwork quilting to cover a couple of areas that it considers are critical at the moment, but the Government is not facing the major issues which need to be faced in the conciliation and arbitration system. Later today we will be talking about section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I will refrain from indulging in discussion on that matter at the moment. Senator Cook —Why? Senator JACK EVANS —Because we will be debating that matter later. That part of the conciliation and arbitration system is under the microscope, but that is only because of massive pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government to do something. As I said, that matter will come forward for debate later today or early next week. I conclude by indicating that, as does the Opposition, we will be supporting the Bills before us. They are quite sensible amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act. In giving that support to the Government I stress that we believe that the Government is not looking adequately at the total system in Australia. But for a few days, we have sat here through a complete Parliament and not had the matter addressed in the macro sense. We are constantly being served up these micro-amendments, and it becomes more and more evident that the big issue is proving to be just as impossible a task for this Government as it was for its predecessor. I guess that Australia will suffer because this Government will do nothing in this Parliament or in the next Parliament in which it will inevitably be returned to government. Then if the Liberals and Nationals take on the following government, we will have a reversal of roles but we will have a continuation of the do nothing policy in industrial relations. Senator Hill —That is not right. Senator JACK EVANS —We have heard the 'that is not right' story from so many people in so many areas that I am sure the people of Australia are starting to recognise that the Liberal Party in the current campaign is promising the world for the next Parliament in the certain knowledge that it will not have to meet any of its promises. That is becoming evident as each of its policies comes to the fore in this second last week of this Parliament when a whole lot of new proposals are coming forward which are obviously aimed at only one objective, that is, embarrassing the Government. We want commitments from parties in this Parliament-not just promises to electors-that they will implement the policies that they espouse on the hustings. One thing I can assure them is that, if they do not, there will be Australian Democrats here holding the balance of power after this election who will again embarrass at the very least, if not lead, the next Government into the legislative program that it should be adopting. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(11.23) —Listeners to this debate may be surprised to know that we are debating cognately the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill 1984. I want to do something shocking and outrageous in this debate and actually speak to the legislation before the chamber. The amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act contained in the first Bill are all relatively minor. Senator Durack said that. I of course concur. He recognises that that is outlined in the second reading speech. They are aimed at improving the Act to work out some of the little problems in it. They are not major in purport and go mostly to Part VIIIAA, the financial reporting section of the Act . The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), when introducing this legislation, indicated that it dealt with matters that needed to be improved so that the Act could function more efficiently pending the outcome of the major review of Australia's industrial law and systems that the Australian Government has launched, a review being conducted by Professor Hancock. Also serving on the committee are Mr Charles Fitzgibbon of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Mr George Polites, formerly of the Confederation of Australian Industry. That review is conducting a complete analysis of industrial law, practice and systems in Australia and will be reporting by the end of March next year. The amendments before the chamber are to ease any difficulties that there might be in minor matters between now and then. It should perhaps be noted that both Senator Durack and Senator Jack Evans laid great store in their speeches on the assertion that there is a lot wrong with industrial relations and that the Government is doing nothing. They both conveniently ignored the fact that that review is being undertaken. If they want to play a positive role in trying to help to improve industrial relations, I commend to them that they put their submissions to the review so that they can be dealt with in the overall and the validity of their arguments and criticisms can be tested by that expert committee. Senator Durack may be pleased to know that, rather than giving us here a turgid, lack-lustre and stumbling analysis of the old, tired and worn out ideas about industrial relations that his Party clings to, he can do something positive by presenting his opinions to that review. Senator Jack Evans may also be pleased to know that he can do a similar thing. Rather than these two people, who from their demonstrated record know little about the subject, conducting a debate about industrial relations, they can actually come to grips with some hardened veteran practitioners in the area and explain their inconsistencies in that forum. All I want to say in supporting these Bills, in particular the first one, is that the Government, because of its record in industrial relations, does not have to explain a damn thing. All we have to do is let the record speak for itself, and the record speaks more eloquently than any debate in the Senate could ever do. Australia's gross domestic product leads the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development world. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was given the finance Minister of the year award by the British magazine Euromoney. We have the lowest level of industrial disputation for 16 years. We have massive growth in employment and are well on the way to achieving half a million new jobs in the first three years. We have a fall in unemployment. Wages are growing , linked to the levels of inflation so that real living standards are maintained . We have tax cuts to preserve purchasing power. We have a stable and placid industrial relations environment, something which the former Government, which 18 months ago was in office, could not do. We say to those opposite: 'Do not come here with your pathetic, tired and worn out arguments from a lost era with old minds grappling with problems they might have known something about a century ago but know nothing about now. Just look at the scoreboard which shows the complete answer'. The peculiar thing in what Senator Durack said-since Senator Hill is trying to interject he may be saying it too-was the attack on professionalism in industrial relations. Those two honourable senators are lawyers in their non- senatorial roles and no doubt celebrate the professionalism of their own calling . But it is passing strange for them to turn upon the industrial relations field and attack people who seek to deal professionally with difficult human problems in that field as if amateurism in any field of sensitive economic development is preferable to a professional and intelligent coming to grips with the real problems. I turn to the second of the two Bills in the cognate debate, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill. This Bill is important not only because of what it seeks to achieve, which all speakers in the debate have indicated support for, but also as a model and symbol for other Australian industry. The waterfront in Australia, like dock areas everywhere in the world, is a volatile industrial relations environment. The waterfront in Australia has been the scene of legendary industrial strife over the years, industrial strife now translated to the silver screen in the teleplay Waterfront starring Australian actor Jack Thompson in which the disputes of the 1940s and 1950s are replayed. It is in the nature of the waterfront that it be a difficult area. The position on the Australian waterfront has been even more difficult given the employment practices of the past, the old inhumane bull system, et ecetera. It is the rugged attitude of Australian workers as portrayed in Waterfront that has caused an enlightened attitude now. That enlightened attitude which overtook the Waterfront in the 1960s when technology came to that area in the form of containerisation arose only because of the previous problems that that industry faced. At last, in the 1960s, there was a recognition on all sides that to grapple with the effect that containerisation would have on jobs and stability in that key area affecting our trade and our economic health there needed to be direct negotiations and a recognition that if the benefits of containerisation or technological change were to be confronted and efficiencies achieved, the human needs of the people who worked in that industry also needed to be met. From that point on, we established a redundancy scheme for waterfront labour which was and is a model for other employers in Australia in negotiating redundancy settlements to allow new technology to be used. It does show how we can come to grips with and articulate the need for efficiency on the employer side and the human anxiety about the loss of future employment from the work side and permit enlightened, negotiated compromises to prevail. This Bill is aimed at facilitating the financing of redundancies in the stevedoring area. Already this year over 575 waterside workers have left the industry under early retirement and redundancy arrangements agreed between employers and the Waterside Workers Federation. This is in addition to some 700 redundancies which have occurred last year. In the space of nearly two years, 1,275 workers have left permanent employment on the waterfront and this has been done in a substantially peaceful, orderly way without rancour. That achievement in modern Australia is quite significant. This Bill proposes to enable the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to finance further redundancies and to enable it to do it through the ancillary groups of labour employed on the waterfront, including foremen and clerks. The number of waterside workers in Australia is now below 6,500. That is down from the 1960s level of 22,000 who were employed prior to the introduction of containerisation. As I have said, all of this is being done at a time and in a way in which there has not been any serious disruption. In order to try to improve the problems of the maritime industry and not just the waterfront, the Australian Government significantly has established a major tripartite committee, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, in order to engage in discussions to resolve all the problems confronting the maritime industry in Australia. That has been working over the last 18 months. The tripartite mechanisms that this Government has established have had stunning success. There is good reason to believe that the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee as well as the other tripartite mechanisms will show that by working together solutions can be found. It is interesting to examine the level of industrial disputation. Senator Scott seems to want to move a motion about this in respect of these Bills when they are passed. However, his motion in fact has no standing if, again, the record and not the rhetoric is examined. If we examine the man hours lost by waterside workers through unauthorised stoppages as a percentage of man hours, we find that in 1974-75 the percentage was 1.8; the next year it was 2 per cent rising to 3.4 per cent in 1978, 3.6 per cent in 1979 and 4 per cent in 1980. The current level is 0.1 per cent and that is testimony indeed that the procedures on the waterfront have worked well. If we look at the maritime industry as a whole, in 1981 there were 113 disputes and a total of 31,600 working days lost. To June this year there have been 11 disputes and 1,900 working days lost. This Bill will help ease what are, for the late twentieth century, some of the most difficult and complex industrial relations problems, the problems of redundancy through technology. The record of the waterfront and now, increasingly, the maritime industry is one of significant improvement. While one admits that members of the Opposition are here to oppose, unfortunately on these Bills they have opposed only destructively. If one looks at all of that, one must say that the Government's actions should be continued and encouraged and an atmosphere of greater confidence in the ability of industry to resolve its own problems encouraged. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.36) —The previous speaker, Senator Cook, said that the Opposition is here only to oppose. That is not correct. The Opposition is here to put a constructive and better alternative. In relation to the subject of industrial relations and wages policy, that is what the Opposition has done and that is what it is putting to the Australian people in this forthcoming election. It is an interesting contrast with that of the Government because, as Senator Cook said, the Government does not have to explain. That appears to be typical of a certain superiority complex that this Government has developed in recent times. We have found that the Government feels it does not have to explain to the Australian people what it intends in relation to taxation if it is returned to government. It does not have to explain what it intends in relation to Aboriginal land rights if it is returned. Today we are told that it does not have to explain what it intends in relation to industrial relations. In fact, its process appears to be similar in industrial relations and taxation. That process is one of passing the responsibility over to another group. We find in the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on this matter, the speech that really has invited this somewhat broad -ranging debate, his reference to the committee that has been set up to review Australia's industrial relations law and systems, and the National Labour Consultative Council. That is this Government's approach. It prefers to pass over its responsibility of government to an independent committee and will act in due course in accordance with what that committee then recommends. As I have indicated, our approach is different. It is a new approach and an exciting approach. We have attempted to take the best of the existing system and to improve upon it. The best of the existing system is the protection that is offered against abuse. That protection will be retained after the next election, when we come to government, in the form of centrally determined minimum award wages. From then on we offer substantial change, a change that will be applauded both from a macro-economic point of view and also by individual employers and employees. The full wage indexation approach of this Government has entrenched the inability of Australian industry to compete internationally. It is true that the rate of inflation in this country is lower than when this Government came to power, but it is still higher than most, if not all, of our trading competitors and it largely reflects the entrenched wage system of this country through full indexation as well as ever increasing taxation and costs. That is an unreal environment and is the principal reason why Australian business has been unable to compete effectively on the international market. It is necessary for Australia to come back to the real world. If costs increase, Australian workers cannot expect wages to increase automatically. It is a naive, blissful, dreamtime approach but in the real world it simply will not work and we will not be able to compete efficiently on that basis. At the micro-economic level this policy has meant that workers have been forced out of employment and into unemployment because individual businesses have been unable to meet the wages they have been obliged to pay by the centralised wage fixing system. Full indexation means that in a number of cases, wages have risen above the capacity of an individual business to pay. Naturally enough, that results in the destruction of that business and unemployment. Yesterday in this chamber we had a significant debate on the still totally unsatisfactorily high level of unemployment in this country, particularly the unemployment of young people. An element of responsibility for that must lie in the entrenched wage system with which this Government is again apparently going to the Australian people. The Government must break down that entrenchment. The system must become more flexible. We must retain the protection of minimum award wages but, from then on, the system must become more flexible. How can we do that? At the centralised level we look at establishing the level of minimum wages and we say that it is time, in doing so, that proper consideration was given to the state of the national economy to pay such minimum wages. The system we advocate will mean that small businesses will not be forced into paying a higher level of wages when it is not in the interests of the national economy for the centralised conciliation and arbitration commission to award such a major increase. That flexibility does not exist if we adopt this Government's approach of simply having full indexation. From that level of minimum, centrally determined wages I briefly mention a number of the changes that we would implement to provide the flexibility to which I have referred. The first of those changes is that all over-award wages would be negotiated on a work place by work place basis. They would not be determined centrally out of the control and knowledge of individual industries. The importance of this is that it will return responsibility to those directly concerned by the decision. The concept of giving people a greater personal responsibility for their affairs and looking to them to have a greater commitment to make this system work-a concept which this Government cannot understand-is what we are advocating. We believe it has an element of reality. It would mean that the capacity to pay would be taken into account in over-award negotiation on a work place by work place basis. Changing market considerations would be taken into account; and all the matters relevant to particular industries and businesses, but which cannot adequately be taken into account on an individual basis if we simply limit our system to a centralised one-off wage fixing system. The second set of provisions that we would effectively implement are proper enforcement provisions within the Act. I think the Commission is being discredited by the fact that the community and those in industrial relations practices see the system as becoming out of balance. Awards and obligations will be enforced against employers and employer organisations but they cannot be effectively enforced against employees and employee organisations. To return credit to the system-it is important that the system have proper public recognition and respect-requires new, effective enforcement provisions. We will, therefore, provide that the new tribunal which we will set up will enforce its own awards by awarding damages for breaches of the award or breaches of the contract of employment. We will write a contract of employment into every award which gives employers an avenue for effective enforcement regardless of their lack of bargaining power. If we take, say, a small business situation, we know at the moment, that it is impossible in practice for the employer to take any action to enforce effectively the other side of the work place bargain to meet his commitments. That will change under the next coalition government. It will be a fairer, more realistic and more responsive system. The third change I mention is our undertaking to protect voluntary unionism and to protect against coercion and victimisation. I think it is worth repeating that today. The fourth matter I mention is our concern regarding junior wage rates. This was a major subject of debate yesterday. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber are deeply concerned that young people are not being employed because the centralised system has created wage rates for untrained and unskilled junior employees that industry and small business in particular are simply not able to pay. We would undertake to set up a public inquiry to investigate the whole subject of the setting of junior wage rates. An associated group of people we would similarly wish to protect in this system are independent contractors and the difficulties they are experiencing as this Government is continually attempting to force them into the centralised wage fixing system. We respect the position of the independent contractors, particularly owner-drivers and builder contractors. We respect their independence and when next in government, we will preserve it. The fifth point I mention is our undertaking to simplify the Act. If we go into the community and into businesses we find that these people simply do not understand the industrial relations system of this country. The Act has become enormously complex. The whole procedure is complex. It is out of their hands. They do not understand it and, therefore, they do not feel an involvement in or a responsibility to it. We have undertaken to simplify the Act. As I have indicated, we will be simplifying the system by returning so much responsibility to the work place and to individual employers and employees. The last change I mention, which will come after the change of government in early December, is our different attitude to penalty rates and on-costs. We know the detrimental effects that penalty rates are having in many instances on business efficiency in this country. We will regard penalty rates as part of the over-award agreement to be negotiated on a work place by work place basis. Under our system it will not be entrenched into awards by a centralised tribunal which does not appreciate the particular exigencies of individual businesses. I put those changes to the Senate today and to those who might be listening to this debate as refreshing changes introducing a simpler system. It is a system that is more responsive to the realities of the commercial world. It recognises market conditions and the importance of reflecting the capacity of individual businesses to pay. It puts responsibility back where it belongs; that is, in the hands of those directly affected by the wage fixing mechanism. Nevertheless, it continues to offer basic protection from abuse which our Conciliation and Arbitration Act and our system have been designed to do and have done over the years. It is a constructive alternative that I believe will appeal particularly to small business. I urge small business and all those in the community who have a real interest in this subject to get hold of our full policy and read its detail. I think that it will indicate to them a direction that has a great deal of appeal to which they will positively respond in the future. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.50) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to this debate. It has been a very wide-ranging contribution. I remind the Senate that we are debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill 1984. The first I suppose is best described as a machinery Bill to deal with certain relatively minor issues in terms of industrial relations principles relating to the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act-casual vacancies in union elections and things of that kind. The Government has not pretended that it is anything more than that. It is a necessary machinery Bill to give effect to both undertakings by the Government and deliberations of the National Labour Consultative Committee. The other Bill before the Senate relates to the stevedoring industry and is really a piece of legislation designed to give a practical and continuing effect to a policy which was arrived at by the previous Government in 1966 to handle the question of rationalisation of the stevedoring industry, faced as it was with increased mechanisation and, at that time, many inefficiencies. As honourable senators have pointed out that industry now is considerably reduced in terms of manpower but it is more efficient in terms of productivity per employee and the Government has a necessary commitment, in terms of continuity of the stevedoring industry, to provide that level of assistance in respect of further redundancies. All sorts of issues have been raised here. Wages policy has been raised by Senator Hill in particular, but also by others. Senator Jack Evans referred particularly to the industrial democracy issue. Senator Hill has taken the opportunity to advance what I understand to be Opposition policy in respect of the conciliation and arbitration system in Australia, and a whole range of issues relating to wage fixation and terms and conditions of employment. I just want to make one point about what has been said. When we came to office we inherited a very bad industrial relations situation. The criterion of Liberal Party of Australia philosophy over many years in terms of industrial relations has never been one of examining the detailed difficulties and exigencies of day to day problems between employers and employees-many practical problems, some of them real and some of them unreal. The Liberal Party has never been very concerned about that. The criterion for judging the success of an industrial relations system has been: Does it work in terms of lowering or increasing the level of industrial unrest in a country with the consequent disruptions which occur for industry and employers generally? There is much to be said for that criterion. It is not an exclusive criterion of the success of an industrial relations system. Some of the issues Senator Jack Evans raised are also very relevant to the question of the success or otherwise of an industrial relations system. If one adopts the criterion 'does it work?', I point again to the experience of the Fraser Government, the residue of which is still here today in terms of its principal spokesman and to the record of this Government in respect of that criterion in terms of industrial disputation in the country. I have already answered questions on this issue and there has been some debate on it in the Senate. I just make the point that the industrial disputes statistics released following the July figures of the Australian Statistician, released on 9 October, indicate a broad pattern over the previous 12 months and so on. But the most important factor which emerges from those decisions is that the annual figures for working days lost remain the lowest recorded, in the year to July 1984, for any 12-month period since 1967-68. Senator Scott, if I may not unkindly say, waffled on about the unfortunate consequences-and I quite agree with him-of industrial disputation in terms of its effects on Australian export industries and, indeed, in terms of Australian industries manufacturing or producing for the domestic market. That is undoubtedly true, but most of what he was saying, with respect, would have been much more apposite if he had said it three or four years ago, and of course he used to say it then too, than it is apposite today. I think Senator Scott always speaks with great integrity on these issues but he was not entirely charitable in his remarks today. I do not necessarily expect him to be, but I am sure he would acknowledge that the performance in relation to these matters has been incredible under the policies of this Government. As I said, wages policy has been discussed. We would say that the main contributing factor to those improved figures on industrial disputation has of course been the prices and incomes accord, but also the range of consultative mechanisms which go with the prices and incomes accord. That is the way in which this Government has, in every area of both industrial relations and industry policy, set up mechanisms which have involved people in discussing differences and in trying to resolve difficulties by discussion rather than by disputation of the sort which we have been used to in the past in this country. I repeat: According to one criterion, a very important one, we assess the success of industrial relations mechanisms by whether they work or not. In terms of this Government's performance, they have worked. In terms of the previous Government' s performance, they did not work. In fact, particularly in the last two or three years of Liberal-National Party Government in this country, the record was absolutely abysmal and disastrous in economic terms. Senator Hill advanced a number of propositions from the coalition's policies on industrial relations matters. I have never heard such a collection of grab-bag ideas, designed to be all things to all men, better expressed than they were by Senator Hill in his contribution to this debate. I do not think that people are as gullible as all that. I think people realise that the issues are difficult. Senator Hill was basically addressing a sort of Marxist concept of alienation of employers and employees from the system which exists in this country. It reminded me very much of the views of a political party in France which people who are not as old as I am will not remember. It was called the Poujadist Party and it was a peasant party. I have nothing against peasants but when members of the Opposition display the intellectual qualities of medieval peasants then one has some cause for concern. Medieval peasants were very capable of simplifying issues in a populist way to an absurd point, but then of course they were living in mediaeval times and we are not. That was the sort of intellectual content which seemed to underline the comments made by Senator Hill. There are a couple of other matters that I would like to comment on which particularly arise from Senator Jack Evans's speech. They first of all concern the question of the Industrial Democracy Bill which former Senator Siddons introduced into this place a few years ago and which was supported by the Opposition of the time. I put to Senator Jack Evans that it may be easy to say: 'The Siddons view of the world is the correct one. We will implement that straight away and then everything will be all right'. I think the Siddons Bill had something to commend it. It was a thoughtful contribution to the debate, but the issues, of course, are far more complex. I remind Senator Jack Evans that the Government has proceeded down the road of promoting industrial democracy in this country. Some very important questions of attitudinal change are to be dealt with if industrial democracy is to work and not just be a shell, as it were, with people being told that it must work within this framework. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) recently held, as I am sure Senator Evans would know, a fairly widely publicised industrial democracy seminar in Melbourne. The Government is also having a Green Paper prepared on the issue and that will be used as a basis for discussion not only with the trade unions and employer groups but also in the community at large. I am sure that some of the ideas put forward in the course of that discussion-they were implicit in the Siddons Bill-will re-emerge in the context of public debate about the issue. The Government, where it can directly act in respect of the Commonwealth Public Service, has taken steps to implement an industrial democracy plan and has established a consultative committee to look at processes in relation to that. From the National Labour Consultative Committee, which I think has been an important body in making progress on all these issues, have come guidelines for discussion and information across a wide sector of industry. So we have not abandoned those issues. We are working towards improving the whole framework of decision-making in industry and participation in decision-making and information sharing, more particularly, which is, in a sense, at the essence of industrial democracy concepts. Senator Evans also made some comments about owner drivers which I ought to address. The Government is very appreciative of the Australian Democrats' consistent view on this issue. Of course, the issue is wider than the owner drivers issue, much wider than the issue which Senator Evans has particularly addressed. There is a whole range of sub-contractors in various industries-self- employed persons in the building industry-where the same sorts of basic problems exist. The Government is having discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and national employers on these general issues of independent contractors . I also remind Senator Evans that the issue is very complex because of the nature of the federal system in this country. Both Federal and State jurisdictions are involved in looking at these questions. I make the point that we have not run away from them; we are looking at them. If the honourable senator wishes to charge the Government with slowness there is nothing I can do about that; but the important point is that we are taking into account a wide range of factors in relation to those matters. Senator Scott made some slightly belligerent comments about the stevedoring industry legislation. The proposed amendment to the second reading of that legislation states: At end of motion, add, 'but the Senate deplores the failure of the Government to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries'. Dealing with the trading relationship question, in the 18 months this Government has been in office it has made enormous strides in terms of trading relationships, particularly with those countries in the Pacific Basin rim where our trading future lies and in respect of which too little has been done in the past to develop relationships with those countries. Insofar as the reference in the amendment is to chastise the Government for its failure to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry, it is, I think, a bit of electoral argy-bargy. Senator Scott referred to the stevedoring industry package introduced by Mr Street, the then Liberal Minister for Industrial Relations. The essence of that package was to provide for assistance from the Government in restructuring that industry, faced as it was, and still is, by increased mechanisation and the consequences of that in terms of efficiency and productivity. Another important element of the stevedoring industry package was the question of deregulation, that is, the removal of intrusive government regulation and the leaving of the issues very much to private sector activity between the employers of waterside labour and the stevedoring industry unions. Under that package the Government was to act as a catalyst and an aid in the restructuring process and to help particularly with the question of financing industrial redundancy payments. The whole thing was seen as a transitory scheme but, of course, it still persists. Enormous costs are associated with the former Government's regulations. It terms of all the things Senator Scott mentioned-mechanisation and so on-it is, as I have said, very much in the private hands of the industry, the stevedores, ship owners and employers of waterside labour. It seems implicit in the not very well thought out amendment, if I may be unkind, that the Government should play an increased role. I cannot always divine Liberal Party ideology on these matters. But as I understand it, from some spokesmen at least, the view is that it is best to leave these things to the private sector and the market to straighten out. That is what the Street package essentially did, and the Government does not criticise it for that. The only role to be played by government was, as I have said, one of facilitating the transition and the restructuring of the industry. The amendment seems to suggest that somehow the Government should play a different role in this area, that it should somehow intervene and that it is the Government's obligation to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry by intervention. That is the only conclusion one can draw. The amendment seems to contain the seeds of ideological distress in terms of Liberal Party thinking on these issues, but that is its problem rather than mine. I think the best the Government can do is, as the mechanisms for consultation are provided by this Government, to consult and pressure the industry in some way by persuasion towards greater efficiency. This is being done through bodies such as the National Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Westerman. That is not a government body in the sense that it has any capacity to say: 'You will do this' or 'you will do that'. It is a body which is composed of representatives of all the parties involved and it is designed, as I have said, to facilitate rather than instruct. I make only one other point about the amendment, which refers to ensuring an efficient stevedoring industry. There has been an improved rate of cargo handled per waterside worker over a number of years. The figures show that between 1978, when 5,352 tonnes per man per year were handled on the waterfront, and 1982, when the figure had increased to 8,106 tonnes per man per year, there has been an enormous improvement. The 1983 figures that I have are available for only the first half of the year's cargo movements and on an annualised basis that figure is 7,984 tonnes per man year. There has been a steady improvement in productivity on the waterfront since 1978 and that is to be welcomed by everybody. Senator Scott has come here at a time when other things are on the minds of Opposition senators to move this ideologically confused amendment that does not relate to the facts, and this leads the Government to conclude that the amendment should not be supported. These two pieces of legislation are essentially machinery in one case, and a provision of continuity in respect of prior obligations of governments of any political persuasion in the other. This debate has been used to canvass the wide range of issues which are not appropriately dealt with in this context. Looking at the Senate Notice Paper I am sure that there will be other opportunities to canvass some of the issues which were mentioned today and of course the issue of wages policy will be dealt with in a wider political context in the next few weeks. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate deplores the failure of the Government to ensure an efficient stevedoring industry and a reliable trading relationship with other countries'. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Scott's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J.Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J.Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J.Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G.Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M.Evans, Jack Richardson G. F.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M.Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W.Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.23) —The Senate is debating three Bills : The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984. The Opposition generally welcomes the legislation. There is general support from the Opposition for many of the matters contained in the Bills and many of the initiatives which are being advanced. That does not mean that there is omnibus approval, and there are some comments to be offered about several areas of the Bills on which the Opposition has some concerns and about which it has some reservations. Because we generally support the major piece of legislation, there will not be any opposition to the second reading of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill; but in relation to the two Bills which deal with fees, the Opposition takes the view that there should not be an aggregation of fees-as is suggested by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in relation to these two Bills, one in relation to television and one in relation to radio-for both the original and the supplementary licences which may be issued at regional level. Because we are concerned about the effects which that aggregation might have, and because we think that it might reflect adversely upon the capacity of regional television and of regional broadcasting particularly, we shall oppose the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill at the second reading stage. That appears to be the best way to make our opposition to that part of the legislation clear. We shall also move an amendment in the Committee stage of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill in relation to the proposals which deal with the concentration of media ownership, because we believe there are provisions there which require further examination. We oppose the provisions in the Bill relating to concentration of media ownership as they have been laid down in this legislation and under the criteria which have been proposed. We are concerned about the way in which they have been presented and by the arguments which have been advanced. The explanatory memorandum provided with the legislation contains the following explanation on media ownership: The Tribunal may not refuse to grant a supplementary licence in an area unless it determines that a second commercial licence is likely to be viable in the area and that it is in the public interest that applications for such a licence be invited. The public interest criteria to be considered by the Tribunal is amended to include consideration of whether granting the supplementary licence would lead to undue concentration of media ownership or control in the area. Here is the point from the explanatory memorandum: 'Media' includes both radio and television stations licensed to serve the area and newspapers, journals and the like available in the area. This means that for the first time when considering applications for licences in relation to electronic media, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is required to take into account the ownership of print media. It is a criterion which does not apply to capital city major stations. The provision relating to the print media has never been specifically required before in the consideration of any licence application, and it will still not be required for licence renewals, either of an original regional licence or of a metropolitan licence for radio or television. What we are discussing is the question contained in the legislation of how one might issue supplementary licences in regional areas. The Opposition is not in any way opposed to the concept of providing supplementary licences, or to the proposal to issue them. It will be no secret that during our time in government we had this matter under active consideration, and I remember that there were extensive and detailed discussions within government as to how one would approach the question of supplementary licences-that is, extra licences in an area-how one would regulate it, how one would offer them, and how one would protect the public interest. The benefit to the public, of course, is to increase the range of offering through the electronic media in any area, and in regional areas this can be of great importance. Many people from regional areas tell us that the offerings available to them are limited. The Minister has made it clear that among the major provisions of this amending legislation 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. It goes beyond any consideration of electronic media which is the traditional concern of the Federal Government. It goes into questions of the ownership of print media, journals, newspapers and the like, which might be available in an area. This has never been an area which the Commonwealth has sought to oversight or oversee. We are concerned, and have been concerned all along, that proper provision should be made to examine the question of concentration of media ownership. We recognise, and I think all honourable senators recognise, that it is undesirable in Australia to have too much concentration of media ownership. We are concerned that the provisions as they are proposed in the legislation may in fact be self- defeating. They may make it very difficult for supplementary licences to be issued with sufficient ease and make it more difficult for those who may be viable in operating supplementary licences to obtain them. We think that the proposal is contrary to the policy decisions of the Tribunal itself. When regional television was being established an examination of the ownership of print media was not among the criteria taken into effect. We propose to move amendments at the Committee stage relating to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, which is the major Bill. That leaves the question of fee aggregation. The Minister in his second reading speech said: . . . secondly, the aggregation of gross earnings to determine total licence fees payable by those holding both a supplementary and commercial station licence . . . What does this mean? It means that the gross incomes which the stations obtain will be added together for the purposes of calculating the licence fees which will be payable. There will be a fee aggregation of the fee for the original licence and the supplementary licence when the one applicant holds both. The Opposition is concerned that this provision is unfair. Although it will maximise government revenue from television and radio licences which are in the hands of commercial holders, we think that it is unfair. We think it is unfair for the following reasons: Firstly, it will cause the licence holder considerable initial expense; secondly, we think that the progressive nature of the licence fee scale will mean that higher gross income will be obtained by aggregating the income from the original and the supplementary licences. If it was not a progressive scale that would not be so, but because the scale is progressive it will have the effect of artificially inflating the fee which will be payable. This provision will increase greatly the licence fee even where there has been no increase in the gross income received through either licence. We are also concerned that the provision is unfair because it may lead to a different level of fees for the same licence under different circumstances. If it is a supplementary licence to an original licence that will produce one situation and if it is a supplementary licence held independently by a second applicant that will provide a completely different situation. We could end up with the same level of gross income being generated but different fees being payable because of aggregation if there is common ownership and no aggregation where the licences are held separately. The fee could be twice as much even though the gross income might be the same. As the Broadcasting and Television Act requires that separate accounts be kept by the original and the supplementary licence holders and the stations, and as the Government can pick up the fee from each, the Opposition thinks that the simplest way to go is not to aggregate but to accept that people should be paying the same kinds of licence fees in respect of stations which are producing the same kinds of gross income. Because of that we will oppose the two licence Bills at the second reading stage, as was done in another place. Finally, I wish to comment very briefly on some aspects of the main Bill, which we do support, to make clear that where I opened up and said that we do support the Bill that is, in fact, the case. First of all, we support the idea of allowing one supplementary licence to cover all translator facilities necessary to provide the same service area as the existing licence. This is a sensible amendment. The translators will be necessary as ultra high frequency television and frequency modulation radio do not have the same signal as very high frequency and amplitude modulation on the existing licence. Secondly, we support the provision to allow the Tribunal to enable the licensee to phase in the translators over a five-year licence period. We consider that is sensible and financially necessary. It has our support. Thirdly, we support the proposal to amend the Act to block potential loopholes only recently discovered; for example , to require the Tribunal's approval for any transaction by which a person acquires a prescribed interest, whether it is by shareholding or voting rights and, secondly, to correct an unexpected result of the 1981 amendment which provided a six-month period of grace after receiving Tribunal approval where the ownership control provisions were unintentionally breached. We support all those provisions. In summary, we will oppose the two licence fees amendment Bills at the second reading stage. We will support the main Bill, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, but at the Committee stage we will seek to move the amendments which have been circulated and which deal with the matters which I have raised where we think the proposal is not entirely equitable. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.37) —It will not come as any surprise to the Government that we will be voting in an identical fashion to that which we did on 16 December 1982 in relation to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill. At that time the Australian Labor Party, in opposition, sought to move amendments and the Australian Democrats voted with the Government. Essentially the item that has been raised by Senator Peter Baume concerns supplementary licences. In the debate on the Bills on 16 December 1982 Senator Chipp said: It is a contradiction against the whole spirit of the Bill, the basic purpose of which is to create supplementary licences. By definition, a supplementary licence is a licence which is supplementary to the one already owned. If that is the case we are talking about a situation in which a new licence cannot be granted. We are talking then, by and large, about regional areas, areas in which there is not enough financial return to justify a new licence. Of course, we must also bear in mind that under the Broadcasting and Television Act it is possible, even during a hearing for a supplementary licence, for a person to intervene in that hearing to seek a new licence. So if somebody feels, even at that late stage, that a new licence is viable he may intervene in the hearing of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on the granting of a supplementary licence. In this respect we are talking about very limited areas, by and large country or regional television areas. It seems to us that we should not look at the notion of concentration of ownership in the way the Government has proposed. The very real reason for that is necessarily we will have a concentration of ownership. There is absolutely no way around it, because in fact, it is a supplementary licence. A supplementary licence is given to a person who already has one. I think that the Government is well aware of the views of the Australian Democrats in terms of guarding against monopoly ownership in Australia. We have opposed it. We oppose it in all its forms. We believe it is one of the worst aspects of the Australian media organisation that there are so few, particularly in the area of newspapers, ultimate owners. However, we do not wish to support the proposition that the Government has brought forward because we believe that it will indeed militate against supplementary licences and the granting of supplementary licences. Our position on the Bills stems from the concern that nothing be put in the way of the granting of supplementary licences. We wish to promote the granting of supplementary licences as far as possible to give some variety and some alternatives in areas where there is no commercially viable alternative. So we are not so much arguing about who the owner will be as asking that the people in those regions at least be given the chance to be able to view, say, another television station or to listen to another radio station. That seems to us to be an important aspect that we do not want to lose. Hence, we feel that the Government's proposal on the aggregation of licence fees could have that very effect. It could militate against the seeking of supplementary licences because of the additional costs that would be involved to those interested firms . Senator Peter Baume —It would be cheaper to take them separately, would it not? Senator MACKLIN —They would probably seek to take them separately. But we are talking about areas where there is no commercial viability for an ordinary licence, areas in which there would be only supplementary licences. Hence, we are talking about a very restrictive framework. Within that framework it does not seem to be fair to say to those interested companies: 'Seek a supplementary licence. Give the community an additional channel or radio station and at the same time you will pay more dearly for it'. It seems to be reasonable that the television or radio companies should pay the normal fees that would be due if they were separate. The Australian Democrats support the proposals in the Bill in relation to the progressive commencement of transmission facilities. That seems to be a very reasonable proposition, which I would think would promote the granting of supplementary licences. We support the Government on this proposal because it is an incentive rather than a disincentive. We will support the proposal relating to ownership or control loopholes. We will also support the conduct of inquiries by the Australia Broadcasting Tribunal and the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council relating to those inquiries. I say in brief that our views have been determined with regard to the fact that we wish to promote more supplementary licences in Australia for television and radio stations. We believe that the provisions that are currently contained in the Act which are to be changed by this Bill will militate against the granting of supplementary licences and hence do not have our support. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Will the capital gains tax for which he yesterday reaffirmed his support include an exemption for the family home and provision for losses to be offset against gains? Senator BUTTON —The Government has no intention of introducing any new taxes following the election until a comprehensive review of the taxation system has taken place. The tax policy announced by this Government this year provides for a decrease of $7.60 in the taxation of most Australians from 1 November this year. That policy was announced in the light of restoring, as much as possible in the current environment, equity and fairness to the current system. The main purpose of the review of the taxation system which the Government has announced it will undertake will be to provide fairness and equity in the taxation system, the absence of which has been a source of complaint in this society for many years. That is the purpose of the review. I do not know what the review will recommend about capital taxes. If it recommends capital taxes, undoubtedly it will also recommend exemptions from those taxes. Yesterday I saw that the Prime Minister had said that an important exemption from capital taxes, if the review so recommended, would be the family home. That was said in the light of a widespread view in the community-many people, including community groups and so on, have expressed views about these questions -and reflects the view that the family home is an appropriate exemption if one is talking about equity and fairness in the taxation system. That is a very important consideration, and the prime consideration of this Government. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the capital gains tax for which he has been contending would include exemptions. His answer was in general, vague terms . I remind him that he has been contending publicly and also in Cabinet for such a tax. I ask him again: Will his capital gains tax, the one for which he has been contending, include an exemption of the family home and provision for losses to be offset against gains? The PRESIDENT —I do not know whether that question is within the purview of the Minister's responsibility, if the honourable senator is talking about a personal matter. I will refer the matter to the Minister and see what he says. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has chosen a very unusual exercise in a Westminster system with a Cabinet Government to give us his personal views on a matter of very great moment. Whilst professing a certain view on behalf of the Government, he has asserted a view consistently in this place. His leader having qualified that view, I submit to you, Mr President, that it is perfectly in order for the Minister to be asked whether he accepts the reservations which his Leader has apparently expressed on behalf of the Government. The PRESIDENT —I have expressed the doubt that it is a supplementary question having regard to the Minister's ministerial responsibilities. Having said that, I have already allowed the question to go through to the Minister. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, may I say that I regard the point of order raised by Senator Chaney as an impeccable point of order, although I appreciate the comment which you made. On a number of occasions I have expressed support for a capital gains tax as my personal view. That does not mean that it is the view or that it has the support of the Government. Indeed, I have said on a number of occasions that the issue had not even been discussed by the Government as a government. I said in answer to the earlier question that what the Prime Minister said reflected a widespread feeling amongst those who have advocated the public discussion of this issue. Indeed, I regard it as an exemplary view, which is held by a wide range of people, that if those taxes are to be considered in the context of a review there would, of course, be exemptions from them as there are in every country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development other than Australia. In every other OECD country taxes of that kind apply with exemptions. It is an important issue. In terms of my own advocacy of a capital gains tax, I am concerned about two issues. I believe it would be helpful in redressing the current inequities in the Australian taxation system. I believe it would be helpful in directing resources away from totally unproductive activities, such as penthouses at Surfers Paradise, and into business activity in this country. I believe it would be helpful in stamping out completely the possibility of tax avoidance in this country-something on which the Opposition has had a very lack-lustre performance . That is my view. It may be that in the context of a review we will be told that those things can be done in another way within the context of the tax system. If we are so told, I will accept that. But I await the outcome of the review on those matters. The Government has to be concerned-any government has to be concerned-about the fundamental issues of fairness and equity in the system. That is what the review is about. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Queenland Premier has vetoed community employment program funding of a position for People for Nuclear Disarmament to establish a peace resources unit in Brisbane? Senator Boswell —So he should. Senator REYNOLDS —I hope that was recorded. Considering that this application had the unanimous support of all community members of the consultative committee , can the Minister seek to have the arbitrary action of the Queensland Premier set aside so that this project, like other similar projects elsewhere in Australia, may proceed? Furthermore, can the Minister seek a guarantee that the Queensland consultative committee cannot again be overruled by a dictatorial Premier obviously opposed to any project which aims to promote world peace? Senator BUTTON —A number of questions were involved in what Senator Reynolds has addressed to me. The action of the Queensland Government as described sounds extraordinary, but I do not think I can give the guarantees which Senator Reynolds seeks in her question. I will direct that question to the Minister and obtain a detailed answer. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in which he laid down certain guidelines for the Government's capital gains tax. I ask: Have any guidelines been provided to the Economic Planning Advisory Council on the Government's approach to capital gains taxation and death duties? Senator BUTTON —First of all, I remind the Senate that they are Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's words, not mine, when she refers to the 'Government's capital gains tax'. Senator Chaney —That is right. She has greater credibility than you have. Senator BUTTON —Does the honourable senator think so? Let us see. On a number of occasions I have explained to the Senate that the Government has no plans for the introduction of new taxes. But insofar as the question of taxation has been addressed by the Economic Planning Advisory Council, as I understand it a submission by the Business Council of Australia concerning the taxation structure in Australia, particularly as it bears on business activity, is very critical of the present structure. A number of bodies such as the Australian Council of Social Service have put submissions to EPAC on their views of the taxation structure. In both of these two submissions to which I have referred and also in the submission put forward to EPAC by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in preliminary deliberations on these matters there have been references to capital taxes. I cannot tell the honourable senator the details of those references. Of course, all those matters would be subsumed in a review of the taxation structure. All those bodies have indicated quite clearly already that they want these matters placed on the agenda for the review of taxation in Australia. Of course, there are a number of other people who want things put on the agenda of a review of taxation structure. The Opposition's deputy leader, Mr Howard, is one of them. He said quite clearly that he wants certain matters put on the agenda for that review and that inevitably capital taxes would have to be included amongst the items for discussion in a general review of the taxation structure. Those things are matters of common knowledge. When a review is conducted the Government of course will take into account the views of all those bodies. We will not be producing any rabbits out of hats as the Opposition probably will do on Monday without proper consultation with a wide-ranging spectrum of the community. It is in the context that I have outlined that the review will take place. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister, in view of his comments, whether the Government has provided any guidelines to EPAC with regard to capital gains taxation and death duties. Senator BUTTON —No. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether any taxpayers will move into lower income tax brackets from 1 November. If so, how many will do so and how many taxpayers will be completely free from liability for income tax as a result of the Budget initiatives to come into effect on 1 November? Senator GRIMES —It is estimated that 2.5 million taxpayers will move into lower taxation brackets because the 30c in the dollar bottom tax rate in existence under the Government of the Liberal and National parties has been replaced by a new rate of 25c in the dollar to come into effect next month. Of course, that 25c in the dollar tax rate will apply to incomes up to $12,500. However, all taxpayers will benefit from that rate because it applies also to the first $12, 500 of all higher incomes. Some 60,000 taxpayers will be freed from income tax liabilities in 1983-84 as a result of the Budget changes. Some 85,000 taxpayers will be freed in a full year. These numbers reflect first of all the introduction of the new $50 and $75 tax rebates for social security beneficiaries from which about 25,000 people will benefit and, secondly, the introduction of the new 25c in the dollar tax rate in conjunction with existing rebates such as the dependent spouse rebate, the sole parent rebate and the pensioner rebates. At the old 30c in the dollar tax rate the dependent spouse rebate of $1,030 meant that taxpayers with incomes up to $8,028 per annum paid no income tax. At the 25c in the dollar tax rate the threshold has been lifted to $8,715 in a full year. Also the income tax exemption for the sole parent rebate has risen from $7 ,195 to $7,715. As Senator Maguire implied in his question, a considerable number of taxpayers in this country will move to lower taxation brackets. Everyone will benefit from the tax cuts in the last Budget. In fact, that lower marginal tax rate, in combination with the special rebates introduced, will benefit a considerable number of taxpayers, particularly those taxpayers in most need. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the Federal Government acknowledge the importance of the principle of community rating for health insurance in Australia and, if it does, is it at least in part because this system allows the aged and the sick ready access to health fund cover? Is the Minister aware that this principle is being threatened by the growth of discriminatory commercial insurance companies offering policies which exclude people once they turn 65 years of age? Can the Minister say what action, if any, the Government is planning to take to ban these discriminatory practices and hence protect the interests of the aged and the sick in the community? Senator GRIMES —Yes, Mr President, the Minister for Health, the Government and I support the principle of community rating for health insurance. It is a principle which, of course, was supported many years ago by the Liberal and National parties also. The importance of that principle is that we can share across the community the burden of health costs in general. It means that those who have recurrent illnesses or who are unfortunate enough to have serious illnesses-none of us are immune; none of us can be sure we will not get such illnesses-can get access to health services at a reasonable cost when they need them. It also means that medical catastrophes which overcome people will not break and destroy families. Therefore, it would be of concern to me and to the Government, and I am sure to the Minister for Health, if we had a proliferation of schemes which were discriminatory in this way. I certainly do not want the situation to arise in this country which applies in the United States, for instance, where people who have paid health insurance for many years may have heart attacks, myocardial infarctions, then have others and find their insurance is cancelled because they are no longer good risks for the insurance company. That can have a devastating effect on a family, including its economic position, or for that matter an individual. A health insurance scheme which allows the insurer to exclude those who are likely to have recurrent illnesses, including those who are aged and therefore likely to have such illnesses-that is, all but the good risk patients-will inevitably throw a greater burden on those who are poor, aged or sick. It inevitably means that we end up with a user pays type principle whereby the users are the poor, the sick and those with children, and their costs increase considerably. So I certainly view, and I am sure the Government views, with great seriousness any proliferation of such schemes. I have not been briefed about or noted in recent times the apparent proliferation to which Senator Haines refers. I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister for Health and get her a full answer as to what action may or may not be taken in this area. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of Senator Boswell's claim that the Economic Planning Advisory Council is 'an ALP controlled body with nine out of 10 of its members being ALP puppets, dedicated to ALP policies'? Is there any evidence to support this claim? Is it not a fact that EPAC members are at least as independent as Queensland's State Government electoral redistribution commissioners? Senator BUTTON —I am not competent to comment on Queensland's State electoral redistribution commissioners. I feel that I may have some preconceived prejudice on the basis of long-standing experience, so I will not make any comment about them. The suggestion made by Senator Boswell about EPAC is characteristically ill-informed, if I might put it mildly. I point out to Senator Boswell that EPAC is in a sense a representative body. A variety of important groups in this community were asked to nominate people for the membership of EPAC. Those bodies included the Confederation of Australian Industry- Senator Chaney —Didn't you choose them? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney is querying this. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me a minute ago what guidelines the Government gave EPAC. Honourable senators opposite have been in Opposition now for 18 months and EPAC has been established for 12 months. The Opposition does not have a tittle of understanding of what EPAC is all about, yet people like Senator Boswell make these ill-conceived comments. The Confederation of Australian Industry has a representative on EPAC; the Business Council of Australia has two representatives; the Australian Council of Trade Unions has representatives on EPAC; a whole range of organisations of that kind have representatives on EPAC. To suggest that the individuals to represent those bodies were chosen by this Government and that in any sense they are Australian Labor Party-- Senator Boswell —Puppets. Senator BUTTON —Puppets is absurd. Senator Boswell probably does not understand the nature of political dialogue and consultation. I think it is very important that he try to have some understanding of the variety of bodies which this Government has appointed in order to obtain a variety of points of view. A variety of points of view is consistently put to EPAC by different bodies. For example, the Australian Council of Social Service representative on EPAC, I think I am correct in saying, has been very critical of some of the other views expressed at EPAC. The nominee of the National Farmers Federation of Australia has made it quite clear that he does not share certain views advanced by a majority of people of EPAC, and so on. So it is a ludicrous comment and one which deserves only condemnation, which I will not make very rigorously because of Senator Boswell's apparent incapacity to grasp these issues. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I also seek some clarification about the scope of the Government's capital gains tax in light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday of certain limited exceptions, as reported, for example, in the headline of the Sydney Morning Herald, 'Hawke tells how gains tax could work'. I ask the Minister: What conditions will apply, in relation to the capital gains tax, to the division of assets following a divorce? Where the sale of the family home is required by the Family Court of Australia will each of the partners to the former marriage be assessed separately on his or her share of any capital gain that results? Senator BUTTON —This Senate is a chamber of people and it is sad to see some of them converted into robots who ask standard questions, all clearly compiled by the one person. Senator Baume's question is not particularly intelligent in view of the answers I have given to a previous question on this matter. The Government will not be introducing any new taxes. It is very silly to have the standard preface to these questions referring to the Government's capital gains tax. It has the virtue, I suppose, of repetition, which is important for small minds, but that is the only virtue it has. As we are engaged in a repetition exercise, I repeat that the Government has no plans to introduce new taxes following the election. The taxation system in Australia will be subject to a comprehensive review designed to provide greater equity and fairness in the Australian tax system, which the Australian people and a wide range of community groups in Australia understand to be necessary. The great sadness is that it did not happen earlier. It did not happen because for seven years the country had a lacklustre and uncourageous government-a government that was not prepared to address any of these issues. As Senator Robert Ray points out, the only beneficiaries from the taxation system in that period of seven years were the tax avoiders. The Government seeks a comprehensive review of the taxation system designed to provide greater fairness and equity and to stamp out malpractices in the system. When that review is complete, the Government will have before it views about the nature of the taxes that should comprise our taxation system from then on. As Senator Baume raised the subject of capital taxes, let me say that, if capital taxes of one kind or another are suggested in that review, no doubt there will be a variety of suggestions about exemptions. Wherever capital taxes are imposed in the rest of the world, as they are, exemptions are provided. That will be the case in this country as well. Senator Chaney —Will it be a Claytons? Senator BUTTON —The Leader of the Opposition asks whether it will be a Claytons. The answer is that if the review is of a comprehensive nature, as I believe it will be, it will certainly recommend a taxation regime in Australia that will stop taxation avoidance dead in its tracks. If there is any recommendation arising from the review about capital taxes, it will be important in the area of business taxation and the way in which resources have been directed in this country in the past and should be directed in the future. In respect of both those matters, this Government is hopeful that the results of the review will provide a taxation system of that kind for this country. Senator GILES —Is the Attorney-General aware of insistent criticism by the Director of the Western Australian Marriage Guidance Council of the level of funding given to marriage guidance counselling organisations by the Federal Government? What is the Hawke Government's record in this regard and has assistance to these organisations been increased this year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the campaign conducted in the pages of the West Australian newspaper by the Director of the Western Australian Marriage Guidance Council, but the facts of the matter are such as to give no credence to that campaign. Senator Crichton-Browne —Then why did you not write back? He wrote to you. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have written back to him, and we have contacted him on a number of occasions in a number of different ways. We have demonstrated a lot more sensitivity than normally emerges gurgling from that primaeval quarter of the chamber over there. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Senate has many times had rulings from the Chair that remarks of that type, which are aimed not at individuals but at groups, are within the Standing Orders. If that ruling is to be changed I think it would be a good thing, but I feel that it should be clarified. The PRESIDENT —Order! I regarded the remark made by the Attorney-General as being out of order, and I ruled accordingly. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 25 September this year, I approved a grant of $336,000 to the Western Australian Marriage Guidance Council for the 1984-85 fiscal year. Whilst this represents the same amount in dollar terms as for the previous year, it is effectively a 9 per cent increase in recurrent funding to the Council, for last year's grant included a mortgage repayment component of approximately $28, 000 which has now been finalised. Following a request from the Council in September, the level of the grant is under review and the Council has been advised to that effect. I do not believe there is any unfairness about it. The main point that has been made by the Director of the Council is his objection to the charging of fees for marriage guidance services. The fact is, however, that the financial assistance provided to voluntary organisations approved under the Family Law Act is intended to provide only a proportion of their income. It is not intended to be a total Government funding program and organisations are expected to raise a reasonable proportion of income needed to meet necessary expenditure. A proportion of around 25 per cent is not considered to be unreasonable and many organisations provide a much greater proportion of their income than this. For several years now all eight State and Territory marriage guidance counselling organisations except Western Australia's have charged a fee for service, but no one is denied the service because of inability to pay. The average fee per interview received by councils in 1982-83 was $8. That is hardly a cost recovery basis but a contribution basis. Of the remaining 14 organisations, all except the Catholic agencies charge a fee for service. All agencies contribute substantially to their funding requirements, in the case of the Catholic agencies by contributions of 40 or 50 per cent. The overall record of the Hawke Government in the marriage guidance area has, I believe, been a proud one. We increased funding to marriage counselling organisations by 9.9 per cent on our first Budget and by over 11 per cent in the 1984-85 Budget. In Western Australia specifically, where this fuss has arisen, I recently approved Anglican Marriage and Family Counselling Services of Perth as an additional organisation for funding under the Family Law Act and have authorised an initial grant of $15,000 for this financial year. This means that in Western Australia there has been an effective increase of more than 13 per cent in recurrent funding to marriage guidance organisations for this year. Finally, I add for the record that in this year's Budget we have also funded the related initiative of family law centres with pilot projects to be established in Dandenong and Wollongong. These services are designed to complement the work of the voluntary agencies and will combine legal and counselling skills under the same roof. The amount of $639,000 is provided in the Budget for this initiative. Senator WALTERS —I remind the Minister for Social Security of his view expressed in Labor Essays as follows: To be consistent, those who argue for a pensions assets test should also argue for personal income tax to be supplemented by a substantial tax on personal assets-in other words, a wealth tax. Does he see the statements of recent days by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce as pointing to the sort of logical extension to which he referred? Does he believe that the wealth tax he foresaw following the assets test should have the same reach into people's assets as the assets test itself? Senator GRIMES —I am very pleased that Senator Walters is reading Labor Essays. I thought there were probably not enough pictures in it for her. I think it is important that people read things like Labor Essays. Everyone here should read the latest copy of the Liberal Party's viewpoint and what Senator Chaney and Mr Macphee had to say about assets tests, capital gains tests and things like that. My personal view of what sort of taxes or otherwise this country should have is of very little importance, I am afraid. I am the Minister for Social Security. I will undoubtedly be able to express my view in the Cabinet after the Government conducts a comprehensive review of the taxation system, which it is going to do. That review, when it is completed, will, as Senator Button has said, suggest, we hope, a fairer and more equitable tax system. If it does not do that no one will accept it. The contents of any fair and equitable tax system will be judged by the Government and I believe should be judged by the Parliament after we have had a proper review, which has been badly needed in this country. That essay in Labor Essays referred to the possibility of taxes on capital. I do not believe the term 'wealth tax' was used, but I will read the essay again as it is a fair while since I read it. As to the details of any such tax, if any such tax were introduced, that would depend very much on expert opinion after close analysis of it. I repeat what Senator Button said: We will have a comprehensive review of the taxation system. I do not think anyone denies that that is necessary. We have not discussed or considered any form of changes in taxation because we do not want to pre-empt that review. We want the Parliament and the country to have a proper look at it. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister say whether his views expressed in the Labor Essays are on the agenda for the review? Senator GRIMES —I think any views I have will be way down on any agenda of the review of the taxation system in this country. I find it interesting and amusing , quite frankly, that when a government wishes to have a review of a taxation system to provide a more equitable taxation system, the chief critics come from the Opposition, which contains people like a former Attorney-General who kept the prosecution papers for a tax avoidance case in the bottom drawer of his desk for months and months and did nothing about it; people who would not even bring themselves to vote for the meagre, toothless anti-tax evasion legislation which the previous Government introduced; people who quite clearly over the years have defended the tax evaders and tax avoiders in this country, who have put an enormous burden on the ordinary taxpayers, the pay as you earn taxpayers. We want to stop that. We will not be stopped by those members of the Opposition who combine the moral standards of Lucrezia Borgia with the ethical standards of Caligula. We will not be stopped by people who misrepresent the situation in the way that Opposition members do. We will not be stopped by people whose record in this area is appalling; a record to maintain the inequities in the system and not a record to correct the inequities and bring some justice into the taxation system. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I draw the Minister's attention to the case of an American buoyancy vest called America's Cup which has been found to be unsafe. This vest is, however, still on the market. Is the Government considering changes to consumer protection laws so that there can be a mandatory recall or modification of unsafe goods such as this, so that the Australian public can be better protected? Senator RYAN —I recall this matter being raised some time ago. I think at that stage it was referred to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It is certainly the intention of our Government, and of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in particular, to have uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia, which I expect would cover ways of dealing with an unsafe product which was on the market. I do not have any specific information about the matter to which Senator Foreman referred, so I will seek an answer from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement that family homes would be exempt from a capital gains tax. Since the Prime Minister and the Government's decision making has advanced to a point on capital taxes that he is able to announce that decision on family homes, what is the position in relation to farmers? Will the same curtilage provisions apply to the capital gains tax as apply to the assets test? Senator BUTTON —As I said before, the Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the taxation system in Australia. The purpose of that review is to provide fairness and equity in the taxation system, which has not been the case over the years. I believe that most Australians, particularly pay as you earn taxpayers, recognise and feel very strongly about that. They feel very strongly about this Opposition too because it nurtured the tax avoidance industry when it might have been doing something about the position of PAYE taxpayers in this country. In the course of that review it is possible-I would think likely-that general questions relating to capital taxes will be considered. In the consideration of the whole tax structure and the part played by capital taxes in the whole tax structure, no doubt exemptions will be considered if the review recommends the adoption of any capital taxes. If the review so recommends it will undoubtedly recommend exemptions. In responding and making decisions about any recommendations which flow from the review, the Government will be guided by its fundamental concern in setting up the review, which is to ensure, as I have said, greater equity and efficiency in terms of business taxes in the taxation system. Decisions will be made at that time on that basis. I would think there is an enormously powerful argument in respect of taxes on farm homes and so on. But that is a matter which will arise from the review and will be given consideration in the light of the fairness and equity criteria to which I have referred. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government has not answered my question. The Government has announced a specific decision in principle on homes. Why is it that it cannot announce a similar decision on homes of farmers and the curtilage involved? Senator BUTTON —The Prime Minister has said that if in the context of any comprehensive review a capital gains tax of some kind or another were recommended, in the interests of fairness and equity the family home would be excluded. He has taken that no further than that. I do not seek to take it any further than that because the fairness and equity test will be the one which will be applied. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that the Soviet Union is to follow the example set by the United States of America by deploying land and sea based missiles similar to the cruise missiles now being deployed by the United States Air Force and Navy? Will the Government convey to both super-powers Australia's concern at this further escalation of the arms race, especially in view of the Ambassador for Disarmament's support at the United Nations for Mr Chernenko's latest arms proposal which calls for a mutual arms freeze, an underground test ban as well as a ban on nuclear weapons in outer space and a renunciation by the United States of first use of nuclear weapons? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no doubt that all sorts of useful things can be said in answer to Senator Child's question. However, I will defer doing so until I have had a word with the Minister about it. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in which he abandoned the Australian Labor Party policy to give Aborigines a veto on mining on their land and particularly his statement: There are other ways of ensuring the proper protection of the rights of Aborigines than by the exercise of veto. Will the Minister indicate what other ways the Government intends to use to protect the rights of Aborigines? I also ask whether those ways will still be in accord with the ALP platform, which states: Aboriginal and Islander people will have the right to refuse permission for mining on their land or to impose conditions under which mining may proceed. In what ways will the ALP platform be taken into account in determining these other ways? Senator RYAN —The line that the Leader of the Opposition has been running in this place for some time seems to be based on the assumption that the Australian Labor Party has a commitment to an unqualified veto over mining on Aboriginal land. Any complete reference to the Labor Party platform-Senator Chaney has just made an incomplete reference to it-will show that the provision whereby we undertake to give Aboriginals control over mining on their land, to refuse mining or to impose conditions under which mining can take place, is qualified. It is not an unqualified provision and it has never been an unqualified provision. Our Federal platform is qualified by reference to the national interest. It says that a decision to refuse mining by Aboriginal land owners or a decision to impose conditions on mining by Aboriginal land owners may be set aside by an Act of Parliament in the national interest. That is a qualification, although it is a strong statement that there ought to be a measure of Aboriginal control. Similarly, in the uniform principles which we are seeking to have incorporated into land rights legislation throughout Australia and which have been laid down by Mr Holding on a number of occasions there is a reference to Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. A commitment to providing a measure of control is quite different from an absolute veto. Our policy, as I have made quite clear, is not for an unqualified veto. It is mischievous in the extreme for Senator Chaney to suggest that it is. The Prime Minister said yesterday-this has been the case for some time-that we are now in discussions with the Government of Western Australia about the form land rights should take in that State and about the sorts of decisions Aboriginal people will be able to make in respect of land they will get as a result of this land rights legislation. It is simply misleading for Senator Chaney to suggest on the one hand that there has been a position of unqualified veto and that now we are abandoning it. There has never been a position of unqualified veto. The Northern Territory ( Aboriginal Land Rights) Act, which was enacted by the previous Administration, contains the right of the Parliament to set aside a veto, and I should point out that that right has never been used because a veto has never been applied. We are seeking to work out with all interested parties ways in which Aboriginals may control what happens on their land, but not to the extent that mining in the national interest or the public interest would be jeopardised. I believe that will happen. The legislation is being drafted in Western Australia at this stage . An officer of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs is involved in that drafting exercise. I believe there will be a degree of control in the land rights package there, the details of which of course have not yet been laid down . Senator Chaney asked what form other than an absolute veto could be provided. There is the example of the Northern Territory where there is a veto right. There is also the example of South Australia where there is a tribunal mechanism whereby disagreements in relation to mining on Aboriginal land can be resolved. That is another model available to the Western Australian Government and the Federal Government to consider. In short, there are a number of ways in which a State government in co-operation with the Federal Government could establish fair mechanisms whereby Aboriginal land owners would exercise some control over mining on their land in such a way that would not be against the national interest. Those kinds of mechanisms are now being studied by the Government of Western Australia and by the Federal Government and I believe that a satisfactory resolution which takes into account the legitimate interests of all parties will be arrived at. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. In light of that answer, I ask the Minister: Is she saying that the further passage from the platform which she quoted, that to set aside a refusal or conditions imposed shall require an Act of Parliament, is regarded as binding on the Government and will be imposed by this Government? Senator RYAN —The effect of that part of the platform is that ultimately the Parliament-that could be the relevant State parliament or the Federal Parliament -determines whether mining occurs or not. Senator JONES —I ask the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to this statement by Professor Harding: Urgent action was needed to sort out an 'amazing disparity' in the imprisonment rates of Aborigines, which was 16 times higher than whites. Professor Richard Harding, in addressing the national conference of the Society of Labor Lawyers in Adelaide, also stated: . . . the pattern of imprisonment of Aboriginal offenders was so oppressive that the Commonwealth should exercise its statutory powers immediately to create special sentencing procedures and rules in relation to Aborigines. I ask the Attorney: Is his Department considering using the Commonwealth powers to make some adjustment to the sentencing procedures that are now taking place? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of Professor Harding's comments. He sent me a copy of his paper well before the seminar. I know of his long standing interest in this area. The whole question of the Aboriginal crime rate has been of concern for some time. Despite the attitude of Queensland in not keeping statistics on Aboriginal prisoners on the basis that it is racist to differentiate between Aboriginals and whites in that way-this, of course, produces some distortions in the national figures-it would be premature to comment on either the possibility or the desirability of the Commonwealth taking any special measures in this respect. I simply note that the Australian Law Reform Commission is looking at, and hopefully is close to concluding its examination of, the whole question of recognising Aboriginal customary law. It may be that that would be a more sensible solution to at least some aspects of the Aboriginal crime problem were Aboriginal community solutions to these particular sorts of crimes to be recognised by our system of law. I think there is a lot of interest in what that report will finally recommend. The Australian Institute of Criminology is also working in this area. In September last year it held a workshop on Aborigines and the criminal justice system and a follow up workshop is scheduled for April next year. The Institute has appointed an anthropologist to study the possibility of a program similar to a scheme operating in New Zealand called a diversionary program. The Criminology Research Council has also provided a grant to someone from the Western Australian Department of Prisons who is looking at the appointment of Aborigines as justices of the peace. As to the question of sentencing disparities-it is the kind of criteria that are being applied in sentencing which may work in practice to operate against Aborigines even when they are charged with the same sorts of crimes as whites or European Australians-we are, of course, continuing to pursue the idea of a sentencing council as a way of establishing guidelines operating effectively on a national basis, although for the moment that project has been deferred pending the further consideration of the whole question by the Law Reform Commission and a further report from it. But it is a very intractable problem that Professor Harding has drawn attention to, and one that I think demands the co-operation of all jurisdictions in Australia, including Queensland, if we are to both understand the nature and magnitude of the problem and try to identify appropriate solutions to it. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I also refer to the Prime Minister's announcement that the family home would not be included in a capital gains tax. Will other such items of capital value that gain over a period, such as coins, stamps, jewellery and antiques be included in the tax? Senator BUTTON —As promised the Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the taxation system in Australia. Senator Walters —After the election. Senator BUTTON —Yes, that is right, that is what we have promised. We would be unlikely to do it before the election. Opposition senators will do it before the election and come up with some hare-brained views on Monday, no doubt. The Government will conduct a much overdue comprehensive review of the taxation system. In the course of any such review, I am sure that capital taxes will come under consideration. If any recommendations about capital taxes come out of the review, I am sure that they will contain exemptions about all sorts of matters, including the matters raised by Senator Collard. I suppose that they would be matters which would be considered when considering any categories of exemptions which were appropriate. I would not think-I venture to offer an opinion-that they would be matters of great concern in arriving at a more equitable taxation system for Australia, which is the purpose of the review. Senator ELSTOB —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Australia's defence capabilities and, in particular, to the Committee 's views on the capacity of the Army's Operational Deployment Force to respond quickly to a threat? Will the Minister comment on the time it would take the Operational Deployment Force to deploy? Will he comment also on its helicopter support? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention has been drawn to these matters. I am able to give a preliminary response from the Minister for Defence. He informs me that he will be giving his attention to the report, which is very lengthy, but in the meantime the Government does not accept the allegation that the operational Deployment Force cannot respond appropriately. Our capabilities are regularly tested in exercises and last year's Kangaroo 83 exercise tested the ability of the Australian armed forces to meet a low level threat. It demonstrated that Defence Force units could deploy at short notice, operate in the north-west of Australia under harsh conditions for a limited period while conducting low level operations, and then be redeployed. The degree of readiness of the ODF must reflect our strategic circumstances. The current instructions on the degree of notice to move take account of our favourable security outlook and allow for training and peacetime leave arrangements to proceed. Should our security prospects change, the notice to move would be shortened, leave curtailed, aircraft positioned and stores further prepared. In relation to helicopters, the Minister for Defence has reminded me that when we came to office the ODF had three helicopters. We increased that number to four last year and a further two are now in Townsville. In other words, we have doubled the number of helicopters provided by the former Government. It is, of course, true that the deployment of eight Royal Australian Air Force helicopters to the Sinai affects our capabilities, but we have to keep in mind the contribution that these helicopters make to peace and stability in the Middle East. We must also keep in mind that our Sinai deployment is a short term one. In any case, if our strategic circumstances were to deteriorate, the helicopters and our personnel could readily return to Australia. Senator JACK EVANS —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy confirm that the Government intends to maintain the import parity pricing formula it inherited from its predecessors as the basis for undertaking the review of petrol prices due in December this year? Does the Minister agree that this will result in a sizable increase of at least 2c a litre in the price of petrol to Australian consumers, due to the decline in the value of the Australian dollar relative to the United States dollar? With the world price of petrol falling steadily, as witnessed by Norway's and Britain's recent decisions to effect a substantial cut in the price of North Sea crude, does the Government 's current import parity pricing formula make a complete mockery of a statement by the current Treasurer and then Opposition spokesperson on resources and energy, Mr Keating, that the Fraser Government's petrol pricing policy 'is a tax by stealth with a branch of the Australian Taxation Office at every petrol pump' and his promise that 'a Commonwealth Labor Government will break the nexus with the Fraser Government's import pricing policy so that Australian oil would be cheaper than the world price'? Senator GRIMES —On 9 October the Minister for Resources and Energy announced amendments to the marketing arrangements to apply to indigenous crude oil from 1 January next year. This followed an extensive review of the existing crude oil allocations and the import parity pricing arrangements over the last six months. Part of the decision referred to the maintenance of the import parity pricing formula as the basis for government determination of prices for Australian crude oil allocated to Australian refiners. The calculation of the import parity prices takes account of the latest movements in the official price of market crude-that is, Saudi Arabian light-and the Australian and United States dollar exchange rates. In the context of the latest announcements from Norway and the United Kingdom of significant price cuts for North Sea crude oil, there is speculation in the Press that this will add pressure to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and to Saudi Arabia in particular to reduce prices . It would therefore be inappropriate for me or anyone else to speculate on the possible impact of these various factors on Australian crude oil prices. Nevertheless, the decline in the value of the Australian dollar relative to the United States dollar since July would tend to increase the Australian import parity price, but this may well be offset by a decrease resulting in these latest international crude oil pricing decisions. As for the political sting in the end of Senator Evans's question about statements allegedly made by Mr Keating, I think before the 1980 election, I will refer those matters to Senator Walsh, and Mr Keating if necessary, to get an appropriate answer. But I believe that the present policy is a sensible one. We will continue to monitor it, as we have in the past, with the intention of bringing justice and equity to both sides of the oil market in this country. Senator BUTTON —On 9 October 1984 Senator Chaney asked me a question relating to a parcel addressed to the Chairman of World Series Cricket- Senator Chaney —Procedures. Senator BUTTON —Can I just have a go at finishing the answer? Senator Chaney asked me a question about a parcel directed to the Chairman of World Series Cricket, Mr Kerry Packer, and the procedures which were followed in the course of a particular situation, and whether they were normal practice. I undertook to have the matter investigated. The question particularly asked was: 'Was the practice referred to by Mr Packer in his statement a general practice?'. The position is that, except in relation to shipments of very low value on which no duty is payable, normal Australian Customs Service practice requires the importer to prepare a Customs entry or informal clearance document listing the goods imported and setting out details of any duty or sales tax payable. The form and the supporting documents from the overseas supplier are lodged with Customs for checking. An examination of packages may occur where a query arises during the documentary examination or where, for other reasons, Customs consider an examination is necessary. The Australian Customs system which relies on documentary checking supported by selective and random physical examinations is similar to that used in most developed countries. The procedures are supported by an automatic data processing system which assists officers to evaluate information relevant to the documentary check and to determine shipments of particular risk. The Customs Act provides heavy penalties for Customs offences. Departmental papers show that the consignment in question was examined at the company's initiative to determine the nature of the contents since the company had no commercial documents from which to prepare the required Customs documentation. This system is available to all importers in similar circumstances and, I would add, in that circumstance, is normal. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia)(3.04) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chaney on 9 October 1984 relating to Customs procedures for the importation of goods. The thrust of the question asked was not about the particular parcel but about the procedures that were disclosed in the statement which related to that parcel . I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for that answer which will now be able to be given careful consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS —Further to my response to Senator Mason on 17 October to about a Central Intelligence Agency manual relating to Nicaragua, I am advised that there have now been reports which indicate that such a document was produced by the CIA. According to these reports the Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Congressman Edward Boland, has released a letter he wrote to a fellow Democratic congressman in which he confirmed that the manual in question was prepared by the CIA in 1983 and that his committee is currently investigating the reasons for the document's production and distribution. A White House spokesman has issued a statement that the Administration has not advocated or condoned political assassination or any other attacks on civilians, nor will it. Reportedly, this statement divulges that President Reagan has ordered an investigation. The Australian Government's position remains as I stated it two days ago, namely, that Nicaragua and other countries in Central America should be allowed to determine their own affairs as sovereign, independent nations free from outside interference. This position has been stated on a number of occasions and has been made known to the United States Government. We would consider the advocacy of political violence from any quarter as totally unacceptable and in this regard welcome the reported statement from the White House spokesman. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Watson asked me about an approach to the Minister for Defence by the executive of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia in regard to the formation of a union. The Minister for Defence has now informed me that he has recently received a letter from the Armed Forces Federation of Australia seeking support for an association of Service personnel. It is part of Australian Labor Party policy that serving Defence Force personnel should have the right to form and be members of associations in respect of their pay and conditions. The defence chiefs of staff have not yet provided the Minister with advice on this matter and the Minister has certainly made no decision in relation to it. Yesterday Senator Watson referred to conditions of service for members of the Defence Force. In response to that the Minister for Defence makes the point that in contrast with the previous Government, this Government has taken steps to improve conditions, for example, by establishing the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, legislation for which is currently before the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —During Question Time the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) referred to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. When he mentioned EPAC I made some comment to him across the table about the method of appointment of members to EPAC. I do not remember the exact words used but the general response of the Leader of the Government was that the Opposition did not understand the composition of EPAC. Therefore, I simply quote from the second reading speech of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, when the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 was laid down. Senator Bolkus —What is the misrepresentation? Senator CHANEY —The misrepresentation is that, from what I put forward on behalf of the Opposition, the Opposition did not understand the composition of EPAC. What is clear from the Government's statements is that the individuals on EPAC are not appointed by organisations; they are appointed by the Government. I read from the House of Representatives Hansard of 19 May 1983 when Mr Keating stated: The Council will have seventeen members, including three Commonwealth Ministers and three State Government representatives. For this purpose the Northern Territory will be treated on similar terms as the State Governments. In addition , one member will be selected in consultation with local government organisations, three in consultation with rural industry, four in consultation with business, one in consultation with trade unions, one in consultation with welfare organisations, and one in consultation with consumer and community groups. The State Government representatives will be nominated by their respective governments. So in that case there is nomination by State governments of those representatives. Mr Keating goes on to deal with the representation of the States which is not relevant to the point I am making. He also states: For non-government members, it is the Government's intention that they will, after an initial phasing-in arrangement, serve for four years. The latter will be appointed by the Government after consultation with relevant organisations as set out in the Bill. Non-government members will be selected on the basis of those who are best able to contribute to the work of the Council rather than as nominees of organisations. In addition to that, in an interview with Sir Arvi Parbo, who was at that time-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has sought leave to make a personal explanation on the ground that he has been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to state where he thinks he has been misrepresented and to correct that misrepresentation but not to use argument in support of it. Senator CHANEY —I am merely quoting the actual material of the Government, Mr President. I have shown this material to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and he asked me to use the whole of the quote and not part of it. All I wished to do was to quote an interview with Sir Arvi Parbo who, as the then Chairman of the Business Council of Australia, was making some comments on the way in which EPAC acts. Senator Button —I don't want you to quote it all; I asked you to incorporate it all. Senator CHANEY —I am happy to incorporate it all. This is the first quotation I wish to use the first answer which Sir Arvi Parbo gave on 28 May: The problem really is the way in which EPAC acts, the Acts under which EPAC and functions, has been drawn up. It specifies clearly that any appointments to the EPAC organisation are in an individual capacity and it specifies dire penalties if anything to do with EPAC is disclosed to outside bodies, outside sources. There is just one further sentence I wish to quote. A little later he said: It really makes EPAC a completely separate body, standing on its own and not related in any way to the organisations that nominated the people. I seek leave to incorporate the totality of the transcript of the interview in Hansard in deference to the Leader of the Government's wishes. Leave granted. The transcript read as follows- ABC World Today 28 May, 1984 Interview with Sir Arvi Parbo A. The problem really is the way in which EPAC acts, the Acts under which APAC and functions, has been drawn up. It specifies clearly that any appointments to the EPAC organisation are in an individual capacity and it specifies dire penalties if anything to do with EPAC is disclosed to outside bodies, outside sources. Q. Is this something that concerns you for all the representatives on EPAC, or only, say Mr Coates and Mr Kelman, who in a sense were nominated by the Business Council of Australia, that you are involved with. A. I only know about the concern with regard to people that we have nominated. I don't know what the other people feel about it, but they are working under the same provisions. Q. How does this organisational situation affect the workings of EPAC as far as you are concerned. How does it effect business in Australia. A. It really means that the people we have nominated have a very limited ability to refer things back to the Council and discuss it with the Council. It really makes EPAC a completely separate body, standing on its own and not related in any way to the organisations that nominated the people. Q. Are there some specific areas where you would have liked to have had consultation. A. I think on all those matters, they are all matters to us. Q. Because Mr Kelman and Mr Coates, in a sense in the papers that they have given to EPAC, have not been frightened of controversy. I mean, they have talked about cutting down protection, and I guess that perhaps would have affected certain parts of business and certain parts of the manufacturing industry. A. Yes, sure. And I am not saying that we are trying to avoid controversy. What I am really saying is that under the law as it stands, there is no opportunity for prior consultation with members of the Council before they put matters to EPAC. Q. Mr Coates has said if there is some concern over his particular representative ability, he would resign. Do you think that is necessary. A. I hope it won't be necessary. But, I fully understand how frustrating it must be for Mr Coates and Mr Kelman and that is one of the reasons why we are saying that there should be a review of the way in which the whole thing works. It clearly is not working in a very satisfactory manner. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, the fundamental point on which I was misrepresented was the suggestion that the Opposition did not understand that people on EPAC are- Senator McIntosh —Mr President, I take a point of order. I do not see anything personal in this at all. It was the Opposition that was referred to, not Senator Chaney personally. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President: I made a comment to the Leader of the Government and he responded to my comment using words which referred to the Opposition, but clearly he was responding to my comment and I have little doubt that it will appear in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order but I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks to the misrepresentation. Senator CHANEY —I am finishing my remarks now, Mr President. My point is that in a very disparaging way the Leader of the Government suggested that we did not understand-and that I did not understand-the way in which EPAC had been established. I suggest that the Leader of the Government's answer indicates that he has forgotten how EPAC was established. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I seek leave to make a statement arising from the last statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —In the course of Question Time I was asked two questions relating to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. One was from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, a shadow Minister, who asked whether the Government provided guidelines to EPAC. The second question was from Senator Boswell, who asked whether EPAC was a group of stooges, or something of that kind. In answering that question and in an exchange with Senator Chaney, I made the point that there had been two questions asked which indicated a lack of Opposition understanding about the nature of EPAC. I referred to two questions; Senator Chaney did not mention that in his so-called personal explanation. The first question I referred to was Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question about guidelines. I told her that the Government does not provide guidelines to EPAC as to what it will think about. The second related to Senator Boswell's comment and Senator Chaney attempted to resolve that question by going back to the second reading speech. I draw the Senate's attention to what was said in the second reading speech and what Senator Chaney subsequently referred to in the telex from Sir Arvi Parbo, which, by the way, uses the expressions 'nominated people by the organisations'. That expression is used in this telex- Senator Chaney —It is a transcript, not a telex. Senator BUTTON —Sir Arvi Parbo's words, quoted in the transcript, were made in the context of, of all things, as I recall it, a discussion about capital gains tax on EPAC in which Mr Coates and Mr Kelman of the Business Council of Australia expressed certain views. I suppose that that is a matter of interest to certain people. There seems to be some semantic distinction being made in this matter. The Government appoints people to a great variety of consultative bodies. It appoints people because it has to be the appointor, because the bodies are constituted by the Government, and the appointees on those bodies are appointed by the Government. That is a quite different thing from saying that the Government goes around selecting people from various organisations and saying: ' These people will represent you'. That is what honourable senators opposite used to do when in government, in respect of the National Labour Consultative Council and similar bodies. The Australian Council of Trade Unions would put up nominations, and they would say: 'No, we will not have him; we want someone altogether different'. That is what they used to do, and they just have not fallen out of those habits in their present thinking. The fact is that people appointed to the Economic Planning Advisory Council by the Government were appointed on the basis of representations from various interest groups represented on EPAC. That is the distinction. That is the only point I wish to make, and I think it confirms the point I made in answer to an interjection at Question Time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator seek leave to make a personal explanation? Senator BOSWELL —Yes, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator BOSWELL —During Question Time, Senator Button indicated that I did not understand the make-up of the Economic Planning Advisory Council and that I did not understand EPAC at all. The facts are that four Australian Council of Trade Unions delegates, two Labor Premiers and three Labor Ministers, making a total of nine members out of 15, result in the balance of power in EPAC heavily favouring the Australian Labor Party position. That was the point that I was trying to make. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is debating the matter. He is out of order. Senator Robert Ray —Come outside and name them. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Robert Ray. Senator Walters —Throw him out. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I warn you. Senator Walters —I did not say anything. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, you have been constantly interjecting today, and the business of the Senate must proceed. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Capital Territory, Joint Committee Retail Trading Hours in the A. C.T. Tabled 21 October 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 2. Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senate Standing Committee. Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings. Tabled 25 November 1982. Interim Responses 2 June 1983 and 15 December 1983. Feasibility of a compact, or 'Makarrata', between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal People-'Two Hundred Years Later'. Tabled 13 September 1983. 3. Education and the Arts, Senate Standing Committee. Tenure of Academics. Tabled 9 September 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 4. Finance and Government Operations, Senate Standing Committee. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report. Tabled 16 September 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Certain Annual Reports. Tabled 2 June 1983. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation- Annual Reports 1980-81. Tabled 1 December 1983. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, dated May 1984. Tabled 31 May 1984. 5. Foreign Affairs and Defence, Joint Committee. Some observations of Australia 's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean Island states. Tabled 8 December 1983. 6. Industry and Trade, Senate Standing Committee. Development of the Australian Fishing Industry. Tabled 21 April 1983. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 7. National Resources, Senate Standing Committee. Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries. Tabled 25 November 1981. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Partial Response 16 October 1984. Commonwealth's Role in Rural Research and Extension Services. Tabled 30 November 1982. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Plant Variety Rights. Tabled 3 May 1984. 8. Science, Technology and the Environment, Senate Standing Committee. Preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island. Tabled 2 November 1983. Interim Response 7 March 1984. 9. Social Welfare, Senate Standing Committee. Another side to the Drug Debate-a medicated society? Tabled 14 May 1981. Interim Response 15 December 1983. 10. Statutory Authority Financing, Senate Select Committee. Report: Volume 1. Tabled 8 September 1983. Volume 2. Tabled 13 October 1983. Interim Response 15 December 1983. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.17) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I understand that the Senate has a busy program, Mr President, and I shall be brief. I ask the Government to take note of the fact that Mr President has reported to the Senate that among the reports yet to have responses is the report on tenure of academics, which has now been in the hands of government for more than two years. It is a very important document, about which there is still considerable uncertainty on all Australian campuses. The decisions in relation to this report will have major effects upon the policies of tertiary institutions and will require decisions from them. I understand that it is a difficult report, but I urge the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, to expedite this response, which is now two years overdue. I also draw attention to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, the Walters report, 'Another side to the Drug Debate-a medicated society?', which has now been awaiting a response for three and a half years. Clearly, some of that time was during the period when I was a Minister and we were in government. However, the fact that this report has not been responded to in the period from 14 May 1981 to date-I acknowledge that there has been an interim response, but there has been no substantive response-is, in view of the subject matter of the report, of grave concern to those to whom questions of legal drug use and medication over-use are significant matters. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.19) —I do not wish to contribute to the debate. I note Senator Peter Baume's comments. On Monday I shall endeavour to provide a response to the report you have made, Mr President, giving at least an indication of the status of the responses. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.20) —Mr President, I wish to speak briefly, as I have on a number of occasions when you and your predecessors have very sensibly drawn the attention of the Senate to the fact that government responses to reports have not been given to the Senate within the required time. I want to make some general comments on this. Honourable senators will note that the President's report details 17 reports in all to which the Government has not responded within the specified period. I remind the Senate that under the initiative of the Fraser Government an undertaking was given that government responses to parliamentary committee reports would be made within six months. In August last year, in response to a question from me, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) indicated that in future they would be responded to within three months. That seemed to be some advance. In a number of cases interim responses have been made. Those interim responses say merely that the matter is being looked at. I do not want to generalise entirely. One or two of the interim responses might have had some actual content in them. For example, in relation to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, my colleague Senator Teague, who is sitting next to me, assures me that the response was purely interim and did not indicate any response on policy. So far as that and many other responses are concerned, there has been merely a technical compliance with putting down a statement within three months. I am glad that that is done because it indicates at least where the matter is going and there is a possibility of making some comment or criticism of it, but it is not a response in any true sense of the word. The very health of the committee system-I think that its health is in a dangerous state-is affected by the inability of those who work not only on Senate committee reports but also on other parliamentary reports to find out what is being done, what is the attitude in regard to the major policy questions that these reports throw up. If honourable senators are to continue to have enthusiasm-I see some risk in this Parliament that that enthusiasm will wane, which is not surprising if governments do not respond quickly to reports-a response must be given quickly. I am not making this a party political issue. It has been a long-standing problem that we have not received responses quickly. After the Government has undertaken to halve the period in which a response is given, we find this immense amount of dissatisfaction. Regarding the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on Makarrata, which was a massive report and which concerned the possibility of a compact with the Aboriginal people, deadly silence has set in since 13 September last year. That is regrettable. That is the case with a number of reports and there is not even an interim response to them. Mr President, I welcome the fact that you have presented us with the facts. I trust that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who unfortunately has left the chamber after making that slight intervention earlier, will not only respond on a couple of the reports which were mentioned by Senator Baume but also will give us some indication of how he will ensure that the undertakings of the Government are honoured. The Government might not have much longer to do so, but if by some mischance the Government is re-elected, how will it ensure that it will carry out the undertaking which it gave to this Parliament in August last year? Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.24) —I wish to defend the Government to some extent regarding the tabling of its responses to parliamentary committee reports. It has been suggested that there are 17 reports for which responses are out of time . I know that in the case of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations even if there has not been a formal and specific response which the President is able to say is a response to the report , there has been action by the Government. For instance, on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) there has been actual Government action. I do not think that anyone could say that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has done nothing about the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. There has been a great deal of activity in that area. The report of my Committee on certain annual reports in many respects does not require a Government response because they were merely factual reports-winding up matters in relation to those annual reports. The fifth report on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, which was a very big report, required ongoing action. I think everyone would acknowledge that Mr Dawkins, as Minister for Finance and as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, has initiated many reforms in the Public Service which also affect the operations of statutory authorities. This was done partly in response to the fifth report but as well on the initiative of the Government in accordance with its policies. So I am merely trying to put the issue into a little more perspective in relation to the numbers of reports where it is asserted that no action whatsoever has been taken, because in some cases that I know of there has been quite substantial action. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a report on the policy questions under division 312 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This matter was referred to the Committee following consideration of the Estimates for 1983-84 late last year. It raised a number of important issues of policy and principle relating to parliamentary scrutiny of estimates of expenditure prior to appropriation. Division 312 was a special lump sum fund to be expended on the commencement, continuation or expansion of government programs at the discretion of the Minister for Finance. The Committee considered the report of Estimates Committees relating to division 312 and sought an explanation of the policy underlying the division from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and an explanation of the legal basis of the division from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). It also considered a number of previous reports to the Senate which had considered the question of the form and content of the Appropriation Bills. The report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the ordinary annual services of the Government, which was tabled in 1976, was relevant to this question, as we had to consider the question of whether division 312 was an appropriation for new policy, an item of expenditure which is properly placed in Appropriation Bill (No. 2), pursuant to the 1965 compact between the Houses of the Parliament. The Committee concludes that all moneys spent from the division, most of which was allocated to pay staff for the introduction of the assets test, were payments for the ordinary annual services of the Government and accordingly were items properly placed in Appropriation Bill (No. 1). The Committee is also satisfied that these funds could not properly have been included in the Advance to the Minister for Finance, as the expenditure was not urgent or unforeseen, as is required under that Advance. It also notes that the division is only a temporary device and such an item is not included in the 1984-85 appropriations. While the Committee's conclusion is that division 312 is not expenditure on new policy but is for staff salaries and therefore for the ordinary annual services of government, the Committee asserts that the principle of parliamentary scrutiny of estimates of expenditure in advance of appropriation is of fundamental importance and observes that the form of division 312 did not allow as full a scrutiny of the details of the expenditure proposed under the division as would have been desirable. This report is the last of seven reports of the Finance and Government Operations Committee I have tabled in the last couple of weeks. So now would be an appropriate time to give a brief status report of the Committee's activities. We have caught up with many of our references and have, to a large extent, cleared the decks for the new year. So the matters we have left to deal with under our general reference on statutory authorities include: The Australian Dairy Corporation and PT Indomilk, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the question of statutory authorities' superannuation. We also have the relatively new general reference on non-statutory bodies. We expect to have the proposed reference from Estimates Committee A on the presentation of appropriations under the Government's financial reforms. We plan to restart our work, our research and our meetings, during December as soon as the election is over. I wish to thank members of the Committee for their co-operation during the year , and the Committee staff, especially the Secretary, Andrew Snedden, and I ask him to pass on to Christine McDonald and the other staff, including the secretaries and word processor operators at East Block, our thanks for all their hard work during the year on a wide range of subjects. They were often under pressure because some of the references required reporting within short deadlines. I thank them for their co-operation and for the forbearance shown to me and my fellow members on the Committee. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-The Joint Committee appointed under the National Crime Authority Act 1984 to monitor and review the operations of the National Crime Authority had its first meeting last evening. The members of the Committee are Mr Baldwin, Mr Brumby, Mr Griffiths, Mr Hall and Mr McGauran from the House of Representatives and Senators Crowley, Georges, Hill, Haines and Missen representing the Senate. The Committee elected Mr Alan Griffiths, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, as Chairman and Senator Alan Missen as Deputy Chairman. Mr Christopher Fogarty, the secretary of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is Acting Secretary of the new Joint Committee. Due to the late establishment of the Committee, its operations in this Parliament will be limited. Under section 53 of the Act, the members cease to hold office on the Committee on 26 October 1984 when the House of Representatives is dissolved. Meanwhile the Joint Committee has set in hand arrangements for the appointment of permanent staff of the Committee and arrangements for meetings with members of the Authority and briefings upon the commencement of sittings of the new Parliament. In the interregnum, informal discussions will take place to establish a framework for the Committee's monitoring functions in the new Parliament. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.31) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to move a motion relating to that statement. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I note the part of the statement which points out the long delay there has been in establishing the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. It could have been established at the beginning of this session. Of course, that would have given it an opportunity to make some contribution to the very vexed matters which have exercised a good deal of parliamentary time during this session and, in particular, to examine some of the difficult issues of the handover and whether or not there was an effective picking up of the reins of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union by the new National Crime Authority. I simply wish to express the Opposition's regret that the Government was as slow as it was in dealing with this matter, in failing to bring it forward from the House of Representatives until the dying hours of this Parliament. This is a matter which I know exercised Senator Missen very greatly. He took a very considerable interest in the passage of the legislation through the Parliament and sought to make the legislation as strong as possible. Indeed, I think Senator Missen was the father of the proposition that the Committee should be established. I express not only I think the regret that he would feel but also the regret of the whole Opposition that this aspect of the Crime Authority has been so tardy in being put into place. The Committee, as Senator Missen has said, will not be able to sit at all once the House of Representatives is dissolved. Hence we will have a very long delay in bringing this element of parliamentary scrutiny into effect. The Opposition regards that as a matter of very great regret and as being fairly typical of the lacklustre way that the Government has approached this whole question of dealing with organised crime. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.34) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to present two documents relating to the power of the Senate or its committees to meet after a dissolution of the House of Representatives or a prorogation of the Parliament and a publication of a committee report when the Senate is not sitting. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I present the following documents: First, an opinion dated 9 October 1984 of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, and, secondly, a paper dated 18 October 1984 by the Clerk-Assistant (Committees), Mr Harry Evans. Attached to the documents is a brief summary of each. I present these papers because of the current interest on the part of honourable senators in these matters. Each of the opinions, although by differing and sometimes contradictory routes, supports the conclusion that the Senate Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge may meet after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, expected on 26 October, and that the publication of its report after that date, if done in accordance with the resolution appointing the Committee, would be absolutely privileged. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I wish to thank the Chairman of the Committee for tabling these documents, both of which will be of interest to honourable senators. I also would like to make a request, through you, Mr Deputy President, for the tabling of any further opinions received on this matter, either by the President or by any other committee of the Senate, for instance the Standing Orders Committee. It is necessary for all honourable senators to be fully aware of the position for instance of privilege which may obtain to the reporting of a committee after the Parliament is dissolved. If there are any other opinions they also should be tabled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are I know two other opinions by Mr Ellicott, as he then was, and by Professor Howard. They are available in the Parliamentary Library. I will check with the President and see whether there are any other similar documents, and see what can be done. Senator GEORGES —In response to that, there was an opinion by Professor Geoffrey Sawer. If that opinion has been made available, it might not be on this particular matter but there may be an opinion from him to the Standing Orders Committee and that also, if it is available, should be tabled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will bring that request to the attention of the President. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.38) —The Senate is debating the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984 and two related Bills. Consideration of these Bills enables me to ask the Government why it has not taken this opportunity to make the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal more responsive to the aspirations of Australians. I take as an example Victorian radio station 3CR, community radio, a legacy of the Whitlam era. In its original concept community broadcasting had some merit because it represented an opportunity for the airing of the parochial . Today there remain some good programs as a legacy of the best of the original idea. In particular some of the musical programs are first class, the sorts of programs not broadcast on other radio stations, and opportunity is given for specialist music. Of course, opportunity is given to many little-known community groups to be heard which is also to the benefit of the community. Many of the programs are attractive to the young, which is also to their benefit but I wonder whether there is some deliberate reason for making this station in some regards attractive to the young for other reasons which I am about to come to. Of course, one of the problems in a democracy is when the Parliament of the people grants privileges to the people, such as this privilege, extremists frequently perceive these opportunities as having been especially created for them and they seize the opportunity made available and take over the privilege to the detriment of everyone else. That is precisely what has happened with radio station 3CR in Victoria. Some of the programs broadcast on this station have been so extreme and divisive that the station is now held in contempt by most Victorians and is deeply resented, indeed hated, by many. What has happened as a result of the takeover by extremists is that all of the station's political offerings are in support of extreme and revolutionary views which would be held by only a handful of Australians. That is why I raise the question of whether there may be some other motive in making this program attractive to the young. Victoria, maybe Australia, is unblessed-I say that deliberately-with a group called the Connolly Association. This is an association now generally acknowledged as an Irish Republican Army front organisation. As might be expected, these two bodies have got together so that the Connolly Association now has a regular program on 3CR presented by a Mr McGettigan every Saturday morning. In the course of this program Mr McGettigan and his advocates of terror have regularly advocated support for IRA terrorism as legitimate and have endeavoured to justify IRA murders. In particular I refer to the attempted justification on this station of the murder of Lord Louis Mountbatten, one of the heroes of this century, and also to the attempted justification of the murder of Mr Airey Neave, when he was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. Last Saturday morning the program broadcast an attempted justification of the IRA bombing at Brighton in England, in which four people were killed and 30 people injured in an attempt to assassinate the British Prime Minister. In the past this Parliament has spoken very strongly against the assassination of national leaders around the world. I see no reason to excuse an assassination attempt because it failed. The assassination attempt has been condemned by world leaders, including President Reagan of the United States, President Mitterrand of France and the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Fitzgerald, who described it an 'an attack on democracy'. The IRA bombing at Brighton last week stands condemned as a brutal, senseless and cruel act. However, last Saturday morning anyone who happened to be listening to 3CR in Victoria would have heard it claimed, in an attempted justification of the act, that there was no more legitimate a target for attack than the British Tory Party Conference. That disgraceful claim was repeated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program PM earlier this week , broadcast by an ABC radio station backed by taxpayers' funds, as indeed is radio station 3CR because last year it received $100,000 from the Victorian Labor Government. I add that last year 3CR was backed to the hilt by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, when it ran a fund raising campaign. Senator Peter Baume —I blocked funds going to that station in 1982. Senator LEWIS —Senator Baume has just reminded me that he blocked funds going to that radio station in 1982. Of course, that station is now receiving the support of this Government in Canberra and the support of the Labor Government in Victoria. On 5 June this year the application for renewal of the broadcasting licence of station 3CR came before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. On that day Mr Anthony McAdam, a columnist for the Melbourne Herald, appeared before the Tribunal to oppose the licence renewal because of the broadcasts on this radio station advocating terrorism and justifying murder. It so happens that in today' s Herald Mr McAdam has written an article under the title 'Australia and the IRA Connection' which deals with this matter very effectively. I applaud him for his article, I applaud him for his actions and I recommend the article to all listeners. This taxpayer, Mr McAdam, offered the Tribunal tapes he had made as evidence of his claims but Mr David Jones, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, refused to hear the objection, claiming that it would not be in accordance with natural justice to 3CR to hear a citizen's objection because it was so late. I point out that at that time, 5 June, there was still 25 days to go before the licence expired and, in any event, I have no doubt that some procedure could have been taken by the Tribunal to ensure that natural justice to 3CR could have been arranged and that natural justice could have been given to the taxpaying citizen, Mr Anthony McAdam. Senator Peter Baume —Of course. Senator LEWIS —Of course, as Senator Baume says, the Tribunal could have found some procedure that would have enabled consideration to have been given to the application; but Mr Jones, the Chairman of the Tribunal, said-I understand these are the precise words he used: It therefore appears to us that the matters as raised by Mr McAdam are not of such significance in relation to the exercise of the Tribunal's powers in these proceedings to warrant pursuing them at this late stage. I do not know what was behind the reasoning of Mr Jones and his colleagues in so deciding but it does seem to me that their finding is questionable. In deed, it seems to me that they were seeking an easy way out. Certainly it is far easier to toss out a citizen's objection on some technical ground, such as that it was lodged too late for consideration, rather than face the difficult task of considering the objection on its merits, especially when the licensee is so strongly backed by this Government and its Ministers. I suggest that some comparison of the Tribunal's approach to radio station 3CR be made with its current interference in an approach to the advertising of the sale of beer and tobacco. I am not seeking any extension of the advertising of the sale of beer and tobacco; I am merely asking the Senate to compare the approach to that advertising with what the Tribunal was prepared to do for radio station 3CR. I point out that one of the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is to determine standards to be observed by licensees. I just wonder whether it could not set standards in order to cope with the hymns of hate which emanate from radio station 3CR. Given this station's persistent sympathy for organisations and nations engaged in terrorist activities, one wonders whether its funding should not be the subject of some closer scrutiny to ensure that it or its staff are not being paid by foreign agencies dedicated perhaps to the overthrow of democracies around the world and perhaps even to the overthrow of this democracy. Certainly the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had the responsibility in renewing this restricted commercial licence of radio station 3CR of ensuring that it was economically viable. Therefore, it should have investigated its list of sponsors and affiliated organisations, and what organisations paid for air time. Given the Tribunal's responsibility to give directions in relation to changes in the ownership and control of commercial broadcasting, its responsibility to determine the standard to be observed by licensees and the requirement that it assist the public, it seems to me incomprehensible that the Tribunal should refuse to listen to or accept an objection lodged by a citizen. Not only is it incomprehensible to me but also it seems to bring into question the whole competence of the Tribunal. I go back to what I said at the beginning. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to be more responsive to the aspirations of the people and if it does not fulfil that task the Minister should take action. Yet here in this legislation we are extending the functions of this tribunal without apparently any criticism from the Government, as if the Tribunal were fulfilling the functions already entrusted to it in a satisfactory manner. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.50) —The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 contain two important points. Some honourable senators have addressed attention to those important points and many others have addressed attention to peripheral points, expressing their general views not only about broadcasting but also about the state of the world. I just make some comment on what Senator Lewis has had to say. I do not dissent from his attacks on radio station 3CR, which was the burden of his speech. In the same way that I do not deny him the right to make those sorts of comments, I hope this society would not deny 3CR the right to make comments within the law. I find some of the comments made on 3CR programs totally repugnant, certainly those made in addressing issues in the Middle East and so on over a long period. I think it has already been called into line before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal about some of those programs. But that is not the fundamental point of this legislation. I understand Senator Lewis's expression of views, but his speech was, as somebody said in an interview with Senator Peter Rae on Monday or Tuesday, typically Liberal in that it was full of rhetoric and not very good on substance. I certainly share his views insofar as the rhetoric would embrace, I suppose, the particular incidents which I would regard as reprehensible in terms of 3CR programming. The burden of Senator Lewis's comment was then to go on to say that we should not extend, as he put it, the functions of the Tribunal without being satisfied that it was properly administering its current functions. With that general philosophical underpinning, he then went on to say that the Tribunal was interfering with questions of tobacco and alcohol advertising on radio and television programs. But it was the Fraser Government which introduced the prohibition on tobacco advertising on television, although I believe it was supported by the Opposition of the time. However we should not forget that it was that Government which introduced the prohibition. I think a widespread community view would support that. There are also views as to whether there should be more equity in terms of the general advertising system in this country about what is prohibited, what is not and so on. I understand that. The matter of alcohol advertising is one of concern to many people. All that the Broadcasting Tribunal has done at this stage is publish a discussion paper on that issue with certain suggested recommendations. That paper has been circulated widely for discussion and it will be widely discussed. I have no doubt that Senator Lewis will have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion at greater length than he has had time to do today. That seems to me to be an essential and important part of the democratic process. If he is suggesting that the Broadcasting Tribunal should not think about these things, I regard that as a most dangerous and unfortunate suggestion coming, even as it does, from him. These Bills before the Senate first of all deal with licensing fees for commercial radio and television stations in the context of the provision of supplementary services or supplementary licences which would be provided by these stations in particular communities. The Government's view-a longstanding view in Australian broadcasting circles-is that the right to a portion of the radio spectrum, the right to broadcast, is a right in respect of which obligations can be properly expected from broadcasting stations. In our view, the aggregation of gross earnings in that context is considered to be equitable. Because of that factor the supplementary licence is a benefit available only to existing commercial licensees. In other words, people who already have a licence are being given a supplementary licence or right-one might almost say complementary in the terms of the earnings they would be expected to enjoy. That aggregation of gross earnings is not subject to the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The effect of it would be to allow licensees to operate a dual commercial service using common facilities and staff. In a sense, it is not only supplementary but also complementary. These rights and advantages would not be available to a single independent operator. In other words, if one already has a licence one also gets a supplementary licence. An additional advantage is conferred whereas no such additional advantage or benefit is conferred on a sole independent operator. For these reasons, the Government considers that aggregation of gross earnings is appropriate to reflect accurately the total use made by the licensee of the radio frequency spectrum in a particular area. That operator has a great advantage over a sole independent operator. I thought that argument might have had some appeal to the Opposition, but apparently it does not. Without aggregation of gross earnings the licensee of a commercial and related supplementary service, because of the progressive nature of the fee scale, would be able artificially to split his revenue between the two services which he now has the advantage of providing to minimise licence fees payable. In other words, it would amount to an income-splitting arrangement which would be inequitable as against other licensees of broadcasting services. That is the rationale behind the Government's amending legislation. I suppose the Opposition's view is that anything that imposes additional burdens on businesses of this kind and ignores the extent to which they are being given particular advantages should not be taken into account by legislation. The Government does not agree with that view. We believe that if one gets additional benefits the aggrandised earnings, that will arise should be treated in the way provided for in the legislation. Another important point that was raised-I will not deal with it at length-was the concentration of media ownership or control in a particular region or district. The provision in the Government amendment applies only after the Tribunal has decided that a full commercial licence would be a viable alternative to a supplementary licence. That is a very unlikely and uncommon situation. The effect of the amendment would not exclude consideration of print media interests in those circumstances. It would merely make it a non-mandatory consideration. The second important point that should be made is that amendment of the Bill would preclude the introduction of supplementary licences because there is provision for a phasing in of services over five years. That is necessary for the economic and sensible introduction of services. Thirdly, the proposal would leave loopholes in the ownership or control provisions. Those are the objections to the arguments which have been advanced against the provisions included in the Government's amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act. I just make the point that for a long time there have been provisions relating to concentration of media ownership in the broadcasting and television legislation. Perhaps they are inadequate provisions. If we all had the chance to begin again it might have been done differently. If one looks at particular situations in particular regional or localised markets one can envisage a situation, and there are such circumstances, in which there is a concentration of media ownership which embraces not only radio and television stations but also newspapers. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal would be asked to consider that question in dealing with supplementary licence applications only if the Tribunal had previously addressed the question of whether an independent operator should be allowed to operate in that market. We regard the provisions as very important. We do not want to see the Tribunal in a situation of not being required to address these situations in the particular narrow circumstances which I have described. For those reasons we reject the suggestion which has flowed from Opposition speakers. I thank honourable senators who have made constructive and relevant contributions to the debate. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy President, in accordance with standing order 420, may I ask the Clerk to read exactly the question that is now before the Senate? I want to know what the procedures are. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, the Clerk will do so. The Clerk-The question is that the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 be now read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, we have suspended Standing Orders in order to take these three Bills through all stages together. However, I am prepared to split them. I understand that you wish to oppose the second reading of the two licence fees Bills. I will put them together, separate from the other Bill. Senator Peter Baume —That is the course I would like to follow, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is that the wish of the Senate? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Question put: That the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Question put: That the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill be read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. R. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Gietzelt, A. T. Martin, K. J. Sibraa, K. W. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Grimes, D. J. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984 read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.09) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, paragraph 5 (a), proposed sub-paragraph 83 (6) (e) (ii), lines 1-12 , leave out the sub-paragraph, insert the following sub-paragraph: '(ii) that, having considered the need for an adequate and comprehensive service provided pursuant to the licence for such an additional station, it is in the public interest that applications for such a licence should be invited; or'. (2) Page 4, paragraph 5 (b), lines 13-18, leave out the paragraph. These amendments are to clause 5 of the Bill, which seek to amend section 83 of the principal Act. As Senator Button has said, it relates to circumstances in which an additional full commercial broadcasting station or commercial television station licence might be issued under certain circumstances which are set out in that section of the Act. The Bill before us contains certain criteria to be taken into account which were the subject of comment by several honourable senators during debate at the second reading stage of the Bill. The amendments which I have moved retain certain conditions that have to be considered but strike out certain other conditions which relate to the print media and in their place substitute the words 'there shall be considered matters in the public interest'. Although that broadens the consideration, we feel that it is appropriate that the public interest generally should be considered. We consider it inappropriate that there should on this occasion be a consideration of print media holdings, for reasons which I set out in my speech during the second reading stage of this Bill. I may or may not wish to respond again, but that very briefly puts the case for the amendments which I have moved. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.12) —The Government does not accept the amendments. We are dealing with the ownership and control provisions. I cannot in any way dissent from the words 'public interest' in Senator Baume's amendments. Nobody can ignore the public interest. It is like children-we are all fond of them. But the point is that the legislation deals with the ownership and control provisions. We are looking at local or regional markets. As I said earlier, the whole question of common ownership of the media ought to be taken into account in respect of a regional market in circumstances in which supplementary licences are being considered. That is the purpose of the Government legislation and we suggest that the Tribunal should be entitled and required to take those matters into account. I do not wish to add anything further on that point. Many issues were canvassed during the second reading debate. I was concerned to deal with what I thought was some misrepresentation made earlier in the debate in regard to the intention of the legislation. While I am on my feet I mention that during the second reading debate Senator Lewis, in referring to radio station 3CR, I think by implication suggested that although some people had made responses in respect of the Irish Republican Army bombing at Brighton the Government had not. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which refers to a message sent to Mrs Thatcher about that incident. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Prime Minister Canberra Please pass the following message from the Prime Minister to the Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, M.P. When I met your new High Commissioner, Sir John Leahy, in Canberra on Sunday I expressed to him our shock at the outrage in Brighton last week and our sympathy for the victims. On behalf of the Australian Government I also wish to extend deep sympathy to you personally, to those who were injured and to the relatives and friends of those murdered in that brutal blast. I fully support your courageous response to this appalling act of terrorism. Bob Hawke Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.14) —Briefly, I wish to indicate that, following discussions I have had with departmental officers since I spoke during the second reading debate, the apprehensions that I raised have been settled. We now believe that the propositions are reasonable and that there will not be the consequences that I outlined. Therefore the Australian Democrats do not intend to support Senator Baume's amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.15) —I raise again the matter I have raised on the adjournment on the past two days of sitting, that is, the matter of the Australian Customs Service and what might be regarded as the Sinclair affair. Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in a position to provide any information at this stage? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.15) —I thought the Sinclair affair was an ongoing saga, something altogether different. But if the honourable senator is referring to Syntex International Pty Ltd in Melbourne and the matters raised in that regard, I am sorry, I am not in a position to respond at the moment. But I pursued my inquiries this morning and I will definitely have something for the Senate on Monday. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.16 p.m. The following paper was presented: Public Service Act-Determinations 1984-Nos 43, 44, 45 and 47. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 919) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: Will the Minister for Health make available the submission of the Capital Territory Health Commission to the Penington inquiry which was withdrawn after a directive from the Acting Minister for Health, Mr Jones. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A copy of the submission lodged by the Capital Territory Health Commission with the Penington inquiry has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. As the honourable senator notes, an earlier submission by the Commission was withdrawn and not considered by the inquiry. (Question No. 1076) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 153 full-time and part-time keyboard staff were employed by the Department as at 1 September 1984. This figure includes clerical assistant staff who operate keyboards as part of their duties as well as word processors, stenographers and typists. (2) 34 staff had been or were off work as at 1 September 1984 with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1220) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 11 October 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Territories and Local Government about to appoint Ms Jill Lang as Assistant Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission with a salary and allowances of approximately $60,000. (2) Why has the job not been advertised. (3) Has the Minister been a close personal friend of Ms Lang for many years. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Cabinet agreed to the appointment of Ms Jill Lang to the position of Associate Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, on my recommendation, on 9 October 1984. The Executive Council approved the appointment on 18 October 1984. (2) During the past 20 years, Statutory Appointments to the National Capital Development Commission have, with two exceptions, been made on the recommendation of the Minister and not advertised as vacancies. (3) I have known Ms Lang since 1973 when she was an employee of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. Since then I have noted her great achievements in the area of urban policy and social planning. She is more well known to the Canberra community in her recent and successful role as Chairperson of the Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee and her leading part in the most innovative and effective Community Employment Program in Australia. Senator Walsh —On 9 October 1984 (Hansard, page 1443) Senator Chaney asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question, without notice: What has the Government done to guard against retaliatory actions that might be taken by the European Economic Community over the decision to suspend uranium supply to France while that country continues testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The action taken in regard to the supply of Australian uranium to France is of a special nature, and serves to protest the continued testing of nuclear weapons in our area. The Government has made its position known to France. Retaliatory action, whether by France and/or the European Community, is unlikely. Accordingly, there are no 'contingency plans' for such an eventuality. Nevertheless, were there to be any trade reprisals the Government would view such action with concern, and deal with the matter as appropriate at that time. Senator Gareth Evans —Yesterday Senator Walters asked me the following question about a report which the Human Rights Commission had prepared: My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the Human Rights Commission commissioned Dr Gabriel Moens of the Law School of the University of Sydney to do a study on affirmative action, concepts, justification and practice? Will Dr Moens's report, which has been with the Commission for about six or seven weeks, be made public? Has the Attorney seen a copy of the report? Are there any implications in the report critical of some aspects of the Government's Green Paper, particularly in regard to targets? Did the Attorney-General communicate with the Commission, which is an independent body, questioning Dr Moens's suitability for the task? I am informed that the Human Rights Commission on 22 March 1983 engaged Dr Gabriel Moens to carry out a consultancy for the Commission on 'Affirmative Action: Concepts, Justifications and Practice'. A description of the project is contained in Page 24 of the HRC Annual Report 1982-1983. The final report was to be submitted to the Commission not later than 28 February 1984. The first draft of the report was received by the Commission on 13 September 1984 at the conclusion of its last meeting. It is to be considered at its forthcoming meeting on 24-25 October 1984. I have not seen a copy of the report. I am not in a position to say what the report contains. I did, on 4 May 1983, at the request of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, communicate with the Commission concerning the project. I raised the question of the appropriateness of Dr Moens's undertaking the study. I was informed that the usual processes of consultation and of evaluating and obtaining approvals for the proposal to select Dr Moens from other tenderers were followed, including the consultation of academic referees. The question whether the report will be made public is a matter for the Commission which, as Senator Walters points out, is an independent statutory body.