Tuesday, 19 March 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Kilgariff (from 46 citizens) and Short (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill', A Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia effectively declaring Australia a 'Nuclear Weapons Free Zone'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 59 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 Senators Peter Baume (from 145 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 109 citizens) and Childs (from 93 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced by any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Black (from 10 citizens) and Chipp (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for 'drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called 'soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalize and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by 'drug pushers' through the proposed one oz. legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and license import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society. 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legalisation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collecting, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 479 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 1,011 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —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 amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish a register of foreign corporations owning or controlling Australian property. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provision of this resolution having effect. (2) That the following Bill be restored to the Notice Paper and that consideration of that Bill be resumed at the stage reached in the last session of Parliament: Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Canberra Theatre Trust-Annual Report 1982-83 2. Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee-Annual Report 1983-84 3. Australian Capital Territory Nominal Defendant-Annual Report 1983 4. Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1983-84 5. Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council-Annual Report 1983-84 6. Department of Territories and Local Government-Annual Report 1983-84 7. Australian Electoral Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 17 of the Electoral Act 1918 8. The role of the National Aboriginal Conference-Report by Dr H. C. Coombs-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 27 February 1985 9. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd-Annual Report 1983-84-Together with the text of a statement relating to the Report 10. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd-Annual Report 1983-84 11. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 12. Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman-Annual Reports for 1983-84-Pursuant to section 19 (1) and 19F (3) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 13. Institute of Family Studies-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 14. Security Appeals Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 83 (2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 15. Family Law Council-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975 16. Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 86 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 17. National Exhibition Centre Trust-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 63H of the Audit Act 18. National Capital Development Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 24 (3) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 19. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 20. Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd-Annual Report 1983-84 21. Special Broadcasting Service-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 79ZH of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 22. Criminology Research Council-Annual Report 1983-84 23. Australian Institute of Criminology-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 24. National Companies and Securities Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 25. Freedom of Information-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 26. International Monetary Agreements-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreement Act 1947 27. Australian Film Commission-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975 28. Department of Housing and Construction Housing Assistance-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1981 29. Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. 30. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Annual Report for 1982-83 and 1983-84 31. Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-Text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made in the House of Representatives on 27 February 1985 32. New Parliament House-Updated cost-Text of a statement by the Acting Minister for Territories, Mr Duffy, made in the House of Representatives on 28 February 1985. 33. Superannuation Fund Investment and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976-The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1984-Together with the report of the Auditor General with respect to those statements-Further document by the Auditor-General in regards to the statements. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. No, I have changed my mind. It is directed to the Attorney-General, representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General is in the other House. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question should be directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, as Minister representing. Senator CHANEY —We just wish we had him back as Attorney-General. Senator Peter Baume —I thought he was the former, discredited Attorney-General. Senator CHANEY —I will respond to the Minister's invitation and describe him as the recently discredited Attorney-General. Did he take the opportunity, during his visit to New Zealand last week, to discuss the disintegration of the ANZUS Treaty with his friend the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Palmer? If he did, does he see any ground for hope that the New Zealand Government might be prepared to modify its policies, which have meant the end of the Treaty as a three-way working relationship? Did he in any way try to persuade Mr Palmer of the wrong-headedness of his Government's policy, or did he maintain the low key, non-interfering approach which Mr Palmer has previously described as 'very understanding of the New Zealand Government's position'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that relations with New Zealand at all levels-official, ministerial and personal-are as sound, relaxed, friendly, amicable and constructive as they ever have been. That is in remarkable contrast to the situation that could have been expected to obtain had the Opposition had its way in the conduct of this whole affair. From the time of the election of the New Zealand Labour Government until the actual banning of the USS Buchanan from New Zealand, the Leader of the Opposition, it will be recalled, consistently called for the booting out of New Zealand from ANZUS and the replacement of that Treaty with a bilateral treaty between Australia and the United States of America. In Parliament in October last year he called upon us to take New Zealand on, to lay the groundwork for the negotiation of a bilateral treaty from which New Zealand would be excluded. On the AM program on 16 October he said that a Liberal government would give New Zealand just three months to lift its ban on nuclear warships and if this were not done Australia and the United States would negotiate a bilateral treaty. Having behaved in that way-like an arsonist-for so long, the Leader of the Opposition has now turned that particular stance completely around and has donned an equally artificial and unpersuasive fireman's hat. On 28 February, the person calling for the destruction of the ANZUS Treaty and the excommunication of New Zealand was calling upon the Government to convene an ANZUS Council. Having consistently urged a bullying and hectoring approach by the Australian Government towards New Zealand while its dispute with the United States-and it is essentially a dispute between those two countries-was maturing, he then went on to urge Australia to try to mediate and get the parties together. Against that kind of background, any such call for mediation must be seen for the empty hypocrisy and grandstanding that we have come to associate with everything that the Leader of the Opposition does. I reject entirely the imputation and innuendoes that lie beneath Senator Chaney's question. Senator CHANEY —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am glad that the Minister chose to deal with the imputations which may have been underlying the question, but what about dealing with the question? I ask the Minister to tell us whether he took up with Mr Palmer the Australian Government's supposed view of this matter and whether he, in any way, sought to persuade the New Zealand Government of the error of its ways as his Prime Minister sought to do when he wrote to the New Zealand Government in January. Senator GARETH EVANS —Any conversation that I might have had with Mr Palmer while I was in New Zealand was entirely private and unofficial and will remain so. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations able to say whether the current administration of the national community youth support scheme is geared specifically to pinpoint CYSS projects which concentrate their assistance on severely disadvantaged unemployment groups? Are these CYSS projects currently given any special consideration when funding levels are considered? Senator WALSH —I am advised that the CYSS program as a whole is directed at providing employment-related assistance to disadvantaged unemployed people under 25. In the present financial year some $26.3m has been appropriated for CYSS, which is an increase of 23 per cent over the previous year, for some 300-odd projects around Australia in which an estimated 75,000 young people participate each year. The State allocation of CYSS funds is based as closely as possible on the distribution of youth unemployment between States. However, because of the evolution of CYSS funding under the previous Government, there is still some bias in favour of Victoria at the expense of New South Wales and Queensland, and this Government has been moving to rectify that bias and anomaly which prevailed in previous years. The allocation of funds to States is based on recommendations of State advisory committees which do take into account the severity of local youth unemployment when making recommendations concerning funding levels. The Government has also been concerned to ensure that particularly disadvantaged groups of young people are adequately serviced by CYSS and for that reason it has looked at the special needs of young women, migrants and Aborigines. Half a million dollars has been set aside this financial year to fund initiatives in this area. Finally, the Government is currently issuing guidelines for the development and submission of applications for the funding of special CYSS initiatives directed at those groups. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General and also in his capacity as the former Attorney-General. In view of the exceptional circumstances applying at the time of an alleged interception on the telephone of the editor of the National Times, Mr Brian Toohey-those circumstances being that the Commonwealth was at that time taking legal action against Mr Toohey-will the Minister now confirm or deny that an authorised telephone interception was in place and that details were obtained of a conversation between Mr Toohey and the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh? If so, did the former Attorney himself or anyone acting with his authority pass on to the Prime Minister or anyone else what was said during that conversation? Senator GARETH EVANS —This matter was the subject of some public statements by me, and the Prime Minister, I recall, when allegations to this effect were made in November last year. The most I can say at this stage is as follows: The Government will continue to observe the practice of neither confirming nor denying claims about Australian Security Intelligence Organisation activity, and nothing in what any of us say, including what I will say now, should be taken as in any way confirming allegations that Mr Toohey's telephone or any other person's telephone was intercepted last year or that the Government has ever been in possession of any information about Mr Toohey's conversations at the time in question. While observing those traditional restraints, it does seem possible to set at rest a couple of matters which generated heat. One of these matters was set at rest in a particular way at the time. As to the other, perhaps what I will say now is a slight embellishment-but only very slight. I can say that there is no foundation whatsoever for any of the suggestions that the Government may have utilised information derived from conversations between Mr Toohey and his lawyers in its conduct of the injunction proceedings against the National Times last year; nor, as to the second point, is there any foundation whatsoever for the suggestions that continue to be made, and are made again by Senator Durack today, that material allegedly derived from an ASIO intercept but unrelated to security concerns may have been passed to me or to the Prime Minister. This Government has been and remains quite unwavering in its commitment to civil liberties principles, to conduct strictly in accordance with law and to the conduct of legal proceedings with strict propriety in every sense of that term. I believe that that should bury once and for all the particular set of canards to which Senator Durack refers. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is it not a fact that Senator Evans and the Prime Minister have on other occasions laid down an exception to the principle to which Senator Evans now retreats and uses as a reason not to answer the question? I refer to cases where there are exceptional circumstances. Twice during the Combe-Ivanov affair questions were answered confirming or denying that there was a telephone interception. Does he not agree that there could hardly be more exceptional circumstances than in the case of the allegations concerning Mr Toohey? In view of the precedent that he and the Prime Minister have set, why does he not now confirm or deny the allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think Senator Durack was listening closely to what I said. I repeat that in that respect there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that any material allegedly derived from an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation intercept but unrelated to security concerns may have been passed to me or to the Prime Minister. I believe that that is an absolutely clear-cut response to the particular matter to which Senator Durack is adverting. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the notes from which he quoted, including the bit he tore off. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has tabled the paper sought by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Given the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case of Edwarda Artwinska, will the Department of Social Security now accept that money paid by the German Government as compensation to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust is to be disregarded in assessing the old age pension? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the case to which Senator Cooney refers, but I have no details on what the Department of Social Security is doing about that matter. I know that in the time I and my predecessors were Ministers for Social Security there was always controversy over whether such payments should be counted as income. Obviously the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has made a decision in that regard, and I dare say the Department and the Minister are considering it. I will seek an accurate reply as soon as I can. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: When Mr Peacock resigned from the Fraser Ministry in 1981, did he, quite properly, give as one of his major reasons the Fraser Government's support for the Pol Pot regime? Did he speak of 'the atrocities', 'the butchering', and his opposition 'on moral grounds, political grounds and legal grounds' to this creature, who has caused indescribable and immeasurable misery, pain and suffering in this part of the world? Will the Government continue to resist the pressure being applied to it by the leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the United States, the Chinese Government, and the Opposition to support this mass murderer and continue to uphold the moral position put forward by Mr Hayden on his recent South East Asian visit to bring about a solution to the horrific Kampuchean conflict which does not in any way include a return to any position of power or influence of Pol Pot and Sary of the infamous Khmer Rouge? Senator Missen —I raise a point of order. In the course of that question there was an insulting reference to the Opposition as supporters of Pol Pot. I ask that that offensive reference be withdrawn from the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government's policy on Cambodia has been predicated on the need to find a peaceful, rather than a military, solution to that conflict. That solution should take into account, as Mr Hayden has said on a number of occasions, the legitimate security interests of the countries most affected. We believe that arrangements should be put in place which will lead to the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and an act of self-determination by the Cambodian people. We do not recognise any particular government in Cambodia. The principal reason for our non-recognition of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, so called, is the presence within that Government of Pol Pot. The Government has made it absolutely clear that we regard the policies pursued by the Pol Pot regime in exactly the same way as does Senator Chipp and as did, apparently, Andrew Peacock. We regard the conduct of that regime in the years 1975 to 1978 as odious and unacceptable, and we could not accept a return to power in Cambodia by Pol Pot. We agree completely with the language employed by Mr Peacock at the time of his spectacular departure from the then Government and with the language that Senator Chipp today used. I simply make the point that I wish Mr Peacock would now bring the same humane, far-sighted and constructive approach to his assessment of our present initiatives in South East Asia and Cambodia as he brought to events at that time and, indeed, to his own relations with the then Prime Minister Fraser. Senator Peter Rae —I ask for leave to make a personal explanation to the Senate under standing order 408 in relation to the last question. Leave not granted. Senator HEARN —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Under the present Medicare arrangements, is there any specific ruling which states that the hospital fees for a new born baby should be covered by the same private medical fund as the fees for the mother? In the case of a single private benefit, would Medicare cover the hospital fees for the infant? Senator GRIMES —I am not quite sure that I got the complete gist of Senator Hearn's question. I would assume that certainly in the case of benefits paid by a private health fund, any fees necessary for the payment of treatment of the child would also be covered. However, I will seek details from my colleague the Minister for Health and get Senator Hearn a full answer. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Minister will recall denying a suggestion from Senator Collard on 27 February that the developments of recent times have meant the death knell of ANZUS as we have known it. He said that the Government 'will continue to work hard to preserve the alliance in all of its delicacy and all its complexity'. I ask whether he is aware that just five days later the Prime Minister told a Press conference: I think you would have to say that so far as ANZUS was a tri-lateral relationship, there is virtually nothing of it which is operative now. He subsequently agreed with the proposition that ANZUS was a treaty in name only. Does the Minister now agree that the Government has totally failed in its stated objective of working to preserve that alliance in all its complexity and all its delicacy? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that any other answer than that which I previously gave is then appropriate. The truth of the matter is that ANZUS is still intact. There is no move afoot in fact to wind it up formally. Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, has made that clear in his own testimony to the United States Congress a matter of hours ago, as reported on the national news at lunchtime today. It is the case that ANZUS has a number of component parts, one of which does imply a relationship of peacetime co-operation which we, in Australia, have construed as extending to granting port facilities for each other's ships. It is obviously the case that to the extent that that part of the Treaty is incapable of application, given the current position of the New Zealand Government, the Treaty is inoperative to that extent, to apply the language of the Prime Minister. But beyond that I believe that the kind of response which I have just given, and which has been echoed by statements from senior United States spokesmen in recent times, is a demonstration that the basic framework is there. We are obviously placing our primary emphasis at the moment on maintaining intact very strong bilateral relationships both with the United States and with New Zealand. The impending visit of Mr Shultz in July and the conversations that are proposed between Mr Hawke and Mr Lange in April and next week between Mr Beazley and his New Zealand counterpart are all ample evidence of that. The three partners are undergoing a period of difficulty at the moment which hardly needs any further elaboration for it to be perceived. But ANZUS as a document, as a treaty relationship, certainly still exists and there is no foundation for the kind of doomsaying of which we have heard so much from the Opposition benches in recent weeks. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to the increasing number of private insurance funds which are non-registered health funds now offering packages of health insurance outside the guidelines required by the registered health funds? Can the Minister comment on the effect on costs of health insurance consequent on this move by extra funds into the health insurance area? What steps has the Government taken to address this problem? Are any further steps planned? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that concern has been expressed to the Minister for Health and to the Government in general by groups as diverse as private medical practitioners and the voluntary health funds about the effect of the types of insurance that Senator Crowley has mentioned. In health insurance, be it public or private, we should have a balance so that one group of funds does not manage to get all the insurance from the low risk people, leaving either the public sector or, in the case of the voluntary health funds, the private sector with a too high proportion of the worst risk patients, therefore creating difficulties for those who have to pay through either public or private contributions. The Minister for Health is aware of this. I am unaware of what steps he is taking at the moment. I know that he has met with representatives of voluntary health funds. I will seek full information and reply to the Senate as soon as possible. Senator HARRADINE —Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen media reports based on a document entitled 'Youth Employment Patterns, research report No. 5', of the Bureau of Labour Market Research? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that more than 50,000 teenage jobs were lost over a period of 10 years in the Public Service and that there was a fall in the teenage job share in the Australian Public Service job market from 21.5 per cent in 1966 to only 6.6 per cent in 1982? What affirmative action is being taken by the Government to redress this disturbing and disgraceful situation which has been allowed to develop over the past 10 years and is still continuing? Senator BUTTON —My attention has been drawn to Press reports of the Bureau of Labour Market Research document to which Senator Harradine refers. I must say that, when I read the Press reports, I thought in a relatively kindly way of Senator Harradine. I cannot be more charitable than that in this chamber. The Government is quite aware of the points which were raised in that report and the matter is now receiving urgent study. If the honourable senator directs a question in a few weeks time we might be able to provide a more comprehensive and detailed answer. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it true that, since the 10 per cent sales tax on wine was imposed, actual sales of Australian-made wine have increased? If it is true, can the Minister say whether the Government intends to resist the temptation to help our wine producers further by upping the amount of the tax? Senator WALSH —I will certainly take note of the suggestion at the end of Senator Cook's question and seek the Treasurer's view on it. Senator Cook's main question was: Is it a fact that wine sales have increased since a sales tax-a very much overdue sales tax-was applied in the Budget last year? The answer is yes. The figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics go only as far as December and, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they may be subject to some marginal adjustment at a later time. Those figures show that the total sales of Australian wine for the quarter ended December 1984 were 4.2 per cent higher than those for the same quarter of 1983, notwithstanding the fact that there was a very big sales peak in the month of August 1984. Therefore, one would expect some negative effect on sales in the months immediately succeeding that. That figure of 4.2 per cent is identical to the growth in sales in 1983-84 as a whole over 1982-83. In other words, on the indications so far, the trend of growth in wine sales has not changed as a result of the sales tax imposed in the Budget. Of course, this is completely at variance with the hysterical claims made principally by Senator Messner-but not only by Senator Messner-when on 23 August 1984 he moved to debate the following matter of public importance: The imposition by the Hawke Labor Government of a tax on wine and the disastrous impact such a tax will have on the wine industry. He was as wrong about that as he normally is wrong about anything I can think of. Since evidently the members of the Opposition want to hear a little more about what they said only a few months ago concerning a tax on wine, I will quote Senator Hill, who said: It has been estimated that up to 4,000 jobs in South Australia could be lost by this tax which, as my colleague said, will result in a comparatively small amount of revenue to the Government. Since there has been no effect on the growth trend of sales, it is difficult to see how any jobs could have been lost, let alone the 4,000 that Senator Hill hysterically suggested in August of last year. Senator Gietzelt —What did Teague say? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether Senator Teague was also interjecting but this is what he said in September of last year: When the Australian people see grapes still on the vine, see thousands of jobs lost and see the penalty, particularly in my State of South Australia, let them then expect the Government to lose votes and suffer a real penalty. His political judgment is about as good as his economic judgment because what happened was that in the Barossa Valley there was a swing to Labor. So not only is he ignorant of economics but also he is ignorant of politics, it seems. Finally, I add that the same ridiculous assertions that were being made by the Liberal Party of Australia were also being made by the Australian Democrats who, of course, as always, are eager to pick up ten votes from any single issue group-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, you are tending to debate the matter now. I suggest that you confine your remarks. Senator WALSH —They know that they will never be called upon to accept responsibility. The elasticity of demand for wine had been assessed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, or particularly by Mr Tsolakis of the BAE, who had predicted that in the short term there would be a decline in sales of 4 per cent pursuant to a 10 per cent wholesale sales tax and in the medium term a decline of 14 per cent. Needless to say, the Opposition immediately misrepresented Mr Tsolakis's findings and said that there would be an immediate decline of 14 per cent, which was a misrepresentation notwithstanding the fact that in my view-I said this at the time-Mr Tsolakis's estimates were always, to say the least, suspect. In the light of the evidence available today, they certainly ought to be treated with a great deal more caution than they have been treated with in the past, leaving aside the gross misrepresentation of Mr Tsolakis's estimates of the type practised by the Opposition last year. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. Does the Minister share the concern of the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, who said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio last week that what happened during the Australian Foreign Minister's swing through Indo-China was 'very unfortunate because it does impair Mr Hayden's credibility'? Does the Minister agree that this criticism from a senior Minister of the largest country in the region about Mr Hayden's handling of such sensitive matters will further damage our standing with the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the conclusions Senator Hamer drew from the statements made last week by Mr Mochtar. I am not at all sure that, on further thinking about it, Mr Mochtar would wish to repeat that assertion. In subsequent communications he has made it perfectly clear to Australian Government representatives that he accepts as extremely useful guidelines for the further discussion of the resolution of the Kampuchean problem the clarifications obtained by Mr Hayden. Furthermore, despite all the suggestions that were made in a number of places about the inappropriateness of Mr Hayden visiting Vietnam at a time when its troops were apparently engaged in across-the-border attacks in Thailand, Mr Mochtar himself has in the last three days paid just such a visit and at the same time, with Vietnamese troops still engaged in doing whatever it was they were doing a few days earlier, has not found it possible to come out with the same sort of condemnation of that incursion as Mr Hayden very properly and very honestly made when the true facts of the matter became known to him. So far as Australia's relations with ASEAN at large are concerned, it has to be understood that the language employed by the Indonesian Foreign Minister was comparatively mild by comparison with a great deal of that which has been employed in issues of a bilateral and multilateral kind by Indonesian ministerial representatives over the years. That is a further matter to be taken into account in judging the weight and adverse effect of that exchange. So far as the other ASEAN partners are concerned, the issues are quite unequivocal. This morning's Melbourne Age reported an absolutely unequivocal statement by Mr Dhanabalan, the Singapore Foreign Minister, indicating that the reaction in Australia to the events of the previous week struck him as nothing short of hysterical. He was, of course, referring to the unbelievable performance we witnessed from Mr Peacock and Opposition spokesmen in this respect. He made perfectly clear his view that a political stick was being used to beat Mr Hayden, which he thought quite inappropriate in all the circumstances. So far as the Thais are concerned, who are allegedly those most upset by the kind of initiatives in which Mr Hayden engaged- Senator Walters —What about China and Singapore? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already said something about Singapore. The honourable senator may have been confused by the gentleman's Indian name, but he is the Singapore Foreign Minister. The Thais have described the clarification of the Vietnamese position obtained by Mr Hayden as helpful in their further moves to try to untangle, along with everyone else, the Cambodian situation. Moreover, I was advised a few minutes ago by Mr Hayden that just a few days ago the Thai Ambassador to Australia contacted Mr Hayden to express his concern at the extraordinary and, in his view, quite unjustified media and Opposition reaction to the events of previous days. He indicated his willingness to go on the 60 Minutes program a couple of days ago with Mr Hayden-if Mr Hayden had wanted him to-to express his support. The Malaysians actually asked for the information about the clarification of the Vietnamese position that Mr Hayden was seeking. They have expressed gratitude for the clarifications that have been obtained and there has been no question of any criticism from them. The Philippines has been totally preoccupied with domestic circumstances and does not appear to have expressed any interest whatsoever in the alleged crisis into which Australia's ASEAN relations have been thrown by the events of last week. I simply make the point that an enormous amount of what occurred last week has been the subject of quite grotesque misrepresentation and overreaction, not least, of course, the foundation on which so much comment was made-the suggestion that Mr Hayden had accepted, at its face value and without any demur or questioning, the propositions put to him about the Vietnamese and about there being no incursions. If honourable senators look at the precise record of exactly what Mr Hayden said to the journalists accompanying him, they will see that he was making it perfectly clear that he was simply retailing what he had been told and qualifying that by saying that, in the event that there did prove to be something in the nature of an incursion, he would be quick to condemn that. That is something which he retailed to Mr Thach and about which he advised the journalists in question. Of course, when it did become clear, as a result of subsequent intelligence assessments and the information provided to Mr Hayden by the Thais, that there had, in fact, been such an incursion, he, as always, was true to his word and made that condemnation. The whole thing has been a totally fabricated and overplayed misrepresentation of what at every stage was a totally honest and professionally conducted initiative. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has quoted. The PRESIDENT —The Minister is tabling a paper. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What information does the Minister have on the recent performance of the Queensland economy? In particular, has he examined the latest Queensland jobless figures? If so, how does the labour market position in Queensland compare with the position for Australia as a whole at present? Senator WALSH —I do not have any figures on economic growth rates in Queensland. If one looks at what has been happening to employment, it is reasonable to assume that growth is either stagnant or maybe even negative. In the year ended February last Queensland achieved what had not been achieved in Australia since the unhappy days of the Fraser Government, that is, an absolute fall in the number of people employed. For the year ended February 1985 the number of people employed in Queensland actually fell, whereas in the rest of Australia, of course, total employment increased at a very rapid rate. Indeed, some 360,000-I think the figure is 360,000-additional jobs have been provided in less than two years since this Government has been in power. Senator Evans, of course, mentioned a couple of weeks ago that bankruptcies in Queensland were up by 27 per cent in the last calendar year, whereas in every other State they were falling. A year ago Queensland had 15 1/2 per cent of the unemployed in Australia, which is about the same proportion as it has of the population. That figure has now gone up to 19 per cent. Queensland now has a vastly higher proportion of the nation's unemployed than it has of the total population. Because of that it follows, of course, that Queensland's unemployment rate presently is 11.3 per cent, compared with a national average of 8.2 per cent or 8.3 per cent. At any rate, there are three percentage points difference between the Queensland rate and the national average rate of unemployment. In addition, Queensland has the highest per capita debt of any State. Queensland has been going down the Argentinian road under the Bjelke-Petersen Government for some time, recklessly accumulating debt and managing to conceal for a considerable time the consequences of that Government's economic mismanagement because of the natural resources of the State and the demand for them in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The wild spending spree has now come to an end. The consequences of the Bjelke-Petersen Government's economic mismanagement are catching up with it, which might not disturb anyone very much. What is unfortunate is that the real sufferers are the unfortunate people of Queensland who have the most unfortunate distinction of having an unemployment rate of above 11 per cent, going upwards, when the rest of the country has an unemployment rate of just over 8 per cent, going downwards. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He would no doubt be aware of the desperate plight of the sugar industry whereby thousands of people's livelihoods are threatened and the economy of many northern New South Wales and Queensland country towns is in danger of collapse. In view of the fact that the Minister is largely responsible for organising Federal Government assistance of $326m for the car and steel industries, I ask him whether he would be prepared to use his considerable influence in Cabinet to help secure a floor price of $240 a tonne for the sugar industry. As the situation in the sugar industry gets worse every day, will he explain when and how the meaningful assistance promised by Mr Hawke before the last election will be implemented? Senator BUTTON —As Senator Boswell may or may not be aware, while the motor vehicle and steel industries are primarily within my responsibility, the sugar industry is not. Much of the responsibility for the current situation in the sugar industry rests with the Queensland Government. However, over a period the Government has given some consideration to the plight of the sugar industry. An official has just passed me a note which brings me up to date on the consideration which has been given to the problems of the sugar industry. In discussions with, amongst others, some Queensland Government politicians I have been aware of an appreciation of the reality and the causes of the crisis in the sugar industry. That appreciation is lacking in some of the wilder suggestions contained in Senator Boswell's question. Senator Boswell —It was a very easy question. Senator BUTTON —It was a very easy question, but I do not have a very easy answer because the problems of the sugar industry will not be resolved by producing a wad of notes such as the Opposition promised in the election campaign before last as the final solution for that industry's problems. I will not dwell on those problems at the moment. I will direct the question to the Minister for Primary Industry who is essentially responsible and provide Senator Boswell with an answer as soon as possible. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security whether his attention has been drawn to a report in yesterday's edition of the Courier-Mail in which the Opposition social security spokesman, Mr Braithwaite, claimed that more than 50,000 pensioners, most on incomes below the minimum wage, would lose their pensions because of the assets test. In light of the report and the claims made, would the Minister explain the true position with regard to the assets test as it affects pensioners? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article in the Courier-Mail quoting Mr Braithwaite's statements on the assets test. It is interesting that now the facts are out the numbers of pensioners affected by the assets test, as quoted by members of the Opposition, have been going down rapidly. A few weeks ago the figure was said to be 350,000; in a matter of public importance put forward by Senator Messner in the last sitting week it came down to 150,000; and Mr Braithwaite has now brought the figure down to 50,000. He said that 50,000 pensioners, most with incomes below the minimum wage, would lose their pension because of the assets test. The exact details of the number of people affected are not yet available because the assets test has just been introduced, but it seems that about 30,000 people will cease to receive the pension and about 20,000 people will have their pensions reduced. Many of those to lose their pensions altogether have been receiving only a small pension because of the effects of the income test as it already exists. The current minimum award wage is $150.60 a week. Under the income test a person will receive some pension until his or her weekly income reaches $213-odd if he or she is single or $356.60 if married. Under the assets test, people will cease to qualify for a pension if assets exceed $110,000 for a single home owner or $177,000 for a married couple. These figures refer to people earning much more than $150.60 a week. The simple fact of the matter is that, although I spoke many times in this place of the perils of making an estimate, we estimated that 2 per cent of social security pensioners would be affected. I understand that the figure is about 2.3 per cent, which is an accuracy beyond anything I could have predicted at the time. The fact is that we will get more money from the assets test than we believed, because people have many more assets than we believed they had as no asset figures had been collected. I think the same applies to Senator Gietzelt and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Statements such as those by Mr Braithwaite-although he has lowered his sights considerably-are not accurate. They are certainly a little more accurate than those of Senator Messner and other honourable senators, but even Mr Braithwaite is quite wrong in suggesting that that number of pensioners receiving below the minimum wage will lose their pensions. It is simply inaccurate. Full figures will be available in a couple of weeks. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Where grants are made to schools under programs administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, is it Government policy to provide information on any grant to each member of the House of Representatives within whose electorate the school receiving the grant is located? Senator RYAN —I do not know whether it is a question of Government policy, but it has certainly been my practice since I became Minister for Education to ask the Schools Commission to inform the honourable members of any grants going to schools in their electorates. I am not sure whether that is done absolutely systematically, but it is certainly my intention that honourable members will have that information available to them. It is in everybody's interests, including those of the local member, to know exactly what the Commonwealth is spending on schools in each electorate. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's answer, how does she reconcile the answer with a minute that has been circulated within the Commonwealth Schools Commission by First Assistant Commissioner R. P. McNamara, dated 14 February, in which it is stated that at the request of the Minister's office information is now to be made available only to those members and senators who are from the Australian Labor Party and that Opposition members and senators are no longer to receive information about the grants? If the Minister accepts the principles which she has just laid down, how come that this disgraceful minute has been circulated as an instruction to the officers who are under her control? Senator RYAN —I do not know why that minute has come into existence. I will have the matter investigated. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that unions and staff associations in the Australian Public Service have been engaged in a wage campaign in recent months, claiming that they received depressed wages in comparison with outside employment? Will the Minister supply available information on the levels of salary being paid to employees of his Department and the number of staff at each level, and how do these figures compare with the Australian work force in general? Senator GIETZELT —It probably would not be proper to comment on the wage and salary case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. However, I can say that in my Department approximately two-thirds of the staff is employed in institutions where employees are notoriously lowly paid and the other third is in the administration of my Department-a total of over 12,000 employees. Approximately 55 to 60 per cent of the staff members in the central office and the branch organisations are on salaries of less than average weekly earnings. As I have indicated, on the institution side of my Department, 75 per cent of the staff is receiving salaries less, and often considerably less, than average weekly earnings. Of the total number employed in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, half earn less than $16,000 a year. When superannuation and tax are taken out, their take-home salary is approximately $200 a week. This indicates that public servants, in my Department, at least, are not highly paid in relation to community standards. Therefore, one can understand the insistence by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association that there should be some wage justice for them in respect of their current applications. I point out that average weekly earnings have now reached $397.40 a week as at December 1984 and that means an annual salary of just over $20,000. On those figures, the salaries of the bulk of my staff fall far short of that average. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. Has the Attorney-General seen the report that the visiting Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Professor Kapitsa-- Senator Gareth Evans —Are you talking about the Attorney-General or me? Senator MacGIBBON —I am sorry; my apologies. Has the Minister seen the report that the visiting Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Professor Kapitsa, has offered that, in return for the closure of the joint United States-Australian defence facilities, the Soviets would sign a pact in which they would promise never to use weapons against this country. Is the Government giving consideration to this proposition in Cabinet, in Caucus or in any of its party units? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer is no. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Will the Minister ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board and management are advised that Queensland viewers reliant on the remote area television service are totally dissatisfied with the news and weather services as presented direct from Sydney? These communities are totally out of touch with their State news and weather forecasts. Can the Minister ascertain why the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is failing to provide relevant news and weather services to these remote communities? Furthermore, can he advise when the ABC will adopt the Government's commitment to localism and provide appropriate services to local communities which, after all, fund the Corporation? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I did not even know of the question. I will refer it to Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, to see what information he can provide. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that his predecessor, Mr Dawkins, made a statement on 7 September 1984 in which he said: Another major reform involves the presentation of financial impact statements. In future, all second reading speeches of Ministers will include a statement of the financial impact of the legislation. These statements will include estimates of any significant costs, revenue and savings arising directly from that legislation. He went on: Ministers will also attempt to assess the impact on industry and other sections of the community when formulating legislation. He concluded: The Government is taking this action because it believes the community has a right to know the financial and economic effect of Government policies and programs. This reform will give tangible effect to this belief. The Minister will be aware that no Minister made any such financial impact statement when introducing any legislation into this Parliament, except on one occasion when the Senate refused to pass legislation until it had seen such a financial impact statement. I ask this Minister for Finance: Does he adopt Mr Dawkins's proposal or does he refuse to accept that the people are entitled to know the financial and economic effect of government policies and programs? Senator WALSH —The first question was whether I was aware of the statement made by Mr Dawkins. The answer is yes. Senator Lewis said that all Ministers, with one exception, had failed to comply with that. I do not believe that that is correct because Senator Grimes, who is sitting alongside me, tells me that he produced such a statement in presenting legislation. So I do not believe that that assertion is correct. It may be that not all Ministers have complied with that policy, bearing in mind that that is not just a Dawkins policy, but a decision of the Government. I will make inquiries to see whether Ministers have complied with that policy and if they have not I will endeavour to see that future second reading speeches do incorporate such information. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and follows somewhat the question Senator Baume asked earlier. Is it true that the Government has deferred processing applications for capital grants through the Commonwealth Schools Commission until May 1985? Surely the Government must be aware that funding programs for schools are formulated well in advance and that this will cause considerable hardship not only for future pupils but also for children who are already at school. Senator RYAN —Obviously Senator Sheil is not aware that the matter he raised was the subject of a question in the Senate some weeks ago. I explained in some detail that, on the advice of the Schools Commission, I had made a decision that the processing of capital grants for commencements in 1987 should be frozen for three months. The three-month period is almost up. In fact, the Acting Commissioner advised me last week that processing is about to begin again. At the same time as the freeze was announced, ample provision was made for exemption to that freeze for any project which would be adversely affected. The purpose of the freeze was to enable the Commission to catch up with the backlog of applications and also to make sure that the change from one policy to another was achieved smoothly and without any project being disadvantaged. I believe that that has been the case. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister for Community Services inform the Senate of the practice in the Department of Community Services regarding notifying local members of grants to be made in their electorates? Senator GRIMES —The practice which I have continued in the Department of Community Services, having been Minister for Social Security, is that when funds are made available to local organisations in various electorates throughout the country, as they are Government funds Government members are notified immediately and, where there are not Government members, the Government senator is notified. After that, Opposition members will be notified. I followed that practice because I found that it was the practice of my predecessor, Senator Chaney. On coming to office I received a letter from the Honourable Ray Groom, who was then the member for Braddon, requesting that I let him know several days before I made any announcement in his electorate so that he could let all the local organisations and Press know and therefore, obviously, get the credit for it. I notified Mr Groom at the time that my practice would be the same as that of my predecessor, Senator Chaney, with one exception-I would not be notifying candidates of my Party as distinct from members of my Party because I thought that that was going a little too far. I think it is a worthwhile practice and, as Government expenditure was notified in that way during our years in opposition, I saw no reason to change the practice when I became Minister. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As the import parity pricing formula used by this Government and its predecessor has failed to reduce oil consumption, increases the rate of inflation and reduces Australia's international competitiveness and, because it is based on Saudi crude in United States dollars, is now proving to be the fastest growing source of tax revenue in Australia, will the Government undertake to revise the formula taking into account that Australia is 70 per cent self-sufficient in oil production but still uses a formula which increases the price of petrol in Australia while around the world oil prices are dropping? Senator WALSH —We are accustomed to having dilettante Democrats in the Senate, who pick up a handful of single issue zealot votes or single issue cause votes on anything they can think of, in the knowledge that they need to get 10 per cent of the vote-indeed, they will need a bit more than that in the future-to survive in this place and in the full knowledge that they will never be called upon to accept the responsibility for any policy or inconsistent set of policies which they advocate. The only policy that I can remember the Leader of the Democrats really pursuing was the policy of sending conscripts to Vietnam in the 1960s when he was Minister for the Navy. He sent Australian conscripts to Vietnam, and he has their blood on his hands. I remember that every time I hear him pontificating in the Senate about peace. Senator Jack Evans —I raise a point of order. Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister has lost complete relationship with the question and even with the questioner. He is talking about another member of this Party and he is referring to everything but the question. I suggest that he be brought back into line by you. Senator Gareth Evans —Further to the point of order, to the extent the Minister might be ranging a little wide, might I suggest that it is a product of the questioner asking completely the wrong Minister. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question has been directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I would ask the Minister representing the Treasurer to confine his remarks to the question directed to him by Senator Jack Evans. Senator WALSH —I can only agree with my learned colleague on my right, who said the question was directed to the wrong Minister. I think he is right on two grounds, and he might wish to make some comments as to the policy aspects of it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I seek leave, under standing order 408, to make a brief explanation on a matter of a personal nature. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —During Question Time Senator Chipp suggested that all members of the Opposition condoned the actions of Pol Pot and the Pol Pot regime. I wish to dissociate myself from any such allegation and to say that under no circumstances whatsoever do I condone in any way or support in any way the actions taken by Pol Pot and the regime over which he was the leader. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a statement under standing order 408 on behalf of Opposition senators. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —Rather than have the situation where all Opposition senators have to associate themselves with remarks similar to those made by Senator Rae, I would say that we all repudiate the view that we are supporters of Pol Pot. It sits oddly in the mouths of Ministers when their own Minister for Foreign Affairs has been specifically pursuing inquiries about the extent to which the Vietnamese are prepared to deal with elements of the Pol Pot regime. I think the whole thing is simply a political slur on the part of Senator Chipp and members of the Government. On behalf of the Opposition, I repudiate it entirely. Motion (by Senator Chaney)-by leave-agreed to: That Government Paper No. 31 relating to the Ministerial Statement on the Report of the Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, be first considered. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper covers the Kirby report on labour market programs. It is one that has been looked to with a great deal of interest by many organisations and people in the community, and, of course, it touches on the very vital question of youth unemployment. This is International Youth Year and, consequently, there is, no doubt, a considerable amount of community attention and media attention on the question of labour market programs as they affect youth. While youth constitutes a relatively high proportion of the total number of unemployed-I think the number runs currently at around 21 per cent of the total-it may not be the fastest growing area of unemployment. Perhaps that is one consideration that the Government ought to take into account when reviewing the report. It is clear that people who are now over the age of 50 are finding it extraordinarily difficult to find work. They have a vastly different problem from that of youth insofar as many of them are disemployed after giving, say, 20 or 25 years of service to a firm, and they find it extraordinarily difficult to be retrained for other work. That group needs special attention. Perhaps the key issue in the Kirby report, something which has deservedly attracted a great deal of attention in the media, is the question of the trainee wage. It has been referred to by some as a cut in youth wages which would lead to an improvement in youth employment. When the report was released last December, it is interesting that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his original statement, made great play of the fact that the report denied that cutting wages for youth would in fact increase youth employment opportunities. Yet the very existence of the report demonstrates that the opposite is true. The report, amongst its major recommendations, seeks to subsidise training programs directly from the taxpayer. It recognises quite clearly that youth wages are substantially too high. That is implied in Mr Kirby's report. It demonstrates that effectively transferring the cost of training from the private sector to the taxpayer brings in a de facto subsidy for youth wages. The Government refuses to acknowledge that point. Obviously it is the key point and one which we from the Opposition side of the chamber see as recognition of the vital point that we have been making about the ability of this country to create jobs for youth. There has been much argument about this matter. The idea has been greatly supported, as can be seen in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. It reports that the Bureau of Labour Market Research has stated that it believes that subsidised wages for young workers in the public sector, as part of a scheme to reduce Australia's alarmingly high level of youth unemployment, are a vital element in attacking the problem. I think Senator Harradine was referring to that a little earlier today. Senator Harradine —I was not referring to youth wages; I will be referring to them in a moment. Senator MESSNER —I thought the honourable senator was talking about the BLMR report. The question does deserve a great deal more attention by the community and indeed is one which we will be pursuing from this side of the chamber with a view to giving support to the general thrust of the Kirby recommendations as we see them. The recommendations implicitly recognise the need for subsidy for youth wages, admitting the de facto point that youth wages are too high. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.14) —I rise to defend the youth of Australia from this type of nonsense. My concern is that if the sort of panacea that has been presented by the Liberal Party at the present takes hold two problems will emerge. Firstly, the youth will bear the unfair burden that has been placed upon them by successive governments in this country. Secondly, it will mean that, as with all panaceas, expectations will be raised in regard to youth employment or overall employment in this country and those expectations will not be achieved. The problem with Senator Messner's sort of contribution and other contributions that I have heard is that they are not disciplined enough. They do not look at the facts and figures that are staring us in the face. The facts that are staring us in the face have been outlined not only by the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-in five minutes it is impossible for me to say what I want to say about the report-but also by the latest report that has come down today, information on which has been published on the front page of the Australian and in other media. Let us take the example of the Australian Public Service over which the Government has control. What has happened there? The Bureau of Labour Market Research indicates that, over a period of 10 years, 50,000 teenage jobs were wiped out. In 1966-frankly, I do not know whether these figures are as accurate as mine-youth comprised 22.7 per cent of the total Public Service work force. Today the figure has reached all time low of 6.6 per cent. Is that because youth wages were too high in the Public Service? Youth wages, as a percentage of adult wages in the Public Service, are virtually the same today as they were in 1966. We should look at that fact and at those figures. They tear down this stupid panacea that has been put forward. I want the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to analyse why that has occurred in the Public Service. Let us analyse what Dr Wilenski, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, is doing now. He is discriminating against youth in employment because he is demanding that departments employ adult women in youth jobs. He is in effect saying: 'Let us get more permanent part time works so that the wives of chief public servants in Canberra can have a job'. In one case, a half colonel retired on superannuation. The next day he competed with young people in the Public Service examination and he got the job. These are the sorts of things that people have to analyse right down to the last comment that can be made. Panaceas will not create jobs for young people. They will create more misery for them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.19) —I comment very briefly on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. It demands a most lengthy debate in this Parliament and it demands documents more detailed and more comprehensive than this report. I am not satisfied with the report. I believe that it looks at symptoms and not at causes and it does not advance cures. I believe that this is one of these things that we do so often-we deal episodically with these situations. Of course, the long term situation and cure is for Australia to create more productive jobs which will give career opportunities not only to the young but to anybody-be that person a married woman or anybody else. It is not good enough merely to shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is not good enough merely to replace married women on higher wages with young people. Young people need to be able to see clearly an expansion of our manufacturing industry, and industries which are now contracting very rapidly in Australia, so that we can have this progress. I was very puzzled because inherent in this is the fact that when youngsters leave school they need to have more training, and I do not question that. However, the retention rate in Australian schools is considerably lower than that of our major trading nations, and we should be examining the cause of this. We should be looking at what has emerged from the various programs in recent years. We know that each year in Australia between 50,000 and 75,000 young Australians come onto the labour market who through no fault of their own are basically unemployable, even if there are jobs for them. A lack of reasonable self-esteem has been identified as a problem. What kind of community are we, what kind of society and education system do we have, which brings forward people with unduly low self-esteem? It is not a reflection on those young people but on society itself that they lack motivation. In fact, in the original research for the education program for unemployed youth scheme it became quite clear that, although they lacked basic skills, the fundamental problem is unduly low self-esteem. They undervalue themselves and do not have motivation. We ought not to be looking only at new schemes. We should look at early childhood and at schools and ask ourselves a couple of questions. How is it that 50,000 to 75,000 people are turned on to the scrap-heap each year? How is it that we are destroying our youth? What goes wrong in the family, the primary school or the high school? What is wrong with parents and primary teachers helping children along and motivating them? Why is it that we have unduly early school leavers at 15 years of age who say repeatedly: 'School is not for me; it does not give me anything'? We should look into that. Why do we not have reports into that? Why do we not look into whether the Wyndham type of system in high schools is still relevant? We ought to have a general comprehensive scheme of education, but perhaps those who seek trade training, who are looking towards a technical training, should look more to an intermixture of technical as well as other skills. Hamlet's soliloquy is not necessarily applicable for all in terms of a full life. We should look at two things. From the family through to school leaving age, are we equipping people with the drive, motivation, willingness and eagerness to learn basic skills? Are we equipping them with a choice and, of course, with a job at the end? I am terrified that what we are busy doing is creating palliatives and excuses for ourselves. I regret that five minutes does not allow the expansion of something that deserves some days of extensive debate. I regret that this report is too limited in its substance and its detail for us to identify the real cause and effect. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.23) —Firstly, I commend the Government on initiating the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. Secondly, I commend the writers of the report. I believe it is a very valuable step forward, provided that it is followed through. A number of areas are covered within the report, some in detail but some not yet in sufficient detail for implementation to follow automatically. Those areas include several that the Australian Democrats and I for many years have been endeavouring to have addressed. Amongst those is one of the major recommendations of the report-the introduction of a traineeship system outside the apprenticeship system. This recognises that employers cannot in all cases continue to bear the brunt of training their employees from the very start of that training process. Senator Harradine —In what industry? Senator JACK EVANS —In many industries. The proof of this is that so many employers have opted out of the apprenticeship system and instead rely on paying above award wages to steal apprentices who have been trained by other employers. That applies equally to other semi-skilled employees who are stolen as soon as they are trained by the responsible employer. Senator Harradine —Apprentices have a training wage already. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Harradine has made his speech. I want to make my points. Senator Harradine —Apprentices have a training wage already. Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed. I address particularly the fact that this report concentrates on youth. There is a similar need for adult retraining. We have become willing partners-we in the Parliament, the Government, employers and particularly government departments-in the acceptance of the phrase 'natural attrition' when redundancy is part of an agreement between government and an industry. Provided natural attrition takes place, we will accept reduced numbers in the enterprise or industry. We must realise that natural attrition means that fewer youths will be employed. Fewer people will enter the industry or enterprise as older people leave. We have to realise that that is one of the major causes of youth unemployment. The Liberals' cure for it, the quick, off-the-top-of-the-head cure of cutting youth wages, has been proven by responses around Australia to lack any depth or capacity for realistic implementation. The Liberals have been challenged: 'By how much would you cut youth wages?' Silence is the response. 'What is the impact on older employees when you cut youth wages?' Again, silence is the response. 'Do you really create more jobs when you cut youth wages?' Silence, again, is the response. I put it to Senator Sir John Carrick that the approach by the Liberal Party of Australia is epitomised not by just shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic but rather by the approach that was evident for many years of abandoning the bridge while the Titanic was heading for the icebergs. Now we have struck the icebergs, and the sufferers are the young people in this country. I think we can get unanimity in the Senate that what is needed is an increase in the skills of, and making more formal training available to, young people and linking that with employment where and when it is appropriate. That has to be linked with the increased educational opportunities both in and out of the school system. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.28) —The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs is, I believe, a very important report. It is interesting to see the number of honourable senators who have emphasised that point when they have addressed the report. It is unfortunate, however, that the importance of the report has been diminished by the propensity of some honourable senators to batten on to one aspect that they divine to be the nature of the report and to concentrate their remarks on cutting youth wages. I believe that the report is a very valuable work and that the effort that has been put into it and the initiative of the Government in conducting it in the first place have demonstrated the clear need for us to take a cool, hard, considered view of what is necessary to improve the skills base in this country and to open opportunities for young workers not only by consideration of a scheme such as the traineeship scheme that comes out of this report but also by doing the other things that this report suggests, giving a better focus on the package of services that are available to promote youth employment. I agree conceptually with what Senator Sir John Carrick has said in that this subject may demand a longer debate. I say that there is now a long public debate because this Government took the initiative to have the report brought down and to expose these issues to public view. We did that not because it was necessary to shuffle the deckchairs, but because when we came to office we inherited a mess of policies and services that needed to be better targeted to bring about an effect. The truth is that, although Australia's skills base is growing, it is not growing at anything like the speed it ought to if we are to be competitive in manufacturing exports. Although our skills base is growing, it is not growing as rapidly as it is in some other major countries. I read recently an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development observer report that the West German Government, for example, had set itself a target of encouraging 90 per cent of all school leavers to reach the level of tradesman's skill so that it would have a base of training upon which it could address the other more specialised training needs for technicians and other more highly skilled operatives in an economy which is increasingly automated and which demands more sophisticated skills from its workforce. In this region of the world, Australia historically has had an edge on the cheap labour of its near neighbours because it has had a highly skilled work force. However, if we compare the number of workers training in Australia with the number training in Japan, for example, we find that we are lagging badly. Our edge is being blunted and our ability to compete by virtue of a supply of well trained, sophisticated labour is being lessened. Those issues should grip the debate, not those enunciated this afternoon in the myopic, narrow and indeed blame-the-victims approach taken by Senator Messner in talking about a lowering of youth wages. I understand that the honourable senator is fresh from the snows of Thredbo, where a paper was produced by an executive of MacDonalds Corporation suggesting that a thousand new jobs could be provided by that company if wages for 15-year-olds were cut. That should not be our philosophy, because we could well ask which other workers were to be put out of employment by MacDonalds. We could also ask whether MacDonalds would resist the temptation to take a greater profit share if youth wages were cut. Given the dimensions of this problem, that is a trite and in many respects a pathetic response. The deck chairs on the Titanic would only be shifted if that was the level of concentration and public debate on this most important report and the Minister's statement. That matter was put forward only to try to get a bit of public comment to assist the Confederation of Australian Industry in the national wage case when it argues for youth wages to be held at their present level. If the debate concentrates on that, we will penalise young workers by not giving them the wage that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, after hearing all the arguments, from the employers, the Government and the unions, has determined in all the circumstances is the correct one. We will penalise them because they are young. The answer is to develop, in concert with employers and the union movement, a system that can provide a traineeship system with a trainee wage. I point out that on page 3 of the Minister's statement he said: The trainee wage concept does not constitute a recommendation for cutting youth wages. We need to get agreement on a workable arrangement that does not cut youth wages. The report suggests that the determination of trainee rates should be made through the arbitration system. They would be arbitrated properly after proper consultation. If we can put aside the issue of youth wages as a contributing factor to youth unemployment we can concentrate on the things that need greater attention-the ability to train, improvement of our skills base, and laying the advantage in terms of the resources of this country and its manpower. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.34) —I enter into this debate because the issue is very important, but I am also concerned about the misrepresentation of the position of the Opposition on this matter. Listening to Senator Cook, I was reminded of the character in Alice in Wonderland who said: 'Words mean what I say they mean'. Senator Cook puts the view that a training wage does not imply a reduction in youth wages. Is he suggesting that it is an increase in youth wages? Is he suggesting that youth wages would remain the same? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his statement on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs indicates that a special training wage will take into account not only the fact that people will not be at the workplace all the time as they will be somewhere else training but also 'the trainee's productivity whilst on the job'. I wanted to put to bed completely the notion that there is any suggestion on the part of the Liberal Party or the Opposition that there is some panacea, to use Senator Harradine's word. I assure Senator Harradine and anyone else who may have that impression that it has not been the view of the Opposition, nor is it now, that a suggestion that youth wages need to be changed, whether to a form of a trainee wage or something else, is some form of universal solution. In fact, honourable senators can look at what we said to the Australian people before the last election. I quote from the printed policy that we put out. We said that there should be a public inquiry instituted under the chairmanship of the President or the Deputy President of the new tribunal-that is the replacement of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-into the 'criteria to be used in setting junior wage rates'. In other words, we picked up the view that was put forward by the Bureau of Market Labour Studies in a report that was put down in April 1984 that the issue was serious. We said it would be further examined in the way that I have just outlined. This is a very serious problem affecting a very large number of young Australians. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Kirby report is available to us and welcomes the fact that we now have this further study on youth employment patterns from the Bureau of Labour Market Research which has already been referred to in debate. But it is important to note the comment which was made in the Sydney Morning Herald and which was referred to by my colleague Senator Messner, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, namely that the trainee wage, the size of which would be worked out on an industry by industry basis, is seen as a discreet method of reducing the level of youth wages. Again I go back to the statement of the Minister, the Hon. Ralph Willis, which we are debating. Mr Willis said: A major feature of the traineeship proposal is for the determination of a trainee wage, which would be based on the time spent on-the-job by the trainee and the nature and extent of on-the-job training provided by the employer. The trainee wage concept does not constitute a recommendation for cutting youth wages. In the next paragraph, he said: . . . it will reflect the fact that the trainee will be spending time in formal training away from the workplace, and will also take account of the trainee's productivity whilst on the job. Senator Harradine expressed concern about the fact that many married women, for example, are now employed in the Public Service or the private sector and are holding jobs which in a previous labour market pattern were held perhaps by young people. This pattern is not just a function of attitudinal change and programs run by Dr Wilenski or anybody else. The reality is that for many employers those women are more productive and profitable employees than youthful and inexperienced persons. In many industries, including my old profession of the law, there has been a marked change in the last 20 years in the proportion of young, single, inexperienced people who are employed and married women who are employed. I am suggesting that part of the mix in this, one of the factors which is significant, is that those experienced workers are currently more economic to employ than less experienced workers. That is a factor which needs to be taken into account in determining what wages are to be paid in any circumstance. That is not a criticism of youth. It is merely facing the reality that for many employees training is obtained on the job. In the years inexperienced people are employed they are learning. They gradually become more productive employees. It is a reasonable proposition that that should be a factor in determining the level of wages which are paid at any particular time. I hope that we can have many debates on this subject, because I believe it is critically important to Australia's future. The Australian Democrats, in contributing to this debate, were less than just to the views which have been put by the Opposition, as also was Senator Harradine. I hope that in longer debates we will have a better chance to expand these matters and to deal with them in a more satisfactory way. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator Reid-I move, Mr Deputy President, in relation to two of the papers, that they be listed for General Business on Thursday of this week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not necessary. If no motion is moved regarding them, the honourable senator may bring them up in General Business on Thursday without such a motion. Senator Chaney-I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The system here is not very sensible. Nothing is shown on the notices before us for Thursday or Friday as to what is there. I believe that, if honourable senators wish to move that the papers be taken note of, that is a very appropriate course. Motion (by Senator Reid)-by leave-agreed to: That papers No. 9 and No. 30 be taken note of and be listed for General Business on Thursday of this week. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.42) —I present the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources' report on plant variety rights. I do so on behalf of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the Senate. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources has produced a lengthy and detailed report on this controversial issue. The sensitivity of the subject is reflected in the fact that two members made a minority report. The Committee concluded that plant variety rights-PVR-is the most appropriate means of improving access to overseas varieties and stimulating plant breeding in Australia, and recommended that the Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia. However, it also conceded that the funding and direction of public plant breeding activity under PVR were issues that were not adequately addressed in evidence to the Committee. The Government, as is well known, is committed not to introduce a PVR scheme without an inquiry into Australia's plant breeding needs and all other alternatives to PVR. Accordingly, the Government has decided to establish an inquiry to examine plant breeding needs in Australia and the options for upgrading the public plant breeding program. The specific terms of reference of the inquiry are: Having regard to the debate on the possible introduction of a Plant Variety Rights (PVR) scheme into Australia, and the need to ensure that plant breeding remains responsive to industry needs and receptive to changes in technology, investigate and report by 30 September 1985 on Australia's plant breeding needs and all other alternatives to PVR. In carrying out its work, the Inquiry examination include the following specific areas: (a) the adequacy of the current plant breeding effort, both public and private (b) any deficiencies and imbalances in the current programs (c) where needs are identified under (a) and (b), the expected impact on those needs of the possible introduction of PVR (d) options available to overcome any problems identified under (a) or (b) (e) what adjustments, if any, should be made to public plant breeding programs if PVR were introduced (f) the desirability of public plant breeders being encouraged to compete with private sector breeders in variety development and, if desirable, the options available to effect this, and (g) the alternatives to PVR for stimulating private plant breeding activity. The Senate report recommended that the Commonwealth suggest to the States that the Australian Agricultural Council-AAC-review the adequacy of government support for public plant breeding and also determine priorities for public plant breeding. This option has not been acted upon because we believe that the tasks of reviewing plant breeding, including that undertaken within the public sector, will require a full time effort over the coming months. Our view is that since the review is scientific in nature, it should be done by an eminently qualified person and that the resultant report should be considered by AAC and its Standing Committee on Agriculture. Following this review process, the Government will be better able to consider the desirability and nature of a PVR scheme for Australia. In this event, the specific recommendations of the Senate report will provide valuable assistance in designing a scheme which will be of the greatest benefit to all Australians. The Government's responses to each of the 24 specific recommendations of the Senate report are attached, and I seek leave to have this attachment incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The attachment read as follows- RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: The Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia (p. 66). Response: Consideration will be in the context of the findings of the Inquiry into Australia's plant breeding needs. Recommendation 2: All plant species have the potential to be included in an Australian PVR scheme. However, the Committee also recommends that initially any PVR scheme have the potential to include horticulture, ornamental and fodder and pasture varieties only and that before a decision is made to include field crops, the Commonwealth suggest to the States that the AAC examine the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding in Australia (p. 49). Response: The nature of any PVR scheme will be influenced by the findings of the Inquiry. This will include assessment of the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding. Recommendation 3: In the drafting of any PVR legislation, consideration be given to the automatic inclusion of all genera of ornamental plants (p. 71). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 4: If a PVR scheme is introduced, it effectiveness and impact be assessed following a minimum of five years operation (p. 58). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 5: The Commonwealth suggest to the States that the AAC review the adequacy of government support for public plant breeding and also determine priorities for public plant breeding. Any such examination should take account of funds generated from the sale of publicly bred varieties registered under any PVR scheme (p. 18). Response: The Government intends to appoint a highly qualified person to conduct a review of plant breeding. The report should be completed by late 1985. Subsequently, it will be discussed by AAC and its Standing Committee on Agriculture. Recommendation 6: Any effects of proprietary control over varieties, including a possible diminution in consumer effectiveness, be taken into account in determining the level of government expenditure on public breeding (p. 33). Response: Agreed. This question will be examined by the Inquiry. Recommendation 7: Publicly bred varieties be eligible for registration under any PVR scheme (p. 17). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 8: The Commonwealth suggest to the States that the AAC consider how a merit testing system might operate in Australia, the costs involved and the distribution of costs between Commonwealth and State Governments and breeders. It also recommends that any merit testing system be reviewed five years after its introduction (p. 29). Response: This issue will be referred to AAC following the review of plant breeding by the Inquiry. Recommendation 9: Any PVR legislation require the grantee of PVR in respect of a variety to provide seed of that variety for inclusion in an appropriate national collection (p. 41). Response: Agreed Recommendation 10: The level of Commonwealth support for the preservation of genetic resources within Australia be reviewed with a view to upgrading facilities (p. 42). Response: Agreed. As a first step, the Commonwealth agreed to contribute $357,000 in 1984-85 to upgrade germ plasm storage facilities in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales. The States and CSIRO are major contributors and are meeting the on-going costs of collection and storage. The proposal has been discussed in AAC for some time and is seen as essential in maintaining the capacity and flexibility of future private and public plant breeding programs. Recommendation 11: Should a PVR scheme be introduced, consideration be given to Australia becoming a signatory to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) (p. 58). Response: Whether or not UPOV membership is desirable will, to a large extent, be dependent on the nature of any PVR which might be introduced. Recommendation 12: Before any PVR legislation is drafted, the Department of Primary Industry closely examine all evidence presented to the Committee which was critical of the provisions of the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982 and hold discussions with the relevant parties where necessary (P. 67). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 13: In any PVR legislation, the interpretation section include definitions of the word 'plant', 'cultivar' and 'tree' (p. 68). Response: Agreed, subject to the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. Recommendation 14: Any PVR legislation not give preferential treatment to foreign breeders in respect of varieties previously sold (p. 69). Response: Agreed, consistent with the need to access overseas varieties. Recommendation 15: In any PVR legislation the criteria for determining 'newness' or 'novelty' be clarified (p. 70). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 16: In determining the level of fees to be paid by breeders in any PVR scheme, fees not be set at a level which would discourage non-corporate plant breeders (p. 72). Response: Agreed, whilst noting that, should the Government decide to introduce PVR, it would need to be self supporting financially. Recommendation 17: Consideration be given to including in any PVR legislation a requirement that where a variety has been tested under Australian conditions details be included in the PVR application (p. 72). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 18: Details of applications for PVR be available in all capital cities (p. 73) Response: Agreed. Recommendation 19: As part of any PVR scheme an Australian Plant Variety Journal be published quarterly to provide information regarding the operation of the scheme (p. 73). Response: Desirability will be considered by Advisory Committee. See response to Recommendation 20. Recommendation 20: An Advisory Committee be established under any PVR scheme to assist in its administration (p. 74). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 21: In view of the potential overlap between the Patents Act 1952 and any PVR legislation, consideration be given to prohibiting dual protection (p. 74). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 22: Consideration be given to making the Australian Patents Office responsible for the administration of any PVR legislation (p. 75). Response: Any policy aspects of a PVR scheme will be administered by the Department of Primary Industry. Any further administrative issues will be considered after the review of plant breeding of the Inquiry. Recommendation 23: Further consideration be given to the inclusion of varieties derived from mutants and chance seedlings in any PVR legislation (p. 76). Response: Agreed. Recommendation 24: Under any PVR scheme, a simple and relatively inexpensive method be advised to enable a breeder to seek redress against infringements (p. 76). Response: Agree to consider. Senator GIETZELT —I thank the Senate. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to ensure the conservation of the wet tropics of North-East Queensland. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.46) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In November 1983 the Queensland Cabinet gave the Douglas Shire Council $100,000 to start building a 33-kilometre track between Cape Tribulation and Bloomfield River. After just one inch of rain, the ensuing quagmire turned the opening ceremony of the Daintree road into an event of farce and danger and demonstrated that the road's construction was a political exercise. Like the proposal to dam the Franklin River, the road through the Daintree rainforest is an act of wilful environmental vandalism which the Australian Democrats totally oppose. The economic arguments in support of the road are dubious, while the environmental value of the area is beyond reproach. The Daintree region is a unique area of rainforest. Rainforest contains at least 50 per cent of the world's animal and plant species. Daintree is a unique area of this unique resource. It is the largest area of coastal rainforest and the largest contiguous area of virgin rainforest in Australia. It is home to 13 of the 19 most primitive flowering plants on the planet, 67 per cent of Australia's butterflies, 60 per cent of our bats, 30 per cent of out reptiles, and eleven thousand species of plants. The area surrounding the Daintree road is already national park and is listed on the register of the National Estate because of its significance. The environmental damage done to the Daintree and its natural inhabitants by the construction of the road has now extended to the rare fringing coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Recently the first significant scientific study of the coral communities of the fringe reefs off the Daintree coast was undertaken by Dr John Veron of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He found that this section of reef is incredibly rich. For example, in one dive of two hours he found 55 of the 80 genera of coral, and within these 55 genera there were 147 species. It means that this is no ordinary section of reef, but one which is of considerable biological importance. The existence side-by-side of these two different eco-systems, tropical rainforest and fringing reefs is indeed rare: there is only a mere handful of such places in the world. This is the only place in Australia. Now, after the construction of the road and its continual bulldozing by Douglas Shire Council during the wet season, these precious fringing reefs are in great danger. Already there is evidence that the siltation from the 1984-85 wet season is pouring into the reefs. A coral reef in a similar position off one of the southern islands of Japan, died very quickly when a road was built adjacent to it and excessive silt flowed into the sea. Monitoring stations to be set up by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority later this year may simply record the death of the Reef. Sick coral is apparently very difficult to identify. These reefs, part of the Great Barrier Reef, are on the World Heritage List, and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to preserve them. The Democrats remain convinced that the road through the Daintree should never have been built. Not only are the economics of the construction questionable, but we now find environmental destruction affecting a rich rainforest area as well as precious coral reefs. Further, the road itself seems destined to be useless and subject to mishap if the experience of the opening ceremony and its first wet season is anything to go by. An alternative route already exists-the peninsula development road or Mulligan Highway. A proposal for upgrading of this road was submitted to the Federal Minister for Transport in November 1984 by Comalco Alumina Ltd., Weipa, and the Administrator of the Cook Shire Council. The submission states that the upgrading of the peninsula development road will benefit all the people by aiding the development of industries, especially Aboriginal industries, the fishing industry, tourism, and will allow reduction in transport costs. Upgrading would also satisfy defence and surveillance requirements. The Cape Tribulation road can hardly be called a road at all when it will not be able to take trucks, and is closed more times than it is open. Every purpose that the Cape Tribulation road was intended for, but cannot meet, can be provided by an upgraded peninsula development road. The Democrats call on the Government to give urgent consideration and support to this funding request-but the Federal Government funding must be given only if there is a cast-iron guarantee from the Queensland Government that the Cape Tribulation road be abandoned and re-vegetated. The Daintree region, however, is not the only threatened area of Queensland rainforest. The Daintree is part of a larger region of rainforest known as the Wet Tropics of North-East Queensland. That entire area of precious rainforest is existing on borrowed time. Logging is taking place in core wilderness areas at Downey Creek. Commercial development is encroaching at a rapid rate. The Australian Heritage Commission recognised the importance of the area and commissioned in 1984 a report on the international significance of the wet tropics of North-East Queensland. That report was unequivocal in its praise of the area. It concluded: . . . the wet tropics of North-East Queensland are of outstanding conservation significance and more than adequately fulfil the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the 'World Heritage List'. The Heritage Commission's report was certified by four international references. Their conclusions were equally enthusiastic. Dr Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, stated: I believe that the report definitely establishes international heritage significance for the area. Professor P. K. Endress, Zurich University, said: There is no question that the tropical rainforests of North-East Queensland are the most important ecosystems with primitive flowering plants in the world . . . World Heritage nomination is highly justified. Professor R. N. Schuster, University of Massachusetts wrote: The study report . . . establishes the imperative need for preservation status. If economic demands eventually necessitate limiting the area given protection, this should be effect only after we know more about the flora and fauna than is known at present . . . I would argue that the area should be given World Heritage status now . . . James Thorsell of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources concluded: The report is the most detailed evaluation of any prospective World Heritage potential nomination that has been completed for any property. This euphoric worldwide praise has not persuaded this Labor Government to place the fate of a unique area of the world's environment over and above its own political fortunes. This Labor Government has done its utmost to do nothing to save Daintree. It has, I regret to say, succeeded admirably. The Government proposed to nominate the north east Queensland rainforests for the World Heritage List only with the agreement of the Queensland Government. At the same time, this Government has openly admitted that the Queensland Government has no intention of assisting the nomination of any of its unique environment to the World Heritage List. The Queensland Government has rejected any co-operation in putting the rainforests on the World Heritage List and turned down the Federal Government's $1 million management plan. These outright rejections were contained in a letter from the Queensland Premier on 25 September 1984. These rejections, which further condemn the north east Queensland rainforests, have not moved the Labor Government into action. It still remains idle while the environment is denuded. Further, not only have we witnessed an extraordinary public performance by this Government to justify their inaction, we are now beginning to see evidence of collusion between the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and the Queensland Government. In a Home Affairs and Environment minute, released under the Freedom of Information Act, ''(Federal Government Officers) indicated that there had been no media coverage outside northern Queensland, as far as we knew, of the drug issue, nor of the strong local and Aboriginal support for the road. Mr Tenni agreed to give this matter attention and the Minister offered to provide him with the names of journalists who might be interested in investigating the other side of the debate, particularly the drug issue''. It would seem that this agreement between Mr Cohen and Mr Tenni had some results when one reads, in the months following the meeting, numerous reports in the southern newspapers of ''the drug issue'' in the Daintree region. And apparently this is not even the full story as there were four sentences deleted from the minute. The public needs to know the full content of that departmental minute so we can ascertain the extent to which the Federal Government has entered into an ''unholy'' alliance with the Queensland Government over the Daintree. The Democrats believe the Federal Government can and must intervene to protect north east Queensland rainforests. Under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 the Government could proclaim the area to be part of Australia's natural heritage. The Government is able to do that because the ''outstanding universal value'' of the area is now beyond question. Such a proclamation would be clearly open to legal challenge. That, however, is not an issue to be determined by politicians but by the courts. The Government's failure to use its legal powers in its own legislation in accord with its advice from the Heritage Commission is reprehensible. The rainforests of north east Queensland have to be saved. The Democrats' Bill aims to do that until the area is nominated for the World Heritage List. The Democrats' Bill is an interim protection measure designed to overcome the Government's failure to act. The protection is afforded by the High Court or Federal Court issuing declarations of ''natural heritage'' status following an application by an interested person. At the same time (or after) an area is declared as ''natural heritage'' the High Court or Federal Court may grant an injunction restricting the doing of a specified act that would prejudice Australia's duty under Article 4 of the Convention. The World Heritage Convention imposes a number of obligations on signatories. Australia is a signatory. Under Article 4 we have an obligation to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage. Each nation will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources. The Government's refusal to act in accordance with this obligation deserves vigorous condemnation. It should be stressed that the obligation contained in Article 4 is not limited to properties included on the World Heritage List. Article 12 makes that clear. In this Bill the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is required to nominate the wet tropics of north east Queensland for inclusion in the World Heritage List after receiving a report from the Australian Heritage Commission with material for the detailed nomination. The Minister is required to do this without delay. The protection offered by this Bill-the court declarations and injunctions-cease as soon as the nomination for the wet tropics of north east Queensland is undertaken. Once that nomination is underway the Government's World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 offers protection. The wet tropics of north east Queensland are, as Mr Cohen has said, ''a complex mosaic of national parks, state forests, timber reserves, vacant crown land, freehold and leasehold land''. It also contains an Aboriginal reserve. The Democrats recognise these problems. Unlike the Government, we are prepared to work out these problems. The Democrats' Bill is a measure providing temporary protection. That protection is provided to national parks, State forests, timber reserves and the Aboriginal and Islander Reserves all of which are listed in Appendix 1 of the June 1984 'Report of the Society'. These areas are already delineated and gazetted. Private land is not covered. It is the task of the Australian Heritage Commission to determine the detailed boundaries of the area, including private land. Appropriate compensation would have to be worked out. Any destruction of the rainforest environment from now on in will be the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. They have attempted to get the Queensland Government to co-operate but that has failed. They now have to take the initiative and act according to their responsibilities to secure this area for future generations. Fifty acres of the world's rainforests disappear every minute. Over one year that is an area equivalent to the size of Switzerland. Scientists have yet to classify many species of life that are in the rainforests. It is estimated that the loss of rainforests will make extinct between 250,000 and 1.25 million different species by the year 2000. This loss of genetic diversity means that many unknown life forms could disappear before their value is understood. Rainforests have provided substances that have saved human life. In 1960, a child suffering from leukemia had only a one in five chance of remission. Today, thanks to a drug developed from tropical plants, that child has a four in five chance of avoiding leukemia. About half of all modern medicine is derived from plants. In the 200 years since European settlement white Australians have destroyed 75 per cent of this country's rainforests. Rainforests now cover only 0.25 per cent of Australia's land mass. This minute area could be grouped into a circle of 70 km in diameter. Australian rainforests contain at least half of all Australia's flora and fauna. They are believed to be the cradle for the world's flowering plants which evolved between 65 and 130 million years ago. The environment must be preserved for this and future generations. While we inherit the earth from our parents we merely borrow it from our children. We have to recognise that the natural environment is a finite resource capable of being destroyed by careless and greedy policies. Australia has a unique natural heritage. We must recognise that it is priceless and work more rapidly to protect those areas under threat. Daintree and the north east Queensland rainforests are priceless world heritage. They are under threat now. This Bill will protect them. I urge all senators to support this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Assent reported. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The following message has been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 6 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes/discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above 'R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above 'R', subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above 'R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 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, 1 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, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the committee report as soon as possible. (9) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (10) 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. H. A. Jenkins Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 27 February 1985 Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I move: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 6 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Video Material, subject to the following modifications- (a) paragraph (1), after 'joint select committee', insert ', to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Video Material,'; (b) paragraph (1), after 'operation of', insert 'the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations,'; (c) sub-paragraph 1 (a), leave out 'by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern', insert 'to adequately control'; (d) sub-paragraph 1 (c), leave out ' ''X'' '. (e) After sub-paragraph 1 (c), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(ca) whether ''R'' rated videos should be permitted to be displayed for sale or hire in the same area and side by side with ''G'', ''PG'' and ''M'' rated videos and, if not, what restrictions should be imposed on the display of ''R'' rated material;'; (f) After sub-paragraph 1 (d), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(da) examine the extent to which videotapes /discs containing pornographic and violent material are available to the community in general;'; (g) After sub-paragraph 1 (f), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(fa) whether the sale, hire, distribution or exhibition of films and videotapes/discs that would, under existing laws, be accorded a classification above ''R'' should be made unlawful;'; (h) Paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(2) That the Committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 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, 1 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, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator 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, with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate's modifications of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by that House. The point of the modifications is simply to bring the terms of reference of the proposed joint select committee into line with those adopted for the Senate's own committee, which is due to report shortly. It was simply an administrative mishap that the joint select committee terms of reference were not moved in the House of Representatives in the Senate's terms. I think it was nobody's desire to generate yet another debate in this place on that issue at this stage. I notice that Senator Harradine has circulated a proposed amendment to the resolution setting a reporting date of 1 August 1985. I have not had an opportunity to consult my colleagues and, in particular, the honourable member who is likely to be the chairman of the Committee, but I cannot imagine that there would be any dissent from the proposed fixing of a date. If the August date should prove to be too early, no doubt an extension of time can be sought. Accordingly, I move the motion. I hope that we can get through this matter without a debate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.50) —The Opposition is happy to support the proposal put forward by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). He has moved for the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Video Materials with the modified terms of reference which he has circulated and to which he referred in the remarks that he has just made. It seems to me that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) must have taken into the House of Representatives one of the earlier drafts relating to this Committee. In fact, I think it might have been the first draft that was ever conceived by the Government on this matter and which was well and truly out of date some time ago. It seems to have been just a mistake. This particular draft is in line with the considerable amount of discussion which took place between the Government and the Opposition in this place last year in order to get terms of reference which were agreeable to everyone in the Senate. It is just a matter of surprise to me that the Special Minister of State should have been so out of date or so negligent when he moved this motion in the House of Representatives. As I have said, the present terms of reference are in line with the terms of reference of the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship which was established in this place just prior to the calling of the election last year. Fortunately, the Senate did insist on the establishment of that Committee because at long last some consideration was able to be given by a parliamentary committee to problems which had been created by the major changes in censorship laws in this country which came into operation more than 12 months ago, on 1 February last year. I do not want to have a rerun of the many debates that we had in the Senate last year on this matter, but the fact is that the Opposition had first proposed a joint committee to investigate the way in which those new regulations were working. There was nothing short of public outrage all around Australia about the way they were working and the effect that they were apparently having on the video industry. There was particular outrage about the flood of pornographic material, the likes of which had never before been generally available in Australia, even though it may have been available in certain places. The whole of the Australian market was suddenly aware that this material had caused most grave public disquiet, even outrage. The Opposition has been seeking since June last year to have an adequate joint parliamentary inquiry into this matter. Therefore, we are pleased that at long last the Government has taken these steps. Despite indications that it would do so at various times last year, it failed to do so and the Senate was obliged to set up its own Committee. As that now has progressed, it is perhaps unfortunate that that Committee is being wound up and is not able to finish the job. The Senate had to fill the breach, the Committee had been working very hard and, as Senator Gareth Evans said, it is about to report. We will certainly look at that report with great interest. It may well have been better if the Government, having delayed so long in this matter, had waited until the Senate Committee had reported and Parliament itself could have seen whether it would leave the job more satisfactorily to that Committee or whether it still wanted to set up a joint committee. However, the Opposition has always supported the principle of a joint select committee to look at this matter. The Government, although terribly tardy and almost duplicitous in many ways in the way it has approached this question of a joint committee, has at long last decided to set it up and this motion before us now is one which the Opposition will, of course, support because it has been our proposal from the very beginning. As matters have progressed, the work may well have been done. We do not know that until we see the Senate Committee's report. The Senate Committee has been working very hard and I think it is rather strange that the Government should now, at this point, just before the Senate Committee reports, move to set up this joint committee. However, for all those reasons and in all the circumstances, the Opposition will support the establishment of this Committee on the modified terms that Senator Evans had proposed. Perhaps in future the Government might take a little more care before it proposes in the House of Representatives matters which, if the Senate agrees to them, might mean that it gets its act together a little more efficiently that it has done here. Senator Walters —That is most unlikely. Senator DURACK —Yes, I agree that that is most unlikely, given the number of mistakes that seem to be emerging in the Government's proposals for the various committees in the Parliament. There seem to be mistakes all over the place and this is just another example of that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.57) —I have no wish to be in any way carping in my criticism or complimentary in my comments. I simply wish to say that I notified people that I would like to ensure that this is not a never-ending story. We are establishing a joint parliamentary select committee and the nature of a select committee is to get on with the job and report as soon as possible. I have regard to what Senator Gareth Evans says. I circulated a proposed amendment that the Committee should report on or before the first day in August 1985 on which both Houses of Parliament meet. I am conscious of what Senator Evans said and I assume that what he meant by his comments was that the report should be finalised as quickly as possible, but that he has not seen the person who is likely to be the chairman of the Committee and so on. In those circumstances, although I believe that I have support for my amendment, I feel that it is probably not proper at this stage to push it, given the guarantee that there is an intention of expedition on the part of the Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.58) —It seems to me such a pity that we are going down this road. The only reason we have to go down this road is that the Government was, as we all know, dragged screaming to set up a committee. When it would not set up the committee, the Senate had to set one up in the place of the joint committee that we had originally wanted. The fact is that the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship has already done a tremendous amount of work. I would be interested to know how members of the House of Representatives are going to view the evidence that we have already taken- Senator Puplick —Probably salaciously. Senator WALTERS —Maybe; but certainly, if I were a member of the House of Representatives, I am sure that I would not be satisfied with just reading the Hansard reports on the interviews with the Australian Customs Service, the Customs Officers Association, the Attorney-General's Department, the Film Censorship Board, the Films Board of Review and all the others. Maybe the House of Representatives will be satisfied with that. I sincerely hope that it will not be a matter of calling all the departments and all the statutory bodies before us once more to carry out interviews. It seems that this will be a great waste of time if it has to occur. An unprecedented number of submissions have been put to this Committee-I think it is well over 600 now; I am not up with the latest figure-and this shows the Government that there is deep concern, as it would say, 'out there amongst the people' regarding the classification system that was brought in by the former erstwhile Attorney-General, the present Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). There is little point in my going on about this because it seems to be a fait accompli. A joint committee will be set up. I suppose we are just left to get on with it and reach a conclusion by the date that, if the Government approves of it, Senator Harradine has seen fit to impose upon us. If the Joint Committee does see fit to read the Hansards that date might be accomplished; otherwise it will be very difficult. Question resolved in the affirmative. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to the Senate's modification of the resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House for the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, namely, Mr Andrew, Mr Halverson, Mr Hollis, Mr Keogh, Mr Millar and Mr Wright. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, namely, Mr Cadman, Mrs Kelly, Mrs Mayer, Mr Nehl, Mr Price, Mr Punch, Mr Rocher, Mr Sharp, Dr Theophanous and Mr Tickner. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, in addition to Mr Speaker, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, namely, Mr Brumby, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Hicks, Mr Jull and Mr Maher. Consideration resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: 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. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.02) —in reply-If I might pick up my remarks where I left off in the Senate on 28 February, it might be useful to remind honourable senators what the Marriage Amendment Bill does and does not do. The purpose of the Bill is to implement an international convention to enable the easier recognition of overseas marriages. It will also, in some other incidental provisions, clarify the interaction of the Marriage Act and State legislation dealing with parentage of artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation children; it will extend the maximum period of notice of intended marriage; and it will enable grants to be made for the purposes of marriage education. The Bill will not in any way rewrite the law relating to the dissolution of marriage. That is something entirely dealt with in the Family Law Act, although as I indicated previously, a good deal of the contributions to the second reading debate seemed to proceed on a different assumption. Furthermore, there are two specific things that also attracted a great deal of debate which the Bill does not do and which it is not its purpose to achieve. The first of those specific things relates to in vitro fertilisation. I make it clear again that it is not the purpose and could not possibly be seen to be the purpose of this Bill to give this Parliament's stamp of approval to in vitro fertilisation or other procedures. The Bill simply makes it clear that the provisions of the Marriage Act dealing with legitimacy do not affect in any way the legitimacy of those children if the States or Territories choose to make specific provision for their parentage. It is simply a clarificatory exercise to avoid any possible argument of some intention on the part of the Commonwealth or on the part of the operation of the Marriage Act to override the arrangements that are properly in this respect matters for the States. The other specific thing the Bill does not do, although there have been some fairly extravagant suggestions that it might have this effect, is enable so-called homosexual marriages to be recognised under the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. Perhaps that point deserves just a little more elaboration for the benefit in particular of some of the more lasciviously inclined members of this chamber who seem determined to read such an interpretation into the language of the Bill. Honourable senators will recall that in the course of my earlier remarks in reply I mentioned that the Government was not aware of any overseas jurisdiction at all which recognised homosexual marriages and which as such could be picked up possibly by the operation of the legislation. It is probably impossible to speak for the whole world, but I can say that in the recess the opportunity was taken to seek urgent advice from the United States and the Scandinavian countries, which were areas mentioned particularly by Senator Teague in this respect. I am glad to be able to advise the Senate that advice received from Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United States is that none of those places recognises the legality of marriages between parties of the same sex. The same advice has been received in respect of West Germany through its Embassy. Why West Germany in particular was singled out for this attention I am not sure; maybe someone had just come back from Hamburg. Mr Justice Nygh, who represented Australia at the session of the Hague conference which finalised the Convention in question, has also advised that these unions were definitely not in the contemplation of the framers of the Convention, so to the extent that there might be some argument about what the text of the Convention is meant to encompass, or in fact does encompass, that is a helpful clarification also. If I might revert to other matters raised in debate during the second reading stage, Senator Durack referred to the establishment of the pilot project for family law centres as a duplication of existing services. Two of these centres, which are now called family conciliation centres, are being set up on a pilot basis in Dandenong and Wollongong. The object of the centres is to assist in identifying problems which may lead to marital breakdown, and to do so before the parties are locked into the judicial process. They will offer a range of services in the one spot instead of having the situation where people are lost in the process of being shunted about from one agency to another. They will offer interpersonal counselling, financial counselling, legal advice, mediation services and social welfare advice. I would have thought that their creation would have had the wholehearted enthusiasm of all members of this chamber. Senator Harradine —They will be reconciliation counselling centres? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the intention. I think the concepts of conciliation and reconciliation overlap. It is certainly the intention to enable as many of these problems as possible, in particular problems with a wider ranging cause than purely interpersonal conflict, to be sorted out before the parties hie themselves off to lawyers and get involved in a litigation frame of mind. I turn finally to the subject matter of the proposed Committee stage amendment relating to civil celebrants' fees in the hope that by mentioning it now I can keep very brief any supplementary remarks I might need to make in the Committee stage. As I understand it, the amendment proposed by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition would not just delete clause 15 (b) of the Bill, which was the original proposal before us, but rather would insert in its place a provision to allow civil celebrants to contract out of the prescribed fee. The arguments put forward by Senator Durack and Senator Teague-presumably in the new dry mode which has afflicted the Liberal Party-were essentially that civil celebrants should be free to charge any amount they see fit and that market forces will determine the appropriate price. The Government will not under any circumstances support this amendment. The provision setting fees has been part of the regulations since their commencement in 1963 and the purpose of the Government's amendment in clause 15 (b) of the Bill is not to change that situation in any way but rather simply to clarify it for all concerned. It is our intention that celebrants in respect of the solemnisation of marriage not charge more than the set fee; in other words, that it be a statutory maximum. The Government quite firmly rejects the Opposition's characterisation of the marriage celebrant service as a market-place situation. Civil celebrants are very carefully chosen on the basis of their suitability for this important task and the need of the population in the particular geographic area. Senator Missen's comments about the difficulty involved in having people appointed simply reflect the very careful consideration that the Attorney-General's Department and the Attorney-General, I assure him, personally give to those applications. Celebrants are not, however, given authority to solemnise marriages in order to make a living out of the task. They provide a community service. That was the Government's intention and that will remain its intention. If the fees that celebrants can charge were left totally to their discretion, members of the public in the area in question would be totally at the mercy of any price fixing arrangement made between the celebrants in that area. In some of the more remote localities, where one could not expect the play of market forces competitively to have much reality, that could be quite disastrous. It is no answer to suggest that other celebrants could be appointed to the area in question to create a competitive environment. What are we to do? Continue appointing celebrants until one can be found who will charge a reasonable fee? What if no suitable persons can be found? In any case, the Government takes the view, which I am sure Senator Harradine will share, that the institution of marriage is not likely to be strengthened in the public sight by the unseemly spectacle of price wars between marriage celebrants. Senator Harradine —The mind boggles. Senator GARETH EVANS —I conclude, with that contribution by Senator Harradine, by making the point that the fact the Government has devoted resources to this fine tuning of the Marriage Act does indicate its continued commitment to marriage as one of society's fundamental institutions. The Government has no intention of departing from the understanding of marriage set out in section 43 of the Family Law Act and section 46 of this Act. I urge honourable senators to continue to bring to this Bill the same thoughtfulness and sincerity which have been displayed, for the most part at least, in their comments so far. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.13) —I move: Clause 15, paragraph (b), leave out proposed new sub-section (4), insert the following sub-section: '(4) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a person, not being a minister of religion, who is authorized under sub-section (2) to solemnize marriages, from contracting with the parties to an intended marriage for the payment, for the solemnization of that marriage by that person, of a fee that exceeds the fee prescribed by regulations made under section 120 that is applicable to the solemnization of that marriage by that person.'. The present clause 15 of the Bill amends section 39 of the principal Act, dealing with the appointment by the Attorney-General of suitable persons to act as civil marriage celebrants. The Act also contains a provision of the making of regulations concerning the fees that may be charged by such persons, and regulations were made for the purpose some time ago and have been amended from time to time. Apart from the provision that regulations may be made to fix fees and the regulations fixing them, the Act is apparently not seen to be satisfactory, because the Government proposes an amendment in the terms of clause 15 (b) to add the following provision to section 39, which deals with the appointment of civil marriage celebrants. That now reads: A person, not being a minister of religion, who is authorised under sub-section (2) to solemnise marriages is not entitled to demand the payment for the solemnisation of a marriage by that person of a fee that exceeds the fee prescribed by the regulations. They are the regulations that I have just referred to. The question of charges made by civil marriage celebrants is, from my own experience, one that has given rise to problems from time to time. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech has referred to the fact that there are various charges made for extra services, such as flowers. Certainly, that is a recognition of something that has been happening over the years; that some civil marriage celebrants have been dissatisfied with the fees scale. Like all other scales that are laid down by government in an endeavour to fix prices that people charge for goods or services, these scales never keep up with the cost of living, the cost of providing those services. The scales have been a constant source of trouble with the legal profession. Scales of fees laid down by regulations or by rules of court are constantly out of date. Fortunately, the provisions in relation to the legal profession have always enabled parties to be able to make their own arrangements and they have not been hamstrung by the fees scales. The civil marriage celebrants' scale is no exception. It takes time for governments to get around to looking at fees scales. Admittedly, they have many other things to do and these things seem to get put aside, but it takes time to process the determination of an increase, to determine the sort of increase which would be allowed and to make the regulations themselves. These things seem to take months and months, so such scales become rapidly out of date. A fairly substantial increase was made last year, which has meant that at the present moment there do not seem to be many complaints, but that would seem to be an exceptional period because in my experience there were constant complaints made about the nature of the fees that were prescribed. There have been many ways and means by which people can get around these fees, and they have done so. It is all very well for Senator Evans as Minister representing the Attorney-General to say that this is supposed to be a public service and they are only being paid on that basis; they are not supposed to be making money out of it. The fact is that there are a number of civil marriage celebrants who do it for a living and who do make very considerable and very comfortable incomes out of providing the service. I do not see anything wrong with that. Many people do it with a good deal of panache and style and provide the sort of service that the parties entering into marriage want to have, for one reason or another. Again, that is entirely a matter for their choice. We are not going to moralise about this in this place, nor should the Government be fussed about these things in the way it has been. I know that there has been this typical bureaucratic approach to this question, of which I was reminded very forcibly by the remarks just made by the Minister representing the Attorney-General. The Opposition is particularly concerned about the provision which states, quite categorically, that no one is entitled to demand the payment of a fee that exceeds the prescribed fee. The original amendment did provide a penalty-it was a criminal offence with a penalty. That was the basis of our original objection to this provision. However, even though the Government has now removed the penalty from this provision in the Bill, it is still clearly making it illegal. Whether it was before is perhaps another question. But if this provision is passed by this place, clearly it will make it illegal. If a statute says that something is illegal, there could well be a common law offence and a penalty could still arise if the Government was so silly as to prosecute anybody who persistently breached this prohibition. Undoubtedly some people do charge to excess even though they may dress it up in the provision of other services and so on. The question would arise as to whether the practice-which is recognised by the Minister in his second reading speech-would be prevented by a statement in the terms of this provision. The Opposition is certainly opposed to anything being done to change the existing situation and that is why we have been opposed to this provision in the Bill. However, on reflection, it seems to me that the amendment that I originally circulated opposing this sub-section did not fully express the views of the Opposition which, as I explained in the second reading debate, was that people ought to be free to make their own arrangements. That is why I have circulated the more detailed amendment which clearly expresses the view of the Opposition. The vast majority of civil marriage celebrants and parties wanting their services are not going to be concerned about these matters; they will charge the ordinary fee. That is what is laid down as seemingly a fair thing. Certainly civil marriage celebrants who are not commercially minded will, no doubt, not be concerned about it. I cannot see how such a provision will really create all the problems for the Government that Senator Gareth Evans has indicated. Clearly these are the sorts of familiar arguments which we get from people in the Public Service who want to be able to keep a very close control of anything over which they have power. It may well be that more civil marriage celebrants ought to be appointed. There are certainly plenty more fit and proper people to be civil marriage celebrants than it has been customary to appoint; more have applied than have been appointed. If there was any indication that it was hard to get a civil marriage celebrant to do a job because he was asking too much for it, a few more could be appointed and that would soon overcome that problem, but I just do not see it arising. Many people take on this job because they want to perform a public service; they like doing the job and they are very happy to do it for the fee. All we in Opposition are saying is that if other people who for various reasons are in great demand for the special services they provide, we do not see any reason why they should not be able to come to an ordinary commercial arrangement about what they can charge. Any suggestion about marriage celebrants in a particular area putting their heads together and fixing a fee is just absolute Alice in Wonderland stuff. If the Minister knew anything about economics, which of course he does not, he would know that if the market is opened up that is the best way of dealing with such matters. But, for heaven's sake, for a Minister to say that that could happen and nothing could be done about it by the Government is ludicrous. Of course something could be done about it by the Government. The Minister could cancel people's licences. There is no reason to believe that that would be a problem at all. In fact, as I have said, some civil marriage celebrants provide extra services and charge extra for them. There is no sign of marriage celebrants putting their heads together to ensure that that becomes a general rule. It just does not occur and it will not occur if marriage celebrants can charge a special fee. As I said, there is ample precedent for it. For example, scales have been laid down for services provided by the legal profession. By and large, solicitors have always been able to make special arrangements with their clients. Again, I am not aware of this horrific result that Senator Gareth Evans seems to think has occurred. Doctors are not required to charge the common fee. So there are plenty of precedents for the approach the Opposition is suggesting. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.27) —I would like to raise the issue of counsellors. There has been a lot of debate on the question of the fee for the service. Very little has been mentioned about the service which is rendered. I was wondering whether the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), representing the Attorney-General in this chamber, could outline the information and services required of the civil marriage celebrant. An instance recently drawn to my attention involved a couple of alcoholics. They came to a celebrant in an inebriated state. The celebrant felt he had no obligation to provide any counselling service. He was warned of the consequences. He ignored them and said that his only duty was to perform the ceremony according to the time required. Within three weeks the marriage was finished. Could the Minister outline the responsibilities of marriage celebrants? The other issue I would like to raise concerns reproductive technology, a matter which the Minister did not refer to in his summing-up of the second reading debate. I would like to preface three questions with a few remarks. Existing family and child welfare legislation in Australia is based on the paramountcy of the welfare and interests of the child and must provide for and protect the special needs, interests and rights of children. I mention this in the context of the legitimacy provisions of the Marriage Amendment Bill before this chamber. At present children who are born of reproductive technology are not protected by adequate legislation. Safeguards and national standards must be developed to promote their welfare. For example, the question 'Who is the father?' and 'Who is the mother?', must be answered in order to clarify the persons or parents in whom parental legal rights and responsibilities must be vested for the care and upbringing of the child. The Minister well knows that adoption legislation gives parental responsibilities to the social parents, but individual State laws cloud the issue for children who are born of reproductive technology. I will give two examples, one in Victoria and the other in New South Wales. The Victorian Status of Children Amendment Act stipulates that the woman who gives birth to a child conceived using donor ova is the lawful mother. However, there is a difference in New South Wales. The Act there stipulates that maternity is established using blood or genetic tests. This, of course, establishes that the lawful mother is in fact the person who donated the ovum. Thus there needs to be national legislation to establish filial and parental status. In addition, there has to be national legislation to regulate all aspects of reproductive technology, recognising that over 1,000 children each year are born through artificial insemination by donor, yet this practice is not regulated by some States. Some States concentrate purely on the regulation of in vitro fertilisation. I would like further to suggest that there should be a national body with the power to monitor and control research into reproductive technology and advise Federal, State and Territory governments on research into and practice of reproductive technology. Several questions emerge because I think our legislation gives certain legitimacy to certain practices which have been developed by the States without adequate safeguards for the future rights of the child. The first question is: What steps does the Government propose to take to protect the special needs, interests and rights of children born throughout Australia through reproductive technology? Second, does the Government propose to introduce federal legislation to ensure that the status of children and families involved in reproductive technology is the same throughout Australia? I have already instanced cases where there are vast differences in the two principal States, whereas other States do not bother to legislate at all. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. I have been listening with a great deal of interest to what Senator Watson has to say but I really think it would have been more appropriate for these sorts of remarks to have been made in the context of the second reading debate. Senator WATSON —They were made. Senator Gareth Evans —If they were made, it makes it that much less justifiable to burden us with them again now if the honourable senator is not addressing his remarks to any particular part of the Bill. Senator WATSON —The remarks were made within the parameters of a speech at the second reading stage. I regret that the Minister was not present at that time and did not respond to the remarks because I think they have far-reaching effects on details within this Bill which concern the legitimacy of children. That is covered in the Bill. The Bill refers to these particular techniques. In my speech in the second reading debate I drew attention to the defects in some of the State legislation. I am using this Committee stage debate to ask the Minister a number of questions about the Government's intentions. My third question is: What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of a national- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Order! Senator Watson, a point of order has been taken. I have been listening to your speech. A lot of your remarks really are better suited to a second reading debate. I ask you to relate what you are saying to the particular clauses of the Bill. Senator WATSON —I am referring to the legitimacy clause. My third question is: What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of a national, multi-disciplinary body which could deal with matters relating to reproductive technology, including artificial insemination by a donor, artificial insemination by a husband, in vitro fertilisation, embryo transfer, surrogate motherhood and embryo freezing? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.33) —I briefly reply to Senator Watson's questions by saying that I did address this matter in my second reading reply. He must have missed it because my reference was to Senator Haines's contribution rather than to his contribution on the subject. But to the extent that he was raising larger social and ethical issues, I said that the Government was aware of the miscellany of State and overseas inquiries which had each contributed in one way or another to an understanding of this issue and to policy formulation on it. We are considering the question as to whether or not there might not be more appropriately some national approach to all this. I referred specifically to the Family Law Council which, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Asche, has one of its sub-committees preparing a report on just that issue. It is my recollection that the matter had also been brought formally before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with a view to getting some integrated national approach. Certainly there were several debates about particular piecemeal aspects of it, but also as to the question of some standing national advisory or even executive body in this area. I assure Senator Watson that his enthusiasm on this topic, both as articulated in the second reading stage and in this debate today, has not fallen on deaf ears. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.35) —I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who is representing the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). In a situation where certain people are given migrant status and bring more than one wife into Australia, can he tell me the status of those wives within the Australian context? Last time I asked him privately about this he said something pretty vague. He said that some do have status and some do not. Could he give me more detail? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.36) —I want to address a matter similar to one which Senator Walters has just raised. When the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) representing the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) commenced his reply to the second reading debate on 28 February he said in part in his remarks, and I quote from Hansard: The present Bill, in proposed section 88E (1), preserves the operation of the common law where the Convention rules do not cover the situation. He went on to say: . . . the 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. He said also: 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. I want to ask him a couple of questions arising from that which relate similarly to a question that Senator Walters has just raised. I also understand that, in terms of the legal authority on this matter, the Minister representing the Attorney-General referred to the case of Haque v. Haque, which I have had the opportunity of reading. I am, as a result, somewhat advanced in my understanding of the factors that the courts will bring to bear in deciding property settlements where there is more than one validly recognised marriage. Since his reply seems to indicate that a perfectly valid Islamic marriage contracted in accordance with the procedures of the civil laws of, say, Egypt, which is one of the signatories of the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, would be recognised, does that same recognition extend to the operation of divorce in terms of Islamic law? That is to say, does Australian law recognise a divorce carried out in accordance with the instructions in the Koran if simply the correct words are said the correct number of times in front of the correctly defined witnesses? The second thing arising from that is that at the end of those remarks to which I was referring the Minister representing the Attorney-General said, when he was talking about the difficult questions that arise because of the recognition of the validity of polygamous marriages in certain circumstances in Australia: These questions . . . are, I am grateful to say, as no doubt Lionel Bowen is, matters essentially for other Ministers to grapple with. I ask him: Are other Ministers specifically grappling with the problem in terms of both family law, social security and taxation matters, which certainly are not likely to arise as immediate questions but could at some stage in the future? Is the Government actively giving its attention to those matters or is it one of those things to which attention will be given as and when a particular instance arises in social security, taxation or welfare matters? The only other contribution I want to make is to mention one of the arguments which is very much in support of the amendment which Senator Durack has moved. When Senator Evans was commenting on the points raised by Senator Missen, namely, that one of the reasons that there was a shortage of marriage celebrants was that they had been so carefully screened for their intrinsic merit and worth by the Government-- Senator Gareth Evans —Talking about ours, not yours. Senator Withers —I was one of yours. Senator PUPLICK —I am not altogether sure, Senator Withers, whether or not that proves the point I was making. Senator Withers —I was appointed by former Senator Murphy. Senator PUPLICK —I am sure that Senator Withers will have a chance to return Senator Murphy's act of kindness in due course. The point that Senator Evans was making was that these marriage celebrants are selected because they are people of such outstanding worth in the community. He then went on to say that the price control mechanism is necessary in the legislation because there is a danger that these people will put their heads together in conspiratorial fashion in order to indulge in a local form of price fixing and rigging of the system. Frankly, he cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell the Senate that the legislation needs to provide for restrictions on these people because they cannot be trusted not to get into the business of price fixing, yet at the same time they say that one of the reasons for the shortage of marriage celebrants is that they are selected, after careful screening, as people of great integrity and personal worth. To that extent, the argument he puts, in attempting to defeat Senator Durack's very sensible amendment, is shown for its hollowness and for the reflection of this Government's determination to make sure that price fixing arrangements are put in place and that unnecessary intrudes into these personal relationships between suppliers and consumers, whether of goods and services or of the process of marriage solemnisation. It indicates that this is simply another ideological hang-up the Government has and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the central question of the way in which civil marriage celebrants operate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.41) —I shall be very brief and deal mainly with the amendment because I believe one should state one's reasons for voting on it. Before I do that, I indicate to the Committee that at the second reading stage I raised the issues of in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by donor and the implicit recognition of those procedures in the measures in this Bill. I was given a guarantee by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, that the Government gives no implicit recognition to those procedures in these amendments to the Marriage Act. However, it still concerns me that we are debating measures which contain references to those procedures without any real detailed consideration by the national Parliament of the procedures themselves. No one doubts that they are matters which ought to exercise the minds of members of parliament. I did hear one scientist say that it was not really a matter for parliamentarians but, of course, that would be an extreme case. I do not know of anyone who denies that it is the responsibility of members of parliament, as the elected representatives of the people who form our society, to consider maturely these matters which really go to the fundamental rights of the human beings who make up this society. Senator Haines —You will have to hurry up with it because it is getting away from us. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. The issue raised by Senator Watson is but one of the matters that need to be addressed. I am not one of those who believe that there is an ethical bottleneck. The problem is not that of an ethical bottleneck; it is in the gung ho approach being adopted by scientists in various parts of the world on this matter. I am now straying into matters which are more relevant to the second reading and I will come back to the clause of the Bill. However, I mentioned that, in respect of the legitimation of children-Senator Evans may correct me if I am wrong about this-Senator Puplick at the second reading stage indicated that perhaps we as a national Parliament ought to have some overriding legislation on this matter. I suspect that that was what Senator Watson may have been suggesting. Perhaps Senator Evans can put me wise on this, but I cannot see how under the Constitution we have that authority, how the Parliament is empowered to pass legislation to do that. Of course, that is another question. Speaking briefly to the amendment, I reiterate the point I made at the second reading stage which is pertinent to the Committee stage of the Bill. According to the second reading speech, the amendments in the Bill are designed to implement the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. Despite what Senator Evans replied at the second reading stage, I cannot for the life of me see how we can implement a convention which is not in effect. Senator Gareth Evans —If you look at some of the dicta in the Tasmanian dams case, you will be surprised. Senator HARRADINE —I just make the point that I do not think we are utilising the external affairs power. Is the Minister suggesting that we are utilising the external affairs power for the purpose of this amendment? We are really utilising the marriage power, are we not? Senator Gareth Evans —We are, that is true, but even if the point is being made in the context of the external affairs power, it has no substance, with respect. Senator HARRADINE —I do not propose to waste time on such an esoteric matter. I would be in favour of the amendment were it designed to make provision for marriage celebrants to provide pre-marital education courses over a period of three to six months prior to a marriage. Senator Durack —There is nothing to stop that now. Senator HARRADINE —I am interested to hear Senator Durack comment that there is nothing to stop that now. My doubts about opposing this amendment are confirmed. If there is nothing to stop a marriage celebrant being recompensed in some way for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him or her in the education of the couple on the subject of marriage and its responsibilities, I suppose the only reason for the amendment would be so that marriage celebrants can charge what they like for the ceremony or matters associated with the ceremony. It has been mentioned, I think by Senator Haines, that some of these ceremonies are quite way out. Indeed, it has been suggested that there have been or are proposed to be marriages performed by people jumping out of aeroplanes. I suppose the purchase of the parachutes under those circumstances would be an additional charge. We are talking here about the marriage celebrant who, it is suggested, is appointed to perform a duty required by law. It is truly a public service. I consider that marriage is sacred and is a commitment which is most appropriately made in church. That is my opinion. However, we live in a pluralist society. Other people have a strong commitment to the institution of marriage and to the family as the fundamental group unit of society based on marriage which, as the Marriage Act says, is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. People who have a firm commitment to the institution of marriage and who regard it as being very important to society may wish to make a public declaration of their commitment in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act. They may not be Christians or may have no religion at all. Senator Withers —Or who cannot use a church. Senator HARRADINE —Or whatever. I make the point that some people have a commitment to marriage but do not have a religion. Nevertheless they understand that marriage has a public character, as it is fundamental to a stable society. Under those circumstances, it appears that people are appointed under the legislation for the purpose of witnessing the marriage ceremony as marriage celebrants. There must be other witnesses, of course. The Minister has told us that persons appointed to those positions are appointed to provide a public service as required under the law. Therefore, it seems to me that those persons should not be free to take their services out into the market-place, as it were, and charge whatever they like for the services. It is not in the nature of their office as marriage celebrants for that to be done. It is a dignified office. I hope that it is recognised by all that persons appointed as marriage celebrants should have demonstrated in a practical way a commitment to marriage as defined by the Act. Bearing in mind what has been said, I oppose the amendment. Let me mention to the Minister that some churches now will not marry people unless those people have gone through a period of marriage education. That is a good idea. I believe that marriage celebrants, provided they are suitable, ought to have the unencumbered ability to engage in pre-marriage counselling over a specified period with those who wish to avail themselves of the services of those marriage celebrants. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.53) —It is not often that I endorse the comments of Senator Harradine. However, in this case I do so. I endorse both his grave concerns and doubts about the amendment before us today and his belief in the relationship between celebrants of a marriage and the people who are undertaking it. The Opposition's first circulated amendment to the Marriage Amendment Bill 1985 proposed simply to leave out paragraph (b) of clause 15. That seemed harmless enough, as all it would have done would have been to take us back to the situation obtaining under section 120 of the Marriage Act 1961, namely, that the Governor-General may make regulations among which would be the prescribing of fees to be charged in respect of the solemnisation of marriage by authorised celebrants. The new amendment goes well beyond that in actually encouraging the charging of higher fees. While I certainly agree with Senator Durack that there seems to be an inordinately large time lag between the setting of one lot of fees by regulation and the updating of them some time later, I do not think that that in itself justifies a free-for-all of the sort envisaged by some members of the Opposition. Certainly, the 1984 fees schedule is a distinct improvement on the previous fees schedule which operated from 1979. Certainly, that five-year lag bears out what Senator Durack was saying. But that does not alter the fact that the previous Government had three years in which it apparently did very little to upgrade the fees that were charged, roughly $40 or thereabouts, for celebrating a marriage in 1979 to the $60 level established in 1984. In addition, of course, travelling expenses are involved. Senator Durack mentioned that there was some doubt about whether there was likely to be any penalty under section 120 of the Act, whether, if a celebrant charged more than the prescribed fee, his licence would be likely to be taken away from him or anything else. No penalty, of course, is attached to the clause that the Opposition is opposing in the Bill before us today. It merely regularises a situation which has been current for some time which is that a fee is set and that fee is to be seen as a maximum. Simply providing that celebrants are not entitled to demand a fee higher than that prescribed when no penalty is attached to it does not seem to be doing much more than tossing in a sort of double jeopardy whereby the fee set is mentioned in more than one place in the Act. Certainly, I would hate ever to see the situation go as far as the Opposition apparently is trying to promote in the amendment before us today which not only points out that the fee need not be a maximum but also actually encourages people to set fees above the fee prescribed by trying to have inserted in the Bill a sub-section which states that nothing in the Act shall prevent a person from charging a higher fee. I do not believe that is acceptable for all the reasons that Senator Harradine, as well as Senator Evans, put forward. The prospect of avid advertising and price wars mentioned by two speakers before me certainly is not very edifying. For that reason we will oppose the Opposition's amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.00) —Senator Gareth Evans has already indicated that the Government will oppose the amendment to the Marriage Amendment Bill. He did that before he had even heard the argument in favour of it, but that is not surprising. I am disappointed in Senator Haines, who had heard the argument but did not seem to follow it. Senator Haines —It did not wash. Senator DURACK —It is not a question of its not washing. When a civil marriage celebrant, who is a public officer, is appointed it is normal to provide for a fee scale. When all is said and done, most people who perform that function do not want to enter into a contract. They perform the service and there must be a scale which lays down what they are entitled to charge. They then have a legal right to recover that amount of money if they are not paid. That is simply to cover their right to fair remuneration. It is very similar to the determination of wage rates by an arbitration commission. That does not stop employers and employees entering into contracts under which employees are paid more. Within the legal profession, lawyers, as officers of the court, certainly perform public functions and have a fee laid down. But invariably they are allowed to charge a different fee if their client is disposed to pay more for that service by entering into a contract. If the client does not want that service at that fee from that lawyer he can go to another lawyer. The same would apply to civil marriage celebrants. That is really the basis of the amendment. I am surprised that Senator Haines said that she was happy about the original amendment. The situation was unsatisfactory, so I decided to spell out more clearly what the situation should be. At the moment, some civil marriage celebrants offer particular forms of service. Senator Harradine made a joke of the matter by talking about performing marriage services jumping out of aeroplanes and so forth. There may be some way out ceremony performed by somebody at some time, but the ordinary experience is that some celebrants provide a more elaborate service and charge for it in indirect ways, as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated in his second reading speech. They charge for flowers, music or other things, and get around the fee scale in that way. That is what is wrong with all government attempts to fix prices for services and not let the market fix them. The market does fix them and it is fraudulent for governments to lay down a scale of fees for the performance of a public service. The Government is burying its head in the sand if it thinks that solves the problem and that everybody will meekly go along with it. That just does not happen and has not been happening. We merely state the reality and make the issue perfectly clear because at present it is not clear. The unsatisfactory features of the matter are recognised by the Minister. Presumably, he wants the thing to go along in that way-- Senator Walters —And the Democrats, too. Senator DURACK —The Democrats also seem to want things to go along as they are. Unfortunately, Senator Haines did not seem to understand the object of the amendment. Perhaps now I have explained it she may be able to. Senator Walters —They are not for free enterprise. Senator DURACK —That is probably the reason Senator Harradine expressed concern about pre-marriage education. He has a very serious point to make about that, and we have supported the amendments to the legislation which would enable better provision for marriage education. It is to be hoped that more money could be made available for that. When the Family Law Amendment Bill was in the Senate some months ago, I supported Senator Harradine's views about the need for marriage counselling before people divorce. It is fair to say that if people could be encouraged to have counselling before marriage as well as before divorce it would be even better. I commend those churches that have been able to develop pre-marital education courses. If such education is possible, people should be prepared to pay some fee for that service if they could afford it. Unfortunately, counselling is a matter which requires particular expertise. I doubt whether marriage celebrants have that expertise. I do not know that it is fair to expect them to have it. Certainly people should be prepared to pay some fee for it. Perhaps those churches that provide it do not charge for it because it is part of their mission as religionists to provide such education. Nevertheless, I agree in principle with Senator Harradine that pre-marital education is a service and that it should be possible to charge for it. If a marriage celebrant was prepared and was qualified to provide such service he may well be unable to charge for it under the proposed amendment to the Bill because it could well be seen as part of his work in solemnising the marriage. Even from that point of view, it would be preferable from Senator Harradine's viewpoint to support the amendment that I have proposed. It would make it perfectly clear that any civil marriage celebrant who charged for pre-marital training, education or advice should be encouraged to do so. Certainly I favour the view that marriage celebrants should be prepared to do that. However, I acknowledge that the giving of such advice would require qualifications which would be found more in people who are expert in marriage counselling or pre-marital counselling. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.09) — There once was a time when in a masochistic sort of way I would have enjoyed an ambling, discursive debate of the kind we have just had, wandering about various exotic legal highways and byways. Honourable senators will appreciate that these days I am very anxious to get back to my pipes and holes. I hope under those circumstances that we can now draw this debate to some sort of close. But let me endeavour to deal quickly with the points raised. I come to the particular matters raised in the first instance by Senator Walters and by Senator Puplick. Senator Walters was concerned about the situation of persons with polygamous marriages coming to Australia. Senator Puplick, for whose industry as always I am indebted, drew her attention to page 361 of the Hansard and my attempt to meet that kind of point by referring to what precisely the Bill does on its face by way of not recognising polygamous marriages in terms of the statute but, nonetheless, allowing some room for the residual operation of the common law. As Senator Puplick says, it is a quite difficult business to identify precisely what the common law stands for in this situation. I note that in the case of Haque v. Haque, to which both he and I referred, there is a reference, among other things, to page 982 of Morris's work 'The Recognition of Polygamous Marriages in English Law'; so I think it will be appreciated that it is no matter that could be dashed off at mere journal article length to come to grips with exactly what the common law has to say on this subject. I think even Senator Walters will forgive me if I am a little more brisk than I might otherwise be in grappling with the substance of her question. I was asked about the matter of recognising in some circumstances polygamous marriages and what we have to say about divorces in these cases. By virtue of the Family Law Act there can be no question of a divorce being conducted in Australia in accordance with the three clap principle, or whatever other exotic mechanism is available for disposing of unwanted relationships in other countries. However, there are circumstances in which, by virtue of section 104 of the Family Law Act, a divorce, achieved in accordance with the law of a particular country by parties having a connection with that country and involving procedures which are not contrary to natural justice, will be recognised. It is a matter for some interpretation as to what kind of natural justice might be involved in some of the procedures to which Senator Puplick adverted, but that is the technical answer to his question. As to Senator Puplick's further question about whether other Ministers to whom I referred were actually grappling with large questions of principle so far as dealing with multiple spouses to a particular marriage in those circumstances where they arise in Australia, I think the short answer is that this is something that is being dealt with in the context of individual cases as they arise. Senator Grimes advises me that the practice in the social security context is to grant the appropriate spouse allowance for spouse number one, then to contemplate the application of supplementary benefit to others down the line. It is obviously a matter for nice judgment in the circumstances of a particular case as to how the ground rules are applied. It needs to be acknowledged that there are not too many harems in existence in South Yarra or anywhere else in the country at the moment, so it is likely to be a fairly fringe problem rather than one deserving-- Senator Grimes —It is common in Aboriginal communities. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Grimes interjects that it is common enough in some Aboriginal communities, and that fact, I think, ought to be acknowledged too. As to the main subject matter of the Committee stage debate, Senator Durack's free market amendment, the background is simply that during 1983 it became apparent that some civil celebrants were charging parties substantially more than the fees prescribed. Early in 1984 the regulations were amended to require a statement of the prescribed fees under the Act to be provided to parties before the ceremony. This, together with the foreshadowed amendments, particularly the one in the original Bill in terms of a penalty being applied, seems to have had the desired practical effect, and overcharging is not a serious matter in practice at the moment. Nonetheless, the Government believes strongly that for all the community service rationales, which I spelt out earlier and will not repeat, there ought to be a ceiling placed upon this. It is not entirely a matter, as Senator Puplick would have it, of not trusting civil marriage celebrants not to get their heads together. I could make the obvious point that perhaps the respective governments might have different standards in the kind of people they appoint in the first instance, but Senator Withers demolished that argument by identifying himself as being a recipient of former Senator Murphy's beneficence in this respect. I make the point, rather-this ought to be familiar to a Liberal Party audience opposite-that lots of people who might otherwise have a claim to some integrity and worth are not all that averse to making a fast buck in the absence of some legislative direction to the contrary. Against the background that this is an area in which we, as a government-supported, I am glad to note, by Senator Haines and Senator Harradine-believe it is not appropriate for people to be making a fast buck in the commercial sense, we believe that it is inappropriate to go down the track mapped out by the new dry Senator Durack. As to Senator Harradine's concerns about pre-marital education and whether there is anything in this particular provision which would actively discourage the provision of such services by a marriage celebrant, the short answer is no, there is not. To the extent that some other service is being performed, other than the conduct of the marriage ceremony a such, within the terms set out in the legislation, no prohibition is intended on the capacity to charge appropriate reasonable rates for that other service. If someone were misusing the system and inventing ancillary services which had no real substance but which were designed in practice simply to inflate the fee, this would be very much taken into account by the Government in considering whether or not it would be appropriate to revoke that person's licence-not for breach of this provision, but on the ground of that person being an inappropriate holder of the marriage celebrant's status. That brings me to the final point about sanctions, which attracted some attention in the debate. Senator Durack made some interesting points which, had we more time and inclination, we could debate, about whether a common law offence might conceivably be created-- Senator Durack —You have really been corrupted, haven't you, by these changes. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was inclined to refer the honourable senator to volume 44 of Halsbury, page 598, where the relevant principles and authorities are set out, but I will not pursue the matter any further at this stage, except to say that it really depends on the proper construction of the legislation. What we have here is something which I do not believe would be construed as creating a common law offence. It does not identify the behaviour in question as unlawful. A different form of words, 'not entitled to' is deliberately chosen. Equally, other parts of the legislation clearly and expressly create provisions for which penalties for their breach are payable, and the expressio unius principle which, no doubt, is still familiar to Senator Durack, would rather suggest that this is not a situation in which an offence is created. What, then, is the point of making a statutory prohibition, apart from simply clarifying the obligation, which I think is justification enough? The point is that it clearly establishes then a foundation on which a licence or permit to act as a marriage celebrant could properly be revoked in the event of a breach of that standard. That is the sanction which on balance we think is appropriate. As Senator Durack and others have pointed out, we originally contemplated actually creating an offence, with an associated pecuniary penalty. In all the circumstances, that seems to be somewhat of an overkill response. We believe that the balance which is struck in this form of words in this context is correct. Once again, I commend the Bill to the Senate in its unsullied form and hope that Senator Durack's amendment will be dealt with accordingly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.20) —I raise this point because I think it is an opportunity for the Minister to take on board a consideration of what amendments are required in Commonwealth legislation to encourage firmly couples who are intending marriage to engage in a course of pre-marriage education from a recognised person or authorised group. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.21) —I will undertake to convey to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) Senator Harradine's concerns in this respect. Previously I have indicated my personal support for initiatives of a kind which would encourage pre-marital education; indeed, there are some in the context of this legislation. I will ensure that that message gets across. I will also take on board, as I omitted to mention before, Senator Harradine's new-found commitment to the principles of pluralism and hope that that will bear fruit in many subsequent debates in this place. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Kilgariff, B. F. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lajovic, M. E. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G.MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Hearn, J. M.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D.Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.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. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Colston, M. A.Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N.Jessop, D. S. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.28) —The Senate is dealing cognately with the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985 which provides that the trustee of a trust-the head of a trust where a chain of trusts is involved-the income of which was stripped under a new generation trust stripping scheme, will, subject to election arrangements, be liable to trust recoupment tax on the amount of the stripped income at the rate of 60 per cent. It also provides a right of election to beneficiaries of the stripped trust to enable them to eliminate the liability of that trust to trust recoupment tax by electing to be assessed for personal income tax on amounts equal in aggregate to the stripped trust income. It also provides that, where an election is not made and the stripped trust has ceased to exist, its beneficial ownership has changed or it is unlikely to pay the tax imposed, those persons who have directly or indirectly benefited from the stripped income will be jointly and severally liable for trust recoupment tax. It further provides rights of contribution and apportionment of liability via the courts to persons who are jointly and severally liable for trust recoupment tax. It further requires payment of additional penalty tax where a new generation trust stripping scheme is or has been entered into after 28 April 1983, and it renders void arrangements entered into after 28 April 1983 which have the dominant purpose and effect of directly or indirectly defeating, evading or avoiding any liability to tax arising under the legislation. The magic of that date-28 April 1983-is that it is the date upon which the present Government, when first elected, announced an intention to take action of the type proposed under this legislation. The first of the associated Bills is the Trust Recoupment Tax Bill, which will formally impose the trust recoupment tax. It declares that the rates of tax on such taxable amounts shall be 60 per cent, 75 per cent and 46 per cent, depending upon whether certain elections have been taken, whether primary or secondary taxable beneficiaries are involved, and whether companies are involved. The Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 makes a number of consequential amendments to legislation from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 through to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. The provisions contained in this legislation have the broad general support of the Opposition, the broad general support of an opposition which when in government took more action to stamp out the tax avoidance and evasion industry than had been taken by any previous government. I commend the action taken by the former Government in the series of steps it took, commencing in 1978, in relation to trust stripping. On 12 June 1978 the then Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, stated that measures would be taken with effect from that date in relation to trust stripping which at that time, as known and as acted against, related primarily to capital trust stripping. Further action was taken subsequent to that time by the former Liberal and National Party coalition Government. Further remedial measures to counter variants of the arrangements were taken in 1981 and further general anti-tax avoidance legislation was enacted with effect from 27 May of that year. The next date of particular relevance is 12 May 1982 because on that date the then Treasurer announced: Should existing legislation be found inadequate to strike down any scheme of the trust stripping type, the Government will introduce appropriate remedial legislation. That legislation will have the effect after today- I pause to interpolate that that day was 12 May 1982- that is, it will apply to trust income of the current and subsequent income years, except where the income has been paid to or applied for the benefit of a beneficiary before tomorrow. The legislation will be structured so that taxes borne by the persons who are found to have rights to effectively enjoy the income, whether in a capital form or in any other way. It was made perfectly clear that, so far as the government of the day was concerned, anyone who engaged in that practice after that time could expect to find legislation introduced to make such action unlawful and subject to legislative requirement of recoupment to the revenue. So it is quite clear that the Opposition has every intention, as expressed in government and exemplified by action taken repeatedly in government, to stamp out tax avoidance. We support entirely the intention of this legislation to take action to stamp out tax avoidance. However, we do have an attitude in relation to the question of retrospectivity which is important in this case. Senator Jack Evans —And which changes from time to time. Senator PETER RAE —My attitude in relation to retrospectivity has not changed in the past quarter of a century. Senator Jack Evans —You said 'we'. Senator PETER RAE —I simply say that my attitude has not changed since I first became involved in debating these matters. The Opposition's attitude to retrospectivity, which Opposition members have made clear in the debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives, is that we will support its being retrospective to 11 May 1982, the date upon which a member of the public could have had a reasonable expectation that the action he or she took with regard to trust stripping would be legislated against if it was found to exist and was contrary to the general intention of stamping out trust stripping. I believe, and have always believed, that it is extremely important that people do not find that that which was lawful at the time they did it is subsequently made unlawful by any government in any parliamentary democracy. It is of the most fundamental importance that people have the assurance that they can act with reasonable reliance upon two things. The first is that the law will be enforced as it stands; and the second is that if they have been given a statement of intention to act, they should have regard to that statement of intention to act, as has been the practice in relation to Budget Bills which announce the introduction of excise duty changes, which announce changes to tariff duties, which announce changes to all forms of legislation, and which very often announce in particular quite dramatic changes to taxes on consumer goods such as cigarettes and alcohol and other items. Over the years such changes have always been taken to date from the time of the announcement of the Budget, although the legislation itself is not introduced and passed by the Parliament and cannot physically be passed by the Parliament immediately at the time of announcement. Chaos would exist in our type of society were it not for the application of that principle. As I said, the principle is that one can take the law as it stands with the exception, or warning, that one should base one's actions on a statement of intention when a government with the likely capacity to carry through its statements of intention makes it clear that it has the intention to act in a particular way to change the law. We have no quarrel with the legitimate prospective operation of this measure in accordance with the warning, the clear statement of intention, given by Mr Howard that legislation would operate from 11 May 1982. I will at the appropriate time in the Committee stage move an amendment that will change clause 5 of the Bill, which provides for primary taxable amounts. It says that 'subject to sub-sections 2 and 3, where . . . at any time, whether before' and the rest of the things I roughly summarised in opening, will become subject to taxation. It refers also to tax avoidance schemes entered into on or after 1 July 1980. Were it the situation that there was a legitimate argument that some warning or statement upon which people ought to act and ought to rely have been given by the Government of the day, which indicated that action would be taken from 1 July 1980, the Opposition would see no reason why the legislation should not date from that day. However, in all the second reading debate in this chamber and in the debate in another place, at no stage was any legitimate reason given, which we could find, which indicated why it should be dated back to 1 July 1980. Therefore, the amendment which I will be moving will be to change the date from 1 July 1980 to 12 May 1982. It is consistent with what has been done in this chamber, with the support of some members of the Australian Democrats, and the support of Senator Harradine on occasions. It is consistent with the operation of a system of law in which people are entitled to act upon the law as it stands or the law as they can reasonably anticipate it to be likely to be as a result of a clear and unequivocal announcement by the Government of the day. I noticed that in another place an argument was put and rebutted. The argument that was put was akin to the fact that all tax avoidance was something which would be stamped out and, therefore, every measure of tax avoidance could be dated back to any date. The honourable member for Bennelong, Mr Howard, in answering the point on the raising of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, pointed out that that section had been introduced in about 1936. He said that that would justify the date of retrospectivity in relation to any amendment of legislation making unlawful any tax avoidance measure; it would be legitimate to date the legislation back to that date. With respect to the person who put the argument, I think that is a fatuous argument which would not be likely to gain general support. The only basis upon which one can put the argument is the basis upon which it was put. As I understood it, it was put on the basis that it is the policy of the present socialist Government that it will change the law retrospectively to whatever date it believes suits its case and its purpose. The Government will make unlawful actions which were lawfully taken by somebody at the time they were taken, wherever the Government deems it appropriate and in the public interest so to do. I can understand the public interest argument where there is something foul, reprehensible, anti-social, destructive of the economy and inequitable insofar as the payments share between citizens of this country is concerned, such as tax avoidance. I can understand that there should be some enthusiasm to act in this way, but I do not see justification as opposed to enthusiasm. I do not see that there is any basis upon which the extremely important foundation principle of being able to find out what the law is, rely upon the law and act in accordance with the law, subject to that qualification of a clear and unequivocal announcement of an intention to amend it, should not be used as the system that prevails in our type of society. We entirely accept the need for the taxation system to be amended in a variety of ways, including this amendment to date from the date on which it was announced that action would be taken, and we acknowledge the extreme importance in Australia today of action being taken to review the whole of the taxation system. I recall speaking on many occasions in 1971, in the period leading up to the Government of the day forming the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, on the failure of the taxation system. What had developed in Australia was a system which was patched up from time to time, rather in the way of a colander with water pouring into it, using band-aids to try to cover the holes, and after a little while the band-aids would fall off as somebody found a way through the amendments; what was needed was an overall review. However, I will leave to another occasion the debate on the overall review, because I do not want to muddy the waters of this matter by discussing the general, notwithstanding that we are dealing with the biggest spending, highest taxing, as a percentage of our wealth, government that this country has known since it became a nation at Federation. The Opposition is proud of the record it has in taking anti-tax avoidance measures. It is proud of the fact that it squashed the tax avoidance industry. It is proud of the fact that when the coalition parties were in government, tax avoidance as an industry-except for a few small bits and pieces, of which this is one example-was squashed. The extent to which it was squashed is the fact that this example, at the very most, will involve $10m. Ten million dollars, in the total revenue of this country, is a very small part, which has been bypassed or overlooked in the measures which were taken by the former Government in acting to squash tax avoidance. We do not believe that retrospectivity is justified to make illegal that which was legal and of which the public had no notice of the Government's intention to make unlawful. When in Government we gave warning that the legislation would date from 12 May 1982. We therefore support the measure as from the date of the giving of that warning. We would also, with that amendment, support the consequential Bills, and on that basis I would commend the legislation to the chamber. We look forward to, and hope that there will be, support for a continuity of a rational approach to the question of retrospectivity, that is, that retrospectivity in relation to this type of tax legislation can date from the date of a clear and unequivocal statement of government intention to act in relation to the particular measure which is to be introduced. On that basis, we will support the passage of the legislation as amended in the manner which I have indicated. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.48) —I support the comments made by my colleague Senator Peter Rae on behalf of the Opposition. As has been outlined by Senator Rae, we would support prospectively the provisions that are before us, but the Government is asking us to accept retrospectivity as a mentality in law making, and we are opposed to that retrospective mentality. We believe that certainty under the law is required by the citizens of this country. I think, at a time when there has been so much provision of review of administrative decisions and greater access to the law so that people are able to understand how the law affects them and what the law is, it is not timely to introduce a range of measures in a retrospective manner, which the present Government has done over the period of its office. The Opposition, when in government, made known its attitude with regard to trust stripping. That was described by the former Treasurer in another place and has also been outlined by Senator Peter Rae. It was to the effect that, when it was made known to us by the Australian Taxation Office that there was a problem with regard to trust stripping of this kind, we would introduce legislation to make sure that that practice did not occur. The date on which we made the announcement was precise. The outline of our intention with regard to legislation was also precise, and that is why in this debate we are moving an amendment to the legislation; to put that date of the first announcement of the Government's intention in the legislation itself. I support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by Senator Peter Rae, which will have the effect that I have mentioned, providing that the Bill should date to 12 May 1982, which was the date of the announcement, and not to 1 July 1980, which is the proposal of the present Government. It needs to be said that legislation of this kind should not have retrospective operation. In May 1982 the then Government was aware of the concern of the Australian Taxation Office to outlaw this practice. It was believed that, if the existing legislation did not give sufficient strength to the Commissioner of Taxation to deal with it in the way that he believed was equitable, further legislation would be introduced. For us now to deal with amendments to the various Acts and to date them back to a period in 1980, something about which there has been no prior announcement, is to support retrospective legislation in quite a naked form. The date of 1 July 1980 has been prescribed in the legislation before us. Many people could argue that it should be some other date, but no announcement was made; we were simply told that the present legislation was inadequate. Therefore our early announcement is a reasonable starting point and will be supported, in general, by the community. I believe it was made perfectly clear by the Treasurer in 1982 that any trust stripping that went on after the date that he made this announcement would be struck down by the Commissioner either by the existing legislation or by legislation that would take effect from that date. It was of interest to me to see that information provided by the Australian Taxation Office shows that about $500,000 is all that would apply to activities which took place after 12 May 1982. This indicates that either the announcement had the intention that the then Treasurer had in his mind or the existing legislation enabled the Commissioner to act under it. Since the announcement in May 1982 a very small amount of tax funds has not been collected because of some defect in legislation or because it has not yet been determined whether tax could be collected. We have made it clear, in dealing with the Bills before us, that we will support prospective legislation to give the Commissioner the additional strength that is required to deal with trust stripping of the kind covered in these Bills. I think prospective legislation would have greater support in the Australian community. It appears to me that retrospective legislation, particularly when related to taxation matters, has become one of the symbols of the prices and incomes accord between the present Government and the trade unions. Retrospective legislation will be used as part of the agreement. We have seen it in a number of forms since the present Government came to office. On occasions retrospective legislation has been changed by the Government. The Government is not consistent in its approach to retrospectivity or in the matters to which it wishes to apply the law retrospectively. In this instance it would seem to us that the Government has varied the starting point and wants it to be a couple of years earlier than the quite precise announcement made by the then Treasurer in 1982. It is now just a symbol of the agreement between the Government and the trade union movement. Senator Peter Rae stated that the necessity for this legislation was not substantiated. I do not think an argument has even been put; it certainly has not been substantiated. During the second reading debate in the other place no statement was made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or anyone representing him to substantiate or argument the necessity for the legislation. Members of the Government's party who spoke in the debate showed little understanding of the necessity for the legislation or even what the legislation would provide. We are dealing with retrospective tax legislation at a time when there is a very wide-ranging debate on the forthcoming tax summit. All kinds of matters are being talked about with regard to changes in tax, the collection of tax and the mix of tax. It seems very untimely to bring forth this retrospective tax legislation and any other retrospective tax legislation that the Government has in prospect. I believe that if changes in tax are to be put before the Australian people it is hardly proper to bring in one package of retrospective tax legislation at this stage and to threaten other retrospective tax legislation at a time when the whole of the mix of tax and the tax collection arrangements in this country are to be reviewed at the tax summit. However, be that as it may, the tax summit is another argument for another time. Retrospective tax legislation of this kind does not have wide support in the Australian community just as any retrospective legislation which changes the law after the event does not have support very often in any kind of democracy. In a letter dated 1 March the Taxation Institute of Australia pointed out to the Treasurer: We accept that there is less scope for criticism when legislation operates retrospectively to the date of an announcement and where that legislation (which should be promptly introduced) follows the terms of that announcement. The former Government announced its intention to introduce a Bill on 12 May 1982. In the view of the Taxation Institute the Bill should, accordingly, have not applied retrospectively beyond that date. In other words, we had support from the Taxation Institute for an announcement by the Government of the day to be followed by legislation. On that basis we will support the passage of the Bills. The retrospective element-if it can be classified in that way-should not apply prior to the date that the Government made an announcement that it was its clear intention that legislation would be introduced and that the law would then operate accordingly. I support the comments made by Senator Peter Rae on behalf of the Opposition. I commend the Opposition's amendment to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.58) —The Opposition supports the Quarantine Amendment Bill because we think it is an appropriate, timely and good piece of legislation. This Bill effects a rearrangement of functions in the quarantine area. Quarantine has traditionally been a function of the Commonwealth Department of Health and, for reasons which were appropriate, it was historically right that quarantine be placed in the Department of Health when the administrative order was first written; but it is quite clear that there has been an emerging reality in which animal and plant quarantine has assumed greater and greater importance. This Bill seeks to put into effect new administrative arrangements whereby functions of animal and plant quarantine, both in relation to policy and administration, will be transferred to the Department of Primary Industry while matters of human quarantine will remain with the Commonwealth Department of Health, with reports being made directly to an appropriate senior officer, in fact to the Deputy Director-General, who is the Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer. Because the Opposition agrees with what the Bill proposes I do not intend to recite all the provisions of the Bill or all the things which it proposes. However, I want to talk about the genesis of this Bill and the process which was undertaken. The Bill really arose out of the work of this Senate. It is one example of the Senate operating at its best and of a Senate committee providing a report which was timely, relevant and first class-a report to which governments have responded because the Senate Committee got it right. I notice that several honourable senators in this chamber now were members of that Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. I draw attention to my colleague Senator Teague and to Senator Robertson, who were both members of the Senate Committee. I noticed also former Senator Maunsell present in Parliament House tonight. He was a member of that Committee. Senator Robertson —And former Senator Thomas. Senator PETER BAUME —The Committee was chaired by former Senator Thomas. I say to those honourable senators that this Committee prepared a first-rate report. It set out its appreciation of the problem with quarantine arrangements and it then set out what it thought should be done. Included amongst those things were the administrative rearrangements which we now see being put into effect by the Hawke Government. There were other suggestions-for example, the publicity campaign-which were put into effect by the Fraser Government. I think honourable senators might recall Harry Butler appearing on their television screens extolling the values of quarantine to Australia's national needs. Like the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, I am a medical practitioner. It might have been argued that, in some way, this rearrangement would be detrimental to human quarantine. That is not the case. This rearrangement is being carried out in a very logical way. Human quarantine will still be catered for adequately. Responsibility for human quarantine policy will still rest with the Department of Health. That Department will still have responsibility at an appropriately senior level. But the increasingly important questions of animal and plant quarantine will now be placed with the Department of Primary Industry, where so much of the policy direction lies and where so much of the brunt of any quarantine failure will have to be borne. It makes a lot of sense. This island continent is very fortunate in terms of its natural barriers, which have left us free of many of the scourges found in other parts of the world. Our task and our challenge is to maintain that freedom in a world where communication is becoming quicker, where travel is becoming quicker and where the incubation periods of certain plant, animal or human diseases may now be less than the time it takes to bring those plants, animals or humans to Australia. I do not have to set out the consequences as I think some of my Queensland colleagues and Senator Teague will set out what they see as some of the consequences if we do not have an adequate system of quarantine. I think it is sufficient for me to say that we cannot afford to have anything less than the very highest standard of quarantine arrangements. What this Bill proposes has the enthusiastic support of the Opposition. Because we support the Bill there is no need to prolong my remarks. On behalf of the Opposition I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.04) —I support the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985, which has as its main function the dividing of the national Government's responsibilities for quarantine matters which hitherto have been located solely within the Department of Health. There is to be a Director of Human Quarantine and a Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine, the one within the Department of Health and the other within the Department of Primary Industry. I am delighted that this has come about. It represents a memorial-a tribute, if you like-to former Senator Andrew Thomas, of happy memory, who, as a member of this chamber, chaired the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources at a time when it produced a report on the adequacy of quarantine. I had the honour or serving on that Committee, as did former Senator Geoff McLaren; former Senator Ron Maunsell, whom I have seen in the corridors today; Senator Ted Robertson, the well-known Government Whip; and Senator Baden Teague, who is also in the chamber this afternoon. Having sent those cheerios, I now come to the substance of the matter, which is that the location of the whole administration of quarantine within the Department of Health reflects a post-First World War phenomenon; a response to the fact that in those days Australia was concerned principally with human epidemic diseases such as smallpox and influenza. We derived considerable protection from our remoteness-the relatively low volume of trade in passenger transport. Virtually an automatic quarantine effect was brought about by the fact that one had to spend six weeks at sea to come from Europe to Australia. Of course, as far as animal quarantine was concerned, because most of our trading links were with the United Kingdom we were protected by the very high standard of veterinary and animal quarantine administration in that country. But things have changed dramatically. Australia is no longer isolated. The movement of grade and people has expanded very dramatically and we, as a trading nation, deal with a very wide variety of countries. It may also be noted that there are real disadvantages in the current location of animal and plant quarantine in the one department, the Department of Health. For example, plant quarantine is very important for large segments of our agricultural pursuits, for our ornamental flowers and shrubs and for those types of endeavours which are not normally thought of as part of our agricultural pursuits because they are not concerned with the production of food but which nevertheless, are very important parts of our internal economy and can be great revenue earners in the export trade. Because plants are not often associated with human disease, as sometimes animal disease can be, plant quarantine services have tended to be somewhat diminished in importance within the Department of Health. That is as said because there is no significant transfer of plant disease to humans, or vice versa of course. Senator Peter Baume —It is very awkward when you are Minister for Health and you get questions about goldfish. Senator TATE —That is another illustration of my point. But I was looking particularly at the subtle effect on plant quarantine. I know that when we were on the Committee that adverse effect was spoken about. I also make the point that almost every one of our major overseas trading partners has its quarantine service located within the department of primary industry in each country. For sheer ease of arrangements in international trade it is not a bad idea to have a similar sort of arrangement obtaining in our country. I do not say that that is an overwhelming argument but I think it is an important bolster to the division which is now to be carried out. The fact is that there is now a decline in the importance of diseases such as smallpox, cholera and plague throughout the world. With most people travelling to Australia by air, as opposed to the six-weeks voyage that I spoke of earlier, there is less chance of human disease manifesting itself either in transit or at the port of entry. When an exotic disease emerges after entry into the country we have particular procedures to deal with it. The fact is that the entry of persons carrying human diseases cannot be as readily controlled at the port of entry now as was perhaps the case 30, 40 or certainly 60 years ago. The importance now is with the entry of humans as carriers of plant or animal diseases either in themselves or in materials that they bring into the country, and with the general issue of quarantine arrangements to protect against animal and plant diseases. I raise only one query. I recall that the members of the Senate Committee thought it important that, if the plant and animal quarantine service were transferred to the DPI, there be adequate arrangements to ensure that there was no subtle effect, that the need to foster trade in agricultural products should not overcome the scruples that a quarantine officer may have about particular practices. We thought it important that the chief quarantine officer in charge of animal health and disease prevention should have direct access to the Minister and not be part of the bureaucracy in a way which would muffle his voice or have him compromised when he wanted to make a point direct to the Minister, to preserve his integrity and that of his officers. I hope that the relevant Minister can give me an assurance that in the administrative arrangements the new Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine will have direct access to the Minister. That is important to preserve the integrity of that part of the Department. With those few remarks, and noting that although the razor gang of notorious memory talked about this as a desirable- Senator Peter Baume —The new or the old razor gang? Senator Button —You mean the discredited former razor gang. Senator TATE —That is right. Our razor gang has come to the conclusion that this can be carried through. I am pleased that it has. It is really the carrying through of a Senate committee report recommendation. In that respect it is a tribute to those who laboured long and hard in many parts of Australia to produce a report which has had such a salutary outcome. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(6.13) —As honourable senators can see, there is unanimity on both sides of the House about the worth of this Quarantine Amendment Bill. I thank Senator Tate for his remarks and for mentioning and naming the senators on the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources who took part in the reference and who came up with the recommendations. I recall with affection former Senator Andrew Thomas who spent a great deal of time on this when he was Chairman of that Committee. He and I became Whips in this chamber. We overlook quite often the great work of Senate committees and it was fitting that Senator Tate mentioned that Committee. I thank him for that. As has been indicated, the Bill does two things. Basically, it increases some penalties and transfers some sections from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. As my colleague Senator Peter Baume indicated, Australia is in many ways a lucky country, not the least because it is an island continent and as such has been immune from many of the diseases that affect both plant and animal life in other countries around the world. It has developed its own unique flora and fauna. The introduction of other plants or fauna could be quite catastrophic. I mention that this has happened, albeit quite innocently, with plants that were brought in by the early settlers. Lantana, to mention one, was brought in as a hedge. I spent many days, weeks and months in the paddock, trying to clear lantana, before 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T came in. I could quite cheerfully have throttled those early settlers who wanted a nice garden hedge. Senator Button —You should have stayed there. Senator COLLARD —There are times when I wish I had stayed there. I am instancing just one case where, with the best wills and intentions, people brought in plants which thrived in our climate. Cactus is another example which literally wiped out almost the whole of our pastoral industry in Queensland. It became so thick that cattle could not even move through it. Another example which has been brought in in recent times and which is now causing great concern in the pastoral lands of Queensland-it was brought in innocently-is the parthenium weed. Very few of the hormone sprays, which can control such things as noogoora burr, groundsel and lantana, can control parthenium weed. Thus, for the plant life alone there is great need for adequate quarantine facilities. There is also a great need for the protection of our animal life, our great flocks and herds. Foot and mouth disease and bluetongue are constantly on the minds of our pastoralists who fear that such diseases may come into the country and be let loose. Those diseases are so close to our shores. Quite often there are outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Indonesia. I was part of a parliamentary delegation to Indonesia. I saw the co-operation between the Indonesian authorities and our own authorities in recognising and isolating that disease in Indonesia. The entry of such a disease would have a disastrous effect on us. One of the reasons we can export so much beef on the world market is that most people realise that Australia is free of foot and mouth disease. The point was made by Senator Baume and Senator Tate that people move around the world in great numbers and with great rapidity. The last foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain was, I think, eventually traced to tinned meat from the Argentine. People who go through our immigration and quarantine checks when they enter this country wonder why our authorities are so strict. But it is so easy to bring in a disease which would have disastrous effects on our primary industries. Many people who come from Europe like to bring in genuine salami or something like that and they wonder why they get into trouble. As I indicated, the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain was traced to tinned meat from the Argentine. We are also quite worried that the screw worm fly is already in Papua New Guinea. We must watch very carefully that it does not start to come down the Torres Strait island chain and through to Cape York. That would cause a tremendous amount of problems if it broke out in our herds in north Queensland. Another disease that we overlook too easily but which concerns many people is the possible outbreak of rabies. This could quite easily be introduced by people who move around the South Pacific in their yachts or motor launches. They quite often have their pets or animals, particularly dogs, on board. Although when they come into Australian waters they are supposed to enter Australia at certain ports where there are quarantine checks and facilities, they often do not do that. It is a constant cause of concern to me. We know what devastation rabies could cause amongst our animals and human beings. It would be well nigh impossible to exterminate it because of the feral animals that we have which could carry that disease. It would be impossible to eradicate the disease. It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill. It is good that it has the support of both sides of the Parliament. Obviously, the Department or Primary Industry is very conscious of the need for adequate quarantine services. There is a two-way effect. Now that the Cocos Islands establishment is operating, it means that we can bring new strains of stock into our country. Indeed, I was present in Townsville, north Queensland, when the first flight of new Brahman blood was brought in via the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I was there with many of the beef producers who came to receive their cattle. Those cattle are already amongst the great herds in Queensland. As everybody has mentioned, this Bill is important and I have no doubt that everybody will mention the importance of quarantine to our great nation. If any of those diseases break out in Australia, they will have a devastating effect. Forty per cent of our balance of payments is still due to the exports of our primary industries. For many reasons we cannot afford to slacken one little bit in our efforts in this regard. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.20) —I support the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985. It is a technical Bill dealing with changed administrative arrangements for quarantine responsibility. I can assure the Senate that the Bill is welcomed by all primary industry in that it shifts the responsibility for quarantine control of plants and animals from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. This has been the wish of primary industry, certainly in Queensland and probably throughout Australia, for some time. Responsibility for human quarantine remains with the Department of Health. Australia is an island and it is very fortunate in having natural barriers against the importation of some of the exotic diseases, particularly plant and animal diseases, which abound in our northern neighbours such as New Guinea and Indonesia. Certainly, we are fortunate to have disease-free status in a number of the diseases that would render far less effective our primary industries and rural production. We must always be very conscious that these diseases are in the neighbourhood and we must do everything in our power to protect both the plant and animal sectors of Australian primary industries from the importation of the diseases. It is a tribute to our quarantine services that Australia is free from most exotic plant and animal diseases. Of course, we must play a part in keeping out the diseases. We must be vigilant. We must use all the available research. Vigilance comes from a properly thought out policy and an effectively administered, adequately staffed quarantine service. As Senator Collard has said, our rural exports represent between 40 and 45 per cent of our total export earnings. Australia's standard of living depends on these levels being maintained and increased. The quarantine issue is so important that it should be the last area to fall victim to this Government's penny-pinching attitude. One example of where the Government has put revenue saving before concern about the threat of the introduction of exotic plant and animal diseases is its changes to the coastal surveillance service in northern Australia. On 1 April last year, a very effective service by a Nomad Searchmaster aeroplane was terminated. It had a great record in Queensland in arresting Taiwanese vessels that had entered Australian waters for the purpose of clam poaching. Nine arrests were made. Not only was the Searchmaster capable of searching, finding and ultimately sending patrol boats out to arrest the clam poachers, but also it was very effective in rescue work. We in Queensland miss the Nomad Searchmaster. Its discontinuation has left the whole of the Queensland coast without the capacity for air rescue. In lieu of the Nomad Searchmaster we have been given 15-year-old Skymasters that can search on only one side. Of course, they are capable of searching only two miles out to sea and half a mile inland. The Nomad Searchmaster was capable of searching 200 miles out to sea and it had the capacity to stay beyond the view of the people for whom it was searching. It could locate the boats while staying out of sight and then call up the patrol boats. It was very effective. We have asked many questions about this matter in the Senate and during Estimates committee hearings. We are still unsure why this facility was taken away from the quarantine and search areas of Queensland in particular. There are many ways by which these exotic diseases could come into Australia. One of the ways about which I am concerned, and it should concern everyone, is the islands in the Torres Strait. There are a number of islands in the Torres Strait and there is inter-island trade between Papua New Guinea and these islands. I believe that it is not uncommon for trading to take place between the islands and for the natives of Papua New Guinea to put a pig or a dog in a dugout canoe and take it across to the Torres Strait islands for trade. The Queensland Government has asked schoolteachers, public servants and a number of the island administrators to keep an eye on the situation and to report any such sightings. However, it is still of a very great concern. Diseases could be introduced from Papua New Guinea in this way. Certainly, the Queensland Government is very much aware of the situation and so, I am sure, is the quarantine service in Australia. If screw-fly were to come over from Papua New Guinea-Senator Collard has also alluded to the screw-fly problem-and Newcastle disease from Indonesia, the beef and poultry industries of Queensland and, eventually, the nation would suffer massive losses. Anything which comes into Australia and does not undergo inspection is a threat to Australia's plant and animal life. Drug smuggling, poaching along the reef, pollution thrown from ships in Australian waters which floats to the reef to be eventually foraged by wild pigs and birds, are all possible means for the introduction of exotic diseases into Australia. Coastal surveillance is the means to limit these risks. The Labor Government has reduced its northern surveillance. It has reduced both the area surveyed and the frequency of surveillance. Before the Labor Government was elected to power in 1983, its policy statement on coastal surveillance stated: We will ask the Royal Australian Navy to retain its fixed wing capability and to station immediately three Tracker aircraft at either Cairns or Townsville for coastal patrols, in addition to those aircraft already patrolling on Government contracts. Senator Peter Baume —Did it do that? Senator BOSWELL —No, it did not do it. It is just one more broken promise to add to the many broken promises since the last election. The policy statement continued: We will maintain the commitment to the building of five more patrol boats for northern surveillance. Time and again I have asked Senator Button whether his Government would honour its commitment to produce those five patrol boats. Unfortunately for the people of north Queensland and Cairns, those patrol boats are not forthcoming. That is another broken promise. The five patrol boats have not been ordered to be built, which leaves a major defence contractor, North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd of Cairns, without urgently needed follow-up contracts, with the consequent loss of Queensland jobs. I believe that 500 jobs were lost in the north Queensland slipways and engineers in Cairns. The three Tracker aircraft promised for surveillance work were not stationed at Townsville or Cairns. The Government sold those aeroplanes to France and France is using them for aerial spraying of fires. Of course, there is a great need for Australia to have those sorts of services every year. We go through the tremendous horrors of bushfires, yet we sell to France planes that are capable of doing something about bushfires. Senator Jack Evans —Crazy. Senator BOSWELL —It is a crazy situation and one that Senator Button, I hope, will respond to if he is to speak to this Bill. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator BOSWELL —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the ALP's promise to increase coastal surveillance. There has been a complete reversal of what it promised. The contract for the Nomad Searchmaster aircraft has been cancelled and we are now reduced to Shrike Commander aircraft. Some of them are over 15 years old and can do only a very limited job. The radar in the Shrike Commander covers an area of only 30 degrees on either side of the aircraft, leaving a cone of 35 degrees below the aircraft which is not patrolled. It has been calculated that a number of fishing boats could escape detection if we use the Shrike Commander. There are also fewer planes patrolling and fewer crews available. The patrols are now only every couple of days and not daily. Because these planes have no night time capacity, it is now impossible to patrol our coastline during the hours of darkness. Coastal surveillance in north Queensland and northern Australia has been reduced to a joke. At any point of time, under the cover of darkness, a ship could enter Australian waters, stand off the shore and send in a dinghy or small boat to take away native fauna. That would concern Senator Georges in view of his concern for the animals in this country. Such a situation would not have been possible before the Federal Government's decision on 1 April last year. The situation concerns me from a quarantine point of view. At present there is an impending danger of a screw worm fly outbreak in Australia as a result of its detection in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in 1979 issued a report on the adequacy of quarantine. This report stated that in the field of animal quarantine the most immediate known threat was the introduction of the screw worm fly into Australia. The report pointed out that the direct cost to the cattle industry would be immense. In America in the 1960s it cost the American beef industry $120m annually. Its presence in Australia would affect the husbandry methods of the industry in northern Australia. The people in northern Australia are already having problems with brucellosis and tuberculosis. In the event of a screw worm fly outbreak there would have to be a shoot-out. There would be no way in which graziers could control or muster cattle in one of the roughest areas in Australia, probably one of the roughest cattle grazing areas in the world. The only way an outbreak in the north of Australia could be controlled would be by a shoot-out. The Senate Committee report foresees the most likely means of entry as being through the Torres Strait Islands through the illegal entry of infected animals. This illustrates the importance of coastal surveillance, which the Government has reduced, as part and parcel of effective quarantine. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I hate to interrupt the extemporaneous flow of my colleague, but this debate is being conducted in a very good spirit and people making speeches in the second reading debate are making points to which they hope a Minister will respond. I draw to your attention the fact that no Minister is in the House. No Minister has been in attendance since 8 p.m. I ask whether a Minister could come in at least to answer the points raised in debate as a matter of courtesy to the speakers. Senator Georges —I do not know whether it is a point of procedure. The debate is not finished. If anything has to be answered, which I doubt, it will be answered. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Georges, there is no point of order. Senator BOSWELL —The Government's action in reducing aerial surveillance and flying hours was based on the advice of the Department of Health that littoral surveillance was excessive. The Government said that it would reduce littoral surveillance but that it would depend on patrol boats and other craft to survey quarantine measures, but this has not been done. All the Government has done is reduce aerial surveillance. It has not concentrated on the patrol boats or done anything else. It has reduced surveillance of north Queensland to the level of a joke; anyone could come into Australia at any time. I know that this should cause Senator Georges some concern. I support the Bill and note that the separation of plant and animal quarantine responsibilities from human quarantine responsibilities came from the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. I hope that the same Senate Committee's recommendation for increased coastal surveillance for quarantine purposes will be acted upon by the Federal Government. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.08) —The Quarantine Amendment Bill of 1985 principally sets out to divide the responsibilities for quarantine so that the Minister for Health becomes responsible for and administers those parts that relate to human quarantine and the Minister for Primary Industry administers the parts that relate to animal and plant quarantine. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I indicate our support for the legislation, legislation which is probably well overdue and which may in part rectify some of the problems which have been brought before this Parliament and the public over recent weeks, but which still does not go far enough to remedy a situation in which officers serving in the area of administration of quarantine regulations are subject to the sorts of pressures which no democratic nation or parliament should tolerate or allow to continue. It is my hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will recognise the danger which has been inherent, and which still exists, in policing the quarantine system of Australia as a result of what has become known throughout Australia as the Toomer case. I make the point specifically in relation to this Bill because it became apparent during inquiries into the Toomer case that the then Minister for Health felt that he had no responsibility for the primary industry of this country. As a result of negligence, incompetence or ignorance-my inclination is to go for the latter because of statements made by one Minister for Health-Australia has been at a very high risk simply because of a directive which has flowed through the whole of the quarantine division. That directive has been in essence-it may not have ever been in writing, but it has been very clearly understood-'Lay off the fumigation process because it is causing delays to shipping, and to aircraft and it is costing the shipping companies and the airlines a lot of money'. This fact was brought to the attention of the Australian Government right back in 1973 when Toomer gave formal notice of the deliberate cessation of quarantine ship fumigations in Western Australia. Senator Georges —What happened to Toomer? Senator JACK EVANS —Very sadly, Senator Georges, the result of that as far as Toomer was concerned was that he was demoted and transferred to a remote locality. He was subjected to a Commonwealth Police inquiry and was officially suspended from duty with a recommendation for dismissal or retirement, due to 'mental imbalance'. That quotation did not come from anybody who had any real knowledge of Toomer's state of health. The other result was a quite disastrous impact on his family and his domestic situation. After the royal commission which followed that suggestion of improper practice by Toomer, there was a recommendation for an external inquiry, and the Chairman of the Public Service Board acknowledged that such an inquiry could be conducted under the Royal Commissions Act and, in fact, suggested the services of the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Prime Minister of the time said that he would welcome such an inquiry, and the Public Service Board Chairman then departed, and the Public Service Board then claimed to find 'legal difficulties' which prevented implementation of the commission's recommendation. Instead of that public inquiry, the Public Service Board carried out an internal inquiry-which, incidentally, was contrary to the commission's view that the Public Service Board should not be allowed any discretion in the matter whatsoever. The report, on 6 November 1977, tabled in Parliament, gave an adverse finding on Toomer. The explanation for the report was reportedly based on false statistical data tabled in the Parliament on 26 October 1977. That false data implied that Toomer and staff were 7.4 times more likely to initiate quarantine ship fumigation orders than Toomer's former contemporaries in Victoria-a quite disgraceful accusation, which subsequently has been proven to be totally inaccurate. Senator Peter Baume —Why would it have been a cause for criticism? Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed, that is a good question. One would have thought that he should be commended. But regrettably, the pressure on the Minister, the Government and the heads of departments from the shipping industry and the airlines industry was making it unbearable for people in areas other than Toomer's section to apply the law as it stood. That law was to fumigate where necessary. There are some interesting statistics, but I will not bore the Senate with the full details. Senator Georges —What happened to Toomer eventually? Senator JACK EVANS —I shall go back to that in a moment. Just to touch on the question that has been raised by Senator Baume, quarantine ship fumigations ceased at various times since the 1950s in various States. The only State in which it is now operative to any degree is South Australia. Since 1974, the ratio of quarantine ship fumigations per ships boarded and cleared on arrival from overseas has been 2.2 per cent in South Australia, and 0.05 per cent in the remaining States. There has to be a reason for that. Out of 13,844 ships arriving in a number of Australian ports, including Melbourne, Geelong and Wallaroo, at least 1,113 were infested with rats, despite their supposed compliance with international de-ratting procedures. This indicates an incidence of 8 per cent. Let me return to what can happen as a result of the persecution of a public servant when he gets offside with heads of departments who, in turn, appear to be under pressure from vested interests. Senator Teague —That is an allegation. Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed, it is a suggestion which I think is implicit in what I am about to recount. On 15 February 1983, Toomer alleged to the Parliament that Australia's quarantine ship inspection had been deliberately neutered. On 2 May 1983, the Department denied to the Minister that there was any stated or unstated policy of facilitation, despite the figures I quoted earlier-facilitation meaning, of course, to make it easier for quarantines to be avoided. The charge has been made that the Department in fact misled the Minister and told him that Toomer had made a number of allegations against the Department over the years, but that these were unsubstantiated despite being subjected to investigation by a number of reviews and inquiries. In fact, there were nine inquiries in all. What the Department did not tell the Minister was that the 1975 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration recommended an external inquiry. What the Department did not tell the Minister was that, on 18 November 1982, the Ombudsman confirmed that he was not empowered to investigate. What the Department did not tell the Minister was that in 1979 the statutory appeals body rejected the Public Service Board's adverse report and recommendation, which was tabled in Parliament on 6 November 1977. On 3 June 1983, following on from the misleading of the Minister, the Minister assisting in Public Service matters stated that a further review at public expense could not be justified. Senator Teague —Do you make the allegation? Senator JACK EVANS —To answer Senator Teague, no, I do not make the allegation. The former Australian Labor Party Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, makes the allegation. He informed the then Minister for Primary Industry that his former Department had not disclosed the relevant facts to him. In fact, he suggested the formation of a joint select committee. That happened on 22 July 1983. On 25 August 1983, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) provided the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) with some information from the Health Department about Toomer. It is my understanding that the Minister for Defence was sympathetic to the Toomer case and may have-I put it no higher than that-recommended an inquiry, either to Cabinet or to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). However, I do not know whether that is a fact. A very interesting thing happened on 11 November 1983. Mr Keith Potter, the former Chairman of the Promotions Appeal Committee of the Victorian region of the Commonwealth Public Service Board, sought indemnity from the then Attorney-General to disclose facts discovered as a public servant on this matter in 1979. The Attorney-General replied: 'No'. Mr Potter made representations to the Public Service Board Chairman on 1 December 1983. On 4 December 1983, he made representations to the Minister for Health about the significance of the departmental data, and the Department was asked to reply direct. Then on 2 March 1984 Dr Everingham informed the Prime Minister that he believed he had been deceived by his Department. This raises a number of very important questions. I do not intend to pursue them at this time, but I do wish to raise them. All the statements that I have just made result from allegations made by people who, I believe, are in a position to know and to substantiate those allegations. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I would like the Minister to indicate during the debate on this Bill, which I believe is quite relevant, what action the Government intends to take on the Toomer case and whether it will hold a parliamentary inquiry, because we need to know the current attitude of inspectors. We need to know whether there is a blind eye approach on this matter of quarantine. We need to know whether there is a responsible approach by the inspectors. I ask the Minister whether the Government will now give Toomer the opportunity to be redeemed in the eyes of his peers and in the eyes of the Australian community in order to ensure that currently serving officers recognise that they have the full support of this Government, of this Parliament and of the head of the Department. Without that support, implicit and explicit, this Bill is nothing more than a papering over of a very serious problem in quarantine administration in Australia. Will the Minister indicate now whether he will instigate an inquiry or take appropriate steps to establish the facts of the Toomer case? It is a very simple question. As I interpret it, the Minister has to make up his mind-and I am now addressing this question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry-whether he, too, will take the side of the shipping and airline companies in this country at the expense of Australia's primary industries and potentially at the expense of Australia's health. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.24) —Senator Jack Evans has spoken at a tangent to the Quarantine Amendment Bill. As a Western Australian senator, he has made allegations about Toomer, a former public servant in that State. I recognise that Senator Jack Evans, like all of us, is moved in this regard by his concern for the utmost responsible standards of quarantine in Australia to protect Australian agriculture. Let me add that Senator Evans, speaking as it were from the side benches, in good faith has made representations on behalf of Mr Toomer, but that gentleman has already been able to present material to a number of inquiries, not least the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, which looked at Australian quarantine back in 1978 and 1979 and to which all preceding speakers have referred. I happened to be a member of that Committee and I remember that Mr Toomer was one of 68 people who made submissions to us. He gave us voluminous material, but all I can say is that he did not win the confidence and support of that Senate Committee, which was neither biased nor prejudiced in addressing this matter but which was enormously concerned about the inadequacies of Australia's quarantine requirements at the time. Therefore, we listened most carefully to what this former officer had to say. I make the further point that if we are to join with Senator Jack Evans in sustaining support for that one individual at the same time we must regard the administration of quarantine and the Department of Health as incompetent and, indeed, we need to accept, which I do not believe is sustainable, the view that the Department of Primary Industry, in its careful surveillance of the basis of our trade in primary industry products, and the airline industry and the shipping companies are all derelict in their duties. I believe that the weight of evidence does not lie with Mr Toomer and that he has not been able to convince either the Senate Committee or, subsequently, individual senators in the representations that he has made. In coming to the Bill, I note again the enormous importance of quarantine to Australia. Some six years ago our exports alone earned us some $5 billion. If there is a serious breach of quarantine, in the area either of plants or of animal products, we put at jeopardy an enormous amount of Australian trade. Without doubt Australia's favourable disease status among the trading nations of the world is of vital importance to this country's overall trade in agricultural products. Our freedom from major exotic diseases is a prerequisite for access to many economically important markets. If there were foot and mouth disease or bluetongue or a disease which adversely affected one of our seed crops, we would immediately put in jeopardy an enormous export industry, an enormous earner of revenue for this country. That is why this matter of quarantine and the administration of the Quarantine Act is of vital importance to Australia's prosperity. Again, it is not widely known in Australia that Australia is quite unusual among the major agricultural nations because we are the country most free from major pests and diseases. This not only allows us to have access to markets in every place for our products, but also means we do not have the dislocation and cost that other countries suffer in trying to eradicate such pests and diseases that would sap their agricultural and animal products. As to the administration of quarantine, this Bill sees a major transfer of responsibility of plant and animal quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. This has not always been so. The original Quarantine Act of 1908-an early piece of legislation of the Commonwealth, given the Constitution's placing of quarantine among the responsibilities of the Commonwealth-placed the administration of this Act with the Comptroller-General of Customs within the Department of Trade and Customs. However, quarantine at the time was rightly seen to be mostly concerned with human disease and so when in 1921 the first Commonwealth Department of Health was established it was natural, particularly after some research immediately preceding 1921, that this new Department of Health should assume full responsibility for the administration of human, plant and animal quarantine. From 1921 until this Bill, that Department has had the responsibility of all quarantine administration in this country. However, as other senators have noted, particularly since the Second World War, the priority for human disease and hence the priority for human quarantine has diminished and that priority has passed to animal and plant quarantine. So it is an anachronism, and I believe it has been an anachronism for at least the past 30 years, for the Department of Health to remain the department of government responsible for administering the Quarantine Act. I believe that this was an important factor in the way quarantine did not keep up with the degree of surveillance that we found was required when we undertook the Senate inquiry. Although under the then Minister for Health the Government responded favourably to so many of the findings of the Senate Committee of 1978-79-I commend the Department of Health for implementing strengthened quarantine measures in Australia-it is now six years later that we have the acceptance of perhaps the most important of the Senate Committee's findings, evidenced by this Bill before the Senate which has our unanimous support. However, I make the point that when the government of the day responded to the various items in the recommendations following the Senate inquiry into quarantine the Minister referred to this major recommendation and referred to it with these words: Proposals such as this which involve the location of responsibilities across particular portfolios are matters for the Prime Minister. I shall therefore not pursue the issue further in this statement. However, administrative arrangements as a whole are viewed from time to time and I am assured that the Committee's views will be taken into account when such a review takes place. I am glad to see that that review has now taken place, even though it is six years later, and that we have acceptance by the government of the day of that major finding. I note also that there were two other major inquiries immediately preceding the Senate inquiry, one of which was an internal inquiry into Australia's quarantine arrangements carried out by Sir Henry Bland and the Administrative Review Committee. This Bland Committee inquiry and an earlier inquiry both found in a contrary way, and I am sure that they slowed down acceptance by the Government of the Senate Committee's recommendation. However, I am glad that the arguments as displayed, the evidence that we adduced for our finding which is set out very clearly in chapter 9 of the report, have now had their effect. I conclude by referring to some parts of the arguments for the transfer of responsibilities. We found there were three principal reasons for making this proposal, and I am sure that these are among the principal reasons this Bill is now before us. The first is the schizophrenia in administrative arrangements to this time concerning responsibility for disease control within Australia as against responsibility for quarantine. This has been, and is now, a divided responsibility; that is, the control of entry of diseases or pests has been the responsibility of the Department of Health, even though that responsibility has been delegated to State government officers with plant and animal expertise-that is the case even with regard to questions related to human health-but the co-ordination of disease control once there is an outbreak in the country has lain and lies now with the State departments of agriculture and with the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry. If there were an outbreak of foot and mouth disease the officers responsible would be State veterinary officers but the responsibilities would be divided as the responsibility for quarantine still lies with officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health. We believe that these functions should be better co-ordinated. Indeed, when the States sought reimbursement for their officers acting for the Commonwealth Department of Health in agricultural matters in terms of disease control they would seek reimbursement from a different department from that concerned with the administration of quarantine. The Committee saw that it was advantageous to have those operations the responsibility of one authority. So in this Bill we have a transfer of functions to the Minister of Primary Industry, and under him a Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine who will now be intimately involved with the processes of disease control as well as quarantine. The second major reason for this rearrangement relates to the relatively low status of human quarantine as against animal and plant quarantine. I have referred to this transfer of emphasis from the early period, in the 1920s until now. It goes without saying that in those earlier decades there was a very real risk in Australia of immigrants coming in with smallpox, cholera or plague. The human quarantine stations were usually on islands in the port city and persons arriving on a ship who had small pox or cholera would immediately be isolated at the quarantine station. There they would gain medical treatment and in their isolation hopefully they would be cured of their disease and then proceed further with their immigration into Australia. That kind of emphasis has gone. We know know that with the short duration of air travel anyone carrying such a disease will exhibit symptoms of that disease some days after arrival. There are procedures now for the isolation of such a person in facilities such as the one for infectious diseases at the Fairfield Hospital in Victoria. This is an example of the relative weight of quarantine measures for human disease and those for plant and animal pests and diseases. Because of the change in procedure it is now believed to be much more important to direct quarantine measures at plant and animal pests and diseases than to direct them at human diseases. It is also true that there is still a risk that persons travelling will bring in viruses that may be passed on to animals or products which may carry diseases or pests that will affect animals and plants. The third major reason for the change as we saw it related to the importance to Australian trade of Australia's administration of quarantine being directly linked with the administration of our trading arrangements. In most if not all other countries with comparable trading arrangements to our own there is this concentration of the two functions in the one department. As recently as some years ago the Department of Health and some others urged that it was important for objectivity to be applied to animal and plant quarantine so as to maintain to other countries that we were not reducing our quarantine standards to facilitate easier commerce or a larger volume of trade. However, no one has adduced any evidence, despite the veiled allegations that Senator Jack Evans has made just now, that that is the case. Indeed, no one in Australia has alleged that that is the case in our trading countries where there is this concentration of function. It can be very confidently argued, I believe, that there is such an enormous commitment in a department of trade or a department of primary industry to protecting the billions of dollars worth of trade in agricultural products that they will ensure that quarantine standards are very much kept and that there is no departure from the full integrity of quarantine standards and objectivity in applying those standards. So, for those three principal reasons, we urged originally that there be this transfer of administrative function in quarantine. I note that in clause 8 of the Bill before us, for example, a priority is still given to the Minister administering the department that deals with human quarantine over the department dealing with animal and plant quarantine; for instance, when it comes to giving permission to a person or persons to enter at a place other than a first point of entry. If there is an unusual point in Australia at which someone is to be authorised to come into this country, the priority for allowing or denying that still lies with the Minister for Health dealing with human quarantine. In such an instance there would need to be a full achievement of the standards required by the Minister for Primary Industry administering the department concerned with animal and plant quarantine. This is one instance where there is an inference in this Bill of human quarantine still having priority. I want to raise one question for the Minister and the officers advising the Minister. The general quarantine service as it is called presently and as it has been called in past years-there have been four quarantine services; human, animal, plant and general-has been responsible for the co-ordination at points of entry of the surveillance of persons and goods. Given that the general quarantine officers at points of entry will receive instructions from both departments, I am sure that there will be a co-ordination of the advice and requirements of the two departments. A set of officers, including officers employed by the States, will be required, having delegated powers from both departments, to operate a general quarantine service that meets the requirements of both Ministers of both departments. I wish to be reassured that there is a clearly thought through general quarantine service flowing from this important amendment to the principal Act. I conclude with the welcome that I add to the Government's acceptance of the findings of the Senate Committee. I recall that it was the former Senator Andrew Thomas who chaired that inquiry. It is with some nostalgia and fondness that those of us on both sides of the chamber who served with Andrew Thomas in that inquiry remember the commitment he made and the way in which he led us in coming to the conclusions we now see in this Bill. (Quorum formed) Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.45) —Senator MacGibbon, who was next listed to speak, has deferred to me and I thank him for the opportunity to say a few words on the Quarantine Amendment Bill and on the matter raised by Senator Jack Evans. Senator Jack Evans called for some revision of the Toomer case, a well known quarantine case in Western Australia. What Senator Jack Evans said ought not to be as lightly dismissed as Senator Teague hopes it will be. Senator Teague has a simplistic faith in the integrity of departments and the way they respond to criticisms from their own employees who very often raise important questions. They are inclined to respond by escaping from the facts which are presented to them. I would say to Senator Teague that he ought not to use the evidence brought before the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources to diminish in some way the evidence given by Toomer on that occasion to prevent the reopening of the inquiry. Often evidence has been brought before the Senate which at first glance appears to be unjustified and without a sound base. It has turned out that the department has been wrong. We had a recent example where a honourable senator raised the case of Witheford in the Department of Foreign Affairs. At the outset it seemed that honourable senator was exaggerating and that his case was without support. As it turned out, of course, the person was on that occasion under great pressure-similar to the pressure which has been imposed, the accusations which have been levelled and the treatment which has been meted out to Toomer. I heard this morning that the person concerned has been appointed as ambassador to East Germany. Of course, we realise that some time ago the head of the Department resigned. Let me suggest that there is a possibility that that may be the case as far as Toomer is concerned and we ought not to pull away from that possibility. We ought to examine the new evidence that is appearing and give Toomer an opportunity to receive some sort of reconsideration. On the various committees on which I have served there always has been evidence that people who might be critical of the department in which they serve are brought under considerable pressure and are disadvantaged. They often find it necessary, because of pressure brought to bear on them, to resign. This is not quite relevant to the Bill, which is a very important Bill. I say this in order to balance what Senator Teague had to say and to give support to what Senator Jack Evans put before the Senate tonight in support of Mr Toomer. I was not on the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, but the Joint Committee on Public Works investigated the establishment of an animal quarantine station off-shore from Australia. I can only say that governments respond very slowly to advice. It was some five years, perhaps even longer, after the Committee had finished its work before the quarantine station was commenced. Similarly, we have here a situation where a committee has brought down a recommendation and it has taken quite a deal of time-- Senator Teague —Six years. Senator GEORGES —Six years before governments respond. We must appreciate that the situation is serious indeed. Senator Boswell and other speakers indicated that we are wide open to the entry of exotic diseases. With the world economy in its present position that would be disastrous in the extreme. Any suggestion to facilitate improvements ought to be heeded. My suggestion is that the intentions of this Bill should be accelerated. What needs to be done to establish further surveillance ought also to be accelerated. If the funds are not available for an extension of those services, the services which already exist in the Department of Defence ought to be fully utilised to carry out this surveillance. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.52) —It is a pleasure to be following Senator Teague on this side of the chamber. He is one of the three senators still left from the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources whose report, entitled 'The Adequacy of Quarantine', initiated, in large part, the changes in the Quarantine Amendment Bill. Before I speak to the Bill I must refer to the extraordinary behaviour of the Government tonight after the suspension of sitting for dinner when this chamber was left for a period of 11 minutes without one Minister being present. We recognise, as does the Australian community, that this is a government in total disarray. Nothing could more adequately and eloquently demonstrate that than the actions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on his latest overseas tour. Really, for the Government not to be able to man this chamber, when it has six Ministers, for a period of 11 minutes through the course of two speakers is just very bad housekeeping and quite inexcusable. Senator Puplick —He was out getting instructions as to who was not to get information any longer. Senator MacGIBBON —Probably. The Opposition supports the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985, which is an amendment of the Quarantine Act 1908. Formerly, all quarantine matters were handled by the Department of Health. This Bill quite simply provides for a dual administration. Human quarantine will be handled by the Department of Health, as it was formerly, but the Department of Primary Industry will take over the matter of plant and animal quarantine. I must confess to the Senate that I had been here for years before I realised that plant and animal quarantine was not handled by the Department of Primary Industry; I assumed that that was the logical way it would have been done. It was only when representations were made to me by Queensland cattle breeders, when the first lot of cattle were being imported and were held in quarantine on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, that, having approached the Department of Primary Industry for some details, I was informed that it was all being handled by the Department of Health. What is proposed in this Bill is a logical administrative move. As I said earlier, it is the culmination of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources entitled 'The adequacy of Quarantine'. I should like to quote some passages from the opening part of the report because they set the scene for what this Bill is about. Under the heading 'Summary' the Committee stated: Recognition must be given to the changing nature of quarantine which is now primarily concerned with preventing the entry of agricultural pests and diseases and not human disease as was the case when the Quarantine Act was introduced in 1908. It continued: The creation of an Australian Quarantine Service located in the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry would reflect the changing priorities of quarantine and effectively link quarantine to the overall agricultural health responsibilities of the Commonwealth. In relation to the administrative arrangements, the kernel of the Bill, the Committee reported: The Committee has been concerned with many aspects of the current administrative arrangements and considers that many of the existing problems stem from the lack of attention and initiative paid to quarantine matters in the past by the Department of Health. The recently improved performance by the Department of Health has been noted but on balance the Committee considers that the future interests of quarantine will be best served by transferring quarantine from the control of the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. As Senator Georges said, governments take a while to act, but in this case they did act. All the speakers on this Bill have made reference to the importance of adequate quarantine for Australia's animal and plant economies. As Senator Teague said, we earn a great deal of money from our rural exports. In fact, this country has been built, from the time it was settled, on the earnings from our primary exports both in the field of agriculture and from mining. We export live beasts and we export meat in the form of beef, mutton, pig meat and poultry. We can sell those products on world markets to a large degree because we are free of many important diseases which plague the agricultural and pastoral industries in other nations. It is very interesting to look at some of these diseases: African swine fever in pigs; bluetongue in sheep, cattle and goats; brucella melitensis in sheep; contagious bovine pleuropneumonia in cattle; Newcastle disease in birds; rift valley fever in sheep; vesicular stomatitis in cattle and horses; and, above all, the disease that has popular attention, foot and mouth disease, which affects cattle, sheep, pigs, deer, et cetera. All these diseases are not native to Australia. They have not colonised or invaded Australia in any way at all and, because of that, our primary industry has been able to market its products free from any risk of transferring diseases to other countries. The Bill is part of a two-pronged drive by the Government of this country to control disease in plant and animal industries. The first prong is to deny entry, and that is what the Quarantine Amendment Bill does. Supporting that, we have to have means of detection and eradication. At the time this report was made another report was made which led to the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. Now, unfortunately, as a result of the Luddites in the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, that has been put into limbo until a more enlightened time for an Australian government. Since the Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong has a relevance to this Bill I would like to spend a minute or two talking about it. There has been very little debate in this place about the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. It was built to provide an essential service for Australian primary industry. It is a maximum security biological laboratory. It is the most advanced in the world and it is a very great credit to Australian technology that that facility could be built. It is absolutely biologically secure. It will hold large animals and cattle. Every effluent from that laboratory is sterile when it comes out-the air, liquids, and faeces. Carcasses can be destroyed at no risk to the surrounding Australian countryside or the Australian community. Senator Kilgariff —How much did it cost the taxpayers? Senator MacGIBBON —I forget how many hundreds of millions of dollars it cost, but it is a huge capital investment that is just lying idle now down in the marshes at Geelong. The reason we went ahead and built this National Animal Health Laboratory was so that we would have a means of detecting exotic diseases in Australian livestock because we did not have that facility then. It was designed not only to detect foot and mouth disease, although all the crazies started running around and protesting about foot and mouth disease, but also to cover the whole field of those important exotic diseases that I mentioned earlier in my speech. It is important to be able to hold samples there, to do the titrations to identify the various strains of foot and mouth disease or swine fever or whatever is coming in. That means of course that one has to hold live viruses and things like that so one can check the reagents that one is using and know that they are valid when one applies one's tests. But no, the Luddites got in. Horror and shock! We are invading Australia with all these nasty things that we do not have, overlooking completely the professional advice and the integrity of the place. The fact is that that facility is biologically secure. We can keep viruses there in the certain knowledge that they will not get out into the community. I was so interested in this matter that when the debate was running in the early part of this present Labor regime I went to Purbright in England because Purbright is the reference laboratory that we are forced to use. Because we do not have this facility in Australia we have to send our samples to England. They are sent to England for identification, for example, in the case of foot and mouth disease, and because of the time delay that is involved in the collection of samples, their transportation and their identification in the laboratory at Purbright, we are losing the majority of those samples. The samples are not valid for an assessment as to whether they are positive or negative. It is not that we are getting false negatives or false positives; it is just that the samples are biologically useless because of the time involved. The other thing about the people at Purbright is that, although they have been very happy to do this for us in the past, it is a facility that we do not have any guarantee of being able to use in the future. There will come a time when they will say, 'We are sorry, we have so much work we cannot assess these samples from Australia', whenever we get a suspected outbreak of an exotic disease. The other point about the analysis by people at Purbright is that when we send things to them-of course, our great fear is foot and mouth disease-they will say that it is not foot and mouth disease but they will not tell us what it is. If it is an exotic disease and it is causing us trouble we have to have the facilities in this country to be able to identify that disease. That was another reason why we designed the Animal Health Laboratory. One of the by-products of the Animal Health Laboratory was not only that we could have developed vaccines for use in Australia to protect our livestock but also that we could have got into that high technology field in genetic engineering and the production of vaccines and we could have marketed them to a world that was willing to buy them. Again we lost the commercial side of it, to the detriment of this country. These people who criticise the Animal Health Laboratory have said that everywhere an animal health laboratory has been built in the world, at Purbright, at Plum Island in the United States of America and in Europe, it could always be shown that the disease got out of those laboratories into the surrounding countryside. That is perfectly true; it is not in dispute. What we have to do is go back historically and look at the origins of this. A place such as Purbright was built in the 1920s. It was built on an open plan. People did not know how the virus of foot and mouth disease was transmitted in those days and, therefore, they just could not build to control it. What is more important is that the disease was endemic in the countryside and in the countries that the laboratory served. So there was not any need for a maximum security laboratory. The position at Geelong is quite different. We have recognised and identified how the virus is transferred and we have built the laboratory so that we can control viruses. There is no reason at all for these people to come out with the idea that if we import live foot and mouth virus or any of these exotic viruses we cannot hold them, with the secure methods for which Geelong is designed. The consequence is that Australia's rural industry continues to remain at risk. We are very vulnerable, if there are breaches of quarantine in any way at all, accidentally or intentionally, to the introduction of any of these exotic viruses. This legislation is a parallel, of course, with the plant variety rights legislation and members of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, with their Luddite mentality, have again ganged up against and have denied Australian agriculture the benefits of the genetic breeding which has gone on in plants and which opens up so many markets around the world for us. The final thing I would like to say about the Geelong laboratory is that it is a brilliant piece of original design. It is the most complex facility that has ever been built in Australia. It was designed from first principles. It is as complex as an oil refinery, but whereas hundreds of oil refineries have been built around the world and it is just a matter of working off a standard plan and modifying it for local needs, this Geelong facility is a brilliant piece of creative designing which does enormous credit to Australian engineering and architectural capabilities. There was a market for one, two or three of these facilities around the world. There was a market that Australia could have captured, as the design consultant, to build these facilities. But what have we got? We have this brilliant facility that is not being used. It is locked up and is just turning over. How can we turn around and say to countries such as Canada or Japan that want to build one of these facilities: 'We have the ability to do it'? They could turn around and say: 'Yes, your facility is so good that you are not even game to use it'. So we lost out on that. At least with respect to the quarantine side of the legislation this Government has got something right and the Opposition supports that part of the Bill. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.06) —It is very heartening to be able to join in this debate which picks up the recommendations in the 1979 report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Adequacy of Quarantine. It is a very important report. Like other senators I commend the Chairman and members of that Committee for bringing down this report. I commend in particular former Senator Andrew Thomas. This is a most interesting report. The various matters at which this Committee looked in regard to general quarantine were: The clearance of ships, aircraft and refugee boats; the clearance of aircraft and ship passengers; containers; contaminated materials; itinerant yachts and ships pests; overseas mail; coastal surveillance; Torres Strait; plant and animal quarantine aspects. This report was brought down in 1979 which, after all, is only some five or six years ago. We still see the situation in Australia as being just as important as the Committee found it at that time. As has been indicated, the purpose of the Quarantine Amendment Bill is to transfer the responsibility-this gives effect to the Government's policy, according to members of the Australian Labor Party but this has been taken from the Senate Standing Committee report-for animal and plant quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. Agricultural quarantine is central to agricultural health. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said in his second reading speech: . . . 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. I suppose that the topics of surveillance and quarantine measures come up very regularly, particularly in the north of Australia. I commend Senator MacGibbon for his speech on the Geelong facility. What a ridiculous thing it is that, after so many years of research and recommendations and an inquiry by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works, this facility was built at last-a facility that is most necessary for the security of Australia as far as quarantine is concerned-yet this facility, which I believe cost over $100m, is lying redundant. One wonders why, after so much research has taken place and so much work has gone into it, the facility is not being used. Is it a measure by the Government to curtail expenses? Is the Government not prepared to pay for the operation of this facility? One wonders why this is, particularly when one looks at the problems of our primary industries, the value of primary industry to Australia and how primary industry can be wrecked by exotic diseases coming into Australia. The Northern Territory Cattle Council newsletter states: Did you know? Agriculture is a growing industry? The volume of agricultural output has increased by more than 200 per cent in the past 30 years. After temporary production falls because of drought in 1981-82, agricultural production reached a record $14,500m . . . in 1983-84. It goes on to say that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that in 1981-82 and 1982-83 agriculture earned about 43 per cent of Australia's export earnings. With respect to beef the newsletter states: Beef cattle is one of Australia's largest primary industries. Beef production in 1982-83 totalled more than 1.5 million tonnes-worth about $2,000 million. Of course, the whole of Australia's export industries are in danger because to the north of Australia are the exotic diseases that we fear so much. We have done so many things in the past to protect ourselves and yet we are not prepared to go the whole way to ensure that our major industries are still further protected. I will read what Michael MacKellar, as Minister for Health, said on the occasion of the opening of the animal quarantine station on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. He said: The Cocos Island animal quarantine station is a facility of world class. It is a facility of which all Australians can be justly proud. It offers new scope for the future development of a major sector of Australian industry. Despite the major recent developments in the resources area, Australia continues to rely heavily on its agricultural pursuits. Some 45% of Australia's total export earnings come from agriculture and we provide approximately 50% of the total world trade in beef. The advantages that Australia enjoys in the world market-place for its livestock output depend crucially on our maintaining the capacity to keep Australia free from the major diseases and pests of animals found overseas. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease, for example, would cause an estimated drop in the value of rural output of some $2,500 million in the first year alone. There would be an aggregate over the first eight years of $10 billion if the disease were not eradicated. Australia has had a quarantine record which is the envy of many countries. It results from a combination of our relative geographic isolation and quarantine arrangements which are, with justification, among the most stringent in the world. That action by government is extremely good. Those who have been involved in these precautions outline the problems that could occur if exotic diseases came into Australia. Other honourable senators have outlined the diseases that are so close to Australia. I refer to Newcastle disease, foot and mouth disease, bluetongue, rabies and, of course, one that we have in endemic proportions to the north of Australia-the mosquito-carried malaria which is once again raising its ugly head. The situation is extremely serious. While we can take administrative action through this legislation to bring about further precautions, I believe that much more has to happen. I have spoken in the Senate on very many occasions of my concern, as someone from the Northern Territory, at the lack of security facilities and quarantine measures in the north of Australia. I am one of very many people who find it so difficult to understand why Australia is so lucky. We can look at a map of the world and see the way that these exotic diseases, whether foot and mouth disease or the other diseases that I have mentioned, spread. We see that most nations and most land masses in the world suffer from those diseases; they occur only just north of Australia. I wonder why it is that we have been so lucky when, within an hour's flight or less in a jet or within one or two days' sailing to the north of Australia, these diseases are present. It is interesting to note this, considering the contact that people of the northern land masses-I talk principally of Indonesia and Timor-have had with Australia. Of course, Australia's first regular visitors, back in about the seventeenth century, were Indonesian fishermen who developed the country's first export industry, the trepang trade. Trepang, also known as beche-de-mer or sea cucumber, is a species of sea life which thrives along the northern coasts of Australia. Over the last 400 or 500 years or more, these fishermen have come down to Arnhem Land and the Gulf of Carpentaria for trepang. Assisted by the local Aborigines, the Indonesians speared the trepang in shallow waters, gathered and then boiled them in large cauldrons over stone furnaces along the coast. After all these centuries of visits from these Macassans, one can see the trees that they planted and the immense heaps of shells that have been there for centuries. The Macassans still come here, although they are not called Macassans these days. The other day a group of fishing boats came down from their island in Indonesia. They come down periodically to fish off the coast of Australia. It took all the surveillance resources in the north to find them, count them and be able to take then into custody. I am not being critical of the people involved in this search but one wonders just how poor is our security when it appears that they were unable to count the number of vessels that came into Australian waters. Indeed, one wonders how many left without being apprehended. I believe that the people working in the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police and such organisations in the north endeavour to do their best. But, frankly, the resources that they have are insufficient to do the job which they are called upon to do and for which they are given responsibility. It is very easy for fishermen to come down from Indonesia. They might have poultry on board. They could have dogs. They could have pigs. They could have seeds. In fact, it is reported that on many occasions and for various reasons these boats carry animals, birds and such to see the fishermen through on their sea voyages. It seems that they have the ability to land on the coast-goodness knows how many times-without being apprehended. In this case it was suggested that some 24 people were involved. Some were arrested and brought into Darwin. They went through the courts and were then released. They were just simple fishermen. I do not see anything sinister in that. What worries me is the fact that these simple fishermen, who have used the same type of fishing vessel-a lugger, or whatever one may like to call it-which has had practically no change to its design over the centuries, can still come down into Australian waters and get very close to the mainland. In fact, I suggest that they can still land on the mainland as they have done over the centuries. It is reported that some of the vessels-although perhaps it was not so in this case-carry seeds which are to be planted. I do not see anything particularly sinister in that. However, let us look at the way these people use islands such as the Ashmore Islands and Cartier Islet. The Ashmore Islands and Cartier Islet are off the north-west coast of Australia. It seems to me that there is a gentleman's agreement between fishermen, who come down to get fish for their villages and earn their livelihood, and the Australian authorities. As I understand it, one can find Indonesian fishermen on Ashmore and Cartier islands much more often than one can find Australian fishermen there, although I hand it to the Royal Australian Navy that every three to four weeks, I think, it has a patrol boat go there. I suggest that such islands, uninhabited except perhaps by these fishermen on various occasions, are where the seeds and such that the fishermen bring with them are planted for future use. As I say, Ashmore and Cartier islands are not very far off the Australian coast. They are of considerable significance to Australia for reasons such as oil. It is reported that on one of these islands there is a very big plague of rats. Large numbers of rats inhabit the island. They have been brought there by vessels which have landed there. This is a potential danger, not very far off the coast of Australia. Goodness knows what diseases this large number of rats could carry. One could speak at considerable length on the lack of coastal security. The surveillance of and maintaining the security of the north coast is a most difficult job. The north coast extends some 12,000 miles, from Derby around the Kimberleys, past Darwin, the Gulf of Carpentaria and so on-a tremendous northern frontier to protect. Perhaps we think the task is so immense that we give it only lip service. I suggest that because of the immensity and cost of the task we tend to look the other way. We do so because the existing surveillance of the north coast, which is often criticised for various reasons, occurs only during the daylight hours. The dark hours are left for the enemy. The enemy is those people who would bring about the destruction of Australia's primary industries, for example. That is only one aspect of the problem. Such destruction could be brought about in so many ways. It could be brought about by a simple fisherman, or by a drug-runner. The products of drug-runners emanate out of the Golden Triangle. These products, such as heroin, which are plaguing Australia these days are reported throughout Australia as coming into the country in increasing amounts. The vehicles which bring them in can be aircraft or pleasure boats. The pleasure boats, or simple craft, plying along the north coast of Australia can now bring in the sorts of things we are endeavouring to protect ourselves from, be it by plant or animal quarantine measures. In the north, where we have surveillance only during the daytime, our radar facilities are so skimpy that anyone who knows the drill-one would assume that drug-runners know the drill-would know how easy it is to get into northern Australia. If they are travelling in private aircraft there are 1,000-plus airstrips in the north, or bitumenised roads or what have you, on which to land. Vessels may land in quieter spots. It has even been suggested that helicopters are used. These vessels are used to the detriment of our security and of the industries I spoke about earlier. I said that in 1983-84 agricultural production reached a record value of some $14.5m and that in 1982-83 beef production was worth some $2 billion. We are told by our experts in the field that quarantine, be it animal quarantine or quarantine related to our primary industries, is what is at stake. We cannot have it two ways. We cannot have such tremendously valuable industries and do nothing about taking a really good look at and making a really goods job of coastal security. In supporting this legislation one can say only that it is an administrative measure. However, if administrative measures do not overcome the problem the Government has to seize the problem and carry it through to a solution. Before I close my remarks I mention another matter that concerns me. I refer to the low manning levels of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service in northern Australia. There are insufficient personnel to do the job. They are called upon to do a task that is beyond them because their numbers are too thin. I am concerned also to hear the not yet confirmed rumour that the new international airport in Darwin is not to proceed in the time schedule that was recommended by the Joint Public Works Committee. Last year, the Government accepted responsibility and said that the project would be carried out. I am concerned about the delay for more than the reason that I would like to see a brand new door to the north of Australia to enhance tourism and so forth. If the project went ahead, the Customs officers and the Federal Police officers would have very good facilities for protecting Australia's interests, particularly its primary industry. They would be more able to enforce the security arrangements for people who come into Australia from the north. One has only to see the things that are brought into Darwin through this old hangar that was battered during the Second World War and which is still the airport terminal for the north of Australia to share my concern. Many things are picked up by Customs, but there must be many things that are not picked up because of the sheer inability to have adequate security arrangements in this old hangar. Customs officers are up against it. The quarantine facility at Geelong, the facility at Darwin and the request for improved security and surveillance along the north coast all cost money. On the other hand, if money is not spent on the various projects and facilities to protect the north from the importation of drugs and the introduction of animal and plant diseases, we will have an enormous catastrophe on our hands. Such catastrophe will derive from the fact that areas some few hundred miles north of us are absolutely smothered in the exotic diseases that we so fear will be brought into Australia. I recommend the Bill to the Senate. I think it is a good measure. I hope that the Government will continue with the work of the Standing Committee and that it will continue to fund various projects now it has set up this administrative role. It should do these things to ensure that Australia is better protected than it is now. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.34) —I also support the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I do not want to go over the points that have been very well raised during the debate, but I also pay a tribute to the work of former senator Andrew Thomas and the Standing Committee on National Resources he headed. I am very much concerned about quarantine, particularly its agricultural aspects. We have only to look at the reports in the papers about the outbreak of anthrax in Victoria to see that it is believed this outbreak was caused by spores that may have been in the ground for 80 years. We then realise how important it is to keep out of the country as many of these diseases as we can. We simply cannot be too careful. I have had various interests in the importation of genetic material and I am well acquainted with the routine that has to be adhered to. I support it absolutely and totally. I do not think any other countries endeavour to be as careful as we are, but I am not sure that they are equipped much less adequately than we are. With our enormous coastline, there could be no less appropriate way of maintaining surveillance than with the handful of naval vessels which are quite inappropriate for coastal surveillance. They cannot operate in bad weather; they are too slow; and they are manned inappropriately. It is ridiculous that they have to try to cope with matters of immigration, surveillance generally, quarantine and defence. Feral animals are at present a problem in Australia. I refer to animals such as goats, deer, rabbits, buffalo, foxes and donkeys. If there is an outbreak of disease which affects those animals it could spread to domestic animals and leave us in tremendous difficulty. I would like to raise two or three items that cause me some particular concern. The first is in connection with details of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. I read only the other day that in spite of various discussions and arguments that have gone on over some period, particularly concerning diseases in potatoes, such as the golden nematode, we have now given approval for the importation of New Zealand fresh potatoes. The approval includes a proviso that they be delivered straight to the shops. To say that they are to go to the shops is no protection when there is nothing to stop any home gardener in Australia from buying potatoes in a grocery shop and planting them in his garden. I cannot imagine any easier way to spread the golden nematode. We do not want it in Australia. We have managed to keep it out and it is quite ridiculous that we should have this type of breakdown. Another matter with which I have been recently associated is the importation of the leafcutter bee. The best answer that I can get as to why we are bringing in the leafcutter bee is that the risk of illegal entry if we ban it altogether is too great. Frankly, I do not accept that as a valid reason for not attempting to keep it out until we are totally satisfied that it is free of any possible complaint being associated with it. I think that the leafcutter bee is perfectly safe, but the quarantine people cannot tell me that. The best answer they can give is that the risk of it being brought in illegally if we try to ban it altogether is too great. Other speakers have mentioned things like food scraps from the countries to our north, from Europe and from other countries. Tasmania is in a different position again. I am a Tasmanian, in case honourable senators had not noticed. We have a particular quarantine advantage and we should give great credit to Tasmania for having over many years kept the quality of Tasmanian livestock, in particular, at the very high level that it has reached. It is now up to the Tasmanian authorities to see that that advantage is maximised. Tasmania can become one of the great genetic pools of the world because of this. It will probably be necessary to make new arrangements concerning the importation of animal semen and animal embryo from North America. The requirements need to be very strict and must not be broken down. It concerns me because I have seen specific animals in Australia that have gained entry via New Zealand when the original semen or embryo could not have been given entry. Whether this was done by accident or done with malicious intent I do not know, but the animals are here and they would not have been legally allowed to come in on the application of the basis that the rule requires. It goes to show that we need to be more careful and more specific about the actual requirements, and the penalties needed to make ample provision for misdemeanours of this type. I know many of the officers in the Quarantine Division and I certainly respect them very highly because I think they have one of the most difficult jobs in Australia. What we must do is ensure that we do not weaken their positions in any way. It is not up to this Parliament to bring in regulations which may weaken their approach to the job they have in hand. We need to listen to them more and take more advice on how we can make Australia even more secure, not only with animals but also with plants. The penalties are grossly inadequate for when officers find people who have done the wrong thing. Quarantine inspections at the ports of entry are grossly inadequate and quite inefficient, but as efficient as they can be under the circumstances. For instance, almost anybody who goes on holiday to New Zealand must pass through a farm, whether that person goes to such places as the Cattle Dome, the deer parks or around the dairy farms to Rurakura and some of those sorts of places. When people come back, in most cases they just fill out their forms as they come through, saying: 'No, we have not been on a farm'. Anybody who has been to New Zealand has more than a 50-50 chance of having been on a farm or to other places with animals, but there is no question of doing just routine inspections to ascertain whether people filling out their entry forms have done so correctly. For a start, things like that should be done. It is not just a matter of seeing how quickly we can get people off the planes and out through the customs halls; it is a matter of seeing how secure we need to be to keep our quarantine intact. I think it is a very small number-I have studied this on the odd occasions on which I have come back from New Zealand-who submit even their footwear for appropriate inspection and cleansing in the hands of the airport staff. I certainly support the legislation and the transfer of the agricultural, rural sections to the Department of Primary Industry. I hope that we will be able to provide the quarantine staff with better facilities and equipment, and that we will encourage them to recommend stronger penalties for people who break the law. I look forward to Australia's being able to advance its position in the world in the supply of clean stock and clean agricultural plant life of all sorts. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.44) —As I have done before, when I listened to the last two speakers I was hoping that they could be quarantined somewhere in a soundproof room. The Bill has not been opposed by any speaker-although I have not been here for the whole debate-but a number of queries have been raised by some honourable senators. I shall reply to them briefly. Senator Jack Evans, Senator Georges and Senator Teague, at least, made comments about the Toomer case. The Government, and even I directly, are examining and considering the Toomer case. I think it is worth noting for the record that the views expressed by Senator Jack Evans and Senator Georges were somewhat at variance with those expressed by Senator Teague, who, I think, chaired the relevant committee. Senator Teague sought an assurance that a strong general Quarantine Division would be maintained in addition to the human, plant and animal divisions. I give that assurance. Senator Tate asked whether the Director of Quarantine would have direct access to the Minister. I am advised that the Director of Quarantine is to be the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry and, therefore, one can safely assume that the Secretary would have direct access to the Minister. A number of people, I think, were critical of what they thought was a fact-that the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory was not operating. In fact, the Laboratory has commenced operation and I am advised that it is scheduled to be officially opened on 1 April 1985. I trust that not too much of significance can be read into that date. Mr Deputy President, I shall not delay the passage of the Bill any further. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, namely, Mr Brumby, Mr Duncan, Mr Griffiths, Mr McGauran and Mr Spender. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.47) —The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) will be moving an appropriate amendment to the Address-in-Reply later in the debate. There are a number of matters which the Government has failed to address over the two years during which it has occupied the treasury bench. This is a significant time to bring to the attention of the people of Australia the Government's omissions and errors of commission. I wish to concentrate on matters related to three particular areas: First, the question of social welfare generally and its place in the Government's set of priorities; secondly, the question of taxation and the lack of development of any kind of coherent principle of integration of social security and taxation; and thirdly, some general matters concerning the economy and, in particular, the economy of my State. I start by congratulating the Government on the establishment, at the time of its re-election last December, of a new department-the Department of Community Services. This was done by the splitting of the old Department of Social Security into two parts. The new Department of Social Security, which has been in existence since about mid-December 1984, will handle the Government's income support programs, while the Department of Community Services will pay particular attention to the development of services for the aged, the disabled, children and the homeless, and to a number of other areas of great significance to such people. It is important to note that this move, which heralds a changed approach towards the development of services for the needy, followed a very persistent campaign for such a split on the part of the Liberal and National parties in the course of the election campaign and in the period preceding that. Our policy quite clearly states that, firstly, we would institute a similar splitting of responsibilities between a Cabinet-level Minister responsible for the individual and the family, and the development and administration of a comprehensive holistic social policy; and secondly that the department would be established in such a way as to better rationalise income security and taxation. Both those ministries, we believe, are essential parts of the total social welfare area. We congratulate the Government for having adopted our suggestions and will encourage the Government to get on with the job as quickly as possible. I shall turn to some of those matters a little later. I also congratulate the new head of the Department of Community Services, whose appointment has recently been announced. Mr Michael Codd is a former head of the Industries Assistance Commission and before that was permanent head of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Having worked as Deputy Secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the previous Fraser Government, he has a background in and a wide knowledge of welfare matters, having had charge of those matters in that role. We wish him well and hope that his appointment will herald a new era for the needy, particularly in the development of services for the needy. Since the election, which is now almost four months ago, it is true to say that there has been very little action apparent to the clients of the new Department of Community Services. This is particularly so in terms of improvement in the delivery of services and any progress towards the attainment of certain goals that were announced in the Budget of 1984. I turn to a couple of those goals. First, in the Budget of 1984, there was much trumpeting on the part of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he announced that a new program for home and community care was to be established in Australia. He said that something of the order of $300m would be spent over three years on the establishment of a program for looking after the aged and disabled in their own homes. The Opposition greeted that announcement warmly on the basis that it would seek to deinstitutionalise care for the aged and the disabled. It would provide assistance which would allow people to stay in their own homes, in environments which they had known for many years, so that they could enjoy their lives without being necessarily forced into a different mode of living. That followed suggestions made by the Expenditure Committee in the all-party McLeay report 'In a Home or at Home' presented in the House of Representatives some four or five years ago, and it showed a definite trend in the right direction. It is fair to say that, at the time that announcement was made in the Budget, the programs which it was thought would be incorporated within the new health and community care program, involving such things as domiciliary care, Meals on Wheels and so on, would have been a significant part of that program, but by no means was it suggested that they would have occupied the whole of it. The impression that most people who are interested in this matter got at the time was that significant additional money would be coming from the Federal Government to increase the total amount of resources available to State and local governments and perhaps to voluntary organisations to develop the HACC program. It has come as a bit of a shock since then to find that the Federal Government intends to spend only an extra $10m other than the amounts which have already been transferred from other programs and which, as I have pointed out, would total some $300m over three years. Whereas many people were led to believe that there would be a brave new world following the establishment of this program for the development of new services for the aged and disabled, it seems likely that that will not come to fruition. There are various concerns in the community about that, and I will refer to one or two of those in a moment. Let me say particularly that it is of very great concern that the matter was allowed to become a dominant feature of the Labor Party's election campaign in order to attract votes from aged people and to offset the disadvantages the Labor Party was suffering at the time as a result of its ungainly and ill thought out assets test measures, superannuation tax and income test on the over-70s pensioners. That particular program was a step in the direction of conmanship on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he announced proudly at the Opera House in Sydney in his policy speech that there would be a brand new $300m program for the aged. Now we learn that it will amount to a mere $10m extra. Let us see what one or two of the Labor Government's colleagues in the States have had to say about this matter. I quote from the South Australian Legislative Council Hansard for 21 February 1985, page 2724. Dr J. R. Cornwall, the Minister for Health in South Australia, was asked a question by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council as to progress on the HACC program. In winding up his comments on this matter, Dr Cornwall said: While there will be significantly more money available in the next three years, it will be necessary for the State progressively to pick up an increasing amount of the tab. It is an attractive programme which has the ability to provide some important and new services. Unfortunately, I believe it may have been oversold significantly in the pre-Federal election climate. I think that expectations may have been unduly raised. It will be a significant programme but it will not be a massive program. It will certainly not be the answer to all of our problems. That is a highly significant comment in the light of the remarks I have just made. It is true that there will not be a significant amount of money in this program, other than that which will emanate from the State. Of course, the State of South Australia will receive something less than $1m out of the estimated extra $10m that the Federal Government was going to hand out so lavishly as part of that $300m campaign. Other moneys will have to be found by the State itself. Again, and I think the Minister in South Australia acknowledges it, that was a strict election gimmick, something to trick the voters to get the assets test off their minds when the Prime Minister made his policy speech at the Opera House. The Labor Minister in South Australia acknowledges that very clearly. He also makes the very important point that expectations have been unduly raised. I point out that aspect because it is that which is the real problem that arises in the community today. It is not so much a question of politics, although the Government stands condemned for the breach of its own promises, but the fact is that the Government is fooling around with people's lives. It has undertaken to do things but now it is to renege on those promises. It certainly gave the impression of providing to the community something quite different from what has subsequently been delivered. That point is significant because it is not only typical of the HACC program which has come into existence in recent times but also typical of the supported accommodation assistance program which the Government has been setting up since the presentation of the Budget last year. This program again draws together the many service delivery programs for homeless persons and others in need of accommodation assistance. Again, though, in the course of the last several months the Government has given the impression that significant sums of money would be available for improvements in these programs. Now, in the cold hard light of day following the election campaign, we find that there will not be significant extra moneys for these programs and the States again will be called upon to help fund the programs. Following Dr Cornwall's criticism of the Federal Government, when he indicated that expectations had been unduly raised by the Federal Labor Government, we have to note that at the moment something of a crisis is developing in the area of the setting up of accommodation for the needy because no final decisions have been taken. Negotiations with the various States are described as being in a muddle, no new money has been made available and some decisions have been made to allocate money to programs in South Australia, as I understand, but not in any other States. There has been a total collapse of confidence on the part of the clients of the welfare industry and the advocates who serve those clients and, I believe, a very serious onset of depression amongst those who have been delivering services in this area over many years. The Government should face up to its responsibilities, establish lines of communication with community organisations and groups which are very concerned about the progress of negotiations on that program at present and seek to alleviate their concerns about what it has in mind. It is very difficult to get an overall picture of what the Government intends. Certainly there have been negotiations with the States for the establishment of certain programs, but we have unclear definitions of exactly which programs will end up in the hands of the States and be controlled by the States and which will remain with the Federal Government. The funding arrangements, including the direction of funding, are unclear. Will funds go to State, local government or other organisations? It is best described as an unholy muddle at present and I believe that the Government owes it to community organisations to take immediate steps to clarify its intentions and to communicate directly with community groups and State governments to ensure that they get far better assurances as to the progress of the implementation of the new program. I mention as an aside that that is in no way a criticism of the incoming head of the Department of Community Services, Mr Codd, since he has not yet taken office, or of the officers of the old Department of Social Security who have been carrying on the work of the Department during this muddled period. It certainly indicates that the Government leapt deeply into this area without thinking through its objectives and without giving a clear idea as to what it intended. Certainly, as Dr Cornwall in South Australia has demonstrated, the Government has created expectations far beyond its capacity to deliver. A further area of great concern is the apparent lack of action by the Government in regard to the handicapped persons programs review. I think that was set in train getting on for two years ago and the Government has promised that its report will be made available very soon. We expected it during the election campaign, before Christmas, but we have not heard anything of it since. The latest leaking of information from various sources seems to indicate that we will not have that report before April. Time is running on and community groups interested in the problems of the disabled and the aged are getting very concerned about the Government's lack of action. Indeed there appears to be something of a paralysis in the Government which stops it making decisions about such matters. We on this side are anxious to see the report ourselves because, as the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has pointed out in this place, a very extensive inquiry has been undertaken amongst community groups over the last couple of years and a great number of submissions have been received, both informal and formal, from many organisations. We believe that the undertaking of that review has been a significant step forward and we congratulate the Government for having done that, but we would now like to see the fruits of that inquiry and see some action on behalf of the disabled in the community. Suspicions on these matters are certainly raised to a very high degree when we consider the statement in the Budget Papers last year in relation to this current year's Budget that $12m would be allocated for capital and new project funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. In early 1985 the Minister announced that there would be just over $1m in urgent funding. He issued a Press statement to that effect. On 10 March this year, though, the Minister announced that a further $3.97m worth of new project funding would be provided and that that would amount to an overall expenditure of some $5m. I understand that funding for some States has not yet been announced. What concerns us is that here we are, getting towards the end of March, nine months of this financial year having passed, and less than half of the total money voted in the Budget under that head for handicapped persons assistance has actually been spent. That means that if the Government is to catch up before the end of June it will need to spend something over $6m in the next three months or so. Many community organisations are alarmed that it is not the Government's intention to spend that $6m and that the Government sees it as some kind of saving in this year's Budget. No doubt it is trying to keep the deficit down to meet the trilogy of promises which it announced, rashly, in the course of the election campaign several months ago. The point remains that the Government has failed in its obligations to handicapped persons and in the extension of these new programs. We want to know what has happened because it is certain that any numbers of community organisations are applying for grants and assistance and consequently the Government has no shortage of people who can be helped in these circumstances. I would like to know how many applications have been considered by the Department, what would be the value of the subsidy if all the applications that it has received were approved, how many of these applications have actually been approved in each State and what is the value of the approvals in each of the States. I think that is quite a sensible question to be asking, in view of the very lateness of the financial year, and I would like the Government to answer it in the course of this debate. No doubt it will not and I shall, of course, be putting forward a question on notice on that particular matter. Another matter affecting the care of the disabled is the management of various sheltered workshops and other institutions caring for the disabled throughout Australia. I am certain that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, knows about this matter and has concerns about it because he has spoken of it many times in this place. On many occasions he has drawn attention to the shortcomings in management performance of such organisations. The Government announced in the August Budget that a management support scheme was to be introduced and that $400,000 was to be allocated in order to provide backup and services to administer that particular scheme. However, we find that, whereas 16 extra staff were to be sought to administer that scheme, in fact those positions have not been established, as I understand it. In fact, no action has been undertaken on that matter at all. It seems to me that this is a fairly vital area of concern. The Minister has expressed grave concern about this area over many years, as I recall it, in various debates in this place. Yet, when put into the position where he can do something about it, there has been practically no action. There are various ways in which sheltered workshops and other organisations can compare their performances with others. There is the capacity to run inter-firm comparisons. I think it is important for people who are running organisations to care for the disabled to be encouraged to take part in such inter-firm comparisons to find out how their management compares with that of other organisations. Yet the management support scheme has not been put into place in order to encourage that development and to assist in the better understanding of the management problems of various organisations. There are a number of other outstanding matters, with which I will deal very quickly, which the Government will need to look at further. The aids for the disabled program was previously administered through the Department of Health and the States. The expenditure for this program, which is administered by the States, has almost dropped to a trickle. The Minister for Health, who formerly administered this program, has told the various States not to expect any more money. We have known that there has been a very significant growth in that program. It is one which encourages the disabled to be independent and one which all of us support. Last year it almost went bankrupt, but the Government bailed it out in the last few months of the financial year. I do not know why it now is that the Government has decided to restrict its expenditure on such an important and very useful program. The further matters that are outstanding in the area of the disabled are, of course, numerous. There is the attendant care pilot program, which is yet to be reported upon and which, I understand, has another 12 months to run. The disability allowance is also subject to a pilot study which has some considerable time to run before being completed. There is a growing concern, which we pointed to during the election campaign, about the handicapped children's allowance and its very tight and restrictive conditions of eligibility which, I believe, should be alleviated as promptly as possible. In the course of the election campaign the Liberal and National parties undertook to review that area immediately in order to alleviate the problems of families caring for their disabled children. It is important that the burden that falls on the parents of handicapped children be recognised and that the saving which consequently flows to the community be recognised. As a result, we would encourage the Government to review that situation as soon as possible. Let me conclude on the question of taxation. We are facing a period when taxation obviously will be a very high profile matter. There are certainly a number of myths in connection with the problem of indirect taxation and some other areas, such as capital gains tax. It seems to me to be terribly important to recognise one thing: Most of our taxation problems-that is, the incentive for people to avoid taxation, or in some cases to evade taxation, or to arrange their affairs in order to get around the laws, or to go off-shore, or to get involved in all kinds of schemes-come from one single factor, which is the very steep rate of progressivity in income tax. It is something which is at the core of all our problems; we have to recognise that. The question of what might be done to alleviate that situation is, I think, very much in the front of the minds of the members of the Opposition, as we made clear during the election campaign. We will be reviewing that matter as the Government goes forward in the next several months. There is one aspect which demands particular attention, and that is how the Government might handle indirect taxes, as well as its apparent attempt to introduce special kinds of taxation on fringe benefits. I notice that is one area that the Government is looking at closely at the moment. It is a very significant area. I believe, if the Treasurer is really serious about it, he will have some problems in dealing with it. From this side of the fence, we wish him all the best in handling that aspect. There is one vital element which is a problem in that area, and that is the valuation of those fringe benefits. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(10.16) —The Governor-General indicated the Government's serious concern, in his opening Speech, when he said: The Government remains deeply committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament. At the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be held in Geneva in August and September this year, the Australian Government will make efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and will continue to urge the nuclear weapon powers towards a complete ban on all forms of nuclear testing. It will actively promote programs for the International Year of Peace in 1986, and will advance the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone proposal. I endorse that Government commitment, which is fully in line with the Government's platform: There can be no higher priority than nuclear arms control and disarmament. I am aware that there is a mounting concern in Australia and all over the world at the lack of progress being made on this question of disarmament. Bill Hayden said in Geneva: It would be wrong to conclude that among the general public there is an inexhaustible well of patience with the slow pace of the work being done in the cause of disarmament here in Geneva. The concern that the Australian Government expresses reflects the anxiety of Australians from every walk of life. In just a few weeks time, on Palm Sunday, 31 March, a record number of Australians for Nuclear Disarmament will march through the main cities of Australia. They will express their views in countless banners and statements. Although they will have different emphases, there will be a common affirmation of a zest for life-that is the common experience of all the rallies that have been held in the last three years on this topic-in a world that could so easily be destroyed. This is the background in Australia as we look at the super-powers commencing their new current round of negotiations. I would like to draw attention to the most disturbing escalation in the arms race at this moment, that is, Star Wars. I shall use sources that are moderate and responsible but are, nonetheless, alarmed at the thrust of President Reagan's Star Wars program. The first person I refer to is Denis Healey, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Labour Government and currently shadow Foreign Minister. In a Fabian pamphlet entitled 'Labour and a World Society', Mr Healey said that his main concern in his over 30 years of political career had been to create a world society where one could establish some collective, democratic control over power. He examined the Eastern bloc, particularly the decline of Soviet dominance of the Eastern bloc, and then went on to refer to the United States of America. In the last 30 years Denis Healy, of all people, has certainly been a friend of the United States. In the Fabian pamphlet he stated: Meanwhile, however, the United States has changed beyond recognition as an actor on the world stage. It is no longer a reluctant participant in the game of nations. It is actively and enthusiastically involved in every continent. The danger today is not that the Americans will retire into pre-war normalcy, but that they will opt for a policy of global unilateralism under which they intervene all over the world without trying to win the consent of understanding of their allies or of the countries in which they operate. This danger is increased by the fact that political power in America has followed economic power to the southern and western states where the traditional links with Europe, so important in the eastern states, are weak or non-existent. Moreover, the increasing immigration into the 'sunbelt states' of Hispanics from Latin America and of Asians from the Western Pacific is bound to shift the regional balance of America's international interests. In any case, the post-war generation of American leaders who built up the Atlantic Community and helped to devise the framework for world economic order which collapsed in the seventies has now passed from the scene. He then referred to the Reagan Administration: The Reagan administration has been greatly influenced in its foreign and defence policies by anti-Communist ideologues who reject the post-war settlement with the Soviet Union, want to overturn the agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam and believe that America can and should build up sufficient military superiority over the Soviet Union to compel it to make concessions to American hegemony. This trend in recent American policy has shown total indifference to world opinion in areas like Central America and the Caribbean, which have been unilaterally designated as of vital strategic importance to the United States. Though Grenada is further from the frontier of the United States than London is from the frontier of the Soviet Union, it is nevertheless treated as part of America's backyard. Mr Healy went on to talk about the arms race and, I think very significantly, stated: . . . the United States is developing and hoping to deploy a system of defence against ballistic missiles which might render it invulnerable to a retaliatory attack and therefore might seem in the Soviet Union to be the prelude to an American first strike. Meanwhile, both American and Russia are developing anti-satellite weapons which, if successful, could destroy the main means on which each side depends for warning of a surprise attack. These new and dangerous developments in the arms race are under way just at the time when scientists in the USA, Europe and the Soviet Union have concluded that if even a fraction of existing nuclear arsenals are used by either side, they might generate fires which throw up so much soot into the upper atmosphere as to blot out the sun over the Northern Hemisphere for a period of months. During this so-called nuclear winter, human life, and even plant life, might become impossible north of the Equator and in large areas south of the Equator. So even a successful first strike would condemn the population of the aggressor country, no less than of its enemy and of neutral countries, to a lingering death in conditions of Arctic night. I have read that article because I think that Mr Healy has summed up the concern that so many friends of America have about their current position. I refer now to the English magazine entitled New Statesman. In an editorial entitled ' ''Star wars'' Maggie goes to Washington', it is stated, in part: The present posture of the Reagan Administration on the international nuclear arms race is a disaster. It is based on a complete failure of perception about how the rest of the world-friend and foe alike-sees the inexorable onward drive of the US military-industrial complex. The reality is, as it always has been, that the United States has an enormous technological lead over the Soviet Union in every significant sphere; that the Soviet economy is hugely strained by the current arms race; and that the US has by a factor of hundreds enough credible 'second strike' capacity to destroy civilisation in the Soviet Union, so that the Soviet 'first strike' would be an act of insanity. Yet time and again, behind the argument of some supposed 'missile gap' or 'window of vulnerability', the military-industrial complex persuades the White House and the Congress to support yet another development. In the short term the Star Wars initiative is so obviously destabilising to the psychology of superpower disarmament negotiations that the prospect of substantive progress at Geneva is nil. In the longer term, as the initiative moves from pipedream to something more concrete, it will begin to undermine the foundations of NATO. It is not unduly cynical to believe that there are some Fortress America adherents in the Administration who would be content on both counts. In referring to those sources I draw attention to the fact that there is criticism of the American President which I think is of great concern. Of course, the American President is blindly following a strategy that is highly dangerous. The other significant editorial I refer to is from the most prestigious New York Times. The editorial sums up a criticism of the American President which is inescapable and states: President Reagan has a wish about 'star wars', the new missile defense system to which he gave his energetic blessing two years ago without any public debate whatsoever. 'I wish whoever coined that phrase would take it back again because it gives a false impression of what it is we're talking about'. The administration is obsessed with the search for a name that can make this radical weapons program palatable. The problem with 'star wars', however, is not semantic. It is conceptual. The President and his aides have been selling 'star wars' on four different, incompatible grounds: (1) It is the only moral defense in the nuclear age. (2) It is only research for our grandchildren. (3) It will soon be useful, indeed indispensable, even if imperfect. (4) It is a proven stimulus to arms control. All four arguments fail, even the moral one, because a 'star wars' defense becomes moral only when it becomes practicable. Yet merely pursuing it looks to be highly dangerous. That is a general statement by the New York Times. The editorial then goes on to refer to the four headings mentioned above. Firstly, it refers to the moral way to prevent the nuclear war argument. It states: Mr Reagan offered one noble rationale when he sprang 'star wars' in March 1983. He said he wanted to rise above the ugly reality of defending the United States by threatening the existence of all life on Earth. He was therefore ordering the preparation of a foreseeable missile defense that would make America and its allies invulnerable, eventually rendering all nuclear weapons useless and dispensable. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I take this opportunity to speak briefly in relation to an important aspect of Australia's national development, that is, in regard to the development of the Australian Institute of Sport and certain facilities related to that body. Part of the former coalition Government's program was for the development of international standard facilities in various parts of Australia and for assistance to be given by the Commonwealth Government with regard to the development of those facilities. They were to be located in places, firstly, where there was an appropriateness to the venue; secondly, where there was local support for the venue; and, thirdly, where there was a preparedness on the part of the particular State government concerned to play a part in developing the facilities. In relation to my State of Tasmania, three facilities were developed by the State Government with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government as a result of that program which was first announced in 1980 and which was developed in the period that followed. Tasmania now proudly boasts-I think I can use those words-an international standard cycling velodrome which, if it is not one of the best in the world, starts to go into a higher category than that. It is a fully enclosed velodrome. It is not inappropriate that it be located in Launceston because that has been a centre of the sport of cycling for many years and many of Australia's most famous cyclists have come from that area. It was therefore more than passing strange that, at a recent meeting of the Australian Amateur Cycling Federation, it was decided that it was in favour of the building of a new velodrome in Adelaide as an alternative to the use of the velodrome which had been constructed in Launceston, with the use of a great deal of State money and a substantial contribution from the Commonwealth. It has just recently been opened and it is generally acknowledged, as I have said, as being of the highest possible standard. This decision caused very considerable concern not only in relation to that matter of cycling but also in relation to the general concept of the development of facilities of an international standard in various parts of Australia and their utilisation, appropriately, by the Australian Institute of Sport. Also, keeping to the matter of my own State, I would like to refer to the fact that also developed was the Lake Barrington rowing course. Any honourable senator who had the pleasure of watching the last King's Cup on television or even watching it in person would know that one of the prettiest and most beautiful sights for rowing that could be imagined-I am sure that Senator Aulich would agree with me-is the new Lake Barrington international standard course. The facilities were generally praised by everyone who attended and participated. Also constructed in Tasmania as part of this development of international standard facilities was a baseball diamond at Kingston. It was certainly the expectation and the desire of people in Tasmania, whose taxes went into the construction of these facilities along with Commonwealth funds, that due recognition would be given to this fact. Prior to the last election the Liberal Party of Australia stated in relation to its policy for Tasmania: Acknowledging that with the assistance of our former Liberal Government's international standards sporting facilities program, the Tasmanian Government has developed Australia's premier rowing course at Lake Barrington, we shall endeavour to ensure that the Australian Institute of Sport recognises the opportunity so presented and takes advantage of it. The Liberal Party's policy also stated: If assistance is necessary to enable them to do so, then we shall consider such assistance. We shall also endeavour to have both the Launceston Cycling Velodrome and the Kingston Baseball Diamond properly utilised in a similar way. That is a policy which I believe to be rational, reasonable and appropriate. I hope that a similar attitude is adopted by the present Government because a further situation which has developed is that following the decision by the Australian Amateur Cycling Federation that it would prefer to have new funds spent on the attempted creation of a suitable velodrome in Adelaide rather than the utilisation of the existing brand new, fully covered-in velodrome in Launceston, the Director of the Australian Institute of Sport, Dr John Cheffers, commented on this matter. He has also visited Tasmania and inspected the velodrome. He has indicated that, as far as the Board of the Australian Institute of Sport was concerned, it supported the choice of the Launceston velodrome as the Australian Institute of Sport's centre for the development of amateur cycling. It has now been indicated that this matter will be referred to the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, who will make the decision as to where the permanent headquarters for cycling will be. I trust that my Tasmanian colleagues from the other side of the chamber will join with me in ensuring that Mr Brown is left in no doubt as to where the most suitable facilities are to be found and the appropriateness of the Launceston velodrome, as supported by the Australian Institute of Sport and by those who participated last weekend in creating a new world record there and in engaging in a very successful competition. Virtually everyone, except the Australian coach, Mr Charlie Walsh, who thinks the facility should be in Adelaide, wants to retain the Launceston velodrome. Apparently he was able to persuade some of his colleagues on the Australian Amateur Cycling Federation that it ought to be in his home city. If ever there were a more incredible and unjustifiable proposition for a total waste of public funds it would be to duplicate what has been built under a Commonwealth-State program. It is in no way questioned as being the most appropriate site by the people who matter-that is, the Australian Institute of Sport. I trust that we can look forward to the support of honourable senators from all sides of the chamber in making sure that the ultimate decision to be made by the Minister will be in favour of that centre for cycling for the Australian Institute of Sport. Further, I trust that there will be similar support for the recognition of Lake Barrington as the premier, international rowing course in Australia and the utilisation of the Kingston baseball diamond, similarly constructed to premier international standards, as a place of which all Australians can be proud and where it is appropriate for primary international participation to be able to take place. I look forward to receiving some indication of support for the views which I have expressed and, as soon as possible, some response from the Minister because of the concern which has been raised as a result of the rather extraordinary views expressed by Mr Charlie Walsh and by the Australian Amateur Cycling Federation. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.40) —I speak at Senator Peter Rae's request, because he raised some issues about which I thought I also should say a few words. They relate to the surfeit of parochialism which seems to be showing itself in a number of matters relating to sport. I mention them in passing because they are relevant to what would be a fair and objective choice of venue for the future cycling centre in Australia. The first matter concerns Lake Barrington, about which the behaviour of the State Government, the Grey Government, was absolutely deplorable. It rates with the behaviour from time to time of the Bjelke-Petersen Government for sheer bad manners and, more particularly, for sheer destructiveness in terms of its reaction to an attempt by the Federal Government and other governments around Australia to get some co-operation in the whole question of where resources should go, not only in sport but also in other matters. The Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who was very much responsible for putting funds into Lake Barrington, a world class course, was invited, virtually behind the door, to the official opening of that attraction. It was a time when the eyes of the world were on Tasmania. The Minister was invited to attend but not to speak despite the amount of money that the Federal Government had put into the development of that venue. Senator Peter Rae —Some of us who were involved in the initial arrangement of the funds which went to Tasmania were not invited to the opening of any of these things, so it was not something peculiar. Senator AULICH —That may well be the case. I agree that it is a question of very bad manners. Also we have seen a proliferation of signs from the State Government alongside various projects. Lake Barrington is one that has a sign which states: 'This is another State Government initiated project'. There is no attempt to give due credit to anyone involved from the Federal Government, whether the previous Liberal Party Government or the current Labor Government. Senator Peter Rae —I am not sure that you should blame the State Government for that. Senator AULICH — Those signs were placed there. There was no attempt to give due credit. I mention this not wanting to nitpick but simply because it is essential, if we are to have the most logical development of our sporting resources, that it be done as part of a proper consultation process between State and Federal governments. Similarly, Mr Walsh, the director of cycling, also displayed a surfeit of parochialism, and I wish to comment on that. It is true, as Senator Rae said, that there was a great deal of lobbying by the Australian Amateur Cycling Federation for its choice of venue. Mr Walsh was reported on a number of occasions as saying that one of the major reasons he was able to lobby so successfully for Adelaide to be the venue was that he preferred to live in Adelaide. As an afterthought, he went on to describe some of the other attractions of South Australia, apart from the fact that he wanted to live there. Things such as the size of the velodrome, the road conditions and so on were mentioned, none of which measure up to the attractions of Tasmania, which has done fairly well in terms of amateur cycling. I can go through a whole list of world and national champions who for one reason or another seem to have overcome the problems of bad road conditions, tracks that are too long and inclement weather for presumably 340 days a year. Tasmania has as successful a record as any other State. Therefore, Tasmania's claims are not simply equal. If we take into account that a velodrome of world class standard already exists, there is very good reason for all people in this House and in this Parliament at least to have some say in where the course should be. We are making our voices heard publicly here tonight because I believe that the Minister, Mr Brown, will be as objective as possible-far more objective than Mr Walsh and other people have been in their recommendations. I will take the matter to the Minister within the next few days and I hope that our joint efforts will have some reward, not so much in where the course is placed but in the process through which we all must go if we are to ensure that there is a fair and objective allocation of sporting resources right around this nation, which was the original concept of the Australian Institute of Sport. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.45) —Mr President, I had intended to ask a question today but, due to circumstances beyond my control and to some extent beyond your control, it did not get asked. However, I advised the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, the Minister in charge, that I would be asking a question and this evening I advised him that I would ask him about the matter tonight. My question concerns the Wynyard Airport. I have previously spoken on the matter, so I will speak only briefly tonight. Over many years both the Government and the Opposition have supported the issue of local ownership of airports. Those in the area around the Wynyard Airport have decided to pursue the local ownership issue and have agreed to take it on. All the requirements have been met, and honourable senators may recall that approval was given in December 1982 by Mr Fife, the Minister for Aviation in the previous Government. It was confirmed by the then Government and by the present Government and was very much a part of the platform of both parties for the 1983 election. Of course, subsequent to the election came the excuses, the procrastinations and the double dealings. Despite the fact that Wynyard Airport has a very high number of passengers and covers a large, highly industralised and productive part of Tasmania, this was shelved while other airports in other places were approved. I particularly mention that a couple of airports in New South Wales, with much smaller numbers of passengers, closer together and so on, were approved and have been dealt with. As a result of considerable negotiations between the local authority, the Tasmanian Government and the Federal Government, fresh offers have been made, withdrawn, dealt with and changed. During all this time there has been total agreement from all the interests on the west coast of Tasmania and in the north-west and far north-western areas on the necessity for the airport to be upgraded. There is complete unanimity from the primary and secondary industries of the area, the mining industries, the various chambers of commerce and, I am pleased to say, the Burnie Trades and Labour Council. Senator Peter Rae —And supported by a bipartisan committee of the Senate. Senator ARCHER —Yes. I particularly mention that Senator Devlin and his organisation have been strongly supportive of what was going on. Although he has come into the picture only in fairly recent times he has supported it totally and solidly. Despite that and with all the help, the situation continues. Various amounts have been offered and retracted. I do not know why, in spite of the fact that all the requirements have been met, approval has been withheld. Wynyard is serviced by the Fokker F27s. I understand that even now these could be upgraded to F28s if a T-VASIS system-visual approach slope indicator-could be installed. Simply, the installation of that system would allow the F28s to use it now. Although the aerodrome local ownership plan is a federally funded scheme, Tasmania has reached the stage of offering up to $3m of its own funds because Tasmania recognises the importance of an adequate and balanced transport service for industries generally and for tourism in particular. At present on the west coast of Tasmania we have the most significant current mining development in Australia, which requires the best possible transport service. It is an extraordinarily fine development. At the moment it is not proceeding but it would certainly help considerably to have a better air service in and out of Wynyard for the transport of people and various goods. With the new tourist ferry service shortly to commence the tourist potential of Tasmania will be taxed as never before. The amount of promotion that will come about with the introduction of the ferry will require considerably better upgrading of the airport services than was previously the case. I raise two matters. Firstly, the Federal Government asked for a Tasmanian contribution to the project. Now that the Tasmanian money has been put up, all that is necessary is for the Government to confirm its commitment and to make the announcement so that work can get underway on the general upgrading of the airport before winter breaks. That is what is important now. The reason I am making this request tonight is that unless work can be put in hand before the winter, another year will be lost. It will be to the considerable detriment of the mining and tourist development of this part of Tasmania if the airport extension cannot be started before this winter breaks. Secondly, I mentioned the T-VASIS system as being necessary. The question I was going to ask today was on this matter. Strangely enough, the equipment is in boxes in the shed at Wynyard Airport, waiting for installation. It has been there since September of last year but has not been installed. The question I was endeavouring to ask was whether the reason for the non-installation of the equipment was the fact that it is to be part of the overall upgrading or whether it is something else. I gave Senator Gietzelt notice of that question this morning. I again advised him of it this evening so I expect that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, who is obviously here acting for Senator Gietzelt, has the information. I look forward to receiving it. Last week I telexed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) requesting that he confirm the Commonwealth's contribution now so that work can start before the winter because of the Hellyer mine and the tourist hump that will occur with the introduction of the new ferry. Today I intended to ask that question. I ask it now. I know that Senator Devlin has also been trying to get that simple confirmation. I plead with Senator Ryan, who is in charge of the House at this stage, to provide this answer. I think it would be a very fine gesture if the Prime Minister, after all the time and effort that have gone into the project, were to allow Senator Devlin to make the announcement and to share in the honour, glory and satisfaction of seeing that this development gets underway. I ask the Government to give us that confirmation as quickly as possible so that work may proceed. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.53) —Both Senator Rae and Senator Aulich raised matters concerning facilities which they are recommending to become part of the Institute of Sport. In particular, Senator Rae referred to the velodrome and to the Lake Barrington rowing course. Senator Aulich also commented on these matters and pointed out the Commonwealth's source of the funds of many of these projects. I will ensure that the remarks of Senator Rae and Senator Aulich on this matter are conveyed to my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, John Brown. Senator Archer made some comments about extensions to Wynyard Airport in Tasmania. Indeed, as he warned us he would, he asked a question relating to that proposed project. On behalf of Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who was not able to be present during the adjournment debate this evening, I advise Senator Archer that Senator Gietzelt has undertaken to get from the Department of Aviation details of the problem referred to in Senator Archer's question, and he should be in a position to respond to Senator Archer's question tomorrow. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.55 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Airports (Business Concessions) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 22. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 15. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 19. Defence Act-Determination 1985 Nos. 8, 9, 10. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 16. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 21. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations 1985 No. 20. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations Statutory 1985 No. 24. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations Statutory Rules 1985 No. 25 Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Veterans' Affairs-Mr D. A. Gould Determination 1985 No. 12. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determination 1985-No. 1-Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices-Official Secretary to the Governor-General and others, dated 8 February 1985. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 4-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) No. 5-Credit No. 6-Agents (Amendment) No. 7-Film Classification (Amendment) No. 8-Public Trustee No. 9-Public Trustee (Miscellaneous Amendments) No. 10-Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) No. 11-Crimes (Amendments) Regulations 1985- No. 4-(Pharmacy Ordinance) No. 5-(Credit Ordinance) No. 6-(Agents Ordinance) States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance Act- Particulars of direction under Sub-section 9 (3) and 9 (4) in relation to Special Assistance for Students Program, dated 24 February 1985. Particulars of direction under Sub-section 42 (2), dated 10 December 1984. Telecommunications Act- By-laws 1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 53. Telecommunications (Digital Data Charging) Amendment No. 3. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 23. Trade Commissioners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 17. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGE-ASSENT TO LAW: A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following law: 14 March 1985-Message No. 1- Justices (Long Leave Payments) Amendment Bill 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 6) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Are there long delays in the payment of practitioners, such as doctors and pharmacists, by the Department of Veterans' Affairs; if so: (a) why are these delays occurring; and (b) what efforts are being made to minimise these delays, in view of the hardship they cause. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria there are delays in the payment of accounts to practitioners such as doctors and other health professionals. The primary reasons are the substantial increase in the number of entitled veterans and the level of service required because of their increasing age. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has been unable to cope with this rapid growth in the short term, leading to delays in the processing of accounts. Positive action is being taken to overcome the problem and the first stage of an automated system to replace manual processing which will reduce account turn around time to a more than acceptable level is scheduled for implementation in April 1985. In the meantime, additional resources have been diverted from lower priority tasks to help reduce the accounts backlog. My Department has not allowed payments to pharmacists to remain unpaid for long periods. Payments to pharmacists are effected under arrangements made with the Department of Health and the processing of accounts for payment under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme has not exceeded normal commercial standards-30 days-in any of the States. (Question No. 39) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: Has the Australian Bicentennial Authority ordered the production of 1000 Bicentennial flags from a company in New Zealand; if so: (a) What is the name of that company; (b) why does the Authority state that 'no Australian company can meet the specified standards', when there are such companies in Australia able to produce the flags; and (c) why is it that these Australian companies have not been approached to produce the flags. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Bicentennial Authority invited tenders for 1000 Bicentennial flags in April 1983. The flags were for use in presentation kits distributed to Bicentennial Community Committees throughout the country. (a) The successful tenderer was E. H. Brett and Sons Pty Ltd, a long-established Australian company, which arranged for the printing to be carried out in New Zealand using Australian manufactured cloth. (b) The Authority, which is a public company, based its decision on the usual commercial considerations and the requirement that the flags should be of a sufficiently high quality to make them worthy of presentation to the Bicentennial Community Committees. The Authority considered that E. H. Brett's tender was the only one which met their technical and quality standards at that time. (c) The opportunity was available to Australian companies to tender for the flags and in fact twelve tenders were received. (Question No. 47) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Did the Report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Examiners studying science and technology matters in Australia specifically refer to the 'unique animals and plants' in Australia and call for 'efforts to study and preserve them' in part to help promote aspects of the tourist industry; if so, can the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment explain why the 1983-84 Annual Report of the Australian Biological Resources Study has reported that: 'inadequate funding of the Participatory Program has meant that many worthwhile, highly recommended projects could not be funded'. (2) Will the Minister now take heed of the OECD Examiners' Report and recommendations and provide more funds for important research projects in the environmental sciences field. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Examiners studying science and technology matters in Australia noted that 'Tourism is another sector where thorough understanding and coordination of science and environmental policies can bring benefits. Australia has unique plants and animals. Its efforts to study and preserve them, and then combine this with tourism are attracting international attention. It may well be an area where Australia can offer something to other countries, when scientific exchange agreements are discussed'. In the 1983-84 Annual Report of the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) reference is made to the fact that many more high quality relevant applications for funding under the ABRS Participatory Program Grants Scheme are received than can be satisfied. This referred particularly to the Calendar year 1983. Funding for this program has been made on a Calendar year basis since 1982. The amounts awarded since 1982 are tabulated below: Year of award 1982 1983 1984 1985 Amount of award $800,000 $750,000 $800,000 $880,400 Funding for 1984 was restored to that of 1982 and for 1985 was increased by 10 per cent on 1984 levels. The Government also launched the Fauna of Australia program in 1983-84, which will be an important 10 volume publication documenting Australia's unique fauna. The Bureau of Flora and Fauna, in the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, maintains contact with similar organisations in Europe and North America, ensuring international scientific interchange. (2) It is Government policy to survey and study Australia flora and fauna as a necessary prelude to conservation. Support for relevant and important research on flora and fauna will continue through the ABRS Participatory Program. Senator Button —On 27 February 1985 (Hansard, pages 241-242) Senator Walters asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question concerning alleged reports that the Prime Minister had rung leading exporters requesting them to repatriate funds to prop up the Australian dollar. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no substance to the alleged reports. Daintree and the north east Queensland rainforests are priceless world heritage. They are under threat now. This Bill will protect them. I urge all senators to support this Bill.