Thursday, 28 February 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 362 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 Sir John Carrick (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 56 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: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programs could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant Varietal Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax-payer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan QC. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That 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 Australians should they so wish 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 Messner (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 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 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law; The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 114 citizens) and Walters (from 484 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 1,367 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 40 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to ensure the conservation of the wet tropics of North-East Queensland. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I present the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Commonwealth's role in rural research and extension services. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In June 1981 the Senate referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources the matter of ''the Commonwealth's role in rural research and extension services and the contribution of those services to the development of the rural sector and the Australian economy''. The Committee's report titled ''The Commonwealth's role in Rural Research and Extension Services'' was tabled on 30 November 1982. 2. Since coming to office the Hawke Government has given a deal of consideration to rural research and has recently made a number of decisions on the funding and the administration of rural research funds. The report of the Committee proved helpful in our deliberations. 3. The Committee has emphasised the vital importance of research relevant to Australia's agricultural sector, both on-farm and off-farm, to increasing the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian agriculture. We do not dispute the Committee view of the continuing need for a major public sector research effort. To quote from the Report ''the structure of rural industry makes it unlikely that industry could conduct its own research. The generally held view is that in the absence of public involvement there would be a significant under-investment in agriculture research.'' 4. Looking towards the future, the Committee's view should be noted that gains from research will be harder to win as problems become more complex and more subtle. Again, to quote from the report ''research into such subjects as plant genetics and molecular biology aimed at producing more disease resistant plant varieties, higher yielding and drought resistant plants, soil erosion and salinity and biological control of pests and weeds is necessary if the significant contribution of Australian agriculture to the national economy is to be maintained.'' 5. The Government is now in a position to provide its response to each of the Senate Standing Committee's recommendations made in the report. The recommendations and the Government's response follow. RECOMMENDATION 1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) be given the support necessary to ensure that, in future, statistics relevant to agricultural research will be gathered and published more quickly (p. 8 of the above titled report). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The ABS has completed a review of the research and development surveys, from which statistics relevant to agricultural research are produced and, within existing resource constraints, is planning to increase the frequency of the surveys from triennial to biennial. Improved processing systems from the 1984/85 data year are expected to improve the timing of publication of information from these surveys. RECOMMENDATION 2. The ABS investigate and report on the practicability of gathering statistics for private sector expenditure on research relevant to agriculture (p. 8). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The ABS currently collects research and experimental development data from private sector businesses from which it publishes data on expenditure on research in agriculture and related fields such as chemical fertilisers and agricultural machinery. No data are collected from farm enterprises. Collection of data is not considered worthwhile as research and experimental development by such enterprises is considered to be insignificant. RECOMMENDATION 3. CSIRO be no longer subject to the staff ceilings imposed on the Commonwealth Public Service (p. 17). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The concept of staff ceilings in the public sector has been replaced by human resource budgeting, the objective of which is the integration of staffing and financial decision making. This is to allow managers maximum scope in the disposition of the resources they have available to meet their responsibilities. In the case of CSIRO and other similar authorities the controls to be adopted will be limited to total appropriation and total staff usage expressed in staff years. RECOMMENDATION 4. Where CSIRO is directed by the Commonwealth Government to give increased emphasis to new areas of research, for example manufacturing industry and energy research, then that research should be funded through increased appropriation and not at the expense of existing worthwhile program (p. 17). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Noted. The Government is aware of the importance of CSIRO's contributions to the rural sector. Any directions to have CSIRO move into new fields of research are only given against the background of the total resources available to CSIRO and the Organisation's ability to allocate resources to meet changes in priorities. RECOMMENDATION 5. The Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) examine the structures and processes involved in developing priorities for scientific research and providing policy advice and if necessary make recommendations for the rationalisation of these structures and processes (p. 19). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE One of ASTEC's main and continuing functions is to examine the structures and processes involved in developing priorities for scientific research and providing policy advice, and when necessary the Council makes recommendations on these issues to the Commonwealth Government. ASTEC made several recommendations in 1979 concerning the national effort in rural research, and is keeping the area under active review. The process of developing priorities for rural research is complicated by the involvement of both Commonwealth and State government laboratories, as well as industry and tertiary education institutions; as a consequence there are significant roles to be taken by the Australian Agricultural Council (AAC) and its committees, by producer groups and by professional organisations. RECOMMENDATION 6. As a secondary consideration to the scientific imperatives of its programmes, CSIRO should seek to decentralise its research facilities, particularly those which engage in research that is influenced by local or regional factors (p. 20). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Noted. In the context of whatever resources are made available CSIRO should ensure that its rural research effort provides for a balanced coverage of the major regional conditions in Australia. RECOMMENDATION 7. CSIRO, in consultation with the relevant Commonwealth Departments and State Governments, examine the implications of 'building in' to its staff and financial policies provisions for collaborative developmental research with State Departments to ensure that CSIRO agricultural research is adapted to the needs of individual States without unnecessary delay (p. 21). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Accepted, subject to the usual constraint of the availability of resources. RECOMMENDATION 8. The enabling legislation for each rural industry research fund be amended to require levies to be reviewed at intervals not greater than every three years (p. 24). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government has decided to replace the legislation for each rural industry research fund with omnibus legislation. The legislation will, of course, reflect current industry contributions. Industries will be free to review their contributions and to propose changes as frequently as annually if they so wish. It should be noted, however, that in reaffirming the $ for $ matching principle, the Government has also decided that there be an upper limit to its contribution up to an amount equal to 0.5 per cent of gross value of production of the relevant industry. RECOMMENDATION 9. The Commonwealth Government act with all possible speed to implement the recommendations of industry committees for levy increases (p. 24). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government has adopted the objective of raising the level of industry contributions to 0.5 per cent of GVP within five years. Nevertheless requests for increased industry contributions cannot be divorced from the impact those increases will have on the Commonwealth commitment to match, up to 0.5 per cent GVP level. For this reason, proposals for increases below this level can only be considered annually in the Budget context. However, for proposals above this level, there should be minimum delay in achieving an increase in industry contribution by the amount requested. RECOMMENDATION 10. The Commonwealth take positive steps to encourage the expansion of the Rural Industry Research Fund System (p. 25). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government endorses the joint industry-public sector nature of the rural industry research fund system. Requests to establish new RIRFs will be given sympathetic consideration where the requesting industry can generate a reasonable and sustainable annual levy income and where the research requirements cannot effectively be combined with an existing scheme. RECOMMENDATION 11. The Commonwealth provide matching funds on a 2:1 basis to new RIRFs for two years after they attain statutory fund status (p. 25). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government considers, particularly given the realities of the current budgetary position and the research effort provided by other institutions to emerging industries, that the matching arrangements as announced should be maintained. RECOMMENDATION 12. A National Soil Conservation Council be established by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with the States and that the Council initiate a National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP), similar to the National Water Resources Program, to be adequately funded by the Commonwealth (p. 27). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government considers land degradation to be one of the most important long-term problems threatening agricultural production and has already initiated a NSCP which it is intended will combat further degradation and contribute to restoration of our most important agricultural resource base. Funding of $4 million was announced in the 1984-85 Budget. The NSCP has been established in co-operation with the States and will be developed in accordance with sound land use principles and national water resource priorities. It recognises, however, that primary responsibility for protection of the land rests with the individual land-holder and with the States. Inter-governmental co-ordination is undertaken through the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation of the Australian Agricultural Council. RECOMMENDATION 13. The Tertiary Education Commission review the implications of restoring the link between Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards and research assistant salary scales (p. 32). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government will consider the level of Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards in the context of its consideration of student assistance schemes generally. This will be looked at by the Department of Education, since it is the body responsible for administering the awards, though consultation with the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission would be involved. RECOMMENDATION 14. The universities be represented on the Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA) (p. 32). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Standing Committee on Agriculture is an inter-governmental consultative committee serving a Ministerial Council (AAC). The Government considers that it would not be appropriate for universities to have membership of this Committee. State members consulted noted that while representation of universities was inappropriate, the universities had contributed significantly to SCA/AAC deliberations through Standing Committee's technical committee and conference system. RECOMMENDATION 15. The Commonwealth develop a policy on agricultural research which states explicitly the reasons for and objectives of Commonwealth involvement and relates those reasons and objectives to its current activities (p. 35). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government's policy is to improve the organisation and administration of agricultural, forestry and fisheries research, and to increase funds for rural research with the objective of identifying areas of greatest need and delivering the most efficient use of the research dollar. Research is considered vital to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of rural industries. Although an upper limit, based on a percentage of gross value of production, has been introduced for each Rural Industry Research Fund, the principle of matching funding will continue. The Government considers that returns to investment in research in rural industries are high and that there is a serious risk of under-investment without Government intervention. Assistance to research is regarded as a particularly appropriate means of assistance to rural industry having regard to the non-distortionary nature of its effect and the widely recognised need to develop the potential benefits of our basic research effort. The Commonwealth contribution recognises the external benefits to the wider community and is considered essential to encourage participation of the relatively fragmented primary production units which are unable to appropriate all the results of research to themselves. RECOMMENDATION 16. An Australian Agricultural Research Grant be established (p. 36). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Recognising that support for multi-industry research and research for the smaller rural industries and for new or infant industries in Australia is inadequate, the Government increased its allocation to the Commonwealth Special Research Grant in the 1984-85 Budget from $279,000 p.a. for each of the three previous years to $500,000. The expanded fund will be put on a statutory basis and renamed Australian Special Rural Research Fund. RECOMMENDATION 17. A Bureau of Rural Research be established after effective liaison with the States to define its role (p. 38). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government allocated $0.5m in the 1984/85 Budget to allow initial steps to be taken for the establishment of a Bureau of Rural Resources in the Department of Primary Industry. The establishment of the Bureau will increase the level of expertise available to the Minister and the Department for formulating policies required for the proper management of the nation's agricultural, forestry and fisheries resources, including identification of research priorities. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Having just received a copy of the statement, I must say that we welcome the fact that there has been a government response to the report that was brought down on 30 November 1982. After a brief look at the statement, I do not say that we are happy with some of the responses from the Government. A lot of it concerns the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In Queensland at this time there is a lot of concern about one of the studies being undertaken by the CSIRO, concerning the setting up of a unit in Townsville for the study of nutritional aspects of animals, which was supposed to cost $700,000. An amount of $230,000 was given for the study in 1982-83. No money has been given since, and as a result it is not going ahead. I understand that the number of scientists involved in rural research between 1975 and 1983 dropped by 14 per cent, while the total number of scientists in the CSIRO has increased by 17 per cent. This, of course, is of great concern to the people in rural Australia. As I have said, on just looking very briefly at the statement, I do not think we will be too happy with some of the responses. We welcome the fact that after some time a response has been brought down. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Messner) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prevent an assets test applying to the rates at which certain pensions, benefits and allowances under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 are payable. Bill presented by Senator Messner, and read a first time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.06) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to abolish the assets test on Social Security and Repatriation pensioners and beneficiaries first announced by the Labor Government in its Budget of 1983-84 and finally enacted in September 1984. This followed a long period of confusion within the Government which brought many changes and counter-changes to the initial scheme, culminating in the establishment of the Gruen Panel in February 1984 to report on the form which an appropriate assets test should take. This panel reported to the Government in May 1984 and outlined a scheme whose notable feature was the inclusion of the family home with other assets for the purposes of the test. The Government did not adopt this part of the recommendations and announced in June 1984 its so-called 'modified tall poppies' test which is now embodied in the current legislation. Over the last eighteen months there has been widespread confusion and concern amongst pensioners and beneficiaries at the intrusiveness, many unfair aspects and numerous anomalies contained in the legislation. Many anomalies have been exposed but not corrected by the Government. Nor has there been any apparent attempt by the Government to review these, notwithstanding their being brought to its attention by Opposition members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and by the media. As late as Friday 22 February 1985, in the course of a debate on a matter of public importance on the assets test, I drew the Minister for Community Services, Senator the Hon. D. J. Grimes' attention to a number of significant problems, particularly the effect on farmers. The Minister totally ignored these cases in his reply and failed to refer to them at all. Despite the wide-spread dismay in the community and the Prime Minister's and the Minister's undertakings expressed in the course of the last several months, to review anomalies when raised, the Government has failed to take any action before the legislation is due to take effect on 21 March 1985. Over the long and sorry history of this legislation, the Government has continuously failed to act until pushed to the limit. Australians are now faced with a similar situation. There is less than one month before the commencement of the assets test and yet the legislation has been shown to be shot-through with glaring anomalies. I will detail some of these later in the course of these remarks. The Opposition has two courses open to it in the face of the Government's intransigence. It can propose legislation to correct the anomalies or it can seek to obtain the passage through both Houses of Parliament of legislation to repeal the assets test upon gaining control of the Parliament. The decision by the parties to move for repeal has not been taken lightly. The Liberal and National parties are opposed to the assets test in principal because it is designed to encourage people to become more dependent on governments by discouraging them from accumulating assets in order to provide as much as possible for themselves. Our commitment to repeal is thus based. For this reason we have rejected the notion of seeking amendments designed to correct anomalies in the assets test legislation which we believe to be so fundamentally lacking in merit. This Bill seeks to obtain the repeal of the assets test legislation to render ineffective the legislation for an assets test before it is due to come into effect and so drastically affect such large numbers of the aged. ANOMALIES From the outset, we have consistently made the point that the Labor Government's assets test will not catch the really rich whom it claims are taking unfair advantage of the pension system. On the contrary, it is the person who through thrift, modest enterprise and, in some cases, involuntarily built-up moderate levels of savings, who will be most affected. Some examples may spell out more clearly the common types of cases caught in the assets test net: The widow who receives a legacy from her former spouse, but finds that the married couples' exemption limits of $100,000 has reduced to $70,000 as she is treated as a single person thereafter, but whose income requirements have not fallen commensurately; the person of advanced age, who having owned and lived in the one house for many years, requires to move to a nursing home or an aged person's cottage, and realises a considerable sum of money in excess of the exemption limits from the sale of the house and because of inexperience and old age, finds it most difficult to handle the investment of the funds; the small businessman who sells out his business for little more than $100,000; a person in a similar position who moves to a 'granny flat' to live with the family and finds that it cannot be treated as a principal place of residence for the purposes of the assets test because it technically is owned by the person providing the land upon which the aged person paid for and erected it; a person who pays rent in an aged person's home compared with one who makes an ''up front'' payment upon entry to the home which is treated as though it were the value of the principal place of residence; the farmer whose farm property is unable to generate income sufficient to support him and his spouse in retirement and their son or daughter and their family who have been working on the property for little remuneration. The plan is usually that they will take it over to continue the operation but are unable to afford payments to the parents because of the low rate of return on such properties. Because of the deprivation provisions of the legislation the parents are unable to qualify for the pension and legally transfer the farm to the children which is the only practical action to be taken. The Government provided the infamous 'pension loan scheme' to allow pensioners in this situation, or with other illiquid assets to ''borrow'' the pension with interest at 13.5 per cent during their lifetime against a security charge being applied to the farm. In the best of circumstances, and assuming a life in retirement of 15 years, this could build up to a debt of $400,000 and become a considerable problem for the inheritor to refinance, probably causing the eventual sale of the property and destruction of the intention which was to maintain the family farm operation. But consider the diabolical bind in which a farmer finds himself if he has transferred the legal ownership of the property to the children. Not only is he caught by the deprivation provisions of the assets test, but because he no longer is able to effect a charge on a property owned by his children, he is unable to qualify for the pension loan scheme as well! His only resort is to seek a pension under the hardship provisions. However, he finds that should he own assets in excess of $5,000-for instance, a modest savings account, then he will not be eligible under that provision either. There is probably no cleverer three way attack on farmers yet devised by the Government than this. Because of the extensive, complex and far-reaching nature of these most serious anomalies in the assets test legislation, there can be only one course-to repeal the legislation. If the Parliament neglects its responsibilities in this regard, it is likely to cause considerable hardship to people who in their declining years are unable to cope with either the rate of change or the details and technicalities of it. In the view of the Liberal and National parties, the Parliament is obliged to act through this Bill, if the Government will not. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; (b) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Baume relating to human rights in the Baltic States; and (c) General Business, Order of the Day No. 4, Flags Amendment Bill 1984 [1985]. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.09) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Present and planned changes in the presentation and structure of the appropriations presented to Parliament and consequential changes to the content and format of Departmental Explanatory Notes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later as I understand that the matter has not been fully discussed yet. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Collard had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion add ', but the Senate notes with great concern the plight of the industry generally and the communities dependent on the industry because of the failure of the Hawke Government to honour its pre-election promises to assist the depressed sugar industry'. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(10.10) —When the debate on the Sugar Agreement Bill was adjourned yesterday, I was drawing the Senate's attention to a statement made on 18 January 1985 by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Minister said that across the board assistance was shown to be overly expensive, undirected and largely ineffective in helping those growers in need. However, Mr Kerin also said that farmers cannot necessarily expect special treatment and any aid that may be given would be based on the interests of the whole of society, not just sectional interests. So even though in times of high world prices for sugar the industry earned valuable export income and provided the nation's consumers with subsidised sugar, now the industry is in its current plight, it is told: 'That is just too bad'. The sugar industry is presently asking for $80m which is far less than the money that has been made available to the steel industry, namely, $176m and also more than the $150m that has been given to prop up Australia's car assembly plants. A total of $326m was given to subsidise these industries in other States, while the plight of Queensland's sugar industry is largely being ignored. The industry is asking for $80m to secure its viability during this crisis. When one thinks of how so many people on the land-not only sugar producers-are not even able to meet costs of production, let alone make a profit, as I think I told someone yesterday, I think one could truly say that Australia's rural population is in danger of becoming the new poor in the 1980s. It seems to me that not too many Australians would like the idea of working from daylight to dark, in some cases seven days a week-this applies particularly to those in the dairying industry-to receive a return which in so many cases these days does not even meet costs. Some 20,000 Australians are employed directly in the sugar industry with an indirect flow on to another 100,000 jobs, all of which are presently being affected detrimentally by the problems of the industry. Yesterday Senator Macklin in his speech said that the growers were encouraged by the Queensland Government to grow more sugar. As I understand it, it was the mills that encouraged the growers to grow more sugar. The plight of the industry is such that I am sure everybody realises great help is needed for it. Over the years it has provided so much in export earnings for Australia. I place on record my dissatisfaction with the way in which the Labor Government has dealt with the sugar industry and I urge the Minister to reconsider his position in this matter. I support the Opposition amendment. Amendments (by Senator Jack Evans)-by leave-proposed: (1) After 'the Hawke Government' in the words proposed to be added, insert: 'and the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland State Government'. (2) Leave out 'its', insert 'their'. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(10.13) —I wish to put on record that we cannot support the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats because they are not factual. The Queensland Government did not make too many rash promises to the sugar industry prior to the last election. Indeed, it has done far more than any promises it has made. It has provided help through the Rural Reconstruction Board and through the Agricultural Bank. A Treasury loan of $10m has been made to the co-operative mills, a sum of $175,000 has gone to the sugar industry review and there has been an increased payment to the No. 1 pool from $160 to $180 a tonne. Therefore, my Party cannot possibly support the Democrats' amendments. The amendments would alter the motion so as to make it blatantly untrue. It would not reflect the situation in Queensland in respect of any promises made by the Queensland Government to the industry. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.14) —I wish to speak to the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. The Queensland Government has done everything in its power-- Senator Robert Ray —But give any money. Senator BOSWELL —The Queensland Government has given twice as much money as has the Federal Government. It has given $31m as against $16m, twice as much, and to move such an amendment represents the greatest hypocrisy the Democrats can perpetrate. As in the disarmament debate, where the Democrats see their disarmament constituency disappearing, they are now trying to prop up their rural constituency. I can tell them that after the Animal Welfare Committee they proposed they will not get a vote in the bush, either in Queensland or anywhere else. Senator Chipp —Don't you love animals? Senator BOSWELL —Of course I love animals. I have dogs and cats and everything. To put this amendment at the end of the debate is the greatest act of hypocrisy that this Senate has ever seen. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.16) —I think the situation is pretty clear. I simply raise one issue-the money through the rural adjustment scheme. The Commonwealth Government lends money to Queensland at 8 per cent for up to 20 years with a two-year repayment holiday. That is currently being lent by the Queensland Government to cane growers at 10 per cent for 10 to 15 years and no repayment holiday. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.17) —I have not heard most of this debate but I was here in time to hear Senator Bjelke-Petersen quote from the Press statement Mr Kerin had issued in which he made the point that across the board assistance would not address the industry's problems. Of course, Mr Kerin is absolutely correct. If one can ignore the frequent changes of name over the last 20 or 30 years of the party Senator Bjelke-Petersen currently represents, the argument she is putting forward is precisely the same argument the Country Party put forward about the dairy industry in the 1950s. That sort of policy was stupidly pursued for several decades, until finally a restructuring of the industry had to take place. The Commonwealth Government has made it perfectly clear that it is willing to take part in that sort of joint exercise. A proposal was put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Kerin for a Commonwealth-Queensland industry committee to work with the industry review program to identify for the two governments those measures which could be implemented quickly and which would have the greatest effect on industry profitability. That was a genuine offer of Commonwealth assistance for a bipartisan attack on industry problems, including the research needed. I regret to note that there has not been a response from the Queensland Government to that proposal. That, in itself, even if there was no other reason, justifies the amendment the Democrats have proposed and which the Government will support and have incorporated or added on to the amendment earlier moved by Senator Collard. Indicative of the lack of genuine concern by the Queensland Government about attacking this industry's problems is the fact that it has not even responded to that initiative proposed by the Prime Minister, I think as far back as November of last year. The question has also been raised as to what the Queensland Government is doing for this industry. I know that some funds have been made available by the Queensland Government to the sugar industry, but it is interesting to investigate the source of those funds. I will inform the Senate about a little racket the Bjelke-Petersen Government has been operating for a number of years. Commonwealth financial assistance is made available under natural disaster relief arrangements and also for rural adjustment schemes for debt reconstruction and so on. Some of these funds are made available to farmers in the form of loans at concession interest rates. The loans can be for periods of anything up to 20 years. What the Queensland Government has been doing for a number of years is to take this Commonwealth money, lend it out to farmers, force farmers to repay the loans, but not pay the money back to the Commonwealth. A loan from the Commonwealth to the State for a 20-year period, on-lent to farmers for a non-specific period, is recovered in some cases within three or four years. But is it repaid to the Commonwealth? Not on your life. It was held by the Queensland Government. Commonwealth money advanced for agricultural assistance in specific areas of identified need, taxpayers' money in the form of a loan, was initially applied to the intended recipients, then a few years later recovered from those recipients but not repaid to the Commonwealth. It was used for yet another Bjelke-Petersen slush fund. Senator Button —Fraudulent conversion. Senator WALSH —It is comparable, although I think not quite equal in degree, to the fraudulent actions perpetrated by the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory when he, as Chief Minister, raided the Treasury of the Northern Territory without parliamentary authorisation. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable gentleman to whom the Minister is referring is a member of another House. I think the Minister is in clear contravention of standing order 418 and I ask him to withdraw the imputation. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. For how long he will remain a member of another House is yet to be determined. Whether he will remain a member of that House when the ramifications of the use of government funds in the Northern Territory without the sanction of parliamentary appropriation for the payment of those funds have been fully explored and fully followed through is, I suggest, a matter of opinion. I was about to quote from the report of the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board, which report deals with the matter to which I have just referred; that is, the recovery of loan money advanced by the Commonwealth from the farmers who received it but not repaid to the Commonwealth. The report states: Since 1975 the Commonwealth contribution to structural adjustment schemes has been inadequate to fund the demand in Queensland. This has necessitated the progressive recycling of early repayments and those funds which are not required to be returned to the Commonwealth. As the Commonwealth allocation for 1982-83 was only $2.75m the bulk of lending for the year (which totalled $10.1m) was provided from these recycled funds. The Queensland Government very generously said in that year: 'We are providing $10m for loans to farmers'. Of that $10m, 80 per cent was Commonwealth money advanced to farmers in previous years, recovered from farmers and then generously lent by the Queensland Government, so it claims. The report continues: The Board has sufficient funds in hand to meet anticipated needs in the aftermath of drought and flood for the coming year, but its ability to fund later requirements has been impaired by State Treasury's withdrawal of $10m from the Board's resources, during the year under review, to fund other rural industry requirements. So 80 per cent of the money paid out for rural disasters by this Board was Commonwealth money which had been lent to and recovered from farmers, and an additional $10m was siphoned out of the fund for reasons which had nothing to do with natural disaster relief. An additional $10m, Commonwealth money, was drawn out of that fund and used by the Queensland Government to fund other rural industry requirements. That brings us to the bottom line, which is that this money which the Queensland Government claims it has provided to the Queensland sugar industry is in fact Commonwealth loan money advanced for natural disaster relief loans, repaid to the Queensland Government by the farmers to whom the money was lent but not repaid by the Queensland Government to the Commonwealth and instead used by the Queensland Government to hand on to other rural industries under the false pretence that it was Queensland money when in fact it was Commonwealth money. Senator Boswell —Tell us what you are going to do for the industry. Senator WALSH —I suggest that Senator Boswell put that question to the Premier, who has failed even to respond to a Commonwealth initiative put up four months ago. I suggest that he follow up with him, too, the other matters that I have raised; that the farmers whom no doubt Senator Boswell purports to represent were advanced Commonwealth loans, Commonwealth taxpayers' money, and repaid that money to the Queensland Government, but the Queensland Government hung out on the money. It got the Commonwealth money, lent it to the farmers, made the farmers pay it back and then hung out on it. That is what the Queensland Government has been doing. I suggest that the honourable senator take that up with the Premier as well. I have already indicated that the Government will support the Democrats' amendment. We will then deal subsequently with the amendment moved by the Opposition. However, on the assumption that the Democrats' amendment will be added on to the amendment moved by the Opposition, the Government will then vote against that amendment because, while it is entirely appropriate to condemn the Bjelke-Petersen Government for its neglect of the industry it is, of course, not appropriate to condemn the Hawke Government. In a sense I am indebted to the Democrats, of course, for moving their amendment, which encompasses the Bjelke-Petersen Government which, as I said, apart from its questionable use of funds of Commonwealth origin within agricultural industry in Queensland in general, has failed to respond in any way whatsoever to a Commonwealth initiative of four months ago. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Jack Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Brownhill, D. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Colston, M. A. Hamer, D. J. Coleman, R. N. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I now put the question that the words proposed to be added by Senator Collard's amendment, as amended, be added. Senator Collard —Mr President, may I speak briefly to this question? We cannot support the amended amendment for the reasons which I have laid down. The PRESIDENT —Order! The debate has closed, Senator. You would have to seek leave to speak. Senator Collard —I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —The question before the Chair is that the words proposed to be added-- Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order. Mr President, with your indulgence I seek the common sense of the person or persons who refused to grant leave in this case. It is quite uncustomary for that to be done in the Senate. To preserve the right of free speech I am prepared to move the suspension of the Standing Orders to give Senator Collard a couple of minutes in which to speak if he wants it. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I asked whether leave was granted. Leave was not granted. The Chair is now obliged to put the question that the words proposed to be added by Senator Collard's amendment, as amended, be added. Question resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(10.35) —I take the opportunity in the Committee stage of the Sugar Agreement Bill to state what I wanted to state when I sought leave earlier. In speaking to clause 1 of the Bill, the reason we voted against the amendment to the amendment was very obvious. Despite the haranguing of the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, when he summed up on the second reading of the Bill-incidentally, the Queensland Government showed a certain financial expertise because it was able to continually recycle Commonwealth money and help far more farmers than Senator Walsh would want to-the amendments had nothing to do with that. The amendments had to do with the breaking and keeping of election promises. The election promises of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, are known right through the sugar industry in Queensland. He has promised underwriting and other things but has not delivered. As I said when I spoke to the Australian Democrats amendment, the Queensland Government made very few election promises on the sugar industry; rather it has continually helped that industry through the turmoil and travail it is now facing. For that reason we in the Opposition could not accept the amendment as it was sought to be amended by the Australian Democrats. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Collard, I have treated your remarks with indulgence, but they are not strictly relevant to clause 1 of the Bill. I ask that the Senate not take up sustained debate on that subject. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.38) —I would like to make a few remarks on the Sugar Agreement Bill because I believe the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has completely misled the Senate on what the Queensland Government has done for the sugar industry. I would like my response to be put on the record. The Queensland Government in 1983-84 gave $15m carry-on finance under the rural adjustment scheme; $5m carry-on finance in 1984-85; $10m in special Treasury loans to the six co-operative sugar mills to assist short term debt servicing commitments in 1982, and that was half the cost of the review of the sugar industry in 1984. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell, I remind you that at the third reading stage of a Bill you are not entitled to debate the second reading stage. At this point I will allow you to proceed. Senator BOSWELL —Thank you, Mr President. The Queensland Government also gave $800,000 on interest components to raise the first delivery from $160 to $180 per tonne. All the Federal Government could offer, with much more resources at its disposal, was $16.5m, and it ought to be ashamed of itself. In 1983 it promised an underwriting scheme, and that went down the drain. In 1985-11 days before an election-it promised a floor plan, and that has now been reneged on. Senator Walsh —That is not true. Senator BOSWELL —It is true. I tried to debate this in a bipartisan way last week. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell, you are clearly debating the second reading stage and not dealing with the third reading of the Bill. Unless you can deal with the third reading I will have to rule you out of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.40) —The Opposition supports the Justices (Long Leave Payments) Amendment Bill. I have nothing further to add to what has been said about it. I simply support it and the arguments advanced in favour of it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.41) —I am indebted to Senator Durack for his support of this measure and wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.43) —Any legislation which deals with such a fundamental institution as marriage is of great importance to the Parliament and gives rise to occasion for consideration of problems relating to that institution. Some amendments to the Marriage Act may be of a technical kind and would not necessarily involve any major debate. But this amendment to the Marriage Act raises a number of very important issues relating to that institution and to the way our laws give buttress to it. I think this Bill does deserve close consideration by the Senate. The immediate purpose and, indeed, according to the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), the principal purpose of the Bill is to make amendments to the Marriage Act to give effect to a convention known as the Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages which was signed by Australia in July 1980. I am very pleased that when I was Attorney-General at that time we took that decision to become party to such an important convention. Indeed, as the Minister acknowledges in his second reading speech, that is the first of the Hague conventions Australia has signed and this will now be the first implementation by this Parliament of any of the conventions signed by Australia. The major difficulty with which the Hague Convention dealt concerned the enormously complicated rules that exist not only under the common law of this country and our Marriage Act but indeed under the laws of many other countries as to what extent laws governing the actual entry into marriage in one country apply to that marriage when the parties to it go to another country. Therefore, there is a question concerning the laws that govern the entry into marriage by persons in this country and the recognition in this country of marriages entered into overseas. The outcome of the Convention-I think it was a successful one-was an acceptance that, as far as possible, there should be uniform rules throughout the world. The more countries that adhere to and give effect to the Convention-as we do in Australia-the greater the convenience for the parties to marriages and the greater the uniformity of rights flowing from the marriage, wherever it may have been entered into. As I have said, we have a Marriage Act which sets down the laws governing the entry into a marriage by Australians in Australia. However, problems arise when in fact one of the parties or both parties to the marriage are not Australians or are not domiciled in Australia but happen to be married in Australia. The same situation may arise for Australians in other countries. As I have said, the existing laws are complicated in relation to those problems which arise. In many marriages which the parties have entered into genuinely and in good faith, believing the marriage to be valid because it was valid in the country in which it took place, problems arise later when the partners find that the marriage they entered into is void in the particular country in which they then reside. I think what is required, and what the Hague Convention addressed and I believe very sensibly resolved to do, is to have those matters simplified with a common rule adopted throughout the world or, at least, in those countries that are parties to the Convention. Hopefully, in due course more and more countries will adhere to the Convention. The more countries that adhere to that Convention the better these problems can be overcome. It is interesting to note that in this country the extent of the problem is revealed by the statistic mentioned by the Minister for Resources and Energy in his second reading speech. In 1983, 35 per cent of all marriages in Australia involved one party who had been born overseas. Therefore, in 35 per cent of all marriages in Australia there is the potential-I am not saying, nor was the Minister, that that 35 per cent of marriages will have difficulties-that those marriages could be struck down because of some invalid aspect arising from the fact that one party may not have been domiciled in Australia or is not an Australian citizen. That is a striking feature of modern Australian society. As a result of the immigration program one of the parties to some 35 per cent of marriages in Australia in 1983 was born overseas. As I said, therefore, whenever that occurs in regard to any marriage entered into in Australia, there is always the possibility-I put it no higher than that-of some legal complication about the validity of the marriage. If this Bill becomes law, as determined by the Hague Convention, our law will be based on the principle that the law of the place in which the marriage is entered into will govern the validity of the marriage. It will govern not only the rules for the celebration of the marriage but also the capacity of the parties to enter into that marriage. In future, in Australia the celebration of marriage and the capacity of parties to enter into a marriage will be determined by Australian law, regardless of whether one of the parties may be domiciled in another country and the laws of that country contain a different rule about the capacity to enter into the marriage or how the marriage should be celebrated. At the same time this legislation which gives effect to the Convention provides that we in Australia will recognise as valid a marriage which has been entered into in another country which conforms with the laws of that country. There are some exceptions to that principle of the recognition of a foreign marriage which I think make good sense and which are also part of the Convention. They are set out in the Minister's second reading speech. I suppose the most important exception is that we will not recognise a foreign marriage which is bigamous. There are three other exceptions to the rule which states that we will recognise as valid any marriage entered into in a foreign country which conforms with the laws of that country. I believe that the proposal contained in this legislation is sound and the Opposition gives its warm support to it. As I said, when in government we adhered to that principle when we signed the Convention in July 1980. Another aspect of this Bill is what is perhaps a fairly minor amendment. It may be a rather technical amendment in many ways. There may be some controversy as to whether it is even required at all. It deals with what is today a very important and very sensitive question; that is, the legitimacy of children who have been born as a result of modern procedures such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation. There has been, as has been recognised for some years, a problem as to the legitimacy of those children under existing law. Even though the child has been born to a woman who is married, and who has a husband living with her who has consented to the whole procedure, there is a real doubt under existing law as to the legitimacy of that child. Of course, that has horrific consequences for the child and for his or her parents in regard to not only litigation between the parents-in case of divorce and custody of the child-but also the rights of succession of that child and the various instruments under which he or she may obtain benefits. It is a very important question and one which has been addressed for some time by the Standing Committees of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. As large elements of State law are involved, it was decided some years ago by a Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that we would endeavour to achieve uniform laws throughout Australia. Both State law and Federal law-either the law for the Commonwealth or any territories of the Commonwealth-should be uniform. That uniform law has been developed and I understand that it has been implemented in some jurisdictions. I would be pleased to know from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, whether he can tell me in which jurisdictions that uniform law has been implemented in accordance with the decisions that were made some time ago by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Certainly, a sound approach, in order to have a complete coverage of legal systems in Australia and of Federal or State powers, is to have uniform laws throughout Australia so that there is no gap in ensuring the legitimacy of such children. As the Minister stated, the decision in principle has been that the donor of genetic material shall have no relationship with the child, and the legal parental relationship should be given to the social parents. The amendment contained in this legislation simply insures that there could be no argument that that exercise could run foul of the constitutional provision which, impacting on the provision contained in the Marriage Act, might strike it down due to some very technical argument. So the object of the provision is to remove that argument. I do not need to discuss that question any further. I applaud the fact that that is being done and that the uniform law exercise will be able to go ahead without running into a problem of that kind. Incidentally, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, amendments to the Family Law Act in 1983 have given effect to the same principles that have been agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in relation to definitions of a child of the marriage under the Family Law Act. Although a recent decision by the High Court of Australia has thrown some doubt on some aspects of those amendments, as I understand it, the decision of the High Court would not strike down or affect those principles in relation to children who have been born as a result of those artificial procedures. Again, I would welcome some advice from the Minister, perhaps during the Committee stage, as to whether that is the view of the Government and, if it is the Government's view, whether it still sees some problems in relation to the amendments that were made to the Family Law Act to give effect to this principle in relation to those children. I would certainly be interested to know whether the Government sees any way of overcoming those problems. Another matter that has been dealt with in this Bill concerns fees for civil marriage celebrants. This is the one aspect of the Bill which the Opposition does not support. The Bill inserts a provision to the effect that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge a fee for solemnising a marriage which is higher than that prescribed by regulations. For a long time fees which marriage celebrants can charge have been prescribed by regulations. They have been increased from time to time, but some questions have arisen, with which I have been familiar, as to whether they can charge a higher fee. This proposal in the Bill makes it clear that they cannot. However, the Opposition believes that the ordinary principles of contracts should be allowed to apply in relation to these matters. This proposal amounts fairly and squarely to price fixing by the Government of charges to be paid to civil marriage celebrants and the Opposition is completely opposed to that approach. Clearly, fees should be prescribed because the parties may wish to enter into a contractual relationship on the basis of those fees. They may not, in many cases, address themselves to that issue. A marriage celebrant has the right to charge a fee as prescribed. The parties may wish to have a special service performed by a marriage celebrant. Indeed, there are some marriage celebrants who provide a very fine service to parties. It is not just a matter, as the Minister says, of providing extra things such as flowers or music; it is a question of the whole style of the marriage celebrant. For reasons that escape me, some marriage celebrants have been very much in demand. Certainly, some are very popular. We see no reason why ordinary contractual and free-market arrangements should not apply to the determination of a celebrant's fees. The only danger, as I see it, would be if the Government's policy were to restrict the numbers of such marriage celebrants to the extent that they were able to force up fees. I do not see any danger of that happening. It has been the policy to expand the number of civil marriage celebrants. I think a fairly expansive view should be held as to the appointment of suitable people. The only real question that should arise is whether people are suitable. No problems of that kind should arise; so the Opposition will be opposed to the provision relating to fees. The Bill provides for a widening of the concept of marriage education. Under the present Act there is a provision for pre-marital education. Pre-marital education programs have been available for some time. That provision was inserted by my predecessor as Attorney-General in the Fraser Government, Mr Bob Ellicott. This Bill proposes that the concept of pre-marital education should be broadened to marriage education. The Opposition strongly supports that view. The ability to encourage pre-marital education is limited. It seems to be the experience of the people who have been conducting pre-marital education programs that it is very difficult to get couples, particularly young people marrying for the first time, really to see that they need some education for marriage. For some church groups that can be more easily achieved than is generally the case. Young people are probably fairly starry-eyed about their prospects. They really do not admit to each other that there could be problems. That is a very sound approach for people to have when entering into marriage but, as we know-this is a tragedy in our community today-the fact is that problems soon arise, and there has been a rise in the divorce rate. So it is really after marriage, when people suddenly find that there are problems, that they are then more ready to accept or seek advice. Clearly that is the most appropriate time for provision to be made for marriage education. We have some very fine counselling bodies in Australia. Since 1960 it has been the policy of successive governments to fund marriage counselling organisations of one kind or another. So there has been a long-standing program. Far more needs to be done and far more resources need to be put into marriage counselling to provide education before marriage and education for those who are already married but who have problems. The sooner that people can seek advice on their problems before they become more serious-when the parties are contemplating separation or have separated-the better. The Opposition believes that the whole role of marriage counselling and marriage education should be greatly expanded and that greater resources should be made available to the marriage counselling organisations which have already developed expertise in the field. I think that last year the Government spent $100,000 in publicising the availability of marriage counselling organisations in an attempt to encourage more people to seek counselling. In fact, the Government did not significantly increase in proportion to the money spent on the campaign the resources needed to meet that growing demand. Fortunately, there is a growing demand for counselling. More and more people are realising that marriage is not just an institution which one can go in and out of as it suits one and that couples have very real responsibilities to each other and to the children of a marriage. People are now seeking guidance and help when they run into difficulties. It is imperative that the Government provide more resources to cope with the demand. Marriage counselling organisations have had a great success rate. A consistent 70 per cent of the people who have been counselled report a positive outcome. A survey conducted a few years ago by the Marriage Guidance Council of New South Wales showed that 21 per cent of couples who had sought help from the Council after they had separated had in fact been reconciled. Very much more encouragement must be given to people to seek such services, and more resources must be made available by the Government. As I have said, the Government did take the initiative in publicising the availability of counselling. By so doing it has really only compounded the problem, although the effort was no doubt worth while to some extent, because it has not provided an adequate increase in resources to meet the demand. In the last year or so the Government also established what it calls pilot family law centres. Unfortunately, at the Estimates Committee hearings last year it was very difficult to ascertain from the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, despite the willingness of his officers, any information on the Government's policy in this regard. I do not know whether Senator Evans did not know what it was or whether he was just being cagey. The fact is that we need to know a lot more about the Government's policy in relation to these matters. On the face of it the establishment of these pilot centres seems to be only duplicating services that are already available from the existing marriage counselling organisations and, indeed, from the Family Court counsellors. The Family Court counsellors report an increase in the number of people who are seeking counselling from them in order to achieve reconciliation. Until recent years, most of the counselling done by the Family Court counsellors was simply conciliation in regard to the process of a divorce and custody problems. I understand that now apparently more people are seeking from the Family Court counselling for reconciliation. The Opposition believes that the time has come when there should be an inquiry into the whole basis of marriage counselling. This should deal with counselling to preserve and buttress marriage not simply with conciliating parties seeking a divorce. There is a question whether Family Court counsellors should be removed from the atmosphere of the Court and become part of a more general service to the community of counselling to preserve marriage rather than to assist in the process of its dissolution. More and more people want to save their marriages and the present system is not meeting that demand. It is necessary to rethink the whole policy and some form of inquiry is required. It may be a good idea for the Senate to consider whether one of its committees should look at the question. There can be no more important question facing the nation than the preservation of marriage and trying to do something about the divorce rate. A recent seminar in Melbourne, reported in the Age the other day, revealed the enormity of the problem. The point I am now making, which was made by the Opposition in the election campaign, was made at that seminar by Dr Edgar, Director of the Institute of Family Studies. If the Liberal-National Party coalition had been elected, we would now be proceeding firmly on the lines I have been advocating. I hope the Government will give serious and urgent consideration to acting in the same way. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.12) —The Bill now before the Senate is strangely entitled Marriage Amendment Bill 1985. Fortunately, on the first page of the Bill the Government makes it clear that it seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 and not in some way to amend marriage. I assure those people who saw the Bill on the Notice Paper today that, notwithstanding the number of amendments through which marriage has gone in the last few years-some for the better and some not so good-the Government is not planning on unilaterally amending the institution of marriage, although in some of its divorce law reform areas perhaps it is not encouraging the stability of marriage as much as it could. Notwithstanding its title the main purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect in Australia to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriage 1976 which, as Senator Durack pointed out, was signed by Australia by the then Liberal Government in 1980. To that extent, it has multipartisan support. The Bill proposes amendment to the Act dealing with the legitimation of children; the period within which a notice of intended marriage can be received; the extension of the operation of the legitimation provisions to certain other countries; and the extension of the concept of pre-marital education to encompass the concept of marriage education. I shall have more to say on that aspect in a moment. The primary objectives of the Bill are worthy of support in that they give statutory recognition to a situation which has existed in practice for some years in relation to the celebration of marriage in Australia. In the case of recognition of the validity of marriages, the Bill follows the obligations imposed by the Hague Convention by recognising marriages that are validly celebrated under the law of the place of celebration. There are four exceptions to these rules of recognition, and they reflect existing laws in Australia. Other aspects of the Bill give rise to concern, however. They tend to relate to omissions rather than to what is contained in the Bill. The Marriage Act 1961 makes provision for pre-marital education, a matter to which no one should object. Grants can be made to approved organisations; voluntary organisations can apply to the Attorney-General for approval; marriage counselling organisations approved under section 12 of the Family Law Act are deemed to be approved under the Marriage Act; and organisations receiving grants are required to furnish reports and financial statements. All that is fine as far as it goes. In essence, the amendments contained in the present Bill broaden the concept of 'pre-marital education' by altering the words of the relevant sections. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech described this change as part of the Government's further support for education for marriage and family life, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. I was therefore rather puzzled to read in the explanatory memorandum, and to see reflected in the Minister's own remarks, that the Bill has no financial implications. Looking at the total picture of pre-marital and marital education in Australia, it is clear that inadequate funding is a major problem. I cannot understand how one can extend support for funding without its having any financial implications. Indeed, one aspect of this Bill should have been to extend that funding in such a way and to such an extent that there were financial implications to the Bill, so that there were sufficient financial provisions for the extension of pre-marital education to be of any value in the community. Looking at the total picture of pre-marital and marital education in this country is a pretty dreary occupation. There is not adequate funding, adequate counselling or an adequate education campaign. Australia does not really have an adequate commitment from governments to the institution of marriage and its continuation. If the amendments are to have no financial implications, as the Minister suggests, it would seem that funding inadequacies of previous governments will not be rectified by this Government. The Joint Select Committee, whose recommendation the Government claims to be following, urged greater commitment to education for marriage and family life as a means of stabilising marriage and fostering the family. I would have thought that was a matter to which most honourable senators would have been devoted. It seems strange that the Government by this Bill and in other actions is doing nothing to pursue this objective. I grant that the availability of human relationship courses in schools has improved somewhat in recent years-that is true in most States of Australia, with one notable exception-but one still hears constant and unwarranted attacks on these courses from people who have not gone beyond a token investigation of what the courses contain. Sometimes, to my sorrow, such attacks have come from members of Federal Parliament. The courses are inaccurately characterised as dealing solely with sex or promoting values which are unacceptable, or leaving children vulnerable to the sexual predilections and idiosyncrasies of whoever is conducting the course. With an appropriate course, that should no more be true of human relations courses than it is true of maths, physics, chemistry or English courses. Human relationship courses do not necessarily promote deviant attitudes. They may promote things which perhaps some parents do not want promoted or feel uneasy about promoting themselves, such as the need for mutual respect between parents and a respect between parents and children, as well as the need for knowledge of human and sexual relationships on the part of people entering marriage. I repeat that the courses are not set up to promote deviant values or simply to talk about sex. It seems a shame that the development of human relationship courses in schools has not been promoted more by this Government and by some State governments than it has, if for no other reason than that the profound social changes which have been a feature of Western society in the past 20 years have left young people inadequately prepared for the challenges of modern life and marriage. I would suggest that the media, the advertising agencies and so on have some responsibility to bear in this regard since they certainly promote a rather strange attitude of what modern life, marriage and human relationships, and the rights and responsibilities inherent in all those, entail. Educational programs must be appropriate to the contemporary situation. Well constructed human relationships courses are designed to be so, notwithstanding, as I said a moment ago, hysterical attacks to the contrary. However, they would be neither well constructed nor appropriate if they concentrated solely on the issues of sex, as these attackers suggest they do. Those courses go well beyond that. Nor should they be seen as derogating from the role of parents as primary educators of their children in the area of personal growth, but they can play a significant preventative and remedial role in developing personal and economic skills for autonomy and survival. I think we have to remember, and I speak as a parent, that we are not all capable of explaining these intricacies to our children. There are plenty of dreadful parents out there. How can we expect them to pass on to the children they are bringing into this world skills which they do not have. The Government should do more to support the continuation and expansion of these courses and to reject the complaints and claims of those who attack them if it really is committed to the objectives it says it is committed to in this legislation. The second area where the Government's commitment is less than it claims is in that of pre-marital and marriage counselling. The importance of the function of counselling, as indeed with the function of education, cannot be overestimated. Preparing couples for marriage is vital, as is the availability of counselling services in the period immediately after marriage. It is objectionable to me, as it is objectionable to a large number of other people, that the main funding for marriage counselling goes into the last resort counselling area, where marriages have reached the point of no return or are so close to it that no amount of counselling is going to resurrect the marriages. Counselling has had substantial success, where intervention in a troubled marriage occurs early enough, but little enough is heard about the availability of these courses and little enough funding is put into them to make them viable concerns available to all those people who need them when they need them. Even in the unfortunate circumstances where a marriage has broken down completely, supportive services during divorce and counselling afterwards can be beneficial both to the couple and any children who may be involved if such services are sufficiently available. Despite the obvious value of such services, funding is still inadequate. The Family Court counselling section is seriously understaffed, and grants to other organisations need to be increased markedly. Notwithstanding this, the Minister says that the Bill has no financial implications, and I find that horrendous. The incompatibility between this statement and the need for more funding is clear. It seems that the conclusions drawn by the Institute of Family Studies in its 1983-84 annual report are correct. At page 36 of that report it states: The low priority given to families in the policy development area has become increasingly clear to the Institute . . . it appears to be the case that everyone espouses the rhetoric of support for families but there is little concern with examining the family impact of policy changes. I recall getting into some considerable trouble in the middle of last year when I tried to draw attention to the difference between actions and rhetoric in attitudes to marriage. A second aspect of this Bill which raises concern is the amendment dealing with State and Territory laws governing the status of children born as a result of AID or IVF procedures. This matter has already been raised by Senator Durack, and I echo some of the concerns that he raised. The amendment makes clear that this Parliament does not intend to affect the validity or effect of State and Territory laws dealing with the parentage of these children. However, it is worth noting that the recent rapid advances in the area, in particular of in vitro fertilisation, give rise to serious ethical, medical and social issues. They are issues which this Parliament cannot afford to ignore. So far none of these has been addressed adequately; yet substantial funds have been injected for further research in this area. I am certainly not objecting to the sections of this Bill which move to protect the status of children born in these circumstances. Neither, I am sure, was Senator Durack. It is important to reiterate that the broader issues have to be addressed as a matter of urgency and, a slowing down of developments in the meantime, I would suggest is desirable. We cannot allow technology and scientific developments to run away from us, to get to a point where legislative intervention is almost impossible to be effective. Senator Peter Baume —It may not be possible to slow it down, but that may make your plea even more urgent. Senator HAINES —I would agree. I thank the honourable senator for his support in this area. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. The Democrats have no real objections to the contents of this Bill. However, what we do question is the strength of this Government's commitment and the previous Government's commitment to stable marriages and to helping couples, both before and after marriage, come to terms with the rights and responsibilities inherent in the marital, and indeed in the parental, relationship. So far what is happening, and has been increasingly happening in recent years, is that young people entering marriage and parenthood are being battered by a series of social myths which have absolutely no relevance to the life that they are embarking on. Marriage is still seen as some romantically clouded institution. Attitudes to women within marriage still need to be questioned. Women are still told that their ultimate aim in life is to bring up beautiful babies and if they do not manage that then there is something wrong with them. As a consequence, the guilt and stress that are placed on these women is leading to an increasing number of abused children and an increasing strain on marriages. I think it is fair to say that, like a lot of people 20 years ago, when I went into a marital relationship I knew precious little about what was in front of me. My husband and I went into our marriage with the same attitude as we had to employment. It was something which you worked at, which should develop with you, which allowed your partner to develop with you and which was an equal relationship and one which was growing and developing all the time. The injection of a couple of children into that marriage only made it something that was more worth while to work at and to continue with. While I acknowledge that not everybody is in our fortunate position, that not everybody is able to make their way through what is a rather rocky institution, I believe that governments have the responsibility to offer to the young people of today, and indeed to their parents where necessary, every possible opportunity to remain within an institution which I believe is one of the most productive there is. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.29) —As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the 1980 general election, this legislation affects a number of developments which are currently under way in the Australian community, and in the Australian scientific community in particular. I want to address my remarks to two aspects of the Marriage Amendment Bill. The first deals with the recognition of children and the position in law of children born as a result of certain medical procedures. Secondly, I wish to raise with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in order to get some clarification from the Attorney-General's officers, certain questions arising in relation to the recognition of marriages celebrated in Islamic countries. I turn firstly to the clauses of the Bill which deal with the preservation of State law as it affects the status of children born as a result of certain medical procedures. The procedures are set out in clause 3 (b) as being 'artificial insemination or the implantation of an embryo in the body of a woman'. The effect of clause 26 is to preserve the existing State legislation which covers the status of such children. I take a slightly different view from Senator Durack on this particular matter in that I am concerned about the length of time it is taking for this matter to be resolved on the basis of uniform national law. In the statement which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, made to the Senate some days ago outlining the Government's proposed legislative program for the Parliament he said in part that it was the Government's intention to introduce legislation 'to clarify the interaction of Commonwealth and State laws relating to children born as the result of in vitro fertilisation and related procedures'. I certainly welcome that undertaking on the part of the Government. As far as its immediate responsibility for the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, section 4 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983 introduced new sections 5 and 5A, which contain certain statements about the status of children born by medical procedures, which were defined to include 'artificial insemination or the implantation of an embryo in the body of a woman'. However this does not in any sense touch on the question of surrogate motherhood, which is one of the issues with which the community will have to come to grips in the immediate future. I regret that the opportunity has not been taken in this piece of legislation to take a clear national lead on this issue. I regret that on this occasion the provisions of the Constitution, including section 109, have not been used. I believe that, now that we have before us the results of such inquiries as the Waller inquiry in Victoria and the Warnock inquiry in the United Kingdom, steps could have been taken in this area which could easily have been included in this legislation. Senator Durack, and indeed the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in introducing the legislation, have said essentially that we should wait for progress to be made through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. I well recall one of Senator Gareth Evans's more colourful phrases that this was a body which moved with all the expedition of cold molasses. Frankly, this body, however valuable its work may be, has had this matter under study for some years. Medical technology and medical science are not about to be restricted or confined or to move with the same excruciatingly slow degree of progress as that of the Standing Committee. To that extent, by relying upon progress to be made through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and just waiting for uniform national law, we are simply allowing more and more of a gap to develop between the medical technology in frequent current use and the status of the law. As I have said, the Commonwealth has taken this view in the Bill. In the words of the Minister's second reading speech: In the context of Standing Committee discussions, some doubts were raised as to whether Part VI of the Marriage Act might not unintentionally frustrate part of this uniform law exercise. This would be so if the provisions of Part VI were to be interpreted by the courts as 'covering the field' with respect to the legitimation of children, leaving no room for the State laws concerned to have a valid operation. I believe that that is a course of action which should have been taken. Nevertheless, I think it is true to say that the State legislation on this matter is good legislation. The Victorian Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill, clauses 10 and 11 of which deal substantially with this matter, and the New South Wales Artificial Conception Bill 1984 and the 1984 amendments to the Children (Equality of Status) Act have, I think, set a clear pattern. I regret that the Commonwealth has- Senator Durack —They are implementing the decision of the Standing Committee. Senator PUPLICK —They are, but not in identical form. However, as I will say in a moment, we are facing a situation already where the same woman undergoing the same medical procedure and having one child in Melbourne and another child in Brisbane could have two children of different legal status. It might be fine to wait around until the Standing Committee eventually has everybody legislating on the matter, but for the children being born at the moment that is precious little comfort and for the families being affected at the moment that is of precious little value. An amount of law is already developing on this subject in Great Britain. The case of MacLennan v. MacLennan has gone a long way to establishing the law on this. At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, there are some 11 different types of medical procedures that need to be addressed in terms of the current technology available concerning the production of children. There is the case of artificial insemination of the wife-- Senator Harradine —Did you say 'the production of children'? Senator PUPLICK —I referred to the production of children, but the term was properly used and not intended to imply any mechanical mass production. The 11 procedures which clearly need to be addressed include the following: The artificial insemination of the wife using the husband's sperm, referred to as AIH; the artificial insemination of the wife using donor sperm, or AID, the artificial insemination of the wife using a mixture of sperm which is both her husband's and a donor's, which is known as AIC, the use of the ovum of the wife and the husband's sperm in the normal process of in vitro fertilisation; the use of the ovum of the wife and the sperm of a donor; the fertilisation of the ovum of a woman donor by the husband's sperm and the implantation of the embryo into the wife; the fertilisation of the ovum of a woman by donor sperm and implanted into the wife; the artificial fertilisation of the oocyte in the uterus of a donor by the husband's sperm and implantation of the embryo into the wife's womb, which is known as IUFD; the transplantation of donated sperm and ovum into the wife; and the basic surrogate motherhood arrangements, including husband and surrogate mother arrangements or else the surrogate using donated sperm, which amounts virtually to a system of baby purchase. On top of all of this one has the problems that are now arising in terms of the status of and the use of frozen embryos. We have had some six births in Australia using this technique and it was reported on, I think, the 26th of this month that the first set of twins had been born at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre using embryos which had been frozen for a period of some months during 1984. I believe that it is important for the Parliament to address this matter and to legislate on it. A very perceptive article entitled 'The Legal and Social Problems of In Vitro Fertilisation: Why Parliament Must Legislate' by an English barrister by the name of Diana Brahams appeared in 1983 in the New Law Journal. I regret that the opportunity has not been taken on this occasion at least to make a start in that direction. The second area to which I wish to address my remarks-basically by way of seeking clarification from the Minister's officers-concerns the status of Islamic marriages which may have some relevance in Australia. I raise the question of Islamic marriages because currently there are five signatories to the Hague Convention. Those signatories are Australia, Portugal, Luxembourg, Finland and Egypt. That is a fairly strange collection of countries to have signed the Convention at this stage. But the fact that we are dealing with a party to the Convention, namely Egypt, which has a mixture of both its own civil law and Islamic law-the shari'a-raises a couple of questions in my mind which I hope the Attorney's officers will be able to sort out. I wish to raise a matter which is of growing concern to what is an increasingly large community in Australia-people of the Islamic faith. The 1981 census data shows that of the order of 77,000 people indicated that they were adherents of the faith of Islam. Bodies such as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils claim a far greater number. I think it will be useful to see what the forthcoming census reveals on that. The proposed new section of the Marriage Act to which I draw attention is the one that comes under the heading 'Validity of marriage'-proposed new section 88D. I want to raise a number of matters arising from it and, in particular, I want to put this question: If a person has been validly married in Egypt under valid local law and in fact has more than one wife as, indeed, he is entitled to have under Islamic law and that family unit, consisting of a husband and more than one wife, come to Australia, which wife is recognised as his wife for the purposes of Australian law? What is the status of any other wives he may have as a result of the operation of law in Egypt and Islamic law? What offence, if any, has he committed or will he continue to commit if he regards himself as being married to more than one person, despite the fact that his marriage took place in a country-that is, Egypt-which is a signatory to the Convention which we are in part seeking to give status by the passage of this legislation? Islamic law, of course, provides that a man may have up to four wives, as I am sure honourable senators know. Sura 4 of the Koran provides that a man may marry several wives for certain reasons. It states: And if ye fear that ye shall not act with equity towards orphans of the female sex, take in marriage of such other women as please you, two, or three, or four, and not more. Rules are set out in verse 27 of sura 4 of the Koran which prohibit marriage within certain relationships which pretty much accord with the way in which our own laws are structured. There are injunctions in suras 5 and 24 of the Koran in respect of the consent of parties to marriage. In terms of one of the other areas in which marriage may not be recognised in Australia, proposed new section 88D (3) provides that a marriage will not be recognised if the female party is under the age of 14 years or the male party is under the age of 16 years. Egyptian civil law provides that in order to be married a female must be over the age of 16 years and a male over the age of 18 years. Islam is recognised for the purposes of the Marriage Act. Section 26 of the Marriage Act allows the Governor-General to determine organisations or groups in our society which are validly recognised under the Marriage Act. The section provides for a whole host of groups to be recognised. These groups range from the Aboriginal Evangelical Fellowship of Australia through to the Worldwide Church of God. A list of groups, which is consolidated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of June 1984, includes Islam as one of the recognised groups although that group operates when domiciled in Australia totally in accordance with the marriage laws of Australia. In 1984 the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board published a report entitled 'Discrimination of Religious Conviction'. The Board discussed the question of marriage and made some comments about discrimination against people of the Islamic faith as far as marriage is concerned. The Board made certain recommendations in its report. It happens that I do not particularly agree with all the recommendations that the Board has made. It may well be that it has a persuasive case in the view of some people or, indeed, some State governments. It may well be that the interaction of any human rights legislation may mean that at some future stage to discriminate against certain persons on the basis that they are simply members of a minority religious group is something that should not be countenanced. During the course of this section of the debate I am seeking only some information and clarification. I appreciate that I am putting to the Minister what is basically, a hypothetical question. But it is not inconceivable that a person validly married to more than one person under the laws of Egypt, which is a party to the Hague Convention, could migrate to Australia. Proposed new section 88D (2) (a), which deals with marriages which are not to be recognised, states: . . . either of the parties was, at the time of the marriage, a party to a marriage with some other person and the last-mentioned marriage was, at that time, recognized in Australia as valid; Presumably that means that the first wife is the wife recognised in the status of law in Australia. That section has to be read, I take it, with proposed new section 88D (5) (d) which states: at the time when the subsequent marriage was solemnized- (i) the subsequent marriage was recognized in Australia as valid; and (ii) the initial marriage was not recognised in Australia as valid; the initial marriage shall not be recognized at any time in Australia as valid. I presume that that equally means that subsequent marriages are simply to be regarded as null and void, something provided for in chapter two of the Hague Convention. Does that mean that an Egyptian migrant who comes here and is already married to one or more women would automatically be refused entry to the country? Alternatively, would it be deemed under Australian law that one of his wives was not a wife? If he continued to seek to maintain some sort of relationship in Australia in accordance with proper practice in terms of his religion and in fact did have more than one wife, what would be the position in law? Would he be a bigamist or would he have a wife and also be cohabiting with a de facto or simply cohabiting with some other woman with whom he had no relationship recognised under Australian law? I simply seek a response on this matter from the Minister's officers so that I can clearly understand what in fact the implications of that part of the Bill mean for adherents of the Islamic faith in New South Wales whom I also seek to represent in this place. I conclude by saying that I look forward to seeing the Government's legislation qualifying the status of children born as a result of certain medical procedures. This will be a significant piece of legislation in respect of which we will see a significant debate take place in this chamber. I do, however, regret that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with this matter on this occasion. As I said by way of response to an interjection by Senator Durack, it is already unsatisfactory that the same medical procedure being carried out, sometimes on the same person, depending on the State in which it is carried out renders the child of that procedure to have different legal status. That is an intolerable situation in 1985 for a country such as Australia to have to contemplate or to see continue while we wait for the slowest possible method of achieving some resolution of this matter. It is an area where, I believe, action by the Commonwealth could have gone a long way to solving the problems which I think are already confronting this community and which will need to be addressed with a great deal more seriousness in the years to come. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.51) —It is customary for a senator who speaks after a newly elected senator to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I do not think Senator Puplick has just made his maiden speech, so I am not required to congratulate him, but as a matter of courtesy I do welcome him back to the Senate. I had hoped that his sojourn out of the Senate would have got a bit of the woolly thinking out of his brains, but apparently it has not. He is back on the old secular humanist tack he was wont to parade when he was here last time. Senator Puplick —That is why they re-elected me. Senator HARRADINE —No, it was because they did not know about it. Senator Puplick seemed to berate the Senate in some way for not passing uniform legislation to overcome what he sees as a difficulty-it is a difficulty-in regard to the legitimation of children in particular States. Quite frankly, I ask him: Under which constitutional power has this Parliament the authority so to legislate? Senator Puplick —Section 109. Senator HARRADINE —Not only does that show Senator Puplick's lack of knowledge in this area but also his lack of constitutional knowledge. I defy anyone to support what Senator Puplick has said, that is, that this Parliament has constitutional authority to legislate and to pass uniform laws regarding the legitimation of children. I am concerned also that there are people such as Senator Puplick who have a gung ho approach about-I use his words-the production of children by artificial means. I am concerned about the individual rights of children, not only as to their legitimation but also as to their rights when they grow older, to knowledge about how they came to be born; let alone the rights of embryos as persons, the status of frozen and unfrozen human beings, and the problems that inevitably will arise and have arisen about experimentation by the medical profession and other scientists on embryos without addressing the fundamental issue as to the status of the embryo as a person. It does concern me, whilst I am on this subject, that legislation such as this goes through the Parliament and in a way legitimises the sorts of procedures that are nominated in this legislation, that is to say, in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by donor, without clarifying in any way what are the delimiting areas. I agree to this extent with Senator Puplick: It is unfortunate that the Parliament is faced with a situation where these methods are, as it were, recognised in law, are placed in statutes without substantive debate. They may be pointed to in later debates as a recognition by the Parliament of these procedures. Of course, we know that simply placing the words in the legislation for the purposes of determining questions of legitimation of children does not in itself mean that the Parliament recognises these procedures in all their various methods. Senator Watson —Surely that is the problem? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, that is what concerns me. I agree with Senator Watson. Last year amendments were made to the Australian Citizenship Act. On that occasion there were provisions similar to those in the legislation before us now. As was the case on that occasion, I believe that the Marriage Amendment Bill is not a suitable vehicle for seeking to settle or even to contribute to the current public debate on the acceptability or otherwise of IVF or AID procedures generally and on how the performance of these procedures should be regulated by law. I believe that we need to have a full and open debate on these matters and on relevant questions of rights and responsibilities. I consider that there are means of determining questions relating to the legitimation of children other than those which are contained in the Bill; that is to say, the legitimation of children born as a result of the procedures referred to in the Bill. In the circumstances this Parliament should not seek to contribute in a wholly uninformed manner to the resolution of these questions. I leave it at that for the moment. I believe that the Government has a responsibility to bear in mind that this is a very important area which needs more mature consideration than obviously it has been given. I am concerned, as is Senator Watson, that because we have clauses which incidentally mention the procedures, the clauses may be pointed to by advocates of the procedures as being accepted by the parliament in general. I make it perfectly clear that this is a concern and it should be recognised by the Government and the Parliament. I believed there was a way under the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, and at that time I pointed it out, to deal with the matter by way of regulation. The Minister had the power under that legislation to do so. Having just looked at the principal Act, I am not so certain, due to the constitutional problems, that the Minister, insofar as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, or State Ministers have not the power to deal with this matter in another way. Let me come to the other matters in the Bill. I do not have a problem as to the validity of the legislation, because of the marriage power of the Commonwealth Constitution but I wonder whether the Senate ought to be considering a Bill to give effect to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages when that Convention has not even come into effect. It will not come into effect until after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification acceptance, approval or accession. That has not occurred. I do not know of any country that has ratified this Convention. I ask the Minister to tell me whether any countries have ratified it, acceded to it or approved of it in the required terms for the Convention to come into effect. I do not know of any. Australia has signed it, as Senator Durack has said, but that is not ratification. Is it fair for the Senate to be asked to give effect to a convention which has not come into effect? It is a technical point, I know, but it is one which I think requires an unequivocal statement by the Government. No doubt there is some explanation. The Bill also seeks to extend the areas of marriage counselling. I have expressed concern about this matter over a number of years in this Parliament. My concern has been that this Government is not giving genuine legislative and administrative support to the fundamental institution of marriage. Last year the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made a decision concerning homosexuals. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) last year made a decision which gave de factos the same status as wives or husbands of members and senators in regard to overseas travel entitlements for members of Parliament. Incidentally, that matter will come before the Parliament again because, during the debate last year on my private member's Bill, a statement was made both by the Opposition and by the Government which indicated quite clearly that that is a matter which should be determined by the Parliament. I indicate that I will be giving the Parliament the opportunity to determine that matter very soon. The law is very clear about the meaning and the importance of marriage and the family as the fundamental institution of society. This is stated in the Family Law Act. When members of the ABC appeared before Estimates Committee A I asked the following question of the Managing Director: Is not this decision clearly at odds with the importance Parliament attaches to marriage? Parliament does not regard marriage and the family as simply another social phenomenon with no more significance than any other, whereas the Board's decision equating a homosexual household with a family or a homosexual relationship with a marital relationship flies in the face of the clearly expressed view of the democratically elected representatives of the people, does it not? If that is so, by what authority has the non-elected Board of the ABC taken on itself the role of legislative pacesetter? Senator Button chose to field that question and, as reported at page 164 of the Hansard record of Estimates Committee A, said: Mr Chairman, I would object to the form of that question. It is impossible, I would believe, for any citizen to divine the clearly expressed view of the democratically elected people in this Parliament on these matters. Senator Harradine formerly referred to the Marriage Act. I am not sure how many decades it is since the Marriage Act was amended, but it is not, with respect, a method of divining the view of the elected representatives in this Parliament. I do not see how any citizen can be expected to apprehend what that view is. I responded by saying: Mr Chairman, let me read it. I am not talking about the Marriage Act- Senator Button said: You were talking about the Marriage Act. I said: I am not talking about a Marriage Act which for some years was on the statute book. I am talking about the document which a marriage celebrant is obliged to give here and now to the intended partner to a marriage. By law that document says that marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. If the public wants to know what the Parliament thinks, this document says that the Parliament in the Family Law Act has placed great stress on their importance. It is sometimes necessary to remind ourselves of what the Family Law Act says about marriage because, if members of parliament and the Government have some other idea about marriage, I challenge them to amend this legislation. Here we have an amendment to the Marriage Act. One of the Ministers during the hearing of the Estimates Committees said in effect: 'That is old hat, because the legislation has not been amended for years'. We now have an amendment here. This was an opportunity for the Government and the Minister, if he wanted to, to ensure that there were amendments which reflected the Government's attitude on marriage. As the Government has not brought down any such amendment, so the people of Australia can surely assume that it is the opinion of the Government that the Act reflects the Government's attitude. The Family Law Act refers to: the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; and refers to: the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children; Under section 46 of the principal Act, the Marriage Act, which is being amended, although not in this respect, the Parliament insists that the authorised celebrant must, in the presence of witnesses, remind the couple of: . . . the solemn and binding nature of the relationship in which you are now about to enter. Let us not have any more of this cant that was put to the Estimates Committee by Senator Button. He said: 'The Marriage Act has not been amended for years, therefore, the public cannot determine what attitude the Parliament has to marriage'. Let the Government, if it has any other attitude, be fair dinkum about it and its supporters come into this chamber and say so. Let it not do with marriage- Senator Missen —It is merely a hortatory clause. It is not a significant part of the family law legislation. Senator HARRADINE —Let Senator Missen start amending the legislation and let us have a vote on it. Let us not have what occurred in respect of the flood of violence and pornography and have a situation where the reasonable adult person test cannot be met. Let us not have what happened when Senator Lionel Murphy was Attorney-General. He told the Customs people to turn a blind eye. Is that what is happening to marriage at the moment? I believe it is. By default we are witnessing an attack on the institution of marriage. That attack has resulted and is resulting in the most disastrous consequences to the social as well as the economic life of the community. Even the Director of the Institute of Family Studies has indicated clearly that the breakdown of marriage has an economic as well as a social effect. The stability of the family has a vast effect on the economic well-being of this country. As I have said repeatedly in this Parliament, one of the principal causes of poverty in this day and age is family breakdown. What is the situation of the family at the moment and the effect of this attack on the family? The result has been that from the time the family law legislation became operative until 1983, which is the period of the latest figures, there have been 355,125 divorces involving 465,765 children. Nearly a half a million children have been involved. As the researcher for the Institute of Family Studies has indicated, 40 per cent of all new marriages in Australia will end in failure, based on the 1983 divorce rate. The cost of marriage breakdown to the taxpayer last year was $1.2 billion, not to mention the trauma of the individuals concerned and the individual cost to them, which would have been enormous. The other day we had the annual report of the Department of Social Security before the Parliament. It was put towards the end of the list so that we could not get to it. Page 121 of that report sets out the categories of widow pensioners. Only 42.6 per cent are widows in the normal sense of that word-that is to say, persons who have lost a spouse through death. The report states that 57.4 per cent are divorcees, deserted wives and the like. In 1983-84 the cost in that aspect alone was $829.5m. Very few people in our society would begrudge payment of those moneys, particularly in view of the trauma, dislocation and distress experienced by those involved. The stark fact, as I have said, is that a major cause of poverty in Australia today is marriage breakdown, and the law does little or nothing to help people live up to their marriage promises and commitments. Judges and staff of the Family Court of Australia have the unenviable task of administering a law which fails to reflect the concept of justice to the ordinary person. Those points relate of course, to the Family Law Act. Let us come back to the Marriage Act. Let us come to the question of family counselling. I believe that it is important that more effort be put into reconciliation counselling. As Senator Durack said, the overwhelming effort-in fact, unfortunately it is almost total-of Family Court counsellors in attempting conciliation is directed to the dissolution of marriage. Not enough support is being given and not enough references are being made from the Family Court to the authorised reconciliation counselling services. As Senator Durack said, there is a desire on the part of many people, knowing of the legal and economic consequences and the consequences to their children, to achieve reconciliation. This Government is virtually ignoring that. I know that the amendments I proposed to the family law legislation about required reconciliation processes obtained a great deal of support in this place when they were put forward. I believe we should have a further opportunity and I ask the Government to give us a further opportunity so that these measures can again be tested. At least let us try to do something about this problem. Senator Aulich —Get the lawyers out of it. Senator HARRADINE —I agree. That is what I am saying about the Family Law Court. Senator Missen —You mean the Family Court. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, I mean the Family Court. It is better that these conciliation processes be dealt with away from the courts, and preferably by those very good institutions which are now in the field but which are starved of money and resources to vastly improve the situation. I come back to the three points I have mentioned about which I believe the Government has a responsibility to do something. Apart from the technical question that I raised-perhaps that technical question has a very simple answer-it just seemed odd to me that we are being asked to bring into effect a convention which is not already in effect. If people have any other opinion about the definition of marriage and of what a marriage is, as it has been clearly defined in the Family Law Act and by the Marriage Act and as it is required to be pointed out to partners, let them say so in this place. Now is their opportunity. Let us not hear this nonsense in the Estimates Committee about the law not having been amended for years. They have their opportunity now; let them do so. Secondly, what needs to be done of course, is, to provide legislative and administrative support for the institution of marriage. Again, I remind the Senate that the proposed reconciliation processes amendments should be debated again in the Parliament. I invite the Government to give us the practical opportunity to do so. Finally, I think that more administrative support should be given to support marriage and pre-marriage counselling organisations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.22) —Marriage is the most important and valued relationship in society. It is the foundation relationship for all of the relationships we have in Australia. The family is the basic unit of our community. Therefore, at a time when there is an amending Bill to the Marriage Act it is appropriate to repeat a commitment which I think is held by the great majority of Australians-that marriage and the family are important. I do not know of any honourable senator who would not think so. I welcome Senator Harradine's challenge to the Government in the first principle he put that if there is to be some reinterpretation of the meaning of clauses in the Bill, these should be squarely put to the Parliament and that this is the opportunity to do. I believe, as does Senator Harradine, that the traditional sound interpretation of sections of the Marriage Act should stand unless we have that misinterpretation. However, I differ with Senator Harradine when, in specific references, he berated my Liberal colleagues, Senator Puplick and Senator Missen. I accept the bona fides of their approach to this commitment to the importance of marriage and the family. Senator Harradine and I may differ on the solutions to the dangers befalling marriage in the last decade and more in Australia, but I ask Senator Harradine please not to berate the honourable senators on the bona fide approach they have to the importance of marriage and the family. Senator Harradine —I did not question their bona fides. Senator TEAGUE —I am glad to hear that, Senator Harradine. In my remarks on the Marriage Amendment Bill I will concentrate first on the recognition of foreign marriages. In this amending Bill I welcome the reinforcement of the principle of recognising as lawful in Australia a marriage properly entered into and recognised as lawful in another country. Whilst accepting that principle, I also emphasise that this still is subject to clause 88D of the Bill whereby a marriage is nevertheless not valid and not recognised in Australia as being valid if it is bigamous or if the persons entering into that marriage were not of marriageable age-that is defined in the Bill-or there is prohibited relationship such as mother-son, brother-sister relationships involved, or if there has not been real consent to the marriage. I welcome the spelling out that Australian law will not recognise as valid such relationships even if they may have been lawful according to local custom or national law in another country. I come now to the question of a person coming to Australia who is involved in a bigamous relationship. I wish to take this matter a step further than did Senator Puplick in his remarks some moments ago. He asked the valid question, which I too ask of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and his officers, as to which wife in a bigamous relationship entering into in another country would be recognised in Australia. However, I go a step further and ask whether the Bill-as I believe it can be read-can be interpreted as meaning that that man's marriage to either wife is not regarded as valid and that such a person on coming to Australia would not be recognised by Australian law as being married at all? Is it the case that such a bigamist could, with impugnity, enter into a marriage in Australia because he could claim that under Australian law his two, three or four wives in another country are not regarded as the subjects of a marriage relationship? If that is the case there needs to be appropriate amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage of the debate. Also I note in this regard that the Marriage Act of 1961 clearly states-maybe by way of exhortation-that a marriage is-- Senator Missen —The reference was to the Family Law Act, not the Marriage Act. Senator TEAGUE —I will be interested to hear Senator Missen's remarks on section 46 of the Marriage Act of 1961 in which there is a lawful requirement that the authorised celebrant of a marriage shall, amongst other things, say to the parties to the marriage: Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Senator Missen —That is right. Senator TEAGUE —I hear Senator Missen say: 'That is right'. I do then understand that that is proscribing from any definition of marriage, however it may be twisted to be so by some, a homosexual relationship which is deemed to be a so-called marriage. I make that point because there is no explicit reference in this clause relating to the validity of marriage, nor is there reference in the Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages which is given status by this Bill. I raise the example of some States in the United States of America and maybe some countries in Scandinavia which permit certain ceremonies entered into by homosexual persons whereby those persons claim to be married. I do not argue that in principle there ought to be any status given to that. It ought not be incorporated in any way within the meaning of clauses of the Bill. I note that there is no explicit reference in the Convention or the amending Marriage Bill to this matter. I repeat that section 46 of the Marriage Act reinforces the concept of marriage as meaning that: Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. I ask for the Minister's specific confirmation that this section could not be interpreted otherwise. The second part of the Bill that I wish to refer to is the provision for premarital education. Honourable senators will recall that in our consideration last year of amendments to the Family Law Act I was one senator who, along with Senator Durack and others, supported amendments to strengthen the provision for marital counselling as a requirement before any divorce proceedings. I welcome with the same urgency the provision for premarital education in this amending Bill. Of course, this is providing only the procedure for a government decision to commit moneys. I look to the Government in this coming Budget to make adequate provision for such pre-marital counselling and to take into account the professional advice of marriage counsellors around Australia. In September and October last year those marriage counsellors complained bitterly-and this was reported in the Press-that the provision for pre-marital counselling was less than $4m a year, compared with eight to 10 times that amount that they claimed was being spent on counselling for couples seeking a divorce. This description by marriage counsellors needs to be heeded by all senators, and not least by the Government, because they are persons who are professionally involved. An article in the Courier-Mail of 25 October last year headlined 'Government encourages divorce-council' states: At present, for every dollar the Government spends on assisting marriage guidance and counselling, it spends $320 on divorce. The direct cost to the Government of marital breakdown is at least $1250 million each year for such things as supporting parents benefits, Family Court costs, and legal aid costs-to name a few. By contrast, the Government is spending only $4.1 million on marriage counselling and $85,000 on marriage preparation. This is a total expenditure less than 0.3 per cent of what the Government is spending on marital breakdown. They regard this as a ludicrous imbalance. Given the provisions contained in this Bill, the Government should greatly increase that allocation in the forthcoming Budget. The third area to which I wish to refer concerns civil marriage celebrants. The Opposition's amendment seeks to remove clause 15, paragraph (b), of the Bill so as not to regulate and prescribe that such celebrants are required to receive no more than the prescribed fee. Senator Puplick —Price fixing. Senator TEAGUE —It is not only price fixing, Senator. I would rather argue not just the Liberal ideological approach to any manner of market place costs and fees in Australia; I would seek to gain the support of Senator Harradine and the Australian Democrats, if not Government senators, for the Opposition's amendment along parallel lines of argument, which I will now outline. I am very happy about and welcome the fact that marriages are being celebrated in churches. Senator Haines will forgive me for mentioning an aside that she made a little while ago when she said that she was not interested in talking about civil celebrants because she did not believe in them, and that all marriages should be carried out in churches. I do not impute to her view of conscripting people to be married in churches, as was the case in earlier centuries, indeed in one particular church-I believe that people should not be compelled or conscripted. It should be left to the individual choice of Australians. Some will choose to go to a registry office to fulfil their responsibilities to the rest of the Australian community under the law to register a marriage. With regard to registry offices, I do not mind if there is a prescribed fee. Anyone who goes to a registry office to fill in the required forms, affidavits and signatures may well be received by whoever happens to be in the office on that day and would pay a prescribed fee. But civil marriage celebrants are a quite different matter. People in Australia have every right to consider the personal context in which they will enter into their marriage. That may well require the choice of a particular celebrant who may be in some demand, or a particular celebrant who brings a certain authority and solemnity to the vows and undertakings that that couple will enter into in the marriage ceremony. Some sociologists in Australia have drawn strong contrasts between so called modern secular life in Australia and secular life in earlier centuries, and most other societies in the world which continue to have rites of passage. I listen to what the sociologists say, and I hear that it is important to a person's life cycle for parents to recognise the birth of a child, for a child to recognise the transition to adolescence, or for a person to recognise an independence from family. Similarly, there should be some ceremony that relates to marriage and, of course, an appropriate occasion and ceremony-I use the broadest and best sense of the word 'ceremony'-at the time of a person's death. In Australia and in other modern Western societies those rites of passage have largely evaporated. A person may be born, move to adolescence or come to so-called age of majority, be married and die with hardly a mark being made upon the community about him or her and without reinforcement of the importance of that stage in a person's life. I am not, with the sociologists, arguing for empty traditions or superstitious ceremonies to be undertaken merely to reinforce some sense of meaning in our lives. Nevertheless, I hear what they say. As a not very successful but conscientious Christian, I believe that at a time of marriage, as at a time of birth or baptism or a time of death, it is right for Christians to be together, to pray and to ask for guidance, love and grace at that important stage in a person's life. It is entirely natural to me that when Christians and persons of another faith want to marry, they will want to do so in a church, with such prayers for grace and love as we see reflected in the grand hymns 'Love Divine, All Loves Excelling' or 'Amazing Grace'. Senator Ryan —Give us a song. Senator TEAGUE —I may yet be happy to do so. Those words, and the words of a Christian marriage service, are very important and they are valued because they are much more than rites of passage and much more than empty ceremonies. They are matters of personal commitment and a seeking of love, grace and guidance in the living out of that marriage. I parallel that commitment with the personal commitment that persons who are not moved to have such a Christian service will nevertheless want to have in their celebration of marriage. Why should we, by this clause of the Bill, restrict them in their personal choices? It is not just a question of price fixing or allowing the market to operate. I would not argue only on those grounds; but I would argue that in regard to the highly personal commitment of marriage an Australian should be able to choose a marriage celebrant who will conduct the ceremony having regard to the vows and responsibilities that are being entered into. Finally, I wish briefly to refer to the in vitro fertilisation procedures and to the legitimation of children that is implicit in this recognition of State law. I am concerned, as was Senator Puplick, with the variety of legal status of such persons born in Australia through such procedures and I seek a uniform law on these matters. I do not have quite the same urgency as does Senator Puplick because, like Senator Harradine, although I have not heard his full views on this matter, and like many other members of the Senate, I am inclined to restrict in vitro fertilisation procedures to married persons. I know that that is a conservative view. It is a view that is supported by leaders of various churches in Australia. It is a position that I presently hold and have yet to be convinced to depart from. I believe that when a married couple are unable to have children and when medical technology, through IVF techniques, can help them to have a child, it is entirely appropriate that those procedures be used. What I am certainly opposed to is any irresponsible use of such techniques, especially where monetary inducements are involved, or where there is what Senator Puplick deprecatingly referred to as child purchase. I do not countenance those procedures. As to the question of donor sperm or donor ovum, I have yet to be convinced to move away from my belief in the singular relationship between two persons in a marriage. Therefore I am not as urgent about the standardisation of these matters in each State as is my colleague because it is my understanding that a child born through IVF technique between two married persons has exactly the same status as any other child of that marriage. I reinforce my commitment to marriage as the most important and valued relationship in Australia and my commitment to the family as the basic unit of our community. I believe that my commitment is reinforced by the main provisions of this Bill. The Bill gives proper status to the principle of recognising foreign marriages, subject to those technical questions I have asked and subject to the arguments for not being in any way vague in interpreting its provisions, along the lines that I believe I have constructively argued. With regard to pre-marital education, I know we all adopt the principles of the Bill. There will then be a challenge to the Government to make amends in the coming Budget for the inadequacies of recent years by making sure that there is sufficient provision for pre-marital education in Australia. I take the opportunity to make a parallel plea for counselling procedures to be a requirement in divorce proceedings. The area on which I have placed most emphasis in my remarks concerns civil celebrants, whom I am tolerant to allow in Australia, although I would not ask for their services. I believe that the Opposition's amendment, which will be moved at the Committee stage, is essential to enable people to vest in that civil celebration the personal context they desire for their marriage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.45) — In his Speech on the occasion of the opening of the new Parliament the Governor-General made reference to a wide range of matters relating to the Federal Government's past and future performance. One area to which the Governor-General made reference was the Government's strong and consistent economic performance. I quote from the Governor-General's Speech: In the period since Labor won office Australia has experienced its strongest and most sustained economic performance for decades, the inflation rate has been brought down from twice the rate of other industrial countries two years ago to a level close to the OECD average, and the unemployment rate has also been drastically cut during the period. This has indeed occurred and is a direct result of the Hawke Government's policies to decrease inflation and unemployment. The Labor Government has met many of the objectives which it set for itself at the beginning of the last Parliament. I would like to outline some figures to support this assertion. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, inflation has been cut in half. In the March quarter of 1983, at the beginning of the first term of the Hawke Government, inflation in Australia was running at the rate of 11.4 per cent compared with the average Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rate of 5.7 per cent. In just over 12 months to the December quarter 1984 Australia's rate of inflation dropped to 5.3 per cent compared with the 5.1 per cent average of OECD countries. In the area of unemployment also the figures are encouraging. In March 1983 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 10 per cent. In January 1985 the national unemployment figure was 8.5 per cent and falling. The country still has a way to go in this area. The continuation of our policies and positive commitment from the private and business sectors, however, will turn around the effects of the Fraser Government's policies. Despite criticism to the contrary, the prices and incomes accord has continued to play an important and successful role in the country's economic success. Efficiency in the financial and business sectors has continued to improve with the successful implementation of new policies. The success of this step has been reflected in the December quarter 1984 release of a survey on business by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank. The survey of business conditions indicated a strong increase in sales and profits during the December quarter as well as a decrease in labour costs and a steadiness in both purchase and overhead costs. Also revealed by the survey was a growing strength of the demand for labour. The survey indicated that activity in the tertiary sector improved markedly during the December quarter; 74 per cent of respondents reported good or satisfactory trading compared with 68 per cent in the preceding quarter and 66 per cent in the December quarter 1983. The employment and industrial relations area has shown continued improvement with nearly 57,000 new jobs being created under the community employment program. This is in addition to the 65,000 people who will be assisted in employment under the program to the end of this financial year. Industrial disputes in Australia showed a decline in the 12 months to the end of December 1984. This indicated the Government's continued commitment to a consensus approach, an approach unheard of by the previous Government. In sharp contrast to the economic outlook of the nation as a whole is the situation in the State of Queensland. To be blunt, the Queensland economy is suffering from gross economic incompetence on the part of the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government. In the past 12 months mismanagement in Queensland has been reflected in high unemployment, higher than average industrial disputation, increased bankruptcies, decreased economic output, a loss of confidence in business, commerce and industry and, perhaps more importantly, the long term effects of the recent State electricity dispute. While the economy of other States has been growing in the light of increased prosperity brought about by Labor policies, Queensland, under the direction of the National Party Government, is slipping into an economic morass, much to the disgust of Queensland people and those who represent them in the Commonwealth. The Queensland Premier's predictions of boom in the Sunshine State have quickly faded to gloom. For example, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal that unemployment in Queensland is the worst of all Australian States. At 11.1 per cent it contrasts with the national average of 9.3 per cent. New South Wales, for example, is on 9.6 per cent and Victoria is on 7.8 per cent. When we talk of 11.1 per cent unemployment we tend to lose sight of what that actually means. To put it in concrete terms, it means that 123,000 Queenslanders, including one in every three teenagers, are unemployed in the State. That is more than the total population of the city of the Gold Coast, or one and a half times the population of Townsville, or two and a quarter times the population of Rockhampton. Surely this is an unacceptable level in anyone's language. The Queensland Government must take a major part of the responsibility for this staggering level of unemployment, as it is far above the national average. An alarming factor resulting from these figures is the increase in financial aid required to assist the unemployed, unemployment benefits, of course, being the major social security payment in this area. It is estimated that the cost to the Australian Government of extra unemployment benefits payable, due to Queensland's unemployment rate being higher than the national average, is $2m per week. I would like to outline how this figure is estimated. If we apply the Australian unemployment rate to the Queensland labour force figures, we can determine the number of people who would be unemployed if the unemployment rate in Queensland were the same as the Australian average. The Australian average unemployment rate is 9.3 per cent. The Queensland labour force is 1,109,400. By multiplying that by 9.3 per cent, we find that the unemployed in Queensland, if Queensland unemployment were at the rate of the national average, would be 103,300. The actual number of unemployed, however, in Queensland is 123,000, the difference being 19,800. Thus an estimated extra 19,800 people are unemployed in Queensland as a result of the Queensland unemployment rate being higher than the Australian rate. The Department of Social Security estimates that the average rate of unemployment benefit payable is $101.24 per week. Applying this rate of benefit to the number of extra unemployed in Queensland, we can determine a weekly cost; that is, $101.24 multiplied by 19.8 thousand comes to $2m per week. The Queensland Government is never backward in coming forward when it wants to make clear where its Federal colleagues' responsibility lies and where their jurisdiction finishes, so now let the Queensland Government accept its responsibility for allowing unemployment to become so high in that State. Because of its responsibility, the Queensland Government should make substantial contributions towards the unemployment benefit payments which it is causing to be paid out. It is not satisfactory for the Queensland Government to let mismanagement run rife in Queensland, to allow the level of unemployment benefit to spiral and to leave the Commonwealth to shoulder the financial burden of a higher rate of unemployment. If the Queensland State Government does not make such a payment voluntarily-and I would not hold my breath-the Commonwealth would have to consider sending an account to the State Government. The Queensland Government must accept its responsibility, and the $2m per week which I mentioned is what the Queensland Government should pay to the Commonwealth whilst it allows the rate of unemployment to run rife in Queensland. Perhaps if the Queensland Government had to accept the financial consequences of its mismanagement, it would concentrate on getting Queenslanders work instead of plunging the State into further gloom in the way it is at the moment. During the recent weeks Queensland residents have endured unnecessary hardship, both personal and financial, as a result of the unreasonable, provocative approach by the Queensland Government during the recent power dispute. As a direct result of the Premier's unbending stance an estimated 100,000 workers were stood down because of the dispute. Although many of these workers have now been reinstated, a large number of them will remain unemployed. If we assume that all of these 100,000 workers were eligible for unemployment benefits and received the average rate of $101.24 per week that I mentioned earlier, the weekly costs of the extra unemployment benefits can be estimated at approximately $10.12m per week. Even if only half of those 100,000 had been able to receive unemployment benefit, the figure would still represent $5m per week. As a result of the State Government's inability to handle the industrial dispute, this additional cost to the Commonwealth for unemployment benefits per week indicates the extra expense the Commonwealth Government has had placed on it by the Queensland State Government. Why should not the State Government have to bear this cost because of its poor industrial relations? I have raised three principal matters this afternoon. The first was the improving of economic conditions in Australia following the election of the Labor Government in 1983. The second was the poor economic situation in the State of Queensland, the State that I represent. It is a State rich in potential but poor in political leadership. In a State so rich in resources it is regrettable that our unemployment level is higher than that for any other State, that the level of industrial disputation even before the recent power dispute was higher than the national average and that recent figures show that Queensland has a record level of bankruptcies. The third matter I raised was that, unless the Queensland Government lifts its game, it must shoulder some of the burden of paying unemployment benefits to the extra number of unemployed in Queensland. It is simply not good enough for the Queensland Government to get into deep water recklessly and to continually call on the Federal Government to be its lifesaver. Had the Queensland State Government to accept financial responsibility for its actions, it might start to work for the Queensland people, not direct its total energies towards the Liberals, the Hawke Labor Government and the unions. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.00) —I rise to correct some false impressions which were created by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in a speech which he made to a recent World Health Organisation meeting dealing with the attainment of the goal of health for all, particularly with the role of universities in achieving health for all. By way of background, Mr Deputy President, I remind you and the Senate that during the 1970s the member states of the World Health Organisation developed a series of policies and doctrines that changed the whole concept of public health. They developed and expressed the ideal in their goal of 'Health for all by the year 2000', and this goal of health for all by the year 2000 was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. That Assembly went further in its search for levels of health for all people, to allow them to lead socially and economically productive lives, by laying down a series of action plans which would help achieve that goal. As part of that program, in May 1984 the thirty-seventh World Health Assembly discussed the technical aspects of the role of universities in the strategies of health for all guided by a detailed document analysing universities' roles which had been compiled by a task force of over a dozen health policy makers and academics in various universities around the world. On behalf of Australia the Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, responded to that document. It is Dr Blewett's response that I wish to discuss today, in particular the disservice which Dr Blewett did to the Hunter region and to the medical school in that region, the University of Newcastle School of Medicine. Dr Blewett's response reflects a distinct lack of preparation. Interestingly, he took no academics with him, unlike the health ministers of almost every other country. In fact, he was asked to take academics with him but declined so to do, no doubt believing that his own academic background would equip him adequately. He took the opportunity while at that meeting to criticise Australian universities and their medical schools, but he made no positive reference to their contribution, particularly to the contribution which was made by the University of Newcastle medical school to community health and to the goals which the World Health Organisation is trying to promote. In fact, Dr Blewett succeeded only in running down his own country in the international forum. He would have amazed the many health policy makers-policy makers from this country and from the others-who have recognised the work being done here in the University of Newcastle, for it is a world leader in the area being pursued by the World Health Organisation and deserves better than it got from our Minister for Health. What Dr Blewett actually said was as follows: In my country universities sustained by great traditions and old customs are slow, even arthritic, in their response to the changes of today. In the remaining years of this century all we can hope to do is to nudge them towards change, provide financial incentives to encourage them in new paths and support intellectual currents within them . . . . I acknowledge, without any hesitation, Dr Blewett's substantial intellectual contribution to the life of his own university before he was elected to Parliament. I do not wish to deny that or denigrate it, but it does not give him any right to adopt, as he did, such a negative approach to what is going on in Newcastle or to what is going on in the medical school there. The Minister failed to qualify that statement he made in any way. By his failure he impugns the University of Newcastle and its medical school along with all other Australian universities, and his criticism of all of them is too extreme. I would like to say a few words about the School of Medicine at the University of Newcastle. I am delighted that Senator Grimes is sitting on the Government side of the chamber now because he would know many of the people about whom I am going to speak, having trained, like me, with many of them and having studied under some of them. That School of Medicine was set up by its foundation Dean, the late Professor David Maddison, to respond to the needs of community health in Australia and to extend its involvement in developing countries, particularly in the South East Asia region. That is precisely what Dr Blewett was seeking to have Australian universities do. Subsequently, after the premature death of Professor David Maddison, under the guidance of Professor Kellerman and more recently under the guidance of its new Dean, Professor Hamilton, this medical school has continued to pursue those goals. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, and Senator Grimes of the contributions made by Professor Stephen Leeder of that university, a recognised world authority in the very areas about which Dr Blewett was talking; by Professor Nick Saunders, who was a co-student with Senator Grimes, who, like Professor Leeder, was one of my housemen at one stage, who is now the Professor of Medicine at that school-he is pursuing the same kinds of goals about which Dr Blewett was talking-and by Dr Nanra and other world figures there. They did not deserve that kind of criticism. I have taken part in teaching in three university medical schools-the two Sydney schools and the Newcastle school. There is no doubt that the Newcastle school is the most exciting and the most innovative, and it reflects much of the philosophy of McMaster University. If that was what Dr Blewett was trying to promote and to praise, he could have done no better than to recognise the Newcastle school's contribution. Dr Blewett talked particularly about the needs for some work in occupational health. The Newcastle school has a Chair in Occupational Medicine. The Chair is filled by Professor Richard Kelman. The medical school expects soon to have chairs in geriatrics and rehabilitation, each of which will reach out into the social, environmental and occupational health dimensions of health care. Also being looked into are the development of academic strength in health economics, health planning and evaluation, if indeed these are other areas of concern to the Minister. The curriculum of this school is based upon community involvement from the very beginning, and I am sure that my medical colleague would agree that a school where students meet patients in their social situations in the first week they start is probably getting them off on the right foot rather than locking them up in an ivory tower for several years. Students undertake at least some of their studies focusing on the broad problems of health in the community, and they reach out and work in the community to deepen their insights and analytical capabilities in broad population-based problems so that they will understand and have some of the skills needed to achieve the World Health Organisation goals. Student assessments in Newcastle stress the need for communication with patients and make explicit assessment of the student's ability to relate to a patient and to advise and to educate the patient. Student selection in Newcastle is different from that in most other Australian universities and certainly most medical schools. It is geared to take account of a student's motivation, orientation and likely aptitude for a broad capacity to respond to the needs of people and to the community. It is not based simply on a Higher School Certificate mark, and in that again it is a unique and exciting institution. Most of the students' work at the University of Newcastle medical school is focused on or directed to individual or community health problems, both as a means of improving the quality of their learning and as a means of preparing them to identify health problems that they will encounter in their future careers. I mentioned McMaster University. I do not know whether the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has been there. I certainly have visited it. The kind of model development by McMaster is applauded throughout the world. It is happening here in Australia. Why could Dr Blewett not have acknowledged that in an international forum? The Newcastle school is also heavily involved in the provision of health services in the region. So it is not just an ivory tower; it is part of the Hunter region. It is particularly involved in their planning and evaluation. The State Department of Health in New South Wales, the specialists and general practitioners, the health workers of a variety of professional groups, lay members of the community-all are involved with the medical school in working parties, advisory groups and other kinds of health initiatives which are geared to the problems which actually lie in that region. I refer to just a couple. There are initiatives to look at the problems associated with smoking and health and epochal work on Salicylate use and abuse in the Hunter region. How can anyone say that they are neither relevant nor leading the way? They are doing both. The University of Newcastle has also actively supported community health in the international arena. It is a foundation member of the network of community-oriented educational institutions for health services which has been developed with strong support from the World Health Organisation. Through programs developed by the Rockefeller Foundation, it is one of the three centres in the world set up to train specialist clinicians in epidemiology-again the name of Professor Stephen Leeder has to be mentioned here-so that trainees may return to establish programs in clinical epidemiology and to assist in reorientating their medical school curricula, their services and their research priorities to make them relevant to and responsive to changes occurring in those communities. Is that not what Dr Blewett wanted? If so, why did he not acknowledge it and why would he not say so? That program is now in its second year. Explicit links have been made with developing medical schools, including the Arabian Gulf University based in Bahrain, schools in the Philippines, in Thailand, in China through the Australian universities international development program, and, through research associations, in Papua New Guinea and hopefully soon in Fiji. Finally, Mr Deputy President, in response to the recognised problems that Aboriginal groups face in receiving appropriate health care, the University of Newcastle medical school, with the encouragement of the Federal Government, is to train a number of Aboriginal students in medicine and, in this way, will contribute to the improvement in the health care of Aboriginal Australians. Did Dr Blewett not know that? Did he go totally unprepared, or did he know it and not care? It simply is not good enough for a Minister to make the kind of slighting remarks he made in international forums when they are so wrong. New- castle has one of the most exciting, most innovative medical schools in the world. It is a living tribute to Professor David Maddison and it must not be allowed to regress to the mean of other medical schools around the world. Without the kind of recognition of what it is doing that task is not made any easier. The University of Newcastle is making a major contribution to community health both here in Australia and at an international level in ways that are relevant to the message of 'Health for all by the year 2000'. For the Minister to ignore this while denigrating Australia's medical schools as a whole serves to run down Australia and is an inappropriate and unfair thing to do. Before a Minister speaks at a major international forum such as this he should make himself aware of the facts, all the facts, and if he does not know them he should take advisers who can help him, and not refuse the help. Otherwise he makes a fool of himself and this country. Such has been the case with Dr Blewett's address. Mr Deputy President, the Hunter region of New South Wales is a great area, with a large population. Every lower House seat in the Newcastle area is represented by the Australian Labor Party. It is also ignored at State and Federal level by the Party which has its political support. The fact that it is ignored is nowhere better demonstrated than in this pathetic speech given to the World Health Assembly by the Minister for Health of Australia which denigrates Australia and says nothing about the achievements in the Hunter region of New South Wales of a medical school which meets all the criteria which Dr Blewett is laying down. His statements were wrong, they were ungenerous, they were unprepared, and it was not good enough. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(1.14) —I raise a matter that I regard as quite important concerning Commonwealth finance directed to research programs under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. I think all honourable senators should realise the importance of such schemes in advancing and developing Australian initiatives in technology in order to make our industries and exports more competitive on the world market and to expand the base of our export income. I consider this a matter of urgency. If Australia is to increase its presently decreasing standard of living and to reduce our national foreign debt, I think it most imperative that we increase our export income. Everyone will recognise just how serious the matter is when they see that in the Budget last year we spent, I think, of the order of $5.6 billion, or over 8 per cent of the Budget, to service public debt throughout Australia. That is a considerable amount of money and the only way we can reverse this is to increase our export earnings. There are many examples in the past that I could cite of successive Australian governments having failed to develop fully the overseas market potential of local inventions. Xerography, Interscan and, more recently, the over-the-horizon Jindalee-type radar system are some of the more familiar ones. Because of our reluctance to provide the $10 for every $1 spent in pure research to develop these initiatives and, I suggest, because we failed to spend even more-perhaps up to $20 for every initial research dollar spent on these inventions-and unless we are prepared to spend that sort of money on entrepreneurial promotion of these initiatives, I think Australia is going to lose out continually to overseas interests who are anxiously awaiting further world initiatives from Australia in order to capitalise on the world market. I believe that lack of Government commitment in this area combined with bureaucratic red tape is alive and well, thereby militating against the interests of Australian entrepreneurs. An unfortunate example of this was drawn to my attention recently; I raised it in Question Time this week. I refer to a computer assisted disaster management system called CADMAS. This particular project was refused finance under the provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. I drew attention the other day to the fact that in 1985, this year, alone Australia has suffered losses in the vicinity of $250m from natural and man-made disasters. An efficient and comprehensive national disaster management system such as CADMAS could easily save the Australian community from 10 to 20 per cent of the annual cost of such disasters as bush fires, floods and cyclones, not to mention the human lives which could be saved as a result of the implementation of this system. In November 1983 the then Minister for Science and Technology, the Hon. Barry Jones, suggested when approached by the company that the CADMAS system was an ideal project to be applied for under section 39, the public interest section, of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. I have seen an excellent video presentation of the CADMAS system, and I agree with the former Minister and the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board who suggested that this project had some merit. I believe it is an excellent project which should be supported by the Government. On 29 November 1983 an application was lodged but the company concerned was later informed that no money was left in the 1983-84 Budget allocation. This was despite the fact that the Budget Papers show that the Government underspent its public interest grants allocation by almost $2m. Also the project grants and commencement grants allocations were underspent by $2.2m and $1.6m respectively. Some accounting explanation could well be offered for this surplus, but it seems to me that to underspend research grant money is quite irresponsible of the Minister and Department concerned. Finance of approximately $4m was sought for CADMAS and the Australian Government could have received up to approximately $200m in estimated royalties, as, I understand, it would have been assigned all the software rights and licences. An American company which is interested in this system cannot understand why this project is not being assisted by the Australian Government. They say that CADMAS is five years ahead of the rest of the world in this field of software technology. A large number of States within the United States are waiting to buy CADMAS as soon as it comes on to the market and South Australian and Victorian authorities are also very interested. Further applications for funds from this year's grants have been rejected, even though the then Minister, Mr Jones, and the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board have described the project as meritorious and worthy of funding. I am mystified why worthwhile national projects such as this have been pushed around from one board hearing to another in spite of the fact that the Minister and the Incentives Board have obviously commended it as a worthy project. Why should CADMAS now be subjected to the time-consuming and costly feasibility study which is suggested? I believe a more efficient national disaster management scheme such as this would lead to the export of this new high technology. Australia, once again, if we do not get on with the job, will see overseas interests developing this local initiative and then eventually we will have to buy back this Australian facility to sell to interested parties within our own country. Such inaction would ensure that significant export income which would evolve from this project would end up in an overseas country. I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that an American company is very interested in spending millions of dollars on this particular project. Unless the Australian Government gets into the act and does something about it, we will lose that initiative, and the profits resulting from export sales will go to the United States of America. All that needs to happen is for the new Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, to get the interested parties around the table and make sure that this valuable project, which in my view is a most exciting innovation with respect to national emergency, is pushed through this bureaucratic red tape so that the Australian community will benefit from a CADMAS system operating nationally and from the significant export sales that will undoubtedly flow from marketing this commodity internationally. I wonder, Mr Deputy President, how many other examples there are of Australian initiatives having been held up by continual frustration due to bureaucratic red tape. Sitting suspended from 1.24 to 2 p.m. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Education: Has the processing of all applications for capital grants to non-government schools stopped pending the outcome of a review of the program? For how long has there been a stop on processing applications, and for how long will it continue? Does this mean that forward commitments for capital expenditure, allowing orderly school planning, are not now being made? Is this a prelude to reduced allocations for school capital works in the Budget later this year? Senator RYAN —The decision of the Schools Commission, which I accepted, to have a short pause in the processing of applications under the capital program has been explained in great detail to all clients of the Schools Commission. They are well aware that it is a temporary pause of three months duration. The Commission decided to do this for two reasons. One is that we are in a transition phase with regard to a new non-government schools policy, the panel report in relation to which the Government is considering. The other is the Schools Commission review of the capital program. All the special purpose programs of the Schools Commission, including the capital program, have been reviewed and the reports are now becoming available. Bearing in mind that some of the forward commitments of some projects would be affected by this, there is a very clear exemption for any projects which would be unfairly held up. Again, all major non-government school authorities have been advised of this. I understand that there have been discussions about a number of specific projects which will go ahead and be processed despite the temporary pause. I should point out to honourable senators that, as this is a rolling triennial kind of program which allows forward commitment for up to three years, what the Commission is attempting to do at the moment is to have a pause in funds which would be committed for 1987. It is a temporary pause for three months, some weeks of which have already passed. Everybody affected by it has had the decision and the reasons for it explained to them. In any case, where there is a legitimate need for the application to be processed immediately, it is being so processed. I believe that in general the whole of this sector will benefit from a more rational and orderly treatment of the capital program. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister said that she has explained these matters to non-government school authorities. For the information of the Parliament, will she table the kind of letter that went out to the authorities? She also mentions three months as the period. Will the program recommence three months after it was halted? Senator RYAN —Senator Baume has asked for a detailed explanation to be tabled in the Parliament, and I am happy to do that. The duration of the pause is definitely a three-month period, but should the Commission advise that it needs a few more weeks to get the new program properly into place, obviously that is a matter I will consider. But the Commission recommended a three-month pause and that is the decision that has been taken. I will see whether I am able to table a statement in the course of today's debate. Senator McKIERNAN —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that lawyers representing the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia before the Royal Commission into the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam did not appear at the Commission's formal hearings on 27 February? If so, can the Minister say whether their failure to attend may have jeopardised the VVAA's case, given that yesterday was the last day set aside for the presentation of evidence to the Commission? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that one of the first actions the Australian Labor Party took when it came to office in 1983 was to establish that Royal Commission. Naturally, we provided funds for counsel assisting the Royal Commission. Because the Vietnam Veterans Association was a major party to the proceedings, the Government agreed to pay that organisation an amount of funds to enable it adequately to present its case before the Commission. Yesterday, some 18 months after the Commission first sat, was the last day on which the Royal Commission took evidence. It is a fact, as Senator McKiernan said, that the two lawyers, Mr Adrian McInnes and Mr Alun Hill, the legal representatives of the Vietnam Veterans Association, failed to attend the Commission's hearings yesterday. Their non-attendance arose from a claim they made to the Government for a restructuring of the formula for payment of their fees. That was associated with the question of sitting days and preparation of the case. I regard this is an apalling abrogation of their responsibilities to their clients and a poor reflection on their professional ethics. It was the last day of a very long royal commission, and their obvious duty was to represent their client, the VVAA and the veterans that that organisation represents. I should point out to the Senate that the Government has already paid to these two lawyers in that 18-month period a sum in excess of $490,000. What was in dispute was a sum of approximately $200,000. Yesterday, after consultation with my colleague the Minister for Finance, the Government agreed to pay them another $170,000. That would have meant that the two lawyers and their instructing solicitors would have received from the Commonwealth a sum of $660,000 for two years work. In my estimation, that is not bad. It is a case of private snouts trying to get into the public trough when they refuse to carry out their legal and, I stress, their moral responsibility to their client on the final day of the public hearings. Obviously the view of some professionals is that the Government is fair game and that whenever there is a royal commission they are entitled to get as much money out of the Government as possible. They have met their doomsday as far as this Government is concerned. If they are not prepared to accept the fee, they will be criticised generally for their behaviour. I was informed just before I came into the chamber for Question Time that the two lawyers have resigned their commission to the Vietnam Veterans Association. The consequence of that action is that the President of the Vietnam Veterans Association, at no cost to the Government, has agreed to finalise its representation to the Royal Commission. It is a matter of great regret and of great criticism that people in the legal profession, as indeed has happened with some people in the medical profession, seem to put their values more on the money they can earn than on their obligations to their clients. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister for Primary Industry is well aware that the Tasmanian rock lobster industry has been one of the best regulated and managed fisheries in Australian waters over many years. He would also be aware that all those years of conservation and management are in real danger at present. Accordingly, I ask: Is it the intention of the Government in relation to this fishery to confirm the present traditional State oversight of the waters adjacent to the State waters, or is the Government contemplating another arrangement? If it intends to make changes to the traditional management of the waters, what is the intention, and when will the announcement be made? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, that in October 1984 the Victorian Professional Fishermen's Association wrote to the Interim Fishing Industry Consultative Panel requesting that consideration be given to establishing a task force to investigate allowing Victorian fishermen to operate in Commonwealth waters outside the present agreed limits. This proposal was not discussed at the last IFICP meeting on 13 November. However, this proposal was reported in the media, particularly in Tasmania. No changes to the present management arrangements are under consideration by the Commonwealth fisheries authorities. Should any changes be contemplated these would be considered only after request had been received by the Victorian or Tasmanian governments. To date no such request has been received from either government. In addition, no changes would be contemplated until a careful assessment had been undertaken of all the factors involved in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952 and after close consultation with the governments of Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. Senator COONEY —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has any analysis been made by the Attorney-General's Department of any trend since 1970 in, firstly, the number of regulations made under Commonwealth legislation providing for monetary or custodial penalties or both where the onus of proof is cast on the person accused; secondly, the number of convictions recorded under such regulations, and finally, the penalties imposed as a result of such convictions? If the answer is yes, is such analysis available? If the answer is no, is there any plan to carry out such analysis and make it available? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am delighted to hear that Senator Cooney has not lost the art of drafting interrogatories since his translation into this place. I have not got the information he seeks in front of me. I will seek it from the Attorney-General's Department. However, I do make the point that to my knowledge active consideration was being given to the whole question of legislation, including regulations, which reversed the onus of proof following from the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs some little time ago on which Senator Tate and I, and perhaps even Senator Puplick in his previous incarnation, served. I am sure that in those circumstances the question is one that the Department will be able to find information on, and I will bring it forward accordingly. Senator CHIPP —Will the Minister representing the Treasurer tell us how the Australian Reserve Bank will be able to control the borrowing, lending and investment activities of the 16 foreign banks that have been admitted to Australia? Is it not true that European central banks were unable to control the activities of Citicorp, which has been investigated by the United States Congress for illegal currency dealings and tax avoidance, and whose subsidiary Citibank is one of the banks the Government has allowed into Australia? How will the Government protect the deposits of ordinary Australians from decisions by these foreign banks to invest unwisely in Third World debtor nations, decisions which led to the near-collapse of the Continental Illinois Bank and threatened the financial stability of the entire United States banking system last year? Will the Government now submit to pressure from the existing Australian banks to deregulate home loan interest rates and the small overdraft rate, thus causing increases in interest rates charged to home buyers and small businesses? Finally, has the Government considered the effects of allowing 16 more potential currency speculators the right to speculate against the Australian dollar from within our economy at a time when the value of the Australian dollar has plunged and remains unstable? Senator WALSH —In regard to the last point-I do not know whether Senator Chipp was here yesterday when I answered a question from Senator Watson-the Government made a decision in December 1983 to allow the Australian dollar to float, so that people who wanted to speculate against the Australian dollar would be speculating one speculator against another instead of speculating against the certainty that they could take the country to the cleaners by having the exchange rate underpinned for particular periods of time by the actions of the Reserve Bank. In that context it is worth noting that owing to the grossly irresponsible economic sabotage practised by the present Leader of the Liberal Party immediately before the 1983 elections, when he forecast that if Labor was elected there would be a massive devaluation of the dollar, $3 billion flowed out of the country, because the present Leader of the Opposition had sabotaged the economy for what he perceived to be political gain. Senator Chipp —I am not interested in what he did. I want to know what you are going to do. Senator WALSH —It would not do Senator Chipp any harm to do a bit of a study of the history of some of these events rather than grandstanding about every populist issue that he thinks he can squeeze a few more votes out of for the next election. A little more education and a little less grandstanding popularism by Senator Chipp is something which I commend to Senator Chipp. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister answer the question. Senator Chipp —Tell us about your loyalty to your Leader. What about you making phone calls about your Leader? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, you have had your go. Senator WALSH —Ask me a question about that if you feel like it, but I am not answering that question now. I would welcome one. I invite you to ask me a question about that another day. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, if you do not answer the question I will have to ask you to sit down. Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp asked what policy the Government has to control the investment decisions of these banks. He apparently has not noticed that the Government has a deliberate policy of deregulating the financial system. In general, we do not believe that it is the role of the Government to control the investment decisions made by those banks. With regard to the possibility of currency being moved in and out of the country, almost all of the banks concerned, and specifically the bank Senator Chipp mentioned, Citicorp, through its merchant banking operation, already have the capacity to do that. To the extent, real or imaginary, that that is a possibility, the decision announced by the Treasury yesterday has made no difference. Senator Chipp asked how the deposits of Australian depositors would be protected. The answer is through the prudential ratio, which from memory is 20 : 1; that is, $1 of paid-up capital is required for every dollar taken in deposits. In addition to that, the banks will be established not as branches of the foreign banks, but as Australian subsidiaries. Therefore, any exposure to bad debts which any of the banks may have because of their operations outside Australia will not affect their Australian subsidiary. The question of the housing loans I will refer to the Treasurer. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What effect has the New South Wales specialists dispute had upon the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord? Senator GIETZELT —The New South Wales medical specialists' dispute has not greatly affected the repatriation hospital system in that State. The dispute does not encompass repatriation hospitals in New South Wales or, for that matter, anywhere else in Australia. One minor effect is that the dispute in the State hospital system has put extra community pressure on the operation of the repatriation hospital system. On the basis of a decision made by the previous Government and continued by the present Government, repatriation hospitals are allowed a 20 per cent community patient component so that they can comply with the arrangements made with the teaching hospitals. Some repatriation patients who would normally be treated at State public hospitals have been referred to private hospitals as a result of an overflow of patients at the Concord hospital. The withdrawal of services by the medical profession has also obviously affected some of the patients in the Concord hospital. As I understand it, the dispute began over the Medicare arrangements and fee for service arrangements for doctors in New South Wales. I remind honourable senators that sessional fees apply in all repatriation hospitals. I find it somewhat ironic that the procedural specialists should be concerned about what they claim to be the nationalisation of medicine and the medical profession. Of course, as a result of the arrangements agreed to between the officers of the Australian Medical Association and the Government, they have been assured that there is no intention to do that. There is in all repatriation hospitals a sessional fee arrangement, which sort of arrangement is the very cornerstone of the dispute that exists between the Government of New South Wales and the medical profession. Therefore, I cannot understand how doctors can make the claim they have that if the same principle applied in the State hospitals it would be nationalisation through the back door. I take advantage of Senator Childs's question by placing on record the dedication of the staff at the repatriation hospital who have been working under excessive difficulties as a result of the dispute which has now gone on for six or seven months in New South Wales. They have carried out their tasks to the best of their abilities. Whilst there have been some difficulties, I think overall we are still in a position to say that the repatriation hospital at Concord is fulfilling its obligations. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance both in that capacity and in his capacity as the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Economic Planning Advisory Council has a statutory obligation to report as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year? Is it a fact that the annual report of a body such as EPAC is an extremely important opportunity for, and aspect of, its accountability and communication with the public and the Parliament? Is it a fact that now, eight months after it was due to be published as soon as practicable, the report has neither been published nor presented to the Parliament? Why has this undue delay occurred? What has made it impracticable to make the report within a reasonable time? Senator WALSH —In response to the first part of the question, I do not know whether there is such a statutory obligation, but I imagine that Senator Rae would not have asked such a question if there was not; so I take that for granted. I am not sure whether EPAC is obliged to report through the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or the Special Minister of State. I think it is more likely to be the Prime Minister but I will have that checked out and also seek an explanation for what Senator Rae says is the unacceptable delay in the presentation of that report. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to allegations made by the Premier of Queensland that Queensland is not receiving its proper allocation of tax sharing funds recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in 1982? Is the Premier correct in saying that Queensland has been deprived of $51m for 1984-85 and a total of $855m since 1977-78? Senator WALSH —I have seen a report along the lines that Senator Colston mentioned in the Courier-Mail of either yesterday or the day before which says, among other things: Queensland was not receiving its proper allocation of tax sharing funds recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in 1982- It goes on to give some figures, the same as those given by Senator Colston. Senator Colston asked: Is the Premier's claim correct? The answer is no. Indeed, the Premier's recent foray on this question is a breathtaking revision of history. On 25 June 1982 the Premier was reported in the Courier-Mail following the Premiers Conference which had just been completed, as having said: We accept it. That is, the arrangement about which he is now complaining- We can go along with it. We accept we are part of the one nation. We failed to get what we wanted because we realise we have to help all other states which are poorer. That is what the Premier was saying about the arrangements up until June 1982. Indeed, the agreed communique that came out of that Premiers Conference said: The relativities as recommended by the Grants Commission, but slightly modified at the Premiers' Conference (at no cost to Queensland) were to be phased in over the course of the three years 1982-83 to 1984-85; and that a real terms guarantee to the annual level of tax sharing payments operate alongside the phasing-in arrangement. That joint communique from the Premiers Conference in 1982, needless to say, had the endorsement of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. It is also accurately supplemented by other information reported in the Press. The fact is that in the period since 1982 Queensland's tax sharing grants have been increasing faster than those of all other States and in this financial year they are expected to increase by 12.2 per cent compared with an estimated average increase of 4.5 per cent for the other States. So a position which he said was satisfactory at that stage and which has since treated Queensland more favourably than any other State is now described by Mr Bjelke-Petersen in the lurid terms which both Senator Colston and I have reported. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. A question has been asked which is clearly a prepared question. The Minister has been referring to a series of documents which he has in front of him. He is clearly debating the question. It is just part of his obsession about Premier Bjelke-Petersen. He totally ignores the fact that Premiers Cain and Wran frequently complain about their being shortchanged. Clearly, the Minister is entering into a general debate in Question Time to the detriment of honourable senators who wish to ask questions seeking information. I ask you to call the Minister to order, ask him to give an answer and sit down. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have listened to the Minister carefully and I believe that he is replying to the question. As yet he has not engaged in debate and I hope that he will not do so. I call the Minister. Senator WALSH —Certainly not, Mr President. The fact is that Queensland, which the Premier said in 1982 had been treated quite satisfactorily, has received a faster rate of increase in funds, compared to all the other States, since that time. Whatever the cause may be for Queensland having the highest unemployment rate in the country and the highest per capita debt of any State, it certainly cannot be attributed to any relative disadvantage imposed on it by the Commonwealth through our Commonwealth funding arrangements for State governments. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Bushfires this summer have caused losses estimated at some $20m. In addition, four people lost their lives and nine were seriously injured. The 1983 Ash Wednesday fire claimed 73 lives and caused insured property losses of approximately $180m. Taking into account the fact that the Federal Government last year cut funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation by 10 per cent in real terms and failed to finance the National Centre for Fire Research at Chisholm Institute in Victoria, which closed as a result, and in light of the continuing threat of bushfires to the Australian community each summer, can the Minister explain the Government's reluctance to provide sufficient funds for bushfire research? Senator RYAN —Our Government is acutely aware of the problems and devastations caused by bushfires on what seems to be an almost regular basis throughout this country. It is certainly not the case that the issue has been neglected in any way by the Government. I can inform the honourable senator and the Senate that the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled 'Bushfires and the Australian Environment' has been actively considered by the Government and that a response is currently being prepared. The recommendations in the report are being considered by all Commonwealth departments and authorities which have interests and responsibilities in relation to bushfire matters. I expect that the Government will shortly report to Parliament on its response to the recommendations in the report and I assume that that response will include some indication of additional funds to be devoted to this very serious matter. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. What action is being planned by the Government to fulfil its commitment to conduct a summit meeting on domestic violence to develop a national approach to legislative and social reforms? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Institute of Criminology is assisting the Government in its fulfilment of that commitment by organising a national conference on domestic violence to be held in November this year. The conference is to be opened by the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen. The Director of the Institute has arranged for a number of international experts to speak at it. The Director has called a final planning meeting for 6 March at which various State and other professional interests will be represented. It is hoped that the conference will provide a comprehensive survey of the situation and will also develop a program for future research and action. I just add that in April last year the Institute of Criminology conducted a workshop on victims of crime in Australia. Subsequently, the Director of the Institute wrote to all relevant State and Territory departments, authorities and organisations seeking information on services available to aid victims of crime so that a comprehensive list of such services could be compiled. It is expected that the report of this workshop and the information supplied by the agencies, which has some immediate relevance to the topic of domestic violence as well as crime in general, will be further developed by the national conference. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Firstly, did the appointment of the Reverend Dr Dudley Clarke as a commissioner of the Commonwealth Schools Commission lapse in January? Secondly, does this mean that there is now no representative of non-Catholic independent schools on the Commission? Thirdly, has the Minister held nominations from the National Council of Independent Schools for Dr Clarke's replacement for some months? Fourthly, should the Reverend Dr Dudley Clarke not be reappointed to the Commission, will the Minister undertake to appoint in his place a part time commissioner who has a special interest in and knowledge of non-Catholic independent schools? Finally, will she undertake to make this appointment before the next Commission meeting? Senator RYAN —The matter of the appointment of full time and part time commissioners to the Commonwealth Schools Commission is one that is described and set out in the Schools Commission Act. The Government is given the right to appoint up to 11 commissioners, four of whom shall be full time. At this stage it is correct that Dr Clarke's appointment has expired. I am currently considering, in consultation with the Schools Commission, a possible future replacement to fill that vacancy. It is also the case that I may fill that vacancy with a full time appointment. I have not decided which course of action I shall take. It is not the case, as the honourable senator's question implied, that there is no representative from the non-Catholic non-government school sector currently on the Commission. Professor Ronald Sackville, who is associated with the Jewish day schools, is currently a member of the Commission, and, of course, Jewish day schools are non-Catholic, non-government schools. The decision on whether that vacancy should be filled with a full time or part time commissioner is under active consideration by me. I cannot indicate when I will make that decision because, as the honourable senator may be well aware, the position of Chair of the Schools Commission is also vacant. I am currently involved in discussions and seeking advice about an appropriate appointment to replace Dr Tannock, whose appointment finished in January this year. I will be endeavouring-the honourable senator may be interested in this-to ensure that the Commission has a proper balance of those who are recipients of and involved in the Schools Commission programs, that it will be a representative and expert committee able to carry through the many programs for which the Commission is responsible. It is likely to be the case that I will not make the decision about filling the vacancy left by Dr Clarke until the Government has made a decision regarding the appointment of the full time Chair of the Commission. It seems to me that that is a pivotal, crucial position, and the question of balance of other legitimate interests depends very much on the person who is appointed to chair the Commission. However, I can advise the Senate that I have appointed Lindsay Connors as the Acting Chair of the Commission for a period of two months. I hope that the matter of the future membership of the Commission, including the position of Chair, will be resolved by the Government within that time. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of a newspaper report this week in which the Leader of the National Party in Victoria, Mr Ross-Edwards, claimed that the Hawke Government has restricted the availability of the unemployment benefit to dairy farmers? Has the Government introduced restrictions to deny dairy farmers access to unemployment benefit or other forms of Government assistance? Senator GRIMES —I was made aware of Mr Ross-Edwards's statements. Mr Ross-Edwards makes a lot of strange statements, particularly around election time. The simple fact of the matter is that the statement is completely and utterly untrue. The criterion for access to unemployment benefit has not been changed by this Government. It remains exactly the same as it was when we came to power. Neither the guidelines nor the legislation has been changed at all, and I believe Mr Ross-Edwards knows that. Dairy farmers can become eligible for the unemployment benefit if they pass the work test and if they are ready and willing to take off-farm employment. The conditions under which they can do that are exactly the same as they were before we came into government. Assistance is also available to them under the household support and other provisions of the rural adjustment scheme. Nothing at all has been done by this Government to make it more difficult for dairy farmers to qualify for assistance in any of those schemes. I am not suggesting for a minute that we do not need to review the situation which applies to dairy farmers and other primary producers when they face difficulties due to seasonal factors or natural disasters. In fact, when I was Minister for Social Security, Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry, and I set up a working party to look at this matter. That work has been continued and expanded by my successor in the portfolio, Mr Howe. The simple fact of the matter is that what Mr Ross-Edwards says is absolutely and utterly untrue and is for consumption only during the election campaign in Victoria, in which he is obviously finding things quite difficult. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, refers to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, and public broadcasting generally. Did the Government announce in the Governor-General's Speech any intention at all to make any legislative or regulatory changes in these fields? Does the Government have any such intention and, if so, what is the nature of that intention? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I do not remember whether there was any such reference in the Governor-General's Speech. If Senator Sir John Carrick was so interested I expect he could have read it to find out. I do not know either whether the Minister has any intention of making changes, regardless of whether anything was in the Governor-General's Speech. I will seek an answer from the Minister. Senator CROWLEY —My question to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters follows a question asked yesterday by Senator Coates concerning a claim by Dr Mackey of Tasmania that repetition strain injury is a hoax, a form of mass hysteria and a relatively unknown disease that is not recognised in other countries and for which there are no diagnostic criteria. In passing, one wonders whether those criteria apply to Dr Mackey's view of the relatively new disease acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Given the very high number of RSI sufferers in the Commonwealth Public Service, can the Minister report what steps the Public Service is taking to address this disease, which it clearly acknowledges is real? Senator WALSH —In my extreme ignorance of this matter until a couple of weeks ago I thought that repetition strain injury and tenosynovitis were the same thing. I am advised, and I have had this confirmed by my colleague Dr Grimes, that that is not correct; that, firstly, tenosynovitis can be diagnosed with a high degree of precision and, secondly, has identifiable anatomical causes which, to put it in layman's language, could be likened to the inner cable of a bowden cable being rusty. That is, there is friction. In other words, friction develops between the tendons and the sleeve in which they move. I was once a shearer of sorts. There was a complant called shearer's back-which is not to be confused with Forbes's back which is something shearers acquire nocturnally rather than during their working hours. I do not know whether shearer's back would qualify. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister was asked a question about public servants. I suggest that he talk about public servants rather than shearers. Senator WALSH —The point I want to make by way of clarification is that there is an important difference between tenosynovitis and RSI, for the reasons I have given. On 11 October my predecessor announced the establishment of a Task Force on Repetition Strain Injury in the Australian Public Service. The task force is to make recommendations concerning the incidence, cost, prevention and further study of the issue. The task force includes representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, government agencies and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. It is expected to report in the first half of this year. The Public Service Board is presently conducting a comprehensive review of keyboard occupational structures, in consultation with departments, individual staff and staff associations. The review is intended to provide, among other things, a structure which will facilitate better job design in keyboard areas and lower the incidence of RSI. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. When might the Senate expect an exhaustive and conclusive answer from the Government on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs regarding the onus of proof in criminal proceedings? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did refer to that Senate Committee's report in answer to Senator Cooney earlier. I do not know what the timetable is for the consideration of these and other matters of reform in the present Attorney-General's administration. I will ask him and find out. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of Press reports that suggest that the United States Government will ask the Australian Government to mediate in the dispute between the United States Government and the New Zealand Government on the ANZUS-nuclear ships issue? Can he comment on that proposal? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of Press reports to that effect, although I have no information, and my brief gives me no information, that any such suggestion has actually been made by United States officials. The general position that the Australian Government has adopted in this respect is simply this: In acknowledging that New Zealand's policy on port access is affecting the operational meaning of ANZUS, both the Australian and the United States governments have expressed the hope that with further consideration the New Zealand Government will change its position so that normal ANZUS operations might be resumed. The Prime Minister, at the same time, has stressed-as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have also done-that Australia will do nothing by way of pressure to try to produce that result. Australia will, of course, continue military operations with New Zealand. As was announced in the Prime Minister's Press statement of 12 February, Cabinet will shortly be considering a paper on the practical measures with regard to the United States and New Zealand that might be entered into for giving effect to the ANZUS alliance in light of New Zealand's policy on port access. It may be that an opportunity will arise in that context to consider the matter to which Senator Sibraa has adverted. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows a question I asked of him earlier this week. I refer to the continuing uncertainty about the Government's attitude to the discounting of consumer price index increases caused by devaluation and to further reports yesterday about conflicting answers given by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on this issue, which is vital because it touches on our long term prospects for economic recovery. Can the Minister clear up the confusion and tell the Senate whether the Government will, in the next wage case, discount any increase sought to the extent to which the CPI has been increased in the relevant period by the devaluation of the Australian dollar? Senator BUTTON —In asking the question Senator Chaney said that he referred to Press reports. What he in fact referred to was Press headlines. If he read the Press reports with some detail I think he would see that there is no conflict between answers given by Ministers in various places. In one newspaper a journalist placed an interpretation on an answer given by the Prime Minister, which interpretation was not given widespread currency. I do not regard it as being inconsistent with the answer given by the Treasurer or me. Of course, the next national wage case is some six months at least down the track. The Government will, at an appropriate time, make up its mind about submissions it has to put on a variety of matters to that national wage case. It is not appropriate for the Government to determine that issue now. It is certainly not appropriate for me to tell Senator Chaney at Question Time what the Government might decide in a few months time. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer been made aware of the pending land deal in Queensland involving the Silver Plains pastoral station? Is it true that American interests are likely to make a profit of nearly $3m out of the deal? Is the Minister aware that the land involved covers an area on the National Estate Register and that the development is likely to damage rain forest along the Nesbitt River, as reported in the Age? Is the Minister prepared to intervene to stop the deal or to make the deal more advantageous to the Australian people as a whole? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Treasurer that we do not know whether the report is correct. The only reference which the Treasurer has been able to locate was the Press report to which Senator McIntosh referred and another in the Australian Financial Review of 21 February. I will proceed on the assumption that the report is correct. I am advised that this proposed land sale would require approval under the Government's foreign investment policy, as it relates to the acquisition of rural property. Under that policy, unless the proponent is an Australian resident overseas or has firm plans to establish residence in Australia, usually within 18 months, it is necessary to establish that a property has been advertised or otherwise offered on the market so that Australians have had an opportunity to purchase it. If it is established that a reasonable opportunity has been given to local buyers, approval is normally restricted to foreign acquisitions offering significant economic benefits. Where the economic benefits are small there is normally a fifty-fifty Australian-foreign partnership. Proposals for investment in large tracts of rural land defined as those of 100,000 hectares or more, or having a value of $1m or more, are required to provide for an effective Australian foreign ownership, or have economic benefits of national or regional significance. Senator PARER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the proposed Bill of Rights, now released under the Freedom of Information Act, still under consideration, or has it been abandoned by the Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a good question, Senator. The Government is committed, as we all know, to the protection of basic human rights and civil liberties of all Australians. That commitment includes ensuring that Australia meets its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly since we removed, as one of our last acts last year, the reservations and declarations attached, very unhappily, to that covenant by our predecessor administration. The questions involved in a Bill of Rights raise many issues which are under consideration by the Government. The Government is committed to strengthening the Human Rights Commission, including its role in the protection of those rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the International Covenant. The Commonwealth is also committed to wide consultation with government and community organisations on its human rights initiative. The text of a Bill of Rights, which was circulated to State governments and some other organisations last year, was a working draft to which detailed consideration, in light of the reaction to it, has not yet been given. I remind the honourable senator-I am not sure whether he mentioned it in his question-that the text of that has now been formally released under freedom of information legislation by the present Attorney-General- Senator Missen —Why not to us? Why not to us as senators? Why don't we get it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator may ask for it nicely and I am sure that we will respond in kind. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to a report that the Tasmanian Premier intended to raise the issue of Australia's business migration policy at a meeting of the Australian Industry and Technology Council, I think, tomorrow. Mr Gray apparently expressed concern that the Federal Government's policy was causing a loss of potential business investment in Australia, such investment being redirected to the United States of America and Canada. Can the Minister explain exactly what the Government's policy is in respect of business migration to Australia and was Mr Gray correct in saying that Australia's policy is more stringent than that of countries such as the United States of America and Canada? Senator GRIMES —I did see the reports in the Press about Mr Gray, which I believe followed a trip to Hong Kong. When Mr Gray came back he apparently said that Hong Kong was awash with people who were willing to come here and spend money, particularly in Tasmania. However, he gave us no evidence and we have no evidence of these huge numbers of people available to come to Australia from Hong Kong. He also made the comment that the US and Canada, in his view, had much easier policies and that it was much easier for people such as those in Hong Kong to get admission under their business migration schemes. Our business migration scheme has been modified over the years so that people with finances, skills and the capacity to introduce businesses, particularly businesses and industries which are not strongly represented or represented at all in Australia, who want to come to this country can have the opportunity to do so. That has been a policy of both this Government and the previous Government. By the same token, we must ensure that any such policy is not used as it was attempted to be used in a rather spectacular way when I was Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs towards the end of last year, to enable people who would otherwise not qualify to jump the queue. Honourable senators may remember hearing of cases of people who arrived here with $250,000, $500,000 or even more in the bank, which money went into their accounts just before they came to Australia, and suddenly disappeared out of their accounts just after their arrival. From my inquiries of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and his Department I have been told that the Australian provisions are not much different from those of the United States and Canada. Of course, being a country with a smaller population and a smaller market, we will always get fewer of these types of migrants than they will. Mr Gray made his comments after he returned from a trip to Hong Kong. He has had great difficulty justifying them. Since he returned, he has produced no results other than this outrageous statement. What Mr Gray has been trying to do, as he has always done, since he became Premier, is to blame all his troubles, all the difficulties he has made for himself in Tasmania, all the economic problems of that State and now the difficulties he has in attracting overseas business to that State on the Commonwealth Government. We at the Commonwealth level have always known what he is about. The problem for Mr Gray is that the people of Tasmania now realise what he is about. But I dare say he does not learn very quickly and he will persist, week in and week out, in trying to fix the blame for all his difficulties on the Commonwealth Government. But that excuse is wearing a bit thin, as he will find out at the next State election. Senator REID —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, relates to the bans imposed by the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council on the construction of Radford College. Is it not a fact that construction has been halted by a dispute between other parties, the Australian Teachers Federation and the Government over an issue in which Radford College is involved, namely, the important question of the level of resources available to Australian Capital Territory schools? Did the Prime Minister guarantee before the 1983 election that the College would be built? Will that promise be honoured and, if so, when will the Government clear the obstacles presently preventing the school from being built? Senator RYAN —It is the case that the TLC currently has a ban on proposed new buildings at Radford College, and that is a ban which our Government is seeking to have lifted. The TLC has given a number of reasons for this ban, and one of them does relate to funding for the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. It is my view, and the view of the Government, that it is most inappropriate for the TLC to pursue its concerns about funding for the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority by way of a ban on a school outside that system. I inform Senator Reid that I, in the company of my colleague Ralph Willis, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, will be again meeting with the TLC this afternoon, and I am optimistic that we will be able to have discussions which will lead to the lifting of that ban. That will certainly be my intention and the intention of Mr Willis. With regard to future developments at Radford College, the Prime Minister, both when he was Leader of the Opposition and before the previous election when he was Prime Minister, acknowledged that Radford College had been approved by the Government and that its activities should not be interfered with by industrial action by the TLC. However, I should make it clear that the commitment to Radford College was a commitment to years 7 to 10, for which recurrent funding will be forthcoming at the appropriate level. Radford College has already received a major capital grant and an interest loan subsidy. Any future capital assistance it may seek will be determined according to the relevant criteria. But certainly the provision for years 7 to 10, in terms of the access to recurrent funding, is not in question. I hope that I will be able to report a favourable outcome of my negotiations with the TLC this afternoon. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce whether his attention has been drawn to a joint statement by the Executive Director of the Queensland Motor Industry Association, Mr Jim Harris, and the Queensland State Secretary of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, Mr Len Ward, published in today's edition of the Brisbane Daily Sun, claiming that Federal freight subsidies for oil transportation to country areas were the subject of malpractice and profiteering by some independent wholesalers who are selling petroleum products in Brisbane at vastly inflated prices. What is the level of payment of the subsidies? What measures have been taken to investigate claims made in the statement? If the claims have been investigated, what is the result? What steps, if any, have been taken to ensure there is no abuse of the Federal freight subsidy system? Senator BUTTON —I was not aware of allegations in the Queensland Press this morning made by the Executive Director of the Queensland Motor Industry Association and the State Secretary of the Transport Workers Union regarding abuse of the petroleum freight subsidy scheme. I must say that I am constantly aware of allegations of abuse of this scheme from all sources. The petroleum retailing industry is an industry in which the so-called virtues of competition have been elevated to the highest art form and it is, to say the least, cut-throat. In that environment all sorts of allegations are made. Senator Jones asked me what action I had taken if I did see the allegations in this morning's Queensland Press, which I did not. Had I seen them, slow moving as I am, I doubt whether I would have taken action by now. I will have the allegations looked into and try to provide Senator Jones with an answer in due course regarding those allegations. I was also asked: What is the level of the subsidy provided and what measures are in force to ensure that those measures are not abused? The level of subsidy under the petroleum freight subsidy scheme effectively means that freight costs above 1.1c per litre are paid for by the scheme. The freight costs above that rate vary between a fraction of a cent and 30c, I think, in some remote parts of Australia. That gives some indication of the effects of the scheme. As to prevention of abuse, the normal mechanisms of Public Service audit and things of that kind apply. I do not wish to embark on a discourse as to whether they are entirely satisfactory, but I think the people concerned are doing their best. Senator BOSWELL —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the statement on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM radio program this morning by the General Secretary of the Trades and Labor Council in Queensland, Mr Ray Dempsey, in relation to talks in Canberra seeking Federal intervention in the current Queensland electricity dispute? Is he aware that, among other matters, Mr Dempsey indicated that he would be seeking action or discrimination against Queensland by the Commonwealth in taxation and other areas? Will Senator Button give an unequivocal assurance that Queensland and Queenslanders will not be asked to pay disproportionate or additional tax burdens and that they will not be in any way discriminated against financially or otherwise by the Commonwealth Government to shore up the Trades and Labor Council's power base in Queensland or to undermine the authority of the State Government? Can Senator Button give an assurance that these discriminatory tactics, as advocated by Mr Dempsey this morning, will not be applied by the Commonwealth to Queensland and to Queenslanders? Senator BUTTON —I did not hear what Mr Dempsey said. This Government will behave with fairness and equity towards all citizens in respect of the taxation regime. We have always tried to do so and will continue to do that irrespective of whether people live in Queensland or elsewhere. The way Senator Boswell puts Mr Dempsey's comments, they do not sound terribly attractive to me. No doubt we will have an opportunity to look at them in due course. Senator WALSH —I have found on my desk another note relevant to the question Senator McIntosh asked. I would like to add that to the answer I have already given. In considering any proposal of the type outlined by Senator McIntosh for a major sale of Australian land to foreign interests, the advice of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment would be obtained in respect of the environmental implications of the proposals. Senator RYAN —Earlier in Question Time today Senator Baume sought details from me about the Schools Commission's decision to have a pause in processing applications for the non-government capital program. I am able to inform the Senate that the pause came into effect on 6 February. Officers of the Commonwealth Schools Commission met with the national Catholic Education Commission, including all State directors, on 7 February to explain the reasons for the pause. Other interested non-government school organisations were informed by telephone and had reasons for the pause explained to them in that way. Any written inquiries are being responded to by a letter, a copy of which I have with me. In response to Senator Baume's request I now seek leave to table the letter- Senator Peter Baume —Will you have it incorporated in Hansard? Senator RYAN —And have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Letter sent to those with an interest in the pause in the processing of CSC Capital Grants applications. Thank you for your telegram of 13 February 1985 concerning the pause in processing of applications for capital grants for non-government schools. The main reasons for the pause were: (a) the need to formulate new guidelines to take account of the new recurrent funding policies and, in particular, to formulate policies concerned with the assessment of financial need which take account of the allowances for capital expenditure; (b) the prospect of new policies on the funding of new schools after the New Schools Panel reports later this month; (c) an urgent need to catch up on work relating to the equity and accountability provisions in the legislation; and (d) an urgent need to complete work on the new ADP processing system and to implement the new administrative procedures which are inherent in this system. The Commission is currently consulting with non-government school authorities on the criteria that will be used to identify urgent projects. Provision has been made to process those applications where a delay might seriously disadvantage schools and Directors of the Commission's State Offices have been advised to consult with the appropriate authorities to identify such projects. It is hoped that the processing of grants can be resumed by 1 May 1985 and by this date the new ADP system will be in operation and this will help the Commission to catch up on any backlog of projects resulting from the pause. With the assistance of this system and some redeployment of staff it is anticipated that the backlog will be overcome by the end of the year. Yours sincerely Susan Ryan Senator HARRADINE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to a Question without Notice asked by Senator Parer this day relating to a proposed Bill of Rights. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In response to Senator Robertson's question to me during Question Time yesterday on the costs incurred by the Senate Select Committee Concerning the Conduct of a Judge and the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, I have been provided with the following information on costs incurred by the Senate. The Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge involved a cost of $23,935.81. This figure does not include costs for the judge's legal advisors, which costs were met by the Government. The figure does not include the small amount for costs for other witnesses' legal advisors, which costs were added to the costs of the Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. The total cost of the Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge was $361,608.43. This figure does not include the Government's contributions to the judge's legal advisors' costs. I table a breakdown of the expenditure of each Committee. The PRESIDENT —I present the Business of the Senate and its Committees for 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.08) —The papers which are now before the Senate concern the operation of the Australian Capital Territory schools system. This is the only window which the Commonwealth has into the direct operation of schools in Australia. It gives us, at Commonwealth level, a chance to get some feeling for what is going on in school administration, this, of course, otherwise being a matter for each State Government. The Australian Capital Territory system is smaller than the State systems and it is smaller than at least two of the large non-government systems-that is, the two large Catholic education systems of New South Wales and Victoria. It remains true that the Australian Capital Territory system is the best resourced school system in Australia. It has the highest levels of resources per capita. It is generally recognised in terms of the excellent physical plant, the resources available by way of teachers and the good resources available by way of class sizes. It is better resourced than any school system we have had at any time in any part of Australia. Yet the teachers, and certainly the Teachers Federation, are not happy with the situation. Some teachers are not happy because of the standards which are operating in education. Some of them-for example, those who belong to the Professional Association of Classroom Teachers-are actively promoting in the Australian Capital Territory a different approach to education, to certain standards in the classroom and to teaching. That is one expression of disquiet in the Australian Capital Territory. Some teachers are not happy with the procedures which are being used in operating Australian Capital Territory schools. I remind the Senate of the case of a teacher who had been active against the Teachers Federation and who then applied for promotion. On his promotion panel were three people, one of whom was an official of the Teachers Federation of the Australian Capital Territory. He ended up with two teachers approving his promotion and one, the Teachers Federation official, not approving it. He failed to get his promotion. He is unhappy, and that procedure may need to be looked at to ensure that it is fair. Most teachers who are unhappy are unhappy because they allege that resources are insufficient. The fact is that most extra resources going into education in Australia have flowed through to teachers themselves, either to extra numbers of teachers or to increases in teachers' salaries. The real concerns which many of us have about school systems-that includes the Australian Capital Territory schools system-revolves around the very simple question of whether the application of extra community resources, which are not in themselves begrudged, can be seen to equate with a translation into better outcomes by way of educational result and educational productivity. At present there is very real concern in the community that that question is hard to answer and that some of the benefits from extra resources are difficult to see. The Australian Capital Territory has special opportunities in relation to innovation in education. We know that the Australian Capital Territory has quite unusual demographic changes taking place. I instance the areas of old and central Canberra which have diminishing populations, certainly of school age children. We know that the areas of Tuggeranong and Gungahlin are experiencing increasing populations and an increasing need for schools. Because of these demographic changes Canberra has an opportunity to make policy decisions in relation to small secondary schools. I regret that when I was Minister for Education the issue when it came before me was not seen in terms of developing a policy for small secondary schools. I think in fact the decisions that had to be taken in relation to Watson High School give an opportunity for this kind of matter to be looked at further. I wish the Chief Education Officer, Dr Hancock, and his Authority well in what they are trying to do. One other issue that came up in the Australian Capital Territory and which has caused concern is the decision taken by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority a year ago to augment the marks in the Australian scholastic aptitude test of all women students on the basis of their gender. I understand that my colleague Senator Teague will raise this matter further. It turns out that that move was premature and inappropriate. It was a move that was sexually biased and had results which were unfair in their application. I urge the Schools Authority in the year that lies ahead to avoid that kind of foolish decision again. I urge the Schools Authority to keep on its wall the cartoon that appeared in the Canberra Times and which set out very graphically the degree to which the Authority had erred in its decision to fiddle with the ASAT marks one year ago. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.14) —The report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for 1983-84 no doubt meets the requirement of the Act in terms of reporting and adding to the report financial details that are required for submission to Parliament. However, page 20 of the report refers to two documents-'Judging the Curriculum' and 'The Challenge of Change', to which it is a response. In the report's discussion of these two significant papers about curriculum and assessment only a couple of paragraphs describe the matter in formal terms. Even on a succeeding page about the participation and equity program and youth services there is a similar brief summary paragraph. I express very directly my disappointment with this and request that when there is a matter of public contention about the assessment system in Australian Capital Territory schools this Parliament ought to expect such a statutory authority directly to face that question and to put to this Parliament the terms of the issues involved in the way they think fit. In those respects this report is a matter of glossy statements in a glossy document. That is not good enough. Through the Estimates committees and through other statements and questions raised by honourable senators in this place, there is no doubt that the Parliament is concerned about assessment and curriculum matters in Australian Capital Territory schools. We require more substantial answers. There is a crisis of confidence amongst parents and school children in the Australian Capital Territory about these school matters. Can any honourable senator say what the assessment system at the end of years 11 and 12 means? Does it describe with any degree of reliability the extent to which a student has undertaken a particular course of study? It is full of doubt. Does it describe the depth to which that student has undertaken study? That also is full of doubt. Does it describe whether the student has mastered the subject? That is full of doubt. Yet, they are the exact requirements of any sound assessment system that ought to be able to be communicated to a student graduating from secondary studies, to be taken on to employment or to any other area in which his education is to be applied. If there is this crisis of confidence, will parents take their children away from Australian Capital Territory schools? Will tertiary education authorities and employers, both in this city and in other places, doubt the reliability of the scores? Along with that, there are the other offences mentioned by my colleague Senator Baume. He referred to the adjustment of scores in the Australian scholastic aptitude test in a way which is still a mystery to the public and, additionally, the adjustment of the scores with regard to female students getting more points because they are female. Mr Houston, who ought to know better as a man of great experience in the chairmanship of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, even suggested that there ought to be socio-economic adjustments for such tests. I draw direct attention to the inadequacy of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority reporting on these matters. I believe that it is a matter that must be much more directly followed up by the Senate. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.17) —I am sure that there are other honourable senators who would like to respond to the extraordinary statements made by Senator Teague. I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.18) — I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I was one of the two parliamentary delegates to the Thirty-eighth Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1983, and I should like to speak briefly to the paper. First of all, I thank my colleagues for selecting me to attend that meeting of the General Assembly. I think for anyone who has an interest in foreign affairs the opportunity provided by this Parliament, albeit on a very restricted basis, to attend for the duration of the General Assembly is a very great educational experience. Parliamentary delegates to the General Assembly actually work as representatives in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is a working post. The Department of Foreign Affairs, by the very nature of its work, really is different from other government departments, and working in that Department is a very interesting experience. Unlike all other diplomatic postings, which are one-on-one, where the mission or embassy is dealing with the government of the host country, the work of the United Nations is on a multilateral basis. In other words, one is dealing simultaneously with representatives from 150 or 160 countries. I also thank the New York mission staff. Ambassador Woolcott is a very fine representative of Australia, and all of his staff without exception did Australia proud in the way in which they served our interests during that period. It was a very interesting period. President Reagan, President Mitterrand and Mrs Gandhi addressed the General Assembly while we were there. Tragically, Mrs Gandhi is no longer with us. The meeting of the Assembly began under the great pall of the attack by the Russians on the Korean Airlines flight 007 and the loss of all lives on board. The debate on the Korean airliner incident took precedence in many meetings of the committees of the Assembly. During that period also there was the loss of the lives of about 250 marines of the American peacekeeping force in Beirut. This again was a tragic and unnecessary loss of life. My main activity was to attend the major debates in the General Assembly and to spend most of my time with the committees involved with disarmament. It disturbed me to see the way in which the Australian Government got into unnecessary trouble with the Association of South East Asian Nations group over the representatives of Kampuchea in the General Assembly. The Australian Government quite clearly misled the ASEAN countries as to what our intention was. The fact that we did not sponsor the motion was not the critical point. The point was that the ASEAN nations were led to believe that we were going to sponsor the motion, and that was what they were very disappointed about. The other defect diplomatically at the time that was serious and will have serious implications in the years ahead was the fact that the Government failed to respond to the early signs that Malaysia was going to attempt to upset the Antarctic Treaty. Some positive and firm action in the early stages would have intercepted that attempt. I would like to talk about Australia's place in disarmament negotiations and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but there is no time for that now. In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my support for the United Nations. I believe it is an absolutely necessary forum in the world. I believe in its goals of the maintenance of peace and security. I do believe, though, that it has a vastly over-loaded bureaucracy and that it needs a budget that is one tenth of its present size. It should get away from all the side activities in which it gets involved. The organisations that work best are those which have a high voluntary component, such as the United Nations Children's Fund. I think that the World Health Organisation has been one of its most worthy operations. But again, a voluntary component would go a long way towards cutting its costs. The operations of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation are a tragedy. They are dishonest and quite counterproductive now to the goals and ideals of the United Nations. Australia should follow the lead of Great Britain and the United States and withdraw its funding to that organisation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Committee's report collates the experience of both State and territory forest services during the disastrous bushfire season of 1982-83. During that period 5 per cent of our total area of forest, over two million hectares, was destroyed by bushfires. During the Ash Wednesday fires alone, 2,528 homes and five sawmills were destroyed and 77 people lost their lives, many in horrific circumstances. Thousands more have been physically and mentally scarred for life. Damages in South Australia have been estimated to exceed $209m. We cannot say whether this will ever be repeated, because much of the blame for destruction of life, property and resources must be attributed to human error. The forest services have expressed concern that known procedures for minimising the risk to human life or property in bushfires were not adequately implemented in many situations. Many houses in woodland areas were not equipped in even the most basic way to withstand the bushfires. Trees near power lines were not trimmed, land around houses was not kept clear of undergrowth and many farm owners, particularly hobby farmers, were not experienced or informed about fire protection or prevention measures. One positive step to encourage farmers to equip themselves with adequate firefighting equipment such as trailers and pumps would be for these to be allowed to be written off for taxation purposes at the time of purchase, rather than the present system of depreciation charges. That is my own idea. Furthermore, the efficiency and equipment of rural brigades vary considerably. The report suggests that in future much more emphasis needs to be placed on public education in personal safety, fire prevention and appropriate building codes, particularly in high risk areas. Forest services also stress the need for all land authorities and owners to reduce fuel in forests under their control, particularly where this poses a serious risk to life and property. Where controlled burning is not feasible, other fuel reduction practices such as grazing or clearing should be implemented. Perhaps the most important point raised in the report is the need for national co-operation and co-ordination of uniform policies for activities concerning bushfire preparedness and avoidance. Both State and Commonwealth authorities must combine to examine the extent to which a common approach to training, equipment, communications and basic preparation could facilitate the development of preparedness for bushfire suppression. There must be uniform policies relating to adequate fuel reduction and the positioning and maintenance of power lines. A national firefighting authority or fire authority organisation, which could co-ordinate national and State activities, would be an obvious advantage. A national fire investigation team and a specialist support group, equipped with modern specialist equipment not generally available at the regional fire fighting level, warrant further examination and action. The Council recommended in its report that all research related to bushfires be co-ordinated by a central authority or agency, representing the State and Commonwealth authorities involved, to ensure that an integrated approach is adopted, with adequate liaison with potential users of the results at all levels of research and planning, until implementation is carried out. Education, I believe, is the key to the problem. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides Australians with a wide range of listening and viewing programs of a high quality which reflect its access to resources as a national corporation. For a cost which has been estimated as being 6c per Australian per day, the ABC ably fulfils its responsibilities to the Australian public to provide 'innovative and comprehensive radio and television services of a high standard'. The concern of the ABC for both its program content and for technical excellence in production is reflected in the prominence of ABC staff in media awards sponsored by national and international organisations, among which should be noted an award and a number of citations from the United Nations media peace prizes. The ABC recognises its responsibility not only to continually improve program content and technical services, but also to extend its existing services to more and more members of the Australian public. The concern of the ABC does not, however, end with Australians. Through Radio Australia networks Australia's national and international interests are constantly represented in the Pacific nations, South East Asia, Indonesia and New Guinea. The popularity of the services provided in Japan is evident by the 6 1/2 thousand letters received from Japanese listeners in the 12 months to July 1984. Since the ABC received corporate status the reorganisation and separation of radio and television divisions and the subsequent concentration of human, financial and equipment resources have meant that ABC radio has been able to respond to the needs of specialised radio services. However, I believe that the Corporation must be extremely careful not to allow deterioration in the quality of programs by attempting to cover too wide a range of topics and music, some of which are more than adequately catered for by commercial broadcasting stations. ABC Radio 2 offers its listeners cultural, educational, religious, scientific and specialist talks with the aim of reflecting the intellectual diversity of Australian life. It also offers music and comedy services. Similarly the restructuring of ABC television has resulted in new guidelines for television. Of particular importance to Australians is the directive that the ABC increase its share of prime time television audiences to at least 20 per cent by 1986. The ABC's interest in the community is reflected in its children's programs, its regard for viewing requirements of minority and interest groups within the community and its response to the principles of equal opportunity in terms of employment and programs. For the second year running, ABC concerts have proven extremely popular with over one million people attending these events during 1983-84. In terms of educational value in broadcasting, the ABC caters for all levels from pre-school to adult, recognising that all age groups continually need to receive new information in order to respond to the challenges of a modern society. The role of the community is reflected by the invitation in 1983 to interested Australians to nominate for advisory councils. As a consequence, 100 Australians have been appointed to express the interests and aspirations of communities in each State and at a national level. That the ABC is providing programs that contribute to our sense of national identity, to inform and entertain and reflect our cultural diversity, is evidenced in the growing market for Australian produced programs and series overseas. However, I do have some reservations about the Corporation's move towards centralisation of news services. Already we have seen presidential style government, loss of sovereignty of parliament and for the ABC to move more in this direction is certainly not good for democracy or local participation. Concentration on national issues, perhaps to the point of trivia, will leave limited time for local State news, and may affect the local employment status of newsreaders. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.33) —Senator Watson, in referring to the possible loss of sovereignty of parliament and to the problems associated with the centralisation of various programming activities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has touched on two points which have exercised the minds of all members of the Senate and those members of the House of Representatives with whom I have spoken about these matters. The Senate would be aware that very serious questions have arisen regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's attitude to its accountability to the elected representatives of the people. These questions have arisen across party lines in the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee A, which now will be Senate Estimates Committee C. They have been the subject of debate in this Parliament and in its committees. I do not wish to pre-empt the consideration of those very important questions in this opportunity that has been provided to us by the motion to take note of the annual report of the ABC. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should explain something about the Sessional Orders, because I think Senator Harradine was unnecessarily worried. The fact that one speaks to a motion to take note of a paper does not preclude one from speaking again when the matter comes on again. This matter is on the Notice Paper now and if it comes on again those who have spoken today will be eligible to speak again. That is the ruling under the Sessional Orders. I am clarifying that point because I think Senator Harradine was unnecessarily worried that he may be losing his rights. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.37) —by leave-I amend Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name, and move: That the Senate- (a) having regard: (i) to the desire of all people to live in peace and freedom and to enjoy basic human rights, including the right to self-determination, (ii) to Australia's membership of the United Nations and regard for the principles of its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by its General Assembly on 14 December 1960 by Resolution 1514 (XV), and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement, and (iii) to the fact that, whilst the Australian people have acquired these rights and freedoms, other peoples are deprived of them; and (b) taking note: (i) of the Resolution of the European Parliament on the Situation in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) adopted on 13 January 1983, (ii) of the fact that the 3 Baltic States were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations during the years 1918 to 1940, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union in consequence of an agreement between the then German Government under Hitler and the Soviet Government under Stalin (the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), (iii) of the fact that the occupation of these states by the Soviet Union still continues, but that in accord with other democratic governments the Australian Government has not recognized de jure their incorporation into the Soviet Union, (iv) that the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being denied many basic human rights (as indicated in the unanimous Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled ''Human Rights in the Soviet Union'', presented in November 1979), but that they have not given up their struggle for self-determination and freedom, and (v) that an intensive process of Russification is taking place in these occupied countries aimed at elimination of the indigenous languages and culture; (c) resolves: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States, (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. I sought leave to amend this notice of motion in a minor way, following discussions with the Government, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. The effect of the amendment is to shorten paragraph (c) (ii) and to take out certain words from the original notice of motion which related to a United Nations committee which has already met and to which reference is therefore inappropriate. The motion which I have moved and which I hope the Senate will adopt concerns the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, small countries in north-eastern Europe, situated between the Soviet Union and the Baltic Sea. These nations were briefly independent but have now been forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union. Senator Lewis —They had an 800-year history of independence. Senator PETER BAUME —I will talk about their history of independence. It was a brief but glorious 20 years of independence. We seek to have Australia support the resolution of the European Parliament in relation to the Baltic states, a resolution which puts on record in no uncertain terms the view of that body. We seek to have Australia do all it can within the United Nations to promote the cause of the Baltic nations. We ask that the Department of Foreign Affairs be directed to take all appropriate steps to implement any resolution which the Senate may enact. That direction would come from the Government of the day, but the Senate seeks to ask that that direction be given. These three Baltic nations have had a long history of occupation. Prior to the twentieth century they were conquered and ruled by many foreign groups. During the nineteenth century they were ruled by Czarist Russia. Independence was achieved when the Russian and German empires collapsed during the final stages of World War 1. Despite the lip-service paid before the Russian Revolution to the ideals of national self-determination, the new Soviet Russian regime lost no time in trying to re-conquer the fledging Baltic republics. However, the Soviet Union was repulsed and in 1920 peace treaties were signed. Those treaties put on record that the independence of those states would be maintained 'forever'. Yet despite treaties promising the independence of the Baltic States 'forever', the imperialists of the Soviet Union and the nazi regime together in 1940 signed an infamous document, the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which carved up north-eastern Europe and allocated the Baltic states to the Soviet sphere of influence. Relying on the security of these treaties in 1940, the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states by force. It occupied the states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Fraudulent elections were held with the installation of Soviet puppet regimes. This was followed by the formal incorporation of each of the states into the Soviet Union against the will of the people and subsequently with great suffering and loss of liberty. Since that time the Baltic people have suffered massive invasions of their human rights. They have experienced mass deportations, mass imprisonment, executions and arbitrary terror. In fact, between 1940 and 1953 good estimates are that the Baltic states suffered a population drop of 26 per cent. It is interesting to work out how that figure came about. Was it as a result of direct casualities in war? Was it because all the people fled to the West? Let us examine the figures. Three per cent of that figure of 26 per cent related to casualties directly related to war; 5 per cent were the victims of nazi persecution-mainly Jews-from the Baltic states. Four per cent were refugees who fled to the West, but the majority of the population lost, 14 per cent, were the victims of Soviet execution, Soviet imprisonment and Soviet deportation. In moving this motion I express the concern of my New South Wales Senate colleagues, Senators Sir John Carrick, Lajovic and Puplick, about what is happening in these three countries. The invasions of human rights and the climate of fear and terror which has operated in the Baltic States rank with some of the worst that have been experienced in human history. Some senators joined me last night in seeing a moving film about one genocide that occurred a generation ago when six million Jews lost their lives in Europe. The people who are concerned about that genocide might also concern themselves about what has happened since then in the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The identities of these Baltic states have been submerged to the interests of the conquering Soviet regime, with the elimination of all the Baltic national, political, military, cultural and economic institutions. This is not meant to be a merely historical account as these things are continuing today. I want to set out for the Senate some of the deprivations and atrocities which are going on today and which have brought such horror to the people in the Baltic states. I wish to talk first about the denial of freedom and rights. One can look at the general violations of human rights in the Baltic states today, but this is based on the understanding that the fundamental problem in these countries remains one of denial of national self-determination and independence. Is it wrong for people to yearn after these goals? The Estonians, the Latvians and the Lithuanians face all the problems faced by the Soviet people under the existing regime, but they face extra problems because of the sense that they are deprived of their own identity and are subjugated nations. I shall say more about that special problem later. The general lack of freedom under which these people labour today, the lack of rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, can be outlined in the following way. First, there is no right to emigrate or to visit abroad. Permission to do so is sometimes granted by the regime, but this is at the absolute discretion of the government. That sits poorly with the situation in this country or in other democracies. In the Baltic states there is no right of peaceful political opposition or of peaceful political assembly. There is no freedom of association-a basic right that we hold dear. No independent form of mass media is permitted in the Baltic states. All radio, television and newspapers are controlled by the state, and they put out what the state decrees. There is no independent judicial system in the Baltic states; there is no freedom from coercion by the state or freedom from arbitrary arrest. The government and the Communist Party are virtually immune from legal liability concerning any of their actions, whether past or present. No free trade unions are allowed and the regime's monopoly on employment means that genuine job mobility does not exist. Citizens are not permitted to establish their own businesses, except in very limited circumstances, and only in relation to very small private plots of land. Censorship of mail exists, as does censorship of art and especially of literature. Both areas of art and literature are required to be kept clear of anything judged by the regime to possess anti-Soviet content. The education system in the Baltic states is tightly bound by the constraints of the regime's political ideology. To give an example, it is virtually impossible in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia for a medical or engineering student to obtain a final degree without passing an examination in Marxism-Leninism and without taking a course on the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The practice of religion is severely restricted in the Baltic states. Because of the regime's monopoly over most spheres of life, such restrictions may be unofficial and indirect. For example, although there is no formal ban on Bibles, the regime ensures that supplies are minimal because the regime denies access to printing facilities, paper and so on. Similarly, proper facilities are unavailable for the training of clergymen. In discussing human rights, it is necessary to distinguish between the time of Stalin's mass terror-that is, the years between 1940 and 1953 when things were unbelievably bad-and the period since then. But even in the period since then the restrictions on the rights of individuals-rights we consider basic-remain as I have described them. Persecution remains acute, even though it is now directed more at individuals than at groups. No longer are the Jews as a group being taken off. No longer are the kulaks, the small farmers, being killed as a group for state political reasons, but individuals suffer all the terror I have been describing. Furthermore, the gulag, the Soviet concentration system, survived Stalin and shows no signs of withering away today. The Baltic states as subjugated countries have special problems. First, the Soviet rulers have instituted compulsory military service in the Baltic states. That service is spent in the Soviet armed forces, and is particularly objectionable to a conquered people. There is no right of conscientious objection, and they have to watch their young men and women taking part in so-called police actions, such as the police action in Czechoslovakia, or in the invasion of Afghanistan which occurred more recently. The education system which has control of their young for 10, 12 or 15 years is being exploited to indoctrinate Baltic people with rewritten history and with false ideologies. Further, there is an active program of Russification going on. The language and culture of the Baltic States is being suppressed. Everyone is required to use the Russian language. The population is being replaced by mass immigration of non-Baltic people into these countries. The impact of large scale immigration from the Soviet Union to the Baltic states has caused the non-Baltic population to rise dramatically. Between 1940, when independence was lost, and the early 1970s the non-Estonian population of Estonia rose by 8 per cent to 40 per cent. Almost half of the population of Estonia is non-Estonian. The non-Lithuanian population of Lithuania rose from 16 per cent to 20 per cent and the non-Latvian population of Latvia rose from 25 per cent to 43 per cent. The situation is particularly acute in the main cities. Latvians now constitute a minority in their own capital city, Riga. There is a systematic policy to assimilate and Russify the Baltic people. Certainly during the early stages of Soviet rule the regime wished to dilute the local population with more reliable elements. However, recent immigration may be due to other more economic reasons-for example, they want to import large numbers of specialists or technicians. Whatever the reason, the effect is devastating. The motion before the Senate is in three parts. The first part asks the Senate to have regard to certain historical facts and background and to the desires and aspirations of people to be free. The second part of the motion sets out some of the historical matters I have raised today, some of the facts which underline the tragic loss by the Baltic people of their freedom, their liberty and their rights. The third part of the motion asks that certain things be done. It is part (c) of the motion, the third part, which relates to what action might be appropriate. As I said earlier, we are asking that Australia do all it can to fulfil its obligations and to promote the rights of individuals. Also, the Australian Government should take initiatives with like-minded governments to try to promote certain desirable goals which I have set out in the motion. Finally, the administrative arm of our Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs, should be directed by its Minister not to ignore this expression of view of the Australian people, this expression of view of the elected parliament, but to take action to put the sentiments contained in the motion into effect. I hope the Senate will see fit to support the motion which is before it today. Australia responded with generosity to the plight of the Baltic refugees who made up a large part of the first great wave of post-war migration to this country. The Baltic immigrants bore the brunt of the difficulties immigrants faced in finding acceptance in their generous but narrow-minded new home. I think it was a narrow-minded home when they came here. Even today some of my Baltic friends tell me with a wry smile that in the 1950s they were, to use their words, 'bloody Balts'. I remember well the struggle they had as they fanned out from the migrant reception camps like those in the Hunter Valley and Greta in New South Wales, areas in my State, to make their way in their new land. Citizens of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian birth are today proud, loyal, patriotic and successful Australian citizens. This is their land and this is their children's home, but they are determined not to forget the land of their origin, their languages and culture. Together with my colleagues-Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Lajovic, Senator Puplick and other honourable senators-it is my privilege on occasions to join them in their celebrations and festivals and to share with them the longing they have for the freedom that they know in their lifetime but which they have lost. The sense of outrage and injustice about what happened remains with them and they ask, through the Baltic Council of Australia, that we support this motion to place on the record the view of the Australian Senate, to set down what we believe needs to be achieved to restore to the Baltic people some sense of hope, some sense that they may yet be able to achieve that freedom about which we talk so easily from our own secure democracy. I invite the Senate to give them that support. (Quorum formed) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.00) —I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), soon after the election of the Labor Government in March 1983, indicated to Australian citizens that he would continue to refuse to provide de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Indeed, on 18 November 1983 he sent a message on the occasion of Latvian Independence Day. He sent a similar message to the Honorary Consul of Latvia in Melbourne, Mr Delins. The Prime Minister's message, given on behalf of the Government of Australia, stated: I am pleased to be able to convey, through the Baltic News, my best wishes to all members and friends of the Lithuanian and Estonian communities on the occasion of their Independence Days on 16th and 24th of February. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Australian Government does not recognise de jure the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union. In doing so, we demonstrate our continuing commitment to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and to the cause of peace and freedom in the world. The contribution of your communities to our multicultural society is a valued one. Multiculturalism depends on the respect by all groups of the political, religious and cultural aspirations of others in the community. The Australian Government is committed to policies promoting human rights in Australia, in our region, and throughout the world. As I said, in order to give added impetus and emphasis to the gravamen of that declaration, the Prime Minister sent a similar message to the Honorary Consul of Latvia in Melbourne, Mr Delins. That, if nothing else, demonstrates the fact that Australia does not recognise the forcible incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Soviet Union. The fact that we recognise the Honorary Consul of Latvia as an official representative of the country is testimony to the fact that we do not recognise de jure the incorporation of these countries into the Soviet Union; nor should we. The Soviet armies, as has been stated by Senator Peter Baume, invaded and occupied the independent countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Those peaceful Western-oriented Baltic nations were crushed by force of arms by a hostile neighbour. They were crushed under the most cynical arrangement that could possibly be conceived in the diplomatic arena-the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. That is how the Soviet Union was able forcibly to incorporate the three small Baltic republics into its empire. As has been said by Senator Baume and by me over a long period, both in this place and outside, it is incumbent upon all freedom-loving Australians to recognise that fact. Here we have independent countries denied their right to self-determination by an aggressor, the Soviet Union, a totalitarian regime, under cover of an agreement with another totalitarian regime, the Nazi regime. Surely those of us in this place who stand for the rights of self-determination for the people of the world, who fight strenuously and vigorously against denials of human rights, should together stand up for people who have been denied those rights. Australia has a golden opportunity to do this. Australia is now a member of the Security Council. There is apparently no argument at all in the Senate about the preamble to this motion. I believe that there should be no argument with what is proposed to be resolved; namely, that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and should support the European Parliament's resolution in respect of the Baltic states. It has been said that perhaps that could be strengthened in some way by this Senate calling upon the Soviet Union to comply with the obligations imposed upon it by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a party. Okay, if we want to strengthen this motion by the incorporation of those words, well and good. I still say that we, as a Parliament and as representatives of the people, using our expressive and representative functions, should support the European Parliament's resolution in respect of the Baltic states. It is very significant that the European Parliament, which is representative of a broad spectrum of community opinion-far broader than is represented in this chamber-was able to make a declaration in respect of the Baltic states which maintained for those people the right of self-determination and the basic human rights. We are also asked by this motion to resolve that the Australian Government, on its own initiative and seeking the support of like-minded governments, should bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic states before all appropriate forums at the United Nations. What is wrong with that? If we are fair dinkum about the preamble, we ought to be able to carry it forward. Too often we take the easy road out and think that, because these people are not numerous-mind you, altogether they are more numerous than Australians-and are far away, we should not be bothered about them. When one analyses that proposition one sees that it is not worthy of consideration. Of course we should protect the weakest person within our own community and the world community. Here we have an enormous super-power crushing the rights of these people with its jackboots. As has been pointed out by Senator Baume and others, the USSR has instituted a process of Russification which, as far as it is concerned, is designed once and for all to deny the rights of self-determination to the people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The motion says that the Australian Government should take all initiatives by seeking the support of like-minded countries and bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic states before all appropriate forums of the United Nations. Not only should we do that because of our responsibility as a member of the United Nations but also, as has been pointed out, we should remember that persons from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have made very good Australian citizens. As has been pointed out, they were amongst the first people to participate in post-war migration programs to Australia. They have assimilated in this country; they have made major contributions to this country. Senator Lewis —Many of them worked on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Senator HARRADINE —Of course. I know it is invidious to name names, but Arvi Parbo came from that part of the world. This man, who worked in the mines and, I think, studied metallurgy, became chairman or managing director of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd and was appointed last year as the chairman of the Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council. He is respected by the Labor Government as he was by the Government before it. He is a man who is well respected. There are many other examples. The point that I am simply making is that we do an injustice to these people and to our own principles if we do not take our own initiative in the United Nations, with like-minded countries, and do something about this situation. It is sad to say that time is running out. The Government might quibble about the last part of the motion which proposes that the Department of Foreign Affairs be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement the motion. The Government could probably say: 'Well, what right has the Senate to direct the Department of Foreign Affairs to do anything? That is an Executive Government function'. If there were some problem, let us try to get it ironed out. I would like to see a motion passed by this Senate on a unanimous basis. I believe that the last part of the motion could be amended if it were thought that the Senate would be giving a direction to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Might I say that I do not read the motion as such; I assume it was not intended as such. Senator Peter Baume —It should be directed by the Government. Senator HARRADINE —Obviously it was not intended as such. The motion does not intend that the Senate give a direction to the Department of Foreign Affairs because that is not our proper role. The motion reads: (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Presumably the Government is the one that would make that sort of direction. As I said, I believe that time is running out; I see that my time is running out too. I am attempting to help the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). I immediately came into this debate in the hope that I could save some embarrassment. I believe we can come to a unanimous viewpoint on this question. I hope that the Government recognises that there needs to be some specific determination by the Senate in regard to specific measures. There is a need for the Australian Government to take initiatives with other like-minded governments to bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic states before all appropriate forums of the United Nations. I think that is the key to this matter. I do not believe that the Government should quibble because it is on record as saying that it does not recognise the de jure incorporation by the Soviet Union of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. If it does not believe that, in order to give a practical demonstration of its refusal to give de jure recognition, it should take those initiatives in the United Nations. It should do so because it is a member of the United Nations, because it is a member of the Security Council and because it takes a high profile on these matters. It should do so because the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has openly stated that the Government takes a high profile on the question of self-determination of nations. It takes a high profile on the question of the denial of human rights. For all those reasons I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with-in fact there is everything to support-this proposition, the guts of which is that the Australian Government, on its own initiative should bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic states before all appropriate forums of the United Nations. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.17) —On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) I move: Leave out all words after sub-paragraph (b) (v), insert: (c) calls upon the Government of the USSR to comply with the obligations imposed upon it by the international agreements on civil and political rights to which it is a party; and (d) requests: (i) the Australian Government to maintain its policy towards the issue of the Baltic States, including non-recognition de jure of their incorporation into the Soviet Union; and (ii) that the Australian Government should keep under review the possibility of intervention, through appropriate channels, for example, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, on the matter of human rights in the Baltic States. In beginning my contribution, may I apologise for the absence of Senator Evans who has been called away on urgent Cabinet business. He is in his office solving the problems of the nation. Senator Peter Baume —Now we are really frightened. Senator RICHARDSON —I am just trying to settle the honourable senator's nerves. The Government concedes paragraphs (a) and (b) of Senator Baume's motion. In doing so the Government acknowledges that the people of the Baltic states have been done a grievous harm and that that harm continues. It understands the concern of members of the Baltic community over the fate of their homelands. Like a number of other senators and members of the House of Representatives from the Government side, I have attended a number of Baltic functions in recent times. The more one hears, reads or sees of these problems, the harder it becomes not to be moved by the plight of the Baltic people. The program of Russification which was outlined by Senator Baume in his contribution is something that ought to concern us all. Of course, much of that is not something for which those in the Baltic community have been singled out. In fact, those who reside in the Soviet Union have from time to time to endure the opening of their mail, restrictions on their travel and refusal to be permitted to go abroad. Soviet Jews have experienced immigration difficulties for a long time. These difficulties are also applied to the people of the Baltic states. Almost half of the population of places like Latvia is now no longer Baltic and this is a grievous blot on the record of the Soviet Union. One wonders why a great and mighty nation such as that would need to behave in that way towards those three small states. The Government does not recognise de jure the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. That is essentially the position, I think, of all parties. Like Senator Harradine, I would have preferred a unanimous resolution in the chamber. Unfortunately, the Government cannot agree to paragraph (c) (iii), which refers to the Department of Foreign Affairs being directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement the proposed resolution. There are, of course, distinctions between those matters that are for parliamentary action and those matters that are for Executive action. There can be no doubt that this is a matter more properly for Executive action. The form that that action might take will have to be co-ordinated, not just with what the Australian Government might seek to do, but with all of those other governments which will seek to raise the matter of the Baltic states in international forums. The first point to make about raising this matter in international forums is that any attempts to raise it at the United Nations under the terms of decolonisation are unlikely to succeed. One has only to look at the political makeup of the United Nations to know that those sorts of attempts are doomed to failure. They amount only to grandstanding and are more likely to do one's cause harm than good. The Government's real commitment is to try to do some good for the cause of the people of the Baltic states. Therefore, the Government does not believe that that sort of grandstanding at the United Nations will do anyone any good. I must say that I actively agree with the Government on that stance. When one looks at the European Parliament's resolution it must be remembered that the resolutions of the European Parliament are not binding on member states. All that member states are directed to do is to look at that resolution of the European Parliament for guidance and to see what action they can take as individual states in supporting it. When one looks at what has happened since the European Parliament's resolution of more than a year ago, one sees that, in fact, the governments of Europe have not had this at the top of their agenda. Obviously there will be many and varied reasons for that and they will vary from government to government. The reality is that if we are to have any impact at the United Nations in support of the people of the Baltic states, we will have to co-ordinate our action with the governments of Europe, the Unites States of America and all those other countries which are taking an interest in human rights. It is in the human rights area, not in the decolonisation and self-determination areas, that we are more likely to achieve some good for the cause. That is the direction the Government wishes to take. The Government can find no disagreement with that part of Senator Baume's motion which refers to the history of the Baltic states, what is going on in them now and whether there is Russification, arrest, imprisonment or any form of tyranny. As we look at any resolution that can come within the ambit of the United Nations resolution 1514, we realise that the terms of reference of the Sub-committee on Decolonisation and political realities being what they are, there is simply no way to go. Senator Peter Baume —Are you talking about (c) (ii)? Senator RICHARDSON —No. I know that Senator Baume has changed (c) (ii). I understand that. We all know that agenda item 9 has been dispensed with. However, there will be other opportunities for the Government to raise this matter. Some of them, I am told, will come up in the next few weeks. As I said at the beginning of this speech, this must remain-I hope all honourable senators understand it-a matter for Executive action. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in conjunction with the Foreign Ministers of those other countries which have an interest, must be given the opportunity to determine the correct course of action. They must not be bound by resolutions of the Senate which may be found to be inappropriate within a matter of days. The flexibility that is required by the Executive in this matter cannot be understated. It is, to say the least, extraordinary that the Senate should seek to direct the Minister in this way. It is hardly what one would call normal form in this place. If the objectives of this motion are to be effectively pursued, like-minded governments have to judge the propitious time for the most effective intervention. That has not happened so far. Any unilateral action on our part can also be potentially damaging to the cause. I hope that is not something anyone here is about. Accordingly, I commend the amendment that has been circulated in the name of Senator Gareth Evans. It certainly ought to satisfy the Baltic community in terms of establishing the depth of Government commitment to its cause. Not only are we committed to showing that we as a government are as committed as anyone in the nation to its cause; we are also concerned to do some good for that cause. The real test of doing good for the cause is what the Government can do in the international arena. If we are to be given the opportunity to approach it in concert with like-minded nations, it is to be hoped that the Senate will not seek to direct the Executive in a way that has never before been deemed appropriate, or rarely so, and certainly is not now. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.27) —The Australian Democrats are in favour of Senator Baume's motion, which is something that has been considered by the Baltic Council, I think, for some years now. It is a very considered motion. It is something that was given careful thought. It has been negotiated and, to my knowledge, it went into the hands of all political parties, including the Australian Labor Party, a year or more ago. The motion was on the Notice Paper during the last Parliament. The motion is, in a sense, an act of faith and, I might say, an act of solidarity, by the Baltic peoples. I respect it as such. I make those initial comments only to make the point that the wording of the motion is simply not a case of wordiness. In other words, it has a significance which rather goes beyond that. It is something to which the Baltic people in Australia have put their minds. The motion represents the consensus view of what they feel they want to say. I think it is reasonable for those of us in this place who support their aspirations and beliefs to show some respect for that. I am concerned that the Labor Party should at this stage be proposing an amendment to the motion, because it is not something which has just been dropped in here over the last week. It has been around for a long time and, to my certain knowledge, it has been made available to the Government before. If the Government wanted to change the motion a process of consultation would have occurred at some time in the past which would have permitted more time being made available for us to consider the change. On the face of it, the Australian Democrats will not support the Labor Party's amendment. We believe it is an unnecessary watering down of the situation. This is, after all, an expression of the Senate's opinion. We feel the Senate has the right to express these views if indeed a majority of honourable senators should so decide. Finally, an amendment has been circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats. That amendment was the product of a certain amount of negotiation in this chamber. On balance and on mature consideration of the matter we have decided to withdraw the amendment, partly for the reasons that I have already stated in my speech. We are dealing with a well-considered and carefully thought out motion. The sponsors have had a long time to consider it and are in favour of it. As a result I will not move the amendment which has been circulated in our name. We will not be moving any amendments other than one which I discussed with Senator Baume earlier. He has indicated that it would be sensible to take out that part of paragraph (c) (iii) which refers to agenda item 9; that is, the rights of people under colonial reign or alien domination to update the resolution. I believe that is reasonable. Senator Peter Baume —We thank you for that suggestion. Senator MASON —I thank Senator Baume. I think that has tidied up the motion. The Australian Democrats, and I particularly, have had a good deal of association with the Baltic peoples in their functions and daily lives in our communities. I do not think anybody in this chamber or in the other place would disagree with me when I say that Australia has no better citizens and that we are fortunate to have these people among us. As far as I know, they have a negligible crime rate. They are most untroublesome citizens compared to others. I will not draw invidious comparisons, but I do wish to make the point that these people who have come to us have made good citizens. The second point I wish to make is that they have come to us from a troubled and unhappy background, and they are not the only people to have done that. I have said to them from time to time, and I believe this is worth repeating here, that perhaps they are in a better position to appreciate the necessity for real human rights and perhaps in some ways those of them who are Australian citizens now are better guardians of human rights in this country than those of us who were born in this country. I was born in New Zealand, but the situation in that country is similar. I say that because Australia is a happy country and, apart from some brief experiences during World War II and at Darwin, we have not been invaded or been a captive country. Hopefully, there is no prospect of that happening. Yet there is always necessary, in every free society, a certain degree of vigilance. I feel that it is probably those who have learnt this lesson the hard and bitter way who are prepared to exercise that vigilance in a useful way in this society. Senator Robert Ray —That is why they all support ANZUS. Senator MASON —The Australian Democrats feel that Australia, as a middle power, as a relatively small group of people in terms of population, also has an involvement with the Baltic states. We might well say: 'There, but for the grace of God, go I'. It is just a matter of geography. Some nations are unhappy in their geographical position. Certainly the Baltic states are. As with some of the middle European states, their boundaries have been constantly fought over and changed. Because we have had immunity from that sort of situation until now, it does not mean that that will always be the case. I am not one of those who see any immediate threat, but the point is that at some future time there may be a threat. We, as a country that has a small population, may well feel that we can appeal to the rest of the world against the intrusion into our own rights, against the violation of our territory and the enslavement of our people. If we do not at this stage stand up for other people who are in that position, what moral right will we have in the future to expect any support of that kind? Senator Robert Ray mentioned a little while ago that the Labor Party supports ANZUS. That may well be so. I take it he is making a reference to the Australian Democrats' desire to assert our view as a small country in relation to the American alliance and to have our point of view taken heed of. That is all we are doing. If Senator Ray wants to say that we are anti-American or anti-ANZUS he is wrong. We have made that point time and again. We do think all Australians, including people from the Baltic states, are citizens of this country and have certain rights to decide their own future. I would have thought that the Baltic people would have been among the first to agree that the situation is such that we, as a sparsely populated country, ought to have that right, that small nations ought not to be railroaded into doing certain things. That is what has happened to the Baltic states. They have been invaded and the people have been enslaved and tortured. They are told, in effect: 'You will become Soviet citizens'. This motion stems from that situation. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are all independent countries with their own history, languages and cultures. That has been the case for a long time. Honourable senators can read about those kingdoms during medieval times. Even then they were in a state of war, but at least they maintained their independence. But the history of the domination of these countries by Tzarist Russia, and later the Soviets and Nazi Germany, is appalling. During their brief 22-year period of political independence the Baltic states progressed strongly economically and had a flowering of their culture. After 1940 they were subject first to German and then to Soviet invasions and atrocities. It is generally accepted that 133,500 people at least were killed immediately or deported by the Soviets and Nazis in an effort to break all resistance to foreign domination. During 1980, and especially since the Polish crisis, the Soviet Union increased repression in all of the Baltic states to attempt to control the groundswell of nationalistic sentiment which survives throughout the region, despite nearly two generations of foreign occupation. I find those stories which have been coming to me over the last two, three or four years the most tragic of all because, in effect, these are the torments of people who are trying to do something now, who are not prepared to accept defeat or subjugation even after a long time. To destroy that attempt to assert an independent human spirit is among the grosser crimes of the Soviet Union. The three Baltic states were unaware that, under the terms of the German-Soviet pact, virtually the entire Baltic region had been conceded by the Germans to become Soviet territory. I think that was the initial sell-out. Within eight months of the arrival of Soviet military personnel the Soviets had accused the Baltic states of failing to fulfil the terms of the mutual assistance pact and Soviet occupation placed the Baltic states under direct military rule, with the dismantling of the existing governments. Twelve months later the entire region was under brutal Nazi occupation until the end of 1944 when it was again under brutal Soviet occupation. I reiterate: The Australian Democrats, and I particularly, believe this motion is very important. It is not something which concerns just the Baltic people, who are a minority in this country. It is something which is intimately concerned with the rights of people everywhere, and because of that I believe it should have support. I am deeply concerned that the Labor Party should seek to amend the motion at this stage. I said that at the beginning, and I say it again. I would have thought that what is in the motion is something that this Parliament ought to have been able to agree on. I think it would have been a significant tribute to a significant minority of our people if that were to happen. I maintain that appeal. I have withdrawn the amendment which I proposed in that interest, because I did not see why we should fiddle with this. It is okay as it stands. I appeal to the Labor Party to adopt the same spirit of consensus, the same non-political spirit which we are looking for, something above politics, and to withdraw its amendment and let this chamber pass the motion in accord. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.39) —In the years immediately following World War II there came into our language an ugly new phase. That phrase was 'the captive nations'. It was an ugly concept born not out of people, regardless of numbers, going into captivity but of whole nations going into captivity. We saw the captivity of three fine nations and their people by a great power, the captivity by means of an agreement made in a war situation by two powers-in other words, the carving up of free and independent nations beyond their capacity to resist. The Senate joins unanimously in totally rejecting the concept of captive nations. This motion is of profound importance because it is vital that from time to time we remind ourselves of the existing situation. If we look at history we find one thing: That it is all too easy for a de facto situation which we find abhorrent to become de jure simply because we are complacent and apathetic and have not remembered to gird our loins to do something about it. That is the fundamental point that lies behind this motion. It is a reminder to us all that we have a duty never to forget the loss of human freedom, wherever it may be. We have a very ugly scenario. We have had in many people's lifetimes two great world wars, horrible conflicts fought to preserve and widen human freedom, resulting only in the narrowing of freedom and, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, in a continuous shrinking of freedom. More and more peoples are coming to live in captivity. The very goal for which this Parliament stands, the one great objective we have that overrides everything else, is that we believe in individual dignity and freedom. We believe in the rights of the free person-the right to be different, to have a different culture, a different religion, a different spirituality, a different economic system. That is what this Parliament stands for. We exchange dialogue across the chamber so that we can remind ourselves continually that that is our goal. That goal ought to be written into everything that is done and said in this place-that we stand for human freedom, that we stand for the actions which will take people out of bondage, wherever they may be, and give them the right to be different. In much of the free world there has not been a recognition in a de jure fashion that the Baltic states are incorporated in the Soviet system. A de facto situation is in grave danger, through our apathy and our failure to remind ourselves of our duty of becoming entrenched. It is easy to say as the years go by that it looks as though nothing can break this. We, the Western world, have spent the post-war years in decolonisation. It is a great tribute to countries such as Britain, and to ourselves in regard to New Guinea, that one by one we have set the colonies free. We have given them the right to be different, given them their dignity and their freedom. On the other side, there has been a hardening of colonisation, a forcing together of people. As Senator Baume has so aptly said, there has been a compelling of people by military force, a subjugation, causing them to lose their freedom of action in virtually every way. That is really of momentous importance. It is even more ugly because in recent days we have had cause to discuss in this chamber the overriding issue for mankind, that is, the question of how we as a people can forever stop the development of significant war, whether it be conventional or nuclear war. How can we do something that has never been done by mankind-stop each of the generations being engulfed in some kind of war? We know now that if war of any significance occurs it is likely to escalate into nuclear conflict, and we know now that that could be destructive of the world. I do not want to raise again what has been discussed in recent days, but I do want to say that this ugly nuclear threat that hangs over all of us is, in fact, a political subjugation. Already around the world there are signs of people losing their will to fight, to assert themselves, because of their belief that there is an inevitability about this nuclear blanket. We have to watch that there is not a loss of will in any country, be it Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. After all, we are talking now of peoples who have had great freedom and who have been subjugated. It so happens that today we are talking about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. We should remind ourselves of those other countries caught inside the Iron Curtain. Such a country is Czechoslovakia, which was a great democracy. Such a country is Hungary, which had a great culture. Another is Poland, with its remarkable spirit and the hunger for freedom of its people which still persists. It may seem inevitable that their present subjugation, the present fixation of boundaries brought about by the tyranny of might, will exist forever. History is against that. History says that if a man keep his free will and his spiritual desire for freedom, then it will happen. I believe that in the lifetime of the people in the Senate there will be a seeking, a striving and, indeed, an achieving of freedoms on the west European continent. I direct my remarks to this motion. I believe it to be fundamental. It would be a great thing, and I agree with Senator Mason, if the Senate could be unanimous on this matter. It is all right for us to fight about a mechanism for the achievement of peace. We should fight with all the vigour on earth and be willing to be friends afterwards. But when we are stating something that is fundamental to the human spirit, the human principle, can we not all agree? We ought all to agree that if there is to be a message it must not be mealy-mouthed. It must not be seen to be complacent and apathetic, a do-nothing thing. I plead with the Australian Labor Party; I do not want to be combative on this matter. We as a combined Senate are aiming to send a message. Indeed, paragraph (c) (ii) of Senator Baume's motion states: That in order to do so-- that is, in order to achieve what we want- the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission . . . Is there a person in the Senate who disagrees that, in order to do these things, we should seek the support of like-minded nations? Who disagrees that we should bring this matter to those fora? What does the Labor Party propose? It does not propose that we should do that. It proposes some utterly ambivalent kind of wordage that says that we might and we might not; perhaps we will and perhaps we will not. The amendment of the Government states: That the Australian Government should keep under review the possibility of intervention, through appropriate channels, for example, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, on the matter of human rights . . . My goodness gracious me! What a dissent from any kind of determination or free will. What do we say to these good people whom so many honourable senators have rightly commended, who have come to this country as refugees from war and have made and helped to shape the cultures and the strength of this country? Do we say to them that we might or might not act that perhaps we will or perhaps we will not? That is not the kind of message one expects from this Parliament at all. That is the fundamental of this amendment. The Labor Party's amendment would take out these words in paragraph (c) (i), for instance: that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations . . . What is wrong with fulfilling obligations? Paragraph (c) (i) goes on: . . . to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States . . . I cannot conceive of a government of this country that would want, as this Government does in this amendment, to reject the assertion that Australia should accept its obligations to do things and that we should support the European Parliament's resolution in respect of the Baltic states. Does that mean that the Government does not support the European Parliament's resolution in respect of the Baltic states? Are we to read it in this way? Are we to say that because it is not here there must be a reason for not doing it? Once again, I am utterly mystified. I come to the one point which the Government has raised. I must say that the Government's arguments lack any veracity and any substance. The Government has said that paragraph (c) (iii) cannot stand because it is contrary to the rights of this chamber to do this. Paragraph (c) (iii) states: That the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all the necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. The Government does not say 'be directed'; it says 'we resolve that it should be'. There is no direction here at all. It is merely an expression of view of this Senate directed to the Executive and to the Minister. It is that in the view of this Senate they should do so and so. It is not ordering anybody through the Executive, through the Department at all. My goodness, there is an essential humbug in this matter. Day after day over the years in this Senate we have had addenda to motions for the second reading of Bills stating that in the opinion of the Senate something should be. Similar addenda and attachments have always been carried. Never before to my knowledge has this objection been raised. Of course the argument raised that (c) (iii) is a directive is really a deliberate attempt to misunderstand the English language. All we are doing is resolving that the Department of Foreign Affairs be directed. We are saying to the Minister that in our view the Department should be directed. There is absolutely no substance in what the Government is saying. If the Government were, by any device at all, to run away from this matter, that would be in concert with what it has done with the rest of the motion-that is, seeking to emasculate it. It is not just those other matters that emasculate the motion; the deletion of the whole of paragraph (c) does that. It is the deletion of the words: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations . . . and should support the European Parliament's Resolution- That will be deleted if the Australian Labor Party has its way. The Government seeks to take away our initiative to do certain things, for example, getting the support of like-minded governments. This would be gone. The Government wishes to take away our right to bring the matter before all appropriate forums as a priority, especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Let us not forget that not only does the Government propose to delete (c) (i) but also it proposes to replace (c) (ii) by 'perhaps we might say', 'perhaps we might not say', 'perhaps we might do' kind of wording. All I say to those people from the Baltic states-from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia-who are in Australia today or who are in their captive nations, is that that is certainly not the viewpoint of the Liberal and National Opposition. Nor do I see it as the viewpoint of the Australian Democrats nor, indeed, of Senator Harradine. There needs to be a clear message go out from those honourable senators speaking in this debate that we are not wishy-washy about this matter at all. We see a great harm being done to human freedom. We see a national bondage which we find absolutely objectionable. We are prepared to state categorically where we stand and what action should be taken. That is the difference between us and the Government. If the Labor Party will not support that proposition it must be shown to people in Australia and elsewhere that the Labor Party, because it has deleted these paragraphs, does not believe there should be Australian initiatives, does not want to support the European Parliament's resolution and does not take our initiative and seek the support of like-minded governments and deliberately go into fora. Why is it that it has proposed its amendments? There can be only one reason-it does not agree with the motion. If the Labor Party rejects our motion and attempts to carry its amendment it will be attempting to emasculate that motion. It will be doing the very things that I have said are a danger to this world. The Government will be saying: 'Let us take a complacent view about this. What is it all about? The Australian Government should keep it under review'. I guess Australian governments of the past have had tens of thousands of issues kept under review. What should be kept under review? The possibility of intervention should be kept under review. It is not considering whether we will intervene in the Human Rights Commission or whether we will get the support of like-minded governments. I cannot believe that any government in Australia, faced with the history of the post-war years, would move such an emasculating amendment. I cannot believe that the Government would want to say-no Opposition senator who has actively been amongst captive nations would say-this: 'All we want to do is perhaps think about the possibility of intervening'. That is the message here. Let the Senate not forget it. If the Government votes in this way what it is saying to all those good people in Australia is: 'Look here, the best we can do is to say we will keep it under review'. What will the Government keep under review? It will keep under review the possibility of intervention. This is despite the fact that the Government knows that all history shows that the keeping under review of the possibility of intervention means the entrenchment of tyranny. If ever there were a message to be learnt from history it relates to those governments of appeasement of the past. Senator Robertson —You are the one to talk about appeasing governments. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If honourable senators opposite want to play politics on this I will remind them of a few home truths. For example, I remind the Government that its wartime leader, Mr Curtin, less than 10 months before World War II broke out, in this Parliament, as recorded in Hansard, called for the reduction of arms in Australia. There is no point in trading that kind of nonsense here. What I am saying is that of course all governments throughout history have been wrong. That has been my message. Why is the Labor Party so sensitive to this? I had to touch this sensitive area because indeed that is the only lesson that the Labor Party understands. I am pleading that the Government understand that all history has shown that appeasement-the Neville Chamberlain kind of peace in our time appeasement-is not right. I am talking about the attitude that things will be all right; for example, the retreat from a stand in Czechoslavakia. If we had not retreated from that stand before the arming of Hitler, 40 million people from both sides of the Iron Curtain would not have died. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about Labor governments; I am talking about governments of all kinds. Let us not have those cheap kinds of interjections because for every thrust there is a counter-thrust to pink the Labor Party. Today we have a chance to stand on our feet and to say to captive people, whether in Australia or elsewhere throughout the world, that we have not forgotten them. We have the opportunity to say that we understand, appreciate and emphasise their right to their very distinctive and wonderful cultures, their freedoms and their systems of law. We appreciate that they are different. We are not going to fall for the error of history. We are not going to allow complacency, apathy and the lack of human spirit to allow something that is de facto to become entrenched forever de jure. The Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine have said that this motion is unobjectionable. The Opposition says that the amendment moved by the Labor Party is mealy mouthed, wishy washy and weak, and commits all the errors of judgment of past governments, no matter what political philosophies they may have held. For Lord's sake, let us not take that journey again. For Lord's sake, let us, for once in our lives, join together and vote for a motion which ought to have the full support of all Australians. Amendment negatived. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 October 1984, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.02) —I was speaking to the Flags Amendment Bill in October last year before I was interrupted by the calling of an election. Today I would like to continue my remarks. I was happy to hear on the last occasion the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, who was then the Minister for Social Security, say that the Government intended to allow a referendum to be held before any thought was given to changing the flag. A survey by the Queensland newspaper the Courier-Mail showed that 61 per cent of the people were in favour of the existing flag. Certainly, whenever the Australian Labor Party launches an election campaign the main backdrop is that of our Australian flag, although we know that the policy of the Labor Party is to have a republic and to do away with the flag. The formation of our national flag was a conscious act by the Australian people when Australia became a recognised nation at Federation in 1901. Until then Australia flew the Union Jack. But there was a growing feeling that Australia should have a new flag to reflect its own identity. As a result, a national competition was held to devise a distinctive Australian flag. More than 30,000 entries were received. Indeed, many of those featured Australian flora and fauna, sheaves of wheat, kangaroos, boomerangs and kookaburras, together with the stars and stripes in various colours and combinations. However, the judges decided on the design for our national flag as we know it, with the addition of an extra point to the Federation star in 1908 to take account of Australian territories, which at that time was New Guinea. Now, of course, it represents the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The predominant colour is blue. I feel that no colour could be more appropriate for a country such as Australia, which is world renowned for the blue of its clear skies-far too clear at times, when in Queensland, we sometimes wish that we could get some rain. The colour also represents the blue seas which surround us. Of course, I am proud that the Union Jack is still represented on the corner of the flag; that provides our link with Great Britain. We should remember that it was Lieutenant James Cook of the British Royal Navy who, after a long and adventurous voyage, discovered, charted and claimed the east coast of Australia for the British Crown. Indeed, when Captain Phillip arrived at Botany Bay after his epic voyage he did not find here a system of common law, representative government under the Crown, or the English language. Phillip's small contingent, including the convicts, transported over thousands of miles a culture which took root in the new land. That culture, of course, goes back almost 200 years. But our nation's original roots go back to Britain, and that is why I like to see the Union Jack maintained on our flag and, indeed, the present flag maintained. I believe it is important that the majority of Australians, who, I am sure, wish to maintain our links with Britain, do voice their concern over the rumblings which occur from time to time in regard to proposed changes to the flag. The history of a nation is just as important as its geographical situation. To deny future generations of Australians some visible awareness of that history is to deny our future Australians their heritage. However, the Federal Labor Government's policy on the flag which was stated in the 1982 ALP platform is to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag and national anthem which would be more distinctively reflective of Australia's independence and identity. The Special Minister of State, the Hon. Mick Young, last year indicated that the Government was considering matters relating to national symbols, including the national flag. Of course, we saw what happened to the national anthem. Some people argue that our present flag in some ways still reflects our colonised status and now that we have become an independent nation we should have a new flag to reflect our national identity. Others even suggest that migrants to this country cannot be expected to live and work under our flag. However, I believe that migrants generally see our Australian flag as symbolising the characteristics of Australia which attracted them to adopt this country as their own in the first place. I understand that members of the Ethnic Communities Council joined the Australian Flag Preservation Committee which was formed in Queensland last year as a demonstration of their commitment. I believe that the Federal Labor Government has completely misread the hopes and aspirations of migrants in its decision last year to abolish reference to the Queen and God in the main form of the oath of allegiance and now with speculation about a change of flag. I believe also that the Federal Government is off the track in suggesting that Australia should have a new flag for its bi-centennial celebrations. Is it not the purpose of the bicentennial celebrations to commemorate the events and principles which have built Australia over the past 200 years? I believe that our flag symbolises those traditions. Thinking back to the Olympic Games, I know how proud I felt when I saw our present Australian flag being taken to the top of the flag pole, especially when we happened to be smart enough to win a competition. It is a flag of which we can be justly proud, and I believe that people recognise its worth. I think the Goverment would be better off working to build Australian spirit and pride by cementing what we have already. I strongly believe that any changes to the Australian national flag should be made only if approved by a majority of people in a referendum. I was pleased to hear Senator Grimes say last year that that was what would happen. Our flag is a proud symbol of our history, our independence as a nation and our parliamentary and judicial institutions. I reiterate that the majority of Australians believe that the flag should be retained in its present form. Accordingly, I strongly support Senator Durack's Flags Amendment Bill 1984. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and-by leave-passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.14) —The Marriage Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation. A number of excellent contributions have already been made. I do not propose to traverse a number of the matters which have been dealt with in detail by my colleagues Senator Puplick and Senator Teague, but I will refer to two matters raised by Senator Harradine which called for some discussion. This Bill proposes a number of useful amendments to the Marriage Act. One of the criticisms that Senator Harradine made concerned the proposal relating to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. He asked why we should in effect be ratifying the Convention or part of it at a stage when no country-I understand this is the position-has yet ratified it, although I understand that some five or six countries have already signed the Convention. If one looks at the Bill one will see that what it proposes is not a ratification of the Convention. It merely approves of the principles that are in a portion of the Convention, namely, Chapter II. We are putting ourselves in a position where we can ratify it if we wish to. But it is obviously desirable that the sorts of provisions that are in the Convention be applied in Australia. One of the reasons given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech, and I think it is a powerful reason, is that in some 35 per cent of marriages in Australia at least one party is born overseas. Consequently, we can imagine many problems arising. Senator Puplick has raised some of them and they may or may not be covered by this Bill as it stands. I am never quite sure who is the Minister in charge of this Bill as we have had a variety of Ministers in the chamber but I hope that the Minister who will be replying at the end of the debate will make an intelligent contribution and will indeed explain-- Senator Gietzelt —Why wouldn't he? Senator MISSEN —He has not been here, and I hope he has been listening because a number of senators have been making contributions. Senator Gietzelt —A lot of people were not here when the debate began. Senator MISSEN —I know that, but the Minister concerned has a special responsibility. Senator Robertson —That is a snide remark that is not worthy of you, Senator. Your contribution is usually much better than that. Senator MISSEN —I am saying that when the Minister-I assume it will be Senator Evans because he has a knowledge of this Bill and because this Bill has been brought on in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-gives his summing-up, he should give a detailed reply to the various matters which were raised. Senator Puplick —We have had five different Ministers in the chamber and there are no officers to give us any comments now. Senator MISSEN —Yes, Senator Puplick has made the point that we have not had- Senator Robertson —Perhaps we do not need to advertise ourselves. Senator MISSEN —I will just wait and see. If Senator Robertson does not mind I will continue my speech instead of having a dialogue with other senators. I think that we ought to expect from the Minister who is handling this Bill a detailed contribution on the matters which have been quite desirably raised by senators in this chamber. Senator Harradine is present in the chamber now so I will continue to deal with the two matters which he criticised. He asked why we were in effect ratifying the Hague Convention. Senator Harradine —I did not say 'ratify'. Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine asked why we were in effect adopting this Convention when no country has ratified it as yet. I hope I have made his point correctly. It is quite a significant point, and on the surface there appears to be a good reason to ask why we are going ahead with it. I have made the point that these provisions are good in themselves and that we ought to be in a position where we can ratify the Convention. Nevertheless we ought to have the provisions in our laws so that married people who were born in another country will not be in an unfortunate position. Senator Harradine made an onslaught on Senator Puplick on a secular, humanist tack. Senator Puplick was attacked straight away. I think that attack would have been quite welcome because Senator Puplick was not making his maiden speech; he was a maiden a long time ago and he is now back into the fray. I take the opportunity to welcome him back and to welcome other newly elected senators. I think that debate in this chamber and the way in which we look at the details of Bills in the Committee stage will be greatly enhanced by the presence of Senator Puplick and senators who have been newly elected to this chamber. We saw some examples of the poor way in which business was conducted in the last Parliament, when a number of Bills were allowed to go through without being debated at the Committee stage. Consequently, we will welcome Senator Puplick's incisive contributions. I would call him not so much a humanist but a humanitarian. He is a man who is concerned about human problems and marriage problems. It is very important that in dealing with the Marriage Act and family law matters we should not be concerned with political campaigns and stirring up some of the fears, worries and easily evoked emotions. Rather we should look carefully at legislation before us and act with humanity. Unfortunately, the criticism in this area following what was said about Senator Puplick related to the questionable matter of constitutional power. I agree with Senator Harradine that if we were to go further than this Bill and impose a uniform code in regard to in vitro fertilisation or the various other ways of fertilisation with which the Bill deals there might be some doubt as to what could be covered by the legislation. Some matters should be covered under the marriage provisions, but I readily agree that, if we are to do something of a uniform nature, clearly it must be with the agreement of the States. This is the first time since the election that senators have had the opportunity to speak on these matters. It stands to the eternal discredit of the major parties in this country that at the last election a referendum question relating to the interchange of powers was attached to another far more unsatisfactory proposal. A proposal which a year earlier was supported by every member of the Constitutional Convention was defeated, through ignorance, by the people and by the political partisanship of parties on both sides of the chamber. This was reflected in the referendum campaign. The major responsibility for the failure to implement the interchange of powers rests with the Government. A fine and sensible proposition, which the States wanted and which would have ensured some security for States in the interchange of powers with the Commonwealth, was destroyed for the time being because the Government brought in that issue perhaps as a lolly to tempt people to swallow something else. I do not excuse my own colleagues on this matter because we also engaged in an attack on that proposition. I hope that this is not the end of the matter and that we will get back to sensible constitutional reform. The power may not be entirely necessary because the States may act with enough sense to enable uniform provisions to be made. There are a number of items in the matrimonial area where uniformity is essential. I refer, for example, to the rights of children, whether nuptial or non-nuptial, to be treated in the same way by the Family Court and also to in vitro fertilisation. These matters should not depend on the State in which the child is born. I appreciate that the Bill is merely a holding situation. I regret that the Government has not been able to go further, but I believe we must accept the legislation as it stands for the present. I support the Opposition's view that most of the provisions of the Bill are desirable and should be passed. There is no particular reason why the Opposition should support the fixing of fees for marriage celebrants. I want to take the matter a step further and talk of what the Bill does not deal with and should deal with. In the last few years representations have been made to me by a number of worthy citizens in ethnic communities who have sought to be appointed as marriage celebrants. On many occasions I have put up submissions on this topic and they have been knocked back. There is a tight little coterie of marriage celebrants. Some travel considerable distances and have a monopoly in a district. However, there are people in ethnic communities who would like to serve those communities as marriage celebrants but who are being knocked back. Both under the present Government and its predecessor there have been a number of cases in which this monopolistic instinct has been satisfied, and I see no reason why that should happen. I believe that fees should not be fixed and that the Government should adopt a much freer attitude towards allowing the appointment of more marriage celebrants in the way I have suggested. On the topic of pre-marriage education, I am delighted that at last the Bill has picked up the recommendations which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act made quite some years ago. That Committee sat for 15 months and thoroughly reviewed the Act. A number of its recommendations were picked up by the Government in the 1983 legislation. There are a number of items of uncompleted business in this respect and it is high time some of these areas were dealt with. Senator Harradine spoke of the cost to the community of the maintenance of families. One glaring problem is the question of the huge costs in this area which I believe could be reduced. The Committee to which I have referred made a recommendation relating to the collection of maintenance. Parents should be expected to support their children, but the present position is hopeless as a great number of maintenance orders are perpetually disregarded. People appear to be getting away with it. One cannot perhaps expect the wife to take proceedings when it may cause her to lose her pension. If the husband disappears a few weeks later, the wife has to go through the whole procedure again. In some States-for example in South Australia-much better work has been done in this sphere. The Senate Committee made a recommendation on this matter, but unfortunately it appears to have disappeared somewhere in the bureaucracy in some inter-departmental committee. I believe it is time that that and other recommendations were taken up. I refer to one recommendation that is picked up by the Bill, namely pre-marital counselling, a matter which has not been covered previously. Senator Teague spoke at some length on this subject and I agree entirely with his remarks. Over the years it has been clear to me from my discussions with organisations that provide counselling that a great deal of imbalance exists in the system. The extent to which pre-marital counselling and marriage education generally has not been pursued is ridiculous. Certainly the work has not been supported by sufficient government funds. This would not be an additional expense to Government but would bring about savings. One comment made to me was that counselling may stop an unsuitable couple from actually marrying each other. It is all to the good if those people realise in time that they should not take the marital step. Some young people take the wrong decision and then have to face the trauma of the divorce that follows. Funds allocated to that area would be well spent indeed and would help to save a great deal of anguish and avoid the social problems which flow from one generation to another, at enormous cost to the community. I welcome the fact that the counselling provision is included in the Bill. It is only the first step. These provisions can appear in legislation but, as Senator Teague made clear, money must be provided as a back-up. We will watch carefully what happens in the next Budget and see whether money is provided so that the language of the legislation is put into operation. Therefore, with the one exception to which the Opposition has referred in its amendment, I support the Bill. It is a useful Bill. Obviously it will not cure many problems, but I hope that it will be an opener to a number of other pieces of similar legislation. I hope that it will lead to amendments to the Family Law Act, as the Committee so long ago recommended. Unfortunately, those amendments have been lost in the bureaucracy. As the Bill stands, I think on the whole it is useful and should be passed. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.28) —I believe that although the Marriage Amendment Bill attempts to solve some problems, it creates some long term difficulties which need further examination. Therefore, I think that we are fiddling at the edges and not furthering the institution of marriage in these provisions. It is true that the Bill helps overcome difficulties faced by some Australian celebrants who lack resources to determine whether parties who are not Australian nationals or domiciled here have the correct marital status under some applicable foreign law. The Bill also recognises the validity of marriages celebrated in accordance with the requirements of the law. However, I am concerned at provisions which give statutory recognition to certain scientific procedures and techniques of embryo transfer, in vitro fertilisation, and artificial insemination by donors. The mind boggles at the range of arithmetical combinations and permutations created by such techniques. I think my colleague Senator Puplick shocked a lot of people in the galleries when he was much more specific on the ranges of combinations and permutations than I intend to be. In addition to those ethical problems there are further ethical problems for people who, for example, do not share humanistic attitudes. While the Bill attempts to provide for the recognition of the legitimacy of children who are born through biological procedures, it makes no reference to what I might refer to as the attitudinal difficulties of the growing or adolescent child when questioned by his peers about his parentage. I think such situations must in the future inevitably create in some people's minds a psychological uncertainty compared, for example, with a child conceived in the normal manner through the love and affection of his own mother and father. I understand matters are going further than this. There are moves in some States to have removed from birth certificates the name of the father and mother, and therefore the child of a marriage merely becomes a statistic. Would the child be entitled to take the surname of the father or will there be a wide option open to him? I think the George Orwellian situation is very much present today as a result of the legislative legitimacy we are now giving this sort of behaviour. I believe that the removal of the names of parents from birth certificates would be a retrograde step. It is part and parcel of what we are really passing here today, although in a different jurisdiction largely. This will create all sorts of problems in tracing family histories. It is no wonder that genealogical societies are concerned about such moves. If we analyse all the accepted means of conception, are we really going further down the track of entrenching anti-family relationships? We must be concerned with maintaining the traditional family. This is one of a series of steps which are entrenching within our society anti-family relationships. I believe that this Bill will give further justification to encouraging experimentation in the use of the test tube, thereby giving the scientist, or worse still the laboratory technician, greater opportunity to experiment with human tissue. The Bill legitimises but does not restrict all the possibilities for conceiving. The Senate could effectively be endorsing shoddy legislation in some States, enacted without full and proper inquiry as to the long term effects of a State's legislation. We know that not all States have the facilities that are available to honourable senators here. All too often we allow legislation through this Parliament that in retrospect we find should have been amended as a result of later experience and better knowledge. In the United Kingdom House of Commons a private member's Bill was recently debated. Its provisions satisfy the conscience of a lot of religious groups, but some scientific minds believe it could slow down the progress of science. If that is necessary, it might be in the interests of future generations in our society. I believe that the condition of the traditional family should always be our prime concern. The last twenty years has seen the family disintegrating, resulting in a burgeoning of welfare costs to the community and a lot of anti-social behaviour. Our society cannot afford either. The cost is too high and is growing at an escalating rate. In many cases I believe that the Bill should go a lot further in relation to giving pre-marriage advice. I am somewhat concerned at the trend of a lot of couples in moving away from the traditional church service and church celebration and preferring civil celebrants. I believe that half these celebrants are completely incapable of giving proper advice. Very few of them even attempt to give pre-marriage advice to intending couples. On the other hand, I wish to recognise the true responsibilities of a lot of the churches in requiring a considerable amount of time for instruction and discussion on the wide range of issues that need to be discussed. A seven day period of notice of marriage is far too short. I understand, for example, that most priests within the Catholic Church now require something like six months notice. Instruction and discussion is given on whether couples want children, the number of children, the spacing of children, the disposition of property, and the financial resources that are available after marriage. All these matters must be discussed. Too often people nowadays enter marriage without due consideration of all the consequences. They enter into it light-heartedly. I think we have a major problem facing our society. We are inclined to accept modern day, avant-garde attitudes, in relation to having a different partner for each age and stage of our lives. This is to be regretted and is against the notion that marriage is between man and woman for life. It is unfortunate, with the increasing move towards civil celebrants, that they do not recognise their proper responsibilities in giving advice to couples prior to marriage. We need to examine much more deeply a lot of measures I believe would increase the certainty of the continuation of marriage. I believe it would be appropriate if we set up a committee to look at the possibilities of an optional contract, providing for rights, responsibilities and obligations. If a couple had a contract there would, therefore, be penalties for default. A lot of counselling is directed largely to how property will be distributed after a marriage is seen to be irreconcilable. These sorts of discussions should take place much earlier. The second way of ensuring a measure of increase in the certainty of marriage would be to ensure adequate instruction. This is a requirement in some countries, but unfortunately not in ours. We talk about its virtues, but we do not make it a statutory requirement. We are very keen to pass wide-ranging legislation on many issues, but on the vital issues affecting the traditional family we completely ignore this requirement. We all see the need for it, but we are not prepared to put it in legislative form. The other measure is to extend the minimum period between notification and the celebration of marriage. There are always problems when a country endorses, by legislation, international conventions such as the one we have before us today, the Hague Convention. I have some concern about overseas marriages which would, automatically by law, as a result of this Bill, be recognised in Australia. Our colleague Senator Harradine referred to certain acceptable marriages in Egypt. It is not too difficult to envisage in the not too distant future some States recognising what we in Australia today regard as unnatural marriages. I do not believe that proposed new section 88B in clause 23 covers such situations. I have discussed this with some of the Goverment's advisers and I suggest that one solution is to get a definition of marriage into the Marriage Act. I think the form in which it is presently worded leaves the matter rather open and loose. The marriage celebrant's duty goes no further than explaining the nature of marriage. That is shown in section 46 (1) of the Act, so I will not go through it in detail. I believe that nowadays the undertaking, be it for life, is being lightly regarded. Increasingly we are looking, as I mentioned earlier, for different partners of various ages or at various stages of life. What I am really concerned about is that the exclusions should be extended to provide an addition to the four already listed. I believe that the legislation should be amended to provide for other cases, at the discretion of a responsible official, perhaps the Attorney-General; and that the list of exceptions should be extended from four to five. There is some possibility of changes to the Migration Act. In fact, an article in the National Times in January 1985 dealt with plans by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Stewart West, to change the Migration Act. There was a possibility that people involved in de facto relationships, lesbian relationships, et cetera, could be admitted as a result of planned changes by that Minister. I believe that that would be a retrograde step. I believe that those sorts of notions are coupled with sentiments which could be involved in what we are debating today. The implications are there. I think the Act needs tidying up. It is rather loose in its present form. It is true that the Marriage Act has been around for a while. We have not really examined its full ramifications. The National Times article raises concerns about the possible loopholes in this Act and the Government's intentions in January 1985 to changes in the Migration Act to allow people engaged in the sorts of unnatural relationships to which I have referred to emigrate to Australia. I understand that Mr Hurford is not as keen as Mr West was on these sorts of issues, and I applaud the change of philosophy. However, the seed, having been sown, can grow at any time. There is a need for us to be vigilant as to what might happen because, I believe, such sentiments are anti the traditional family. The disintegration of the institution of marriage and the resulting burgeoning of welfare costs are problems with which we have to live. I do not believe that the Marriage Act does anything to improve the institution of marriage, and it does nothing to reduce the costs to society of broken marriages. Close to half a million children are affected by broken marriages. That involves a tremendous cost. The resources that we put into pre-marriage counselling are very minimal. The literature available from Commonwealth sources is certainly inadequate for the existing need. We tend to try to solve the problems after they have occurred. I think we should change our attitude. It is inconceivable that responsible representatives of government should frame laws that betray the very society that they represent and undermine its foundations. If we start to repeal all laws which recognise de facto relationships, et cetera, and give couples engaged in such relationships equivalent status to that of a married couple, our society will degenerate and will not be able to continue for long into the future. Greater measures, both legislative and administrative, are needed to preserve the institution of marriage. If we are serious about preserving the institution of marriage and holding together all members of the traditional family we should not be making peripheral changes, as we are today. We should, on the other hand, be determined and anxious to implement legislation to outlaw the worst effects of pornography, brothels, et cetera. We are experimenting at the very edges of science which can affect our very future. Therefore, I believe, we are betraying the very society that we are supposed to represent. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.47) —I make a brief entry into this debate to raise a couple of matters which are somewhat akin to the matters which have been raised by Senator Watson. Unlike him, however, I welcome some parts of the Marriage Amendment Bill. I think the Opposition generally, as indicated by Senator Durack, welcomes the widening of the concept of pre-marital education to encompass a wider concept of marriage education. Indeed, it is in that area that I want to make some comments. When I first came into the Senate we spent a great deal of time looking at the Family Law Act. I sat on a Senate committee which very seriously considered what the state of family law, as it was called, should be. We then had a debate in the Parliament which I think was the longest in my experience. The debate on the Family Law Act ran over something like six weeks. A great deal of parliamentary time and effort was involved. Of course, there was no party discipline; it was a free vote. I think that was a genuine attempt by honourable senators, and indeed by members of the other place, to come to grips with what were thought to be very important social issues. I think there was a genuine concern then to remove what were seen as some of the abuses of the old system of divorce law, a system which I think anyone who had experience of it certainly found had some very distasteful aspects. It is a pity, perhaps, that we have spent so much time on the divorce law in this country and so little time on the law of marriage. I think, therefore, we should welcome this debate as at least providing some brief focus on the point of entry to rather than the point of exit from that institution. I share Senator Watson's concern about some of the difficulties we face with marriages breaking up, with children being severely disadvantaged as a result and with many cases of injustice to individual parties within marriage. I share with Senator Watson the concern that some of that occurs because people enter marriage without due consideration. I differ from him in that I hope people will always enter marriage, in a sense, light heartedly. I think that one ought to be very light hearted when one is getting married. It should be an occasion on which one feels extremely cheerful. However, I share with Senator Watson completely the view that one should not enter marriage without due consideration of what one is taking on. I must say that over the last 10 years I have had many constituents in my electorate office who have convinced me, as indeed did some clients before I entered Parliament, that they had really given very little thought to what marriage entailed. I think that that is one aspect to which we ought be prepared to give further consideration. We ought to be looking for some procedural means of focusing people's attention on the serious obligations they are undertaking when they enter into marriage. I do not believe that any person in the Senate is entitled to impose his or her unbridled views on what other individuals should do in this area. But there is a social interest in the stability of marriage. I think there is a very strong social interest in the care and nurture of children. The sorts of statistics which have been mentioned in this place already in this session about the number of marriage breakdowns, the number of children affected and so on are statistics which give us all cause for pause. I think the position of people entering marriage today is made more difficult by the fact that there have been significant social changes which impact on the way people live. I do not quarrel with many of those changes. I do not quarrel, for example, with the fact that many women see it as their entitlement to have not only a marriage but also a career. That is an option which should be open to them; it is an option which an increasing number of Australian women choose. I think it goes without saying that if both parties to a marriage have a career each of them will have to make arrangements different from those which are made if only one party devotes full time to the domestic affairs of the marriage. That is not a bad thing as long as in both cases the parties have thought through what they want and are proceeding in the marriage in a way which is mutually acceptable and which is compatible with the values and advantages of marriage for both the husband and the wife and for any children who may be born of the marriage. I think it is time that the Government and, indeed, the Parliament gave some further consideration to the views which were put forward by a senator who has left this place, Senator John Martyr, in his dissenting report to the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which was brought down in 1980. Having recently reread the dissenting report of Senator Martyr, I think it interesting to find that in observing marriage he suggested rules which would not impose on the community the strict adherence to rules with respect to marriage that he might think desirable. Rather, he put forward a framework which would require people entering marriage to focus on the issues which will face them and the decisions that they will have to take prior to their actually becoming married. I think there is a great deal to be said for people, before entering into a formal marriage, giving very careful consideration to the sorts of factors to which Senator Martyr drew attention in his dissenting report. I must say that I accept a number of propositions which are basic to the approach which Senator Martyr adopted. Senator Martyr said, for example, in paragraph 81 of his dissenting report that the basic freedom is the 'freedom of the subject to arrange his own affairs'. I mention that quotation because this report was not put forward by Senator Martyr on the basis of laying down a set of rules which must be followed by everybody. He acknowledged that there needs to be that basic freedom to arrange one's own affairs. He went on to say: But that freedom cannot be exercised in disregard for the just expectations of another, especially of expectations which have been induced by the subject's voluntary assumption of obligations, and in consideration of which the other has entered into a certain course of conduct at the request of the subject. I am not sure why Senator Martyr used such legal and complicated language, but I think the meaning is clear. What he was saying is: 'It is very proper if you want to exercise your freedom to arrange your own affairs but you cannot simply go on exercising that freedom after other people have entered into arrangements with you and altered their position in the expectation that you will keep to your commitments'. I think that is a reasonable proposition and a proposition which is rooted in simple justice. In paragraph 84 Senator Martyr set out the aims of the draft model legislation, the second of which states: To attempt to ensure that couples give adequate consideration to the mutual rights and obligations involved in marriage, by signing a contract setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, and the conditions under which the marriage may be dissolved. Mr Acting Deputy President, I think if you cast your eye over the draft of marriage contract which Senator Martyr included as an appendix to his dissenting report, you will find a very up to date list of the issues which I think a modern couple entering into a marriage face. It is interesting, for example, to look at clause 4 of the mandatory provisions of the draft marriage contract, under which the parties can covenant that they will: Nurture, discipline, nourish, rear, foster, train and educate the children of the marriage so as best to develop their talents and fit them for the society of their fellow man and to collaborate with the other therein. or Use his or her best endeavours to keep the marriage childless. Quite frankly, I think that is a civilised set of alternatives which is offered to people who decide that they are going to enter a marriage. They have the choice of having children or not having children. But if they have children, there is no choice. If they have children, there is a clear obligation-this is even recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child-to nurture, discipline, nourish, rear, foster, train and educate the children of their marriage. In my view, there is no reasonable way of escaping that obligation. It is an obligation which I think needs to be brought forcefully to the minds of those who choose to marry and who have to contemplate those alternatives. It is also important to note Senator Martyr's suggestion in his draft marriage contract that there should be a decision as to where the obligations to provide income should be. I think that that again is a clear issue that a modern couple facing marriage ought to be considering prior to marriage. They should be considering what is expected of the husband and what is expected of the wife with respect to career and earnings; what is expected of them if one discontinues employment and devotes full time to the marriage and the other goes on earning income and accruing property. My simple proposition is that I think most people, if faced with those issues before entering marriage, would agree to arrangements which were fair to the parties, given the circumstances that they wanted to apply. At the moment we have a matrimonial law system which, in my view, gives no guarantee of fairness to the parties of a marriage. Let me take a simple example. I will not detain the Senate long because if I do obviously I will prevent the Bill from being dealt with tonight. In any event, I am sure that no one would wish me to prolong the debate. Take the example of a man and woman who marry and have the common intention that the wife should not work but should bear and rear their children. It seems to me that 20 years down the track in that marriage there can be very little justice in a situation where the wife is then left with the children and without skills to maintain herself. I, for one, doubt that the existing matrimonial law provisions in many cases do substantial justice to women who have in good faith entered into that arrangement and who, perhaps 15 or 20 years down the track, lose their husbands for one reason or another. I suppose one could go on giving examples of the sorts of people who come to one's office, and tell of their circumstances and whose stories raise what Cahn called a sense of injustice. The fact of the matter is that if there were a preconsideration of the expectations of the parties-what the parties expected of each other and what the remedies should be if there was default on those expectations-I think the parties would be likely to agree to terms and conditions which would be fairer than we have by the simple application of the no-fault provisions of the Family Law Act. I believe it is quite important that we get a greater element of fairness into marriage. I believe the horrible problems which have afflicted the administration of the Family Law Act, the very massive security problems and the acts of violence which have occurred are often related to a strong and burning sense of injustice which can occur when people feel that their rights have been trampled on and they have not had, in the old Australian term, a fair deal. I think that in terms of inducing people to consider the circumstances of marriage and to think ahead, the proposition of marriage contracts has more to recommend it than any simple educational scheme, because I do not believe any simple educational scheme is likely to become widely used and utilised. With the best intentions in the world, I am very doubtful that pre-marital education will be utilised by enough people. I suspect that it will be utilised by those people who need it least. I join with those honourable senators who have expressed the view that there is a public interest in the proper working of the institution of marriage. That public interest is tied up, in particular, with the proper care, nurture and upbringing of children, but I believe it is also a public interest to see that justice is done to individual citizens. I think it is absolutely clear that the changed social circumstances in Australia, which are rooted in the rights of individual men and women to order their affairs as they please, will not change back. I believe that if we are to get a more satisfactory success rate in marriages we have to do a lot more than is proposed in the Bill about the front end of marriage. Perhaps we also need to do something about the ejection proceedings under the Family Law Act. I say to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who is at the table, that I hope the Attorney-General's Department will maintain an ongoing brief to look at this serious matter. There is probably a much more serious obligation on us in the Parliament than there is on any government department or single Minister to consider these matters. I know that the Family Law Council and other bodies report in a theoretical way. I express my concern that I do not believe we are giving the institution of marriage and the legal framework of marriage adequate attention, given the social changes which have occurred, the evident high rate of failure of marriage and the serious social consequences which often flow from it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.03) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for the general support for the Marriage Amendment Bill which has been expressed in their remarks. Obviously it was a matter for regret for a number of honourable senators that they were debating only the Marriage Act and not the Family Law Act which is, of course, rather than the present legislation, that which deals with marriage preservation and breakdown. I regret that I was not able to be present in the chamber for many of the contributions to this debate, but officials from the Attorney-General's Department have been very assiduous in taking notes and bringing me up to date. I want to reply in a little detail to a number of the matters that were raised in the course of an interesting debate. First of all, I want to say something about the major amendments proposed by the Bill, those which will implement the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. I thank Senator Durack for his helpful and concise summary of the amendments that are proposed in this respect. As he pointed out, Australian implementation of the Convention will hopefully be a means to encourage other countries to do so. Senator Harradine was quite correct in pointing out, in what he himself has described to me was an esoteric point, that the Convention has not yet entered into force, no countries having yet ratified it. However, this is no reason at all for Australia not to put itself in a position to do so. I know that some honourable senators opposite do take the view that nothing should ever be done for the first time but, after all, some country has to be the first. By our implementation we hope to encourage others to do so and so set up a more uniform regime. As Senator Puplick pointed out, in addition to Australia, four other countries have signed the Convention as an indication of their intention to adopt it eventually. Those countries are Portugal, Egypt, Luxembourg and Finland. Senator Puplick and Senator Teague were concerned about the situation of a person who had married polygamously in, for example, Egypt, and who then came to Australia with his wives. The existing rules of common law provide that a polygamous marriage entered into in a place permitting polygamy, between parties whose domicile permitted such marriages, is valid in Australia. This was the result reached as long ago as 1963 by the Chief Justice of the Western Australia Supreme Court in the case of Haque v. Haque. Those interested in these things will find it at page 26 of Western Australian Reports 15. The present Bill, in proposed section 88E (1), preserves the operation of the common law where the Convention rules do not cover the situation. Thus, while paragraph (a) of section 88D (2) provides that validity under sub-section 88D (1) will not be given to a polygamous marriage, this does not prevent the marriage being valid if the common law rules so provide. The general principle of the Convention and, surely one would hope of this Parliament, is that such marriages should not be invalidated. While the marriage to both wives will be valid in the case I have mentioned, the treatment that is given to the two wives under individual pieces of Australian legislation may differ. These questions, which can arise in a taxation and social security context, are, I am grateful to say, as no doubt Lionel Bowen is, matters essentially for other Ministers to grapple with. Senator Teague also raised the question-a good old chestnut for those opposite-of the recognition to be afforded to so-called homosexual marriages celebrated outside Australia. Let me stress at the outset that neither I nor the Attorney-General's Department is aware of any overseas country or jurisdiction that, in fact, recognises such unions, although suggestions to this effect appear periodically in the Press. Even if such were the case I confirm the honourable senator's understanding that the provisions of Part VA would not extend to a homosexual union. Marriage under Australian law, and that includes the law as to overseas marriages is, as honourable senators have pointed out, 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. That is also the internationally accepted meaning of the term and I have no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the Hague Convention did not intend it to apply to homosexual relationships. Considerable interest was expressed by honourable senators in the provision of the Bill relating to the effect of State laws as to the parentage of children born through procedures such as artificial insemination by donor and invitro fertilisation. This is a topic on which there are deeply held and widely differing views in the community; that is, as to the question of whether the procedures should be carried out, who should be involved, what protection should be built into the law and so on. It must be understood that the Government does not intend to enter into this debate by the insertion of new sub-section 93 (3) in clause 26. The Government is not even proposing in the sub-section that this Parliament commit itself to saying anything positive about the legitimacy of these children, as much as many of us might want such a statement to be made and think it appropriate. Whatever the differing personal views one might have on the subject, it cannot be assumed or implied by anyone that a mere reference to these procedures in legislation imparts any governmental approval of the procedures themselves. The basis of the amendment is simple. I can testify to this personally because I was involved in it in my previous portfolio. It arose out of a concern that has been expressed by some States-probably unnecessarily as a matter of law but nonetheless the point was pressed in the context of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General-that the Marriage Act would somehow prevent children whose parentage is dealt with by State law from being legitimate. Really all this provision is designed to do is to make it clear that the question of legitimacy as determined by State law will not be overridden by anything in Commonwealth legislation. State law is to prevail in this respect. It seemed to be suggested at one stage that the Commonwealth should legislate comprehensively for the legitimacy or the parentage of these children. That is a recurring theme which I can well understand being promoted. This question has been considered within the Attorney-General's Department and with the assistance of the Solicitor-General. The view has been taken that the constitutional power to do this is, in fact, by no means clear. Part VI of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy as as a result of marriage. It is not clear, however, whether the Commonwealth can go any further and deal with legitimacy arising otherwise than through marriage in the context of the marriage power. I certainly share Senator Missen's regrets in this respect over the failure of the interchange of powers constitutional referendum which would have made it much more easily possible to resolve anomalies or limitations of this kind in Commonwealth power. Senator Durack —You did not do too well in getting a reference of other powers from the States. Why did you think they would give you that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I lived in hope, which is a state of mind unknown to the honourable senator, for reasons I can well understand. We are now going back to seeking uniformity, I am told, through the operation of State law. That is a laborious process to which I hope Senator Durack can testify in as heartfelt a fashion as I can. That is the track we are now going down. In response to Senator Durack's specific question, the jurisdictions which have so far legislated in accordance with the Standing Committee are New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, is considering the Australian Capital Territory legislation at the moment. Senator Durack also queried whether the recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cormick v. Cormick on the provisions of section 5 of the Family Law Act will have any implications for those parts of section 5 relating to AID-IVF children. I understand that the Solicitor-General is being approached to advise in detail about the consequences of the Cormick decision for the definition of 'child of a marriage' in the Family Law Act, and I can assure Senator Durack that this will be one of the questions that are looked at. Senator Durack —Like my advisers, I do not think it does. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to have that advice on the record, and I am sure that it will be of great comfort to the Solicitor-General, when he is wrestling with this subject in the middle of the night, to have that phrase looming at him out of the text of Hansard. I am indebted to Senator Durack, and I am sure the Solicitor-General will be too. I should also take the opportunity to correct a misunderstanding about that provision of the Family Law Act. While it is relevant throughout Australia and not just for the Australian Capital Territory, it does not deal generally with the status or parentage of these children. It is simply designed for the specific purpose of allowing courts exercising jurisdiction under that Act to deal with questions of guardianship, maintenance and so on of these children after the break-up of a married household in which they are involved. Senator Haines on this subject expressed concern that the broader social and ethical issues raised here have not been adequately addressed. The Government is very much aware of the various State and overseas inquiries into these issues and is examining these reports. Our principal advisory body on family law matters, the Family Law Council, is currently finalising a report of a sub-committee, chaired by Mr Justice Asche, a senior judge of the Family Court, on some of the wider social issues raised by the new procedures, and I am told that he expects to report to the Attorney-General within the next month. Let me say something about marriage education, which expression, in case anyone is in doubt, and I gather somebody was, is intended to encompass the existing pre-marital education activities. I am grateful to see the general support that was expressed for this change, although I did notice with some interest the remarks of Senator Chaney at the end of the debate, expressing some reservations about the likely efficacy of any program of marriage education and his tentative but very interesting canvassing of the question of marriage contracts as perhaps a more immediately useful way of clarifying the ground rules of the battleground before things get too far down the track. The Government recognises the staggering cost of marriage and family breakdown to our community, both personal and economic. This amendment of itself, as Senator Teague commented, provides only the structure to allow the Government to spend money in this area. As such, I have to reject Senator Haines's criticisms of the statement that the legislation has no financial impact. Of course, it is now up to the Government to explore seriously the ways in which, in a time of severe economic restraint, funds can be wisely used to combat this problem, both in an preventative way and in order to deal with the consequences of break-down. Senator Puplick —Is it not the explanatory memorandum that says it has no financial impact? It is your own explanatory memorandum which says there are no financial implications. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is inconsistent with what I have just said, then. We will just have to be brave about it and acknowledge that, in my view, or in the view of my former officials, who have taken so much loving care and attention in drafting this speech, it does have some financial impact. We bear that responsibility with such fortitude as we can command, Senator Puplick. In bearing it with that fortitude, I remind honourable senators that this Government, in its first year of office, increased by 60 per cent the funds available for pre-marital education, which had remained static since 1976. I hope Senator Harradine in particular, who tends to be grumpy about these matters, gives full acknowledgement to that state of affairs. We will be examining all options here and will, of course, gratefully receive any further suggestions. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later because there are some machinery matters to be attended to. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Select Committee on Video Material, appointed by the Senate on 17 October 1984, be re-appointed. (2) That Senators Crichton-Browne, Elstob, Harradine, Jones, Walters and Zakharov be the members of the Committee. (3) That the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the previous Committee for the purposes of- (a) reporting to the Senate, by 31 March 1985, on the work of the previous Select Committee; and (b) authorising the release of such minutes of evidence and records to any joint select committee which may be appointed by both Houses of the Parliament, with terms of reference relating to the subject of the Select Committee's inquiry. (4) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.15) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TRUST RECOUPMENT TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1985 This Bill is the first of three Bills the purpose of which is to recoup income tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes. This legislation was foreshadowed in a statement on 28 April 1983 by the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins the then Minister for Finance. As indicated in that statement, the policy of the Government is to employ retrospective legislation, whenever necessary, to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during our term of office will be collected, irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. That policy means that there will not be the slightest possibility that a blatant tax avoidance scheme will be effective and is the only sure way of totally eradicating the tax avoidance industry. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the announcement of that policy combined with the Government's demonstrated commitment to act in pursuance of it, has in fact finally brought the tax avoidance industry to an end. Mr President, trust stripping involves arrangements under which trust income is formally allocated for tax purposes to a beneficiary that does not pay tax on it-such as a tax exempt charitable institution. The income concerned, however, is effectively retained-undiminished by the payment of tax-by those family members really intended to benefit from it. Legislation against trust stripping was enacted in 1979 and amendments of a strengthening kind were made in 1981. Despite that specific legislation and the enactment of new general anti-avoidance provisions with effect from 27 May 1981, variants of trust stripping schemes continued to be developed and used because the promoters and participants were confident that the previous Government would only enact remedial legislation on a prospective basis. The variants of trust stripping arrangements with which this Bill deals seek to exploit a provision of the income tax law not used in earlier trust strips. Under that provision a beneficiary having a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate is treated as being presently entitled to that income. Briefly, in a typical new generation trust stripping scheme, the income of a family trust is formally allocated for tax purposes, directly or through a chain of trusts, to a charity that is exempt from the payment of tax on the income. Although the charity is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income, it is generally not entitled to payment of the income until 80 years hence. In the meantime, the charity receives only a token payment with the balance of the funds being retained for the benefit of family members. The claimed result of such an arrangement is that the trust income nominally allocated to the tax exempt charity is not subject to tax. In reality, the charity derives virtually no benefit from the income allocated to it. Even if the income is ultimately paid to the charity in 80 years time, the present value of that amount is negligible. For example, $100,000 payable in 80 years time is equivalent to less than $50 payable today. That is, by conferring on the charity a benefit worth less than $50 the family concerned seeks to avoid tax of up to $60,000. The essence of the scheme is that trust income is made to appear for tax purposes as income of an exempt body, but effective enjoyment of the income rests with the family that seeks to avoid tax. This is clearly a blatant tax avoidance scheme that warrants retrospective legislation. Accordingly, the Bill is designed to ensure that the tax sought to be avoided through these schemes will be recovered irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. I turn now to the details of the Bill. The legislation will operate where under a tax avoidance scheme entered into on or after 1 July 1980 a beneficiary is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate and the present value of the benefit that will be derived by the beneficiary from that interest is less than 50 per cent of the amount of the income formally allocated to the beneficiary. Where income is sought to be stripped under arrangements of this type, the trustee of the stripped trust will, in the first instance, be liable to pay trust recoupment tax on the income at the rate of 60 per cent, that being the rate applicable to trustees under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. There is, however, to be a right for beneficiaries of the stripped trust to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the stripped income. If this election is made and the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the allocation of the stripped income among the beneficiaries is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the beneficiaries will be paid by them, the trustee of the stripped trust will be freed from its liability for trust recoupment tax. As foreshadowed in the statement by Mr Dawkins, collection of the tax will not be allowed to be hindered by techniques such as participating trusts being left devoid of funds or being made to disappear. If the beneficiaries of the stripped trust fail to excercise their right of election and the stripped trust has ceased to exist, its beneficial ownership has changed or it is unlikely to be able to meet its liability for trust recoupment tax on the stripped income, the Bill will, in those very limited circumstances, place on all the persons who are in the eligible beneficiaries class in relation to the stripped trust, a joint and several liability for the trust recoupment tax payable on that income. The Bill provides that the eligible beneficiaries class is to comprise those persons who directly or indirectly derived a benefit attributable to the stripped trust income. The class will not, however, include third parties who derived a benefit as a result of an arm's length transaction. Nor will it include a charity that is a nominal beneficiary under a particular scheme and which usually derives a token benefit. The imposition of joint and several liability on members of an eligible beneficiaries class means that each person in the class is fundamentally, but subject to rights of contribution and apportionment of liability that I will mention shortly, liable for the whole of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that group of persons. The right of contribution which the Bill provides will mean that a person in an eligible beneficiaries class who has in consequence paid some or all of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that class may seek through the courts an appropriate contribution from other members of the class. The right of apportionment contained in the Bill will mean that a person in the eligible beneficiaries class who is sued by the Commissioner for unpaid trust recoupment tax may act to have other members of the class joined as co-defendants in the recovery suit. Where that option is exercised the court will, having regard to the value of the benefit enjoyed or to be enjoyed, have power to determine how much of the unpaid amount it is just and equitable that the person sued, and each of the persons joined, should be liable to pay as trust recoupment tax. Another feature of the Bill is the imposition of penalty tax in cases where new generation trust stripping schemes are entered into after 28 April 1983. In line with our announced policy on retrospective legislation, the level of penalty that will apply to such schemes entered into prior to the commencement of this legislation will ensure that the amount recovered is the tax sought to be avoided adjusted for inflation. In relation to any future schemes, the penalty tax will be equal to double the tax sought to be avoided. Finally, the Bill contains provisions to guard against divestment of assets in an attempt to frustrate the operation of the trust recoupment tax legislation. Mr President, in bringing the measures before the Parliament the Government demonstrates once again its commitment to smashing the tax avoidance industry and ensuring that this deplorable anti-social industry will never be resurrected. The tax at risk from new generation schemes already entered into is currently estimated at about $10m. Of greater significance, however, is the fact this legislation along with other measures introduced by the Government will make it plain to everyone that the days of blatant tax avoidance schemes are well and truly over. An explanatory memorandum providing a detailed explanation of the various measures contained in the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TRUST RECOUPMENT TAX BILL 1985 This Bill will formally impose a tax-to be called trust recoupment tax-on the taxable amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the trust recoupment tax legislation by the Bill I have just introduced. As I explained in my second reading speech on that Bill, liability for the trust recoupment tax will, subject to election arrangements, fall initially on the trustee of the stripped trust, but where it is impracticable or inappropriate to levy the tax at that primary level it will be possible to levy the tax at the secondary level on the class of persons who are referred to in the legislation as the eligible beneficiaries class. This Bill imposes on the taxable amount at either the primary or secondary level a trust recoupment tax equal to 60 per cent of the taxable amount. In addition, the Bill imposes tax on taxable amounts described in the legislation as elected taxable amounts and company taxable amounts. These taxable amounts may arise where the beneficiaries of a stripped trust elect to be assessed to income tax on the stripped income and one of those beneficiaries is a company. The rate of tax will be 75 per cent on elected taxable amounts and 46 per cent on company taxable amounts, the former rate applying where the shareholders of the company do not elect to be taxed on deemed dividends. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TRUST RECOUPMENT TAX (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The third Bill in the legislative package to recoup the tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes proposes amendments to several acts, consequential upon the two Bills I have already introduced. The first amendment is that of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Decisions under certain acts are precluded from review through the system of review provided for by that Act. Decisions under the new trust recoupment tax legislation are also to be excluded from the purview of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, consistent with the position that prevails in relation to decisions under various other Commonwealth laws. However, a trustee or other person liable for trust recoupment tax who is dissatisfied with an assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation, will have available full rights of objection and appeal to a taxation board of review or a supreme court and ultimately, if the matter warrants it, to the Federal and High Courts of Australia. Other taxation laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation that provide similar rights to contest liability are also excluded from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Two other Acts to be amended as a consequence of the Trust recoupment tax legislation deal with the Commonwealth-State tax sharing arrangements. The first of the tax sharing acts dealt with by this Bill is the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. Under Section 4A of that Act, the Commissioner of Taxation is required by the end of July each year, to make a determination as to the amount of net personal income tax collections for the year. That determination is then used as the basis for the allocation of funds to the states by way of financial assistance for local government purposes. As the trust recoupment tax legislation basically seeks to recover personal income tax sought to be avoided, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act is to be amended to include net collections of trust recoupment tax as part of the tax sharing base. The amendment proposed to the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 will also include collections of trust recoupment tax in the tax base. This proposal is consistent with the intention of that legislation. In 1981, an understanding was reached with the States that they would receive tax sharing grants calculated by reference to a 'total' tax base rather than the personal income tax base used in previous arrangements. That understanding requires that newly introduced Commonwealth taxes be included in the tax base. While the existing legislation allows for such new inclusions through the promulgation of regulations, the necessity for other consequential amendments provides an opportunity to include this amendment within a total legislation package. The Bill further proposes two minor technical amendments of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 following the substantial changes made to that Act last year. The proposed amendments give effect to the intention to adapt and apply the machinery provisions of the income tax law for the purposes of the proposed trust recoupment tax law. Finally, the Bill proposes to amend the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983. Those amendments will mean that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interest on refunds of trust recoupment tax following a successful objection or appeal against a trust recoupment tax assessment. I also commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Honourable senators will be aware that the administrative changes following the recent election transferred reponsibility for animal and plant quarantine from the Minister for Health to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister for Health retains responsibility for human quarantine. The changes in responsibility give effect to our election promise and implement Australian Labor Party policy to transfer animal and plant quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. Agricultural quarantine is central to agricultural health, and the rural sector has long expressed an interest in seeing those elements of quarantine that relate to agriculture being more closely aligned with other agricultural activities. At the same time, the changes preserve the link between the human aspects of quarantine and other functions of the Health portfolio. The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to amend the Quarantine Act to give effect to the changed administrative arrangements whilst at the same time clarifying certain provisions where some doubt could arise as to whether they apply to human, animal or plant quarantine. As the Bill is concerned only with administrative matters, there are no financial implications involved. The amendments reflect the Government's strong commitment to an effective quarantine service which plays a major role in Australia's social and economic well-being. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will work closely together on matters of mutual concern. I would draw honourable senator's attention to sub-clause 5 (1) of the Bill. The amendments proposed by this sub-clause provide the basis for the dual administration of the Act. The new sections 8A, 8B, 9 and 9AA provide for the appointment of officers who, under the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Health, will be charged with the execution of the Act. In place of the present Director of Quarantine, there will be two directors-a Director of Human Quarantine, appointed by the Minister for Health, and a Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine, who shall be the secretary to the Department of Primary Industry. The proposed new sections also provide for the appointment of chief quarantine officers and quarantine officers for each of human, animal and plant quarantine. The present Director of Quarantine, who is the Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer and a Deputy-Secretary of the Department of Health will, by virtue of sub-clause 5 (2), assume the office of Director of Human Quarantine immediately upon the commencement of these amendments to the Quarantine Act. Clause 6 will insert a new section 10B into the Act to provide that a Director of Quarantine may delegate his powers. In the absence of a specific power of delegation in the Act, the current procedure is for the Director of Quarantine to authorise other persons to exercise those powers in his name. The insertion of the new section will not alter the practical effect of the current operational procedures. In providing for the administration of the quarantine function by two departments, I am quite confident that Australia's unique record in quarantine matters will not only be maintained but enhanced. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —The President has received message No. 7 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the reference of matters to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 7 of the House of Representatives relating to the reference of matters to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. (2) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. The PRESIDENT —I have received messages Nos 2, 3, 4 and 8 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of Joint Standing Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, Foreign Affairs and Defence, the New Parliament House and the National Crime Authority. Copies of the messages have been distributed to honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolutions transmitted to the Senate by message Nos 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of the Joint Standing Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, Foreign Affairs and Defence and the New Parliament House, and relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. (2) That the provisions of the resolutions, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating senators to be members of certain joint committees. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senators Giles, Lewis, McKiernan and Reid, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That Senators Colston, MacGibbon, Reid, Reynolds, Sibraa and Withers, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House. (3) That Senators Bolkus, Crowley, Haines, Jessop and Missen, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. (4) That Senators Bolkus, Crichton-Browne, Elstob, Hill, Jones, MacGibbon, Maguire, Sibraa and Teague, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The PRESIDENT —I have received message No. 5 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 5 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral reform subject to the following modification- Paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(2) That the Committee consist of 11 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, one member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, one member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and two senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or any independent senator or independent senators.'. (2)That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate of the impending retirement of Frank Stewart, who, I notice, is sitting in the President's gallery at the moment. Frank Stewart has been and is the officer-in-charge of the Transport Office of the Department of the Senate. Frank Stewart was born 65 years ago in the small township of Cathcart near Bombala on the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales. For many years he was a grazier in that district before moving with his family to Canberra in 1962. At that time Frank was a traveller with the firm of Schute, Bell, Badgery Lumby Ltd, wool brokers, until he joined the Department of the Senate as an attendant in April 1972. In February 1978 he joined Bernie Scanlon in the Transport Office and, on Bernie's retirement in 1981, Frank deservedly was promoted to the position of officer-in-charge. Frank, in his years in the Transport Office, gained the respect of all honourable senators for his ability to get the job done, often under difficult circumstances. As often happens in this place, travel arrangements can change at short notice and it is left to the transport officers to rearrange the large number of airline and car bookings. Frank's retirement will not see the end of the Stewart family's contribution to the Parliament. One son, Paul, is with the Parliamentary Library and his youngest son, Bill, is working with Hansard. In summing up Frank's contribution to the Senate, I refer to an article appearing in the sporting pages of the Cobargo Chronicle-not the Murray Valley Standard-of April 1939. It mentioned that one Frank Stewart won the final of the 110-yard dash after a thrilling race and stated: Stewart deserved his win and was heartily applauded. I am sure all honourable senators will agree with me that Frank has earnt his retirement and is to be heartily applauded for the outstanding work he has done for the Senate as an officer of the Senate in the Transport Office over all the years he has been there. I, on behalf of everyone in this place I am sure, wish Frank and his wife, Jean, many long and happy years together in their retirement. I assure him that they are both welcome back to this place at any time. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(6.29) —On behalf of those Government senators who may not be making a personal contribution at this time I would like to be associated with the remarks which you, Mr President, have just made. Government senators yesterday had a function at which our Leader spoke warmly of the work which had been done by Frank Stewart, expressed our appreciation and, Mr President, as you have done, traced his long record of association with the Parliament. We were able to make a small presentation as a token of our respect. I am grateful that it is the Whip who is allowed to make these few remarks because Whips have a special association with the transport officer. We need to know, for example, when the Senate is to rise. The Senate transport officer is usually the one who knows that. We also need to know where some of our straying senators are and it is usually the transport officer who knows that also. To do Frank justice, of course he never tells us where they are. When we go looking for them they usually turn up fairly shortly afterwards. So there is a good relationship between the senators and the transport officer. It never ceases to amaze us on this side of the chamber how smoothly things operate in the transport section not only in the normal course of events but also when we have some problems. By problems I mean industrial unrest. Our Leader has already thanked Frank privately. I want to repeat those thanks publicly while not going through all of the things he said because I am sure there are many other senators who wish to comment this evening on Frank's retirement. On behalf of those Government senators who will not be making a personal contribution I wish Frank a well earned retirement and many years in which to enjoy it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.31) —I am being allowed to speak on behalf of the Opposition on this occasion of Frank Stewart's retirement because I used to be the Whip. I inform Senator Robertson that that is the only reason this breach of etiquette was permitted. On behalf of the Opposition I support what has been said by Senator Robertson. We too have privately thanked Frank Stewart for the great work which he has done for us and for the Senate. We have thanked him for his efficiency. We have thanked him for his cheerfulness, good humour and kindness to all. I simply add to what has been said by the Government Whip by saying to Frank Stewart that I am deeply grateful for the fact that he so often got me from Perth to Canberra. I would like him to know that I am much more grateful for the fact that he so often got me back to Perth. Frank has performed many feats for a lot of us who change our plans in very inconvenient ways. He always seems to manage to get us to where we want to go. I must say that it is a mark of this particular job that as each transport officer leaves us we know that he is utterly irreplaceable. We hope some other magician will emerge from the ranks to do the work which Frank has done for us over the last seven or so years. On behalf of all the Opposition senators I wish Frank Stewart well for his retirement. I had not known until I was told this evening that he has two children in this place. That is something of a relief for me. I would have thought that a transport officer who saw so many of our imperfections would not have allowed his children to work in such a difficult and dangerous place. It consoles me that he cannot think we are such a bad lot after all if he is prepared to allow his sons to work in the same environment. We wish him very well in his retirement and hope we will see him from time to time, as we have seen him so regularly in the past. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(6.33) —As an ex-Whip and on behalf of my National Party colleagues I associate myself with the many kind and generous but worthwhile remarks this evening on the retirement of Frank Stewart. We are completely reliant on the transport officers. As has been said, this place could not function without our being here and without their getting us here. The transport officers work longer hours than we do. Before we start in the morning they are here and after we have left at night they are still seeing that the last stragglers get home safely. I claim to be one of those senators who cause Frank Stewart the least amount of trouble because I am one of the robust ones who walk every morning. Maybe I have made the transport officers' job a little easier and helped them to look after the rest of those stragglers who sleep in every morning. In backing up Senator Robertson's comments on looking for recalcitrant senators, I recall that one night we almost lost a vote that we should have won easily. The first people we called were the transport officers. As has been mentioned, it was not long before the missing senators were back in the fold and helping us man the barricades for the rest of the night. I am very pleased to be associated with the remarks made this evening. Frank is worthy of those remarks. I am quite sure that, like every good tradesman, Frank has been training an apprentice to make sure we are not let down in the future. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.35) —I speak on behalf of all my colleagues, who have asked me to convey publicly their thanks for the type of service that Frank Stewart has given to the Senate and to each senator personally. I think it is interesting and illustrative of the man that each of us here-certainly each of my colleagues-felt we had a personal relationship and friendship with Frank. Frank is a pretty tough man, nevertheless a person who is extremely friendly. In a very quick time one gets to know him on a personal level. The types of services he has done for each and every one of us will be well remembered. I remember that when I first came here I was instructed by a number of people that there were certain people in the place I must get to know, and get to know rapidly. The name that kept coming up was Frank Stewart. I must admit that for the first week and a half I suffered under the illusion that in fact he was the head of the Department of the Senate. Senator Boswell —He is de facto head. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, that seems to be very much the case. He is a person absolutely vital to the smooth operation of this place. I believe that is something which every honourable senator feels is so. I remember when I first arrived hearing in this chamber, and even in the other place, the eulogies about retiring transport officers and wondering why they were being eulogised to such an extent. I now know by experience how vital their job is to ours. I thank Frank Stewart on behalf of myself as Whip and on behalf of all my colleagues for his generosity and his enormous contribution beyond the call of duty to the work we are doing. I hope he enjoys his retirement and does not take a busman's holiday and start driving around the place. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.37) -I feel a bit embarrassed on occasions such as the retirement from the Senate of Frank Stewart when nobody can speak on my behalf except myself-and then most inadequately. It puts me in mind of the fact that when I first came to this place I was frequently asked: 'Senator, what time do you want to go back to Tasmania?' I used to hum and haw and say one thing then ring up on Thursday and say another thing. Inevitably the bookings had to be changed. So the general standing order of recent years has been that I arrive here on the last possible occasion and get out on the first possible occasion. I notice that every time now Frank has a ticket on my desk when I arrive which says when I am going home. For that I am very grateful because it focuses the mind. Indeed, I do not have to make up my own mind. I appreciate the work that Frank has done for us. He comes from a good place and some good horses come from that place too. I am sure that he will know what I mean when I wish him a very happy and a very successful retirement. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.39) —Briefly I want to endorse the remarks already made about Frank Stewart. It must be a very difficult task to deal with the transport requirements of senators. We are all egotistical, temperamental characters. It reminds me of the occasion when I was asked how I would feel in Parliament dealing with members of parliament. At that time I was president of a drama, arts and music club in Port Augusta. I said that if I could deal with the temperamental artists who strut the floor boards in front of floodlights I reckoned I could be happy in Canberra. I am sure that Frank has dealt with our requirements in a very friendly way. I do not think anyone has yet mentioned the way in which he has looked at the transport requirements of our wives, husbands and families. I think that that is particularly important. My wife is sitting in the gallery at the moment. She regards Frank Stewart and his colleagues who assist us in this way as very good friends. My wife and I join in wishing Frank and his wife good health and a very pleasant life in retirement. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.40) —From time to time we have to give consideration to someone of worth. This is one of those occasions. It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity which the Senate has presented to express my thanks to Frank Stewart for a variety of things. He has made life pleasant for me for a number of years at a time when life has tended to be rather unpleasant. I have found a haven in the Transport Office, talking to Frank Stewart, explaining to him the various shortcomings that I find from time to time in the system, and listening to some of the jokes. Some of the jokes do not really bear repeating. But sometimes it becomes so exciting in the Transport Office that it has been said that no one can afford to miss an episode. It is like Blue Hills; if one is not present, one has missed an episode. That all seems to indicate that Frank is a person of particular characteristics that have led to his having much support from all parts of the chamber and from those who are associated with members of the chamber. He has been of particular assistance to me. From listening to what has been said, I know that I have not been alone in that regard. He has been of particular assistance to my family in times of need. From time to time some of us fall ill and find it necessary to have extra support. Frank has always provided that, to the point of visiting people in hospital. I have had that worthwhile experience. I thank Frank for being there. He would come through the door laughing at me when I was not in a position to respond suitably. Nevertheless, I know why he was there and I appreciate the fact that he paid me a visit. I thank him also for the assistance and understanding he has given to my family. We look with some trepidation, if I might say so, to what is to follow. I notice that Steve is sitting beside Frank. I am certain that, given time, he will reach Frank's high standard of understanding, co-operation, good sense and good humour. Those are all of the things that can be said about Frank with ease, and I say them now. I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for the opportunity on this occasion to convey to Frank in a formal way words of appreciation for all that he has done. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.44) —I also add my endorsement of everything that has been said tonight about Frank. I have always found him to be a very pleasant chap, and one who is easy to get on with. I never knew where he was going to send me and sometimes I would end up in very funny places, while my luggage would end up in worse places. But I am very grateful to Frank, because at one stage I was able to be the transport officer for Tasmania. Recently he visited Tasmania and I had the privilege of lending him a car which my father had used when he was alive. As my father got older, he tended to run into more lamp posts and trees, so it was a pretty battered car. I insured it well and lent it to Frank. Unfortunately, he brought it back in one piece. The car was running better than ever after he had taken it beyond the city limits, which nobody had ever done. But I did not tell him that when I lent it to him. It was good to be able to do something for Frank after all the things he has done for my relatives and me, and I thank him very much. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(6.45) —I join those who have paid tribute to Frank Stewart's contribution as a vital, integral and intrinsic part of the Senate by way of his activities in the transport section. In the short time that I have been here I have held a deep affection for him and a great deal of appeciation of him. I have always found that Frank, particularly when I first came here, was the bastion of all immediate wisdom and knowledge. If one wanted to know what was going on in the Senate, one always went to Frank Stewart. One may not have been able to find out from the Prime Minister when the Parliament was expected to rise, when we would be returning or when an election would be announced, but Frank seemed to have some special pipeline to heavenly places and could answer with impeccable timing as to when those events would take place. I, like a number of senators, have a young wife. I also have young children who have plagued Frank and Steve at every opportunity when they come here. They have been tolerant, to the best of my knowledge, and have treated my children with good humour and occasionally have given them some good advice. I am one of those difficult people who from day to day never quite know in which direction they are heading and on which aircraft or airline they are to travel. Frank has always shown a great deal of goodwill and humour when I change my mind every half an hour or when I have bookings on four aircraft which are heading in four separate directions. I well remember the only time when I missed an aircraft out of Canberra. The driver-he was a new driver-sat outside until five minutes before the aircraft was due to leave the airport. He then knocked on my door and said: 'Were you planning to catch this aircraft?' By that time, of course, it was quite irrelevant, because the aircraft had gone. Since then it has been a standing order that when the driver arrives at my place, if I am not out within five minutes of the time at which I am due to leave, the driver knocks on my door. Only yesterday I was running a little late. I heard a knock on the door and rushed out to answer it, wearing a very brief towel around my less than brief body, with the intention of saying, 'I'll be out in five minutes, sport, just hang on.' A young, attractive female car driver was confronted with my body. I had to retreat very quickly and say that I would be out in a moment. I record my deepest appreciation, and that of my family, who have all had the good fortune of being blessed with Frank's patience, goodwill, understanding and, in particular, generosity in ensuring that our travel arrangements in and out of Canberra have been smooth, effective and comfortable. I wish Frank a happy retirement. I hope that he comes back to the Parliament often and that we do not lose contact with him. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(6.49) —I am sorry to change the mood of this place this evening. Before I turn to another matter, I add my best wishes to Frank and his wife and record my appreciation for all that he has done. I wish to document this evening some serious concerns expressed to me by Brisbane residents affected by a chemical fire at the Rite-Gro plant in Zillmere on 30 January. The Queensland Health Department's response to date to the residents' complaints over the last few weeks has in my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the residents, been totally inadequate and it is vital that the State Government immediately conduct a full inquiry into the Department's handling of a grave situation affecting public health. According to an order list, chemical products in the factory at the time of the fire included chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, 2,4,5-T, 2,4D, mancozeb, zineb, captan, parathion, arsenic, warfarin and bromodialone. Many of these products are exceedingly dangerous to human health and their reactive effect as a result of chemical combustion is unknown. Eleven of these chemicals are listed in the Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals, giving details of harmful effects and symptoms and areas of the body likely to be affected. The potential health risks listed are considerable and include headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, tremors, skin and eye irritations. Even more serious, however, the long term effects are unknown but all body organs and systems can be attacked. Given the seriousness of the situation, it would be anticipated that the Queensland Health Department would have responded to the ongoing calls of the residents of Zillmere. However, I would now like to place on public record the sorry response of that authority and show how it accepted its responsibilities. The following is a brief outline of events which was prepared by the local residents: BRIEF OUTLINE OF RITE-GRO FIRE AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS At approximately 4.00 a.m. on Wednesday, 30th January, 1985 the premises of Rite Gro, located at 256 Zillmere Road, Zillmere were destroyed by fire. This particular event has had a profound impact on the local residents, businesses and the environment. The firemen who attended the fire had no idea of the nature of the contents of the site, thereby compounding our present problems. The lack of water hydrants necessitated pumping from the nearby creek. There was no provision for containment of the residue and this flowed back into the creek. There was an immediate impact. The aquatic life died. By late afternoon, residents close to the site were complaining of nausea and respiratory problems. Removal of debris and general clean up was carried out from the 31st January to 10th February, 1985. During this period of time there was a pungent 'rotten egg' smell and a fine talc like dust residue. There was a marked increase in residents complaining of similar symptoms, these being nausea, vomiting, headaches, skin irritations, eye nose and throat irritations. Children were similarly ill and listless. Pets were also noted to be affected. During this ''clean up'' period some local businesses were forced to close due to employee illness, resulting in loss of production. On Monday, 11th February, 1985, local residents met on a site adjacent to Rite-Gro to discuss the aftermath of the fire. There was considerable concern expressed about the possible long term effects and their symptoms. Individuals attempted to elucidate from a plethora of Government Departments the nature of the hazard to which they had been exposed. The consistent non-committal responses prompted the formation of this group. The utter futility and apparently apathetic responses by these Government Departments to genuine public concern has been the norm. Our main concerns are as follows:- 1. Local residents are now (29 days after the event) complaining of a recurrence of the symptoms they suffered during the first two weeks. Is this pattern likely to last and if so, for how long? 2. There has been a noticeable increase of pre-existing respiratory problems in some local people. Is this in any way likely to accelerate the nature of these conditions, resulting in a premature death. 3. Gases reached the atmospheric temperature inversion layer on the morning of the fire then spread out over the suburbs, precipitating as fall-out. Our investigations have revealed the extent of this fall-out covers several kilometres. Most noticeable to date, are the reports of pockets of victims in low lying areas a considerable distance from the fire. 4. We have been treated most contemptuously by Government Departments which, in our opinion, should have been able to provide the answers to our inquiries. There appears to have been a totally ineffectual token gesture to determine the nature of the chemicals and substances to which we have been exposed. The lack of communication between bureaucrats, both internally and inter-departmentally, has been counter productive to any resolution of our plight. Perhaps this is understandable when we read in the 'Courier Mail', dated Saturday, 23rd February, 1985, statements by Mr Tenni, Mr Desmond, Brisbane City Council and Department of Health spokesman. These gentlemen are quoted as saying, ''It is not certain whether atmospheric tests were done by State Government bodies to ascertain what was being breathed in by residents and firemen during and after the fire. A spokesman for the Environment Minister, Mr Tenni, said the Air Pollution Control Council would not have ordered tests because it did not become involved in 'disaster-type' situations. One wonders what the Air Pollution Control Council is for. The report continued: He suggested the Government Chemical Laboratory, under Health Department control, might have done tests. A Health Department spokesman said tests would only have been done if requested from some other body-not independently. A Brisbane City Council spokesman said air testing was a State Government responsibility. Tests were done in nearby Zillmere Waterholes Creek. The State Director of Water Quality, Mr H. F. Desmond, said he had inspected the site personally about 6 a.m. on January 30. He had instructed that a temporary dam be built on Zillmere Waterholes Creek to stop the spread of pollution. We understand the bureaucrats dilemma, however, we do not accept that this in any way contributes to efficient Government. Neither do we condone, nor excuse, the relevant authorities for the total lack of compassion, understanding and action on what we feel is a potentially dangerous problem. The simple facts are, that since the fire, we have:- (i) Fish and vermin dead in the creek (ii) A distinct lack of insects and in particular the eradication of the cockroach population. We all know that cockroaches are supposed to be the only form of human life to survive a nuclear explosion. Yet even the cockroaches have died in the Zillmere area. The outline continued: (iii) A positive decline of bird life. (iv) Domestic pets are suffering the effects with a growing number of fatalities. (v) Evidence of plants and shrubs wilting. Lastly, some 350 people have registered as suffering from the effects of toxic poisoning. This number includes residents, workers, firemen and members of the media who attended the fire, the rubbish tip attendants and one building inspector who spent some time at the site, in short most of those who came in contact with the fire, debris and residue have been affected. The only other point we would like to make is that this is not a political, radical or obscure group that is trying to impress, coerce or gain some form of notoriety. It is simply a small section of the community asking for help. In view of these obvious frustrations experienced by the Zillmere residents in gaining the realistic co-operation of the Queensland Health Department, I have approached the New South Wales and Victorian health departments to ascertain how health authorities in those States would have responded to a similar emergency. Both States indicated that a monitoring program for residents complaining of symptoms would have been implemented immediately after a chemical fire of this magnitude. There appears no doubt that in such a situation a responsible health authority would monitor the effects on residents by conducting individual tests to determine pesticidal levels in the bloodstream. Furthermore, residents need ongoing advice, information and reassurance. In short, the situation needs to be taken very seriously. In Italy there was a similar incident and, nearly 10 years later, the authorities are still monitoring the effects of that fire. But the Queensland Health Minister continues to dodge this serious issue and even accuses residents of 'beating up' their genuine fears. I am sure that if Mr Austin's family lived close to the Rite-Gro factory, we would have found the Queensland Health Minister more sympathetic to the concerns of residents. I believe there is still time for the Queensland Health Department and the Government to keep faith with Zillmere residents by immediately offering to conduct a formal inquiry and making available resources for full health screening. To this end, I shall be representing to the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) that he ask that action be taken as a matter of urgency. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.01 p.m. The following paper was presented: Immigration (Education) Act-Corrigendum to the Child Migrant Education Report 1983-84.