Tuesday, 16 April 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 29 March 1985 of former Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 29 March 1985, of the Hon. Sir Kenneth McColl Anderson, KBE, Liberal Party Senator for the State of New South Wales from 1953 to 1975, former Minister of the Crown from 1964 to 1972 and Leader of the Government in the Senate from 1968 to 1972, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. Sir Kenneth Anderson, who died on 29 March 1985, had a long and dedicated career in Australia as a parliamentarian. It is an extraordinary thing to say, but I understand that he was plagued by very serious ill health in the last months of his life and in a sense his death was perhaps a blessing. I just want to say a few words about Sir Kenneth Anderson, both because I knew him in the early years of my parliamentary experience and because, as I said, of his long and dedicated service to this chamber. During the war Sir Kenneth Anderson served as a lieutenant in the 8th Signals Division, Malaya. He was a prisoner of war of the Japanese for more than three years both in Changi prison and working on the construction of the Burma-Thailand railway. Sir Kenneth started his public career in local government politics, becoming Mayor of Ryde in 1949. He entered the New South Wales Parliament following that, as member for Ryde, in 1950. Three years later, after his defeat in a State election, he was elected to the Senate as Liberal Senator for New South Wales. He was re-elected at a number of general elections and served in the Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon ministries in the Customs and Excise, Supply and Health portfolios. He was also Leader of the Government in the Senate from February 1968 until the change of government in 1972. Sir Kenneth Anderson, during his 22 years as a Federal senator, served with characteristic conscientiousness on several parliamentary committes. He also represented the Parliament and the Government on various delegations and conferences. Sir Kenneth was created a Knight Bachelor in June 1970 and a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in 1972. My own recollections of Sir Kenneth Anderson are based on a brief period when I knew him in this chamber. I can only say that what I have just said about him in more formal terms was reflected in everything that he did in the Senate. I vividly recall what I regard as one of the best debates I have ever participated in here, the debate on the siting of the new Parliament House when Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Grimes and I were on the side of enlightenment. That monster might not have been there today if we had won, but we lost, and if I might say so, being a gentleman, all with great graciousness. Sir Kenneth Anderson was at his best in that debate. I think the most important memory I have of Sir Kenneth is that he stood out, as it were, in the ranks of the Government and the Opposition of the day as one of nature's gentlemen. I think he will long be remembered as such a person. He was, as I said earlier, a long-standing and respected member of the Senate. On behalf of the Government I extend to his widow and family our sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I would like to support the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, in support of the motion of condolence which he has moved. Like Senator Button, my parliamentary time with Sir Kenneth Anderson was quite brief-just one term from 1974 through 1975. But I would agree wholeheartedly with the things which Senator Button had to say about Sir Kenneth. In particular I would agree that he was a great gentleman and was held in very high regard for that. In making inquiries after his death I learned for the first time that he was born at sea, which is not a common thing these days. He was born at sea near Adelaide when his parents were returning to Australia after a visit to Europe. I think his parents would not have anticipated the sort of career which Sir Kenneth Anderson had. He started life perhaps in the way in which they may have expected-working in real estate, property valuation and engineering. However, subsequent to that, he served as a soldier; he had a period as a prisoner of war; he went into State politics, as has been said by Senator Button, and subsequently served for a very long time in this Senate. He, of course, served as a Minister in a number of capacities which have been detailed by Senator Button. I suppose it says something about the experience, perhaps, or the mark of men that we sent away that at least two leaders of the Liberal Party in the Senate have been prisoners of war. Sir Kenneth Anderson, like Sir John Carrick, had years of imprisonment. I think it is a great tribute to Sir Kenneth Anderson and, indeed, to Sir John Carrick that they came back to Australia and served it so well and for so long. Sir Kenneth Anderson was something of a political institution by the time I arrived here. He had recently ceased to be Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He was at that stage very much the elder statesman. I suppose that was made clear for the new boys by the fact that somebody put a large printed label 'Sir Kenneth Anderson' on one of the chairs in the Opposition party room. It was clearly understood that whilst he was in the party room that chair was reserved for his use. I must say that I am sure he had no part in that. I always recall that when the sign was removed when he finally left the Senate in 1975 a long strip was left on the chair, which meant that we were constantly reminded of his departure. Sir Kenneth Anderson's contributions to Australia, his State and the Liberal Party are well known and have been outlined by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. For all of us on the Opposition side-and I know that a number wish to make personal remarks in support of the motion of condolence-this is a very considerable loss of a man who contributed a great deal to our cause as well as to our country. We express our sympathy to his widow and daughter and to other members of his wider family for the loss of a very fine Australian. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia and, indeed, on my own behalf, I thoroughly endorse the words and sentiments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in respect of the death and more particularly the life of Sir Kenneth Anderson. As has been noted, Sir Kenneth, of course, had a distinguished and long career during World War II in the Australian Imperial Force. I guess that as a prisoner of war for more than three years on the Burma-Thailand railway and in Changi he must have been subjected to the severest test that a human being can be subjected to both mentally and physically. It is quite significant of the man that when he returned home he saw fit to represent in all three spheres of government in this country-local, State and Federal. When I became a member of the Senate in 1970, for a brief while, Sir Kenneth Anderson was the Leader of the Government. He immediately impressed me as a gentle man, and yet a man who had a very great regard for a proper measure of discipline. As a newcomer I found his natural friendliness was something that one appreciated extraordinarily because in those days we had not arrived at the enlightened stage at which we are now. When we become members of the Senate nowadays, there is a quite significant process of education and a lot of help. In those days one was totally dependent upon the friendliness and the offers of the people who were already here. I suppose, if I could think of anything that typified Sir Kenneth Anderson in my mind more than any other single thing it would be that he was a man of very great and significent modesty, which is a characteristic not always found in the community, either inside or outside this chamber. With those few words, I want to express again the sadness of my Party and myself at his passing and offer our sincere sympathy to his family. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I join with the mover and the seconder of the motion. I would like to extend to Sir Kenneth's widow and his family our deepest sympathy. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I too would like to join with the Senate in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Sir Kenneth Anderson. As some may know, I was privileged to walk with him for something like 40 years of his journey. I could not have wanted a better friend in adversity or in more peaceful times. Those who have paid tribute have paid tribute to the man. He was forged, as so many of his generation and age were, out of the adversity of Depression and war years. From them he had the desire to reform. He was, in one way, a paradox. He was a creature, both child and adult, of his dearly beloved suburb of Ryde. He was born at sea on a German ship, but his family lived in Ryde. He was educated in Ryde. He winked at a very fine young lady named Madge Merrion in Ryde. After some five or six years of courtship he married her in Ryde. He set up his real estate business in Ryde and indeed went to the war from Ryde. I was privileged to meet him at that time, to know something of his journey and to know something of his well loved 8th Division Signals, in which he served with very considerable distinction in the Malay campaign. I knew something of F Force, the force with which he went to Thailand and Burma, and the working party which suffered so greatly. The extraordinary nature of the man was shown by the fact that three times, from memory, along the Burma-Thailand railway he was so critically ill that he was left in what we called the death camps, but his will to live was so strong that he picked up and survived. In the last months of the war in Changi, by the miracle of a precious drug, emetine, he survived bacillary dysentery. He came home and, against that background, picked up from where he was. His life pattern then was influenced immensely not only by a wonderful wife, who had supported him throughout the war years and kept his business going, but also by his father. His father had been Mayor of Ryde, a member of the Ryde Hospital board and the member of State Parliament for Ryde. One by one, Ken Anderson stepped in the shoes of his father. In 1949, with a team of 12 amateurs, he captured the Ryde Municipal Council and became Mayor. That was an extraordinary situation. He was, indeed, a very fine local representative. From 1950 to 1953, as the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) has said, he was the State member for Ryde, and then he came to Canberra. In everything he did he served the public. There is scarcely a voluntary body in the whole of the Ryde-Eastwood area that does not bear the stamp of Ken Anderson. He was President of the Ryde district hospital and held many positions there. The hospital gave him leave. He was off the board during the war years and then he came back. I think for something like 23 years afterwards he served on that board. No matter what one mentions, be it food for babies funds or thalidomide funds, it seemed that the man had one purpose in this life and that was to serve his fellows. That was the pattern of the fellow I knew. It is very right to say that he was in every sense a gentleman. He was very much in his attitudes the Presbyterian Scot. He had a gentleness, but that firmness which comes from knowing the values internally. He found peace with himself in that. I join those who pay tribute to Madge, his quite wonderful wife; to Robyn, his daughter, whom he loved so much; to his grandchildren; and to his two surviving brothers and his sister. I say to them that they, in common with all of us here, have lost someone who really knew what it is to serve Australia in every capacity-local, State and Federal-but who was so involved in the community that he left his stamp and his memory wherever he walked, and we are the poorer for his passing. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veteran's Affairs) —I join the other senators who have paid tribute to Sir Kenneth Anderson. When I look at the composition of the Senate now I realise how quickly it changes in a decade. Therefore, not many of us here today served at the time when Sir Kenneth Anderson was at his peak in the Senate. For that reason I think it is necessary for those of us who have survived the years to place on the public record our appreciation of Sir Kenneth's contribution to parliamentary life. I think the most important recollection I have about him-he was a very kindly and courteous person-is the way in which he earned the respect of those on the other side of politics. Over a long period the hurley-burley of politics divides us on many occasions, but always the Opposition at the stage when I came into the Parliament regarded Sir Kenneth Anderson with a great deal of respect. It had a great deal of confidence in his integrity as a senator and as a leader of the government of the day. The important fact about his life, to which Senator Sir John Carrick has referred, was his involvement in community activities throughout practically all his life. He had a long period of service in local government, in State government and, of course, in the Federal Parliament both as a member of the Government and, when government changed, as a member of the Opposition. In all those spheres he earned the respect and love of those with whom he worked, regardless of the political differences which existed in those various spheres of government. Sir Kenneth Anderson worked in hospitals, in the Returned Services League, in local government and in many other community organisations. I know from my own experience that he left a very important mark in each of those areas in which he served, as indeed, he did in the Senate. It is a matter of great regret that he suffered in recent times with a very serious illness which finally caused his decease. I think it is proper that the Senate and those senators who remember him with affection and respect place on the record our support for what has been said by the Leader of the Government (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and those other senators who have spoken. We offer our deepest condolences and sympathy in these very difficult times to those members of his family who have been referred to. I extend condolences and sympathy also to one of his nephews, Jeff Anderson, whom I know very well and with whom I have had an association, as have you, Mr President, over many years. Because of everything that we know about the Anderson family, I can say without hesitation that they have always earned the respect and admiration of all whom they have met during their lives. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —It might seem paradoxical given my age, but I had the honour and privilege of knowing Sir Kenneth Anderson for a period of years going back to 1970 when, as a very junior member of the staff of a Minister in the House of Representatives, it was my responsibility to maintain a liaison with Sir Kenneth Anderson and his office in his capacity as a Minister representing in the Senate. During that time, in the first couple of years of the 1970s, I was fairly closely associated with Sir Kenneth in his parliamentary role. The nature of his distinguished public life has been referred to already by honourable senators and was, I think, particularly and with a great deal of feeling and eloquence remarked on by Senator Sir John Carrick a matter of a few days ago when he spoke at Sir Kenneth's memorial service at St Stephen's Church in Sydney. However, I want to mention one aspect of Sir Kenneth's life and career which is of significance, that is, that part of his public career which took place after he left this place. In a period of some difficulty and turmoil within the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, Sir Kenneth Anderson was persuaded to take on for a number of years the role of State President. He fulfilled that role with an enormous degree of dignity and integrity under circumstances which were extraordinarily difficult at the time. Much of the strength and vitality of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party which I represent owes much to the period in which Sir Kenneth served as State President of our division after leaving this chamber. The one thing that perhaps touches me most closely is that Sir Kenneth made a a particular effort to encourage younger members of the Party in New South Wales to offer themselves for and seek parliamentary careers. Whether they were persons such as myself or the Hon. John Hannaford, member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, Sir Kenneth went out of his way to encourage younger members of the Liberal Party to involve themselves not only in party activities but also in community activities and in taking the Liberal Party into the wider community. Only a person who had a vision plus a commitment to a farsighted dream about the way in which our community should operate would have been inspired in the way in which Sir Kenneth was, to seek out people who he believed ought to involve themselves in giving the sort of service in peace time and in party activities which he had given both in war time and in peace time and which he gave consistently to his Party, to which he had great dedication and indeed love. In his capacity as State President, in the way in which he and his wife maintained their home in Ryde and their holiday home at Bilgola as a regular open house for members of the Party-again, as I say, particularly encouraging younger members of the Party to meet and, above all, to learn from him and his experiences-he made a very great contribution. I therefore associate myself with the remarks which have been made, to express my personal feelings in the matter and to say to Madge and to his daughter Robyn and son-in-law Roger that there are many members of the Liberal Party throughout New South Wales who drew from Sir Kenneth a great deal of their commitment and a great deal of their dedication to service of one's community and one's country. They learnt much at the feet of Sir Kenneth Anderson. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the petitioners of New South Wales view the proposed siting of the second Sydney airport at Wilton with great alarm. Your petitioners therefore pray that Wilton not be considered as a site for Sydney's second airport. by Senator Robertson (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the export of live animals from Australia for consumption overseas is cruel and unnecessary as the animals suffer considerable stress on the voyage in very cramped conditions and slaughtering conditions overseas are often far less humane than those in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request the Government to introduce a Bill providing for a total ban on the export of live animals from this country for consumption overseas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Elstob (from 198 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we are deeply concerned at the suggestion that tuition charges, or tariffs of any description, may be introduced for post-secondary education because: 1. The introduction of fees is a blatant breach of Government promises on education. 2. The provision of education is an investment for the whole community, not just for the individual students who participate. 3. Such a move conflicts with the Government's stated aim of increasing participation of young people in education. 4. Such fees will deter people who wish to update qualifications or retrain. 5. The collection of fees will be expensive to administer relative to the revenue generated. And that we therefore call on the Australian Government to reaffirm its commitment to the provision of post-secondary education free of direct charges to individual participants. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly Obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws: That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That steps be taken to re-classify the present guidelines to ensure a better standard of entertainment; That further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Richardson (from 1,249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator Bolkus (from 235 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the sources of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 40 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 Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 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 548 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 144 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 hardcore 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 casette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 42 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 for 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 Chipp (from 14 citizens), Colston (from 20 citizens), Gietzelt (from 14 citizens), MacGibbon (from 23 citizens), Ryan (from 319 citizens) and Walsh (from 304 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: 1. Reject a user pays system of education and hence, tuition fees; 2. Reject a mandatory overseas student charge; 3. Publicly re-affirm its commitment to a free post-school education system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 4,000 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 101 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens shows: We are concerned that the Australian flag be retained in its present form. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate stop any changes to the design of the Australian national flag without the prior approval of the Australian citizens at a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 17 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and of the Parliaments of the States and of self-governing territories are chosen directly and democratically by the people. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —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 Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 to promote the development of motor vehicles, and motor vehicle components, of Australian design, and for related purposes. 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 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to confer additional functions on the Director, and for related purposes. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Queensland Government for its policy of confrontation in implementing industrial legislation, which over-rides fundamental human rights by restricting freedom of assembly and freedom of the Press; and (b) gives notice to the Queensland Premier that he must stop ignoring Australian traditions 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. Department of the Special Minister of State-annual report 1983-84. 2. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962. 3. Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and Consumer Affairs Bureau-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973. 4. Administration of family law in Australia-Report by the Family Law Council. 5. Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984-report No. 9 by the Human Rights Commission-pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 6. Human rights of Australian-born children: A report on the complaint of Mr and Mrs R. C. Au Yeung-report No. 10 by the Human Rights Commission-pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 7. Human rights of the terminally ill-the right of terminally ill patients to have access to heroin for painkilling purposes-report No. 11 by the Human Rights Commission-pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 8. Australian Pig Industry Research Committee-annual report 1983-84 pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971. 9. Wheat Research Act 1957-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Wheat Research Act 1957. 10. Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. 11. Fishing agreements between the Commonwealth of Australia and: (1) Port Lincoln Tuna Processors Pty Ltd, dated 19 October 1984; (2) Australian Southern Bluefin Exporters Pty Ltd, dated 19 October 1984; (3) Australian Tuna Fisheries Pty Ltd, dated 25 October 1984; (4) D. Lukin and Sons, dated 29 October 1984; subsidiary agreements between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing, dated 30 October 1984; and the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea, dated 11 October 1984-pursuant to section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1952. 12. Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry: Short-term prospects-report March 1985. 13. Reducing the risk-unemployed migrant youth and labour market programs-report by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-together with appendices and overview to the report. 14. Australian National Gallery-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975. 15. Financial information furnished under the Airlines Agreement-pursuant to clause 13 of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 16. Consultations on passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation held during 1984, and air fares consultations held during 1984-joint report of TAA and Ansett-pursuant to section 13 (3) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 17. The Australian Bicentennial Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 25 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980. 18. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-Government response to the report on taxation expenditure-text of a statement by the Treasurer made in the House of Representatives 28 March 1985. The PRESIDENT —On 25 March 1985 I informed the Senate that arrangements had been made for counsel to appear before the New South Wales Local Court in the committal proceedings in respect of Mr Justice Murphy, to ensure that the evidence of Senate committees was not used in those proceedings in a manner contrary to the privilege of the Senate under section 49 of the Constitution. On 28 March I reported to the Senate on certain proceedings before the court following those arrangements. I remind honourable senators that section 49 of the Constitution provides: The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. I also remind the Senate that the most important privilege under this provision is that provided by the Bill of Rights: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. One effect of this is that evidence given before a parliamentary committee cannot be the subject of examination in any court. On Tuesday, 9 April 1985, I was advised that there was a likelihood of counsel appearing before the Local Court in the committal proceedings in respect of Judge J. Foord attempting to cross-examine witnesses in those proceedings on evidence which had been given before Senate committees. Every effort was made, by consultation between counsel, to try to avoid matters being raised in the proceedings which would infringe the privilege of the Senate, and thereby to avoid the necessity for counsel to attend the proceedings on my behalf. These efforts did not produce an assurance that such matters would not be raised, and accordingly arrangements were made for counsel to appear before the court to draw the attention of the court to the limitations applying to the use of parliamentary evidence. Mr T. Simos, QC, duly attended the court on Tuesday, 11 April, and although he was not given leave to appear on behalf of the President of the Senate, his appearance as friend of the court was accepted. When counsel for the defence indicated an intention of cross-examining witnesses on statements which they had made before a Senate committee, Mr Simos objected, and the magistrate made a ruling that a statement made to a Senate committee was protected by parliamentary privilege and could not be examined in court proceedings. Similar objections have been taken and similar rulings have been made in relation to other matters in the proceedings. Mr Simos, in an effort to avoid the necessity for him to take objections and make submissions, took some pains to draw the attention of other counsel to ways in which they could follow their desired lines of questioning without referring to evidence before Senate committees. These efforts also did not remove the need for objections to be taken during the proceedings. Although it is regrettable that there should be a necessity for counsel to take objections in the course of committal proceedings in this way, I make no apology for taking the steps required to uphold the vital principle that what is said and done in the course of parliamentary proceedings may not be examined in any body other than the House concerned. If this principle were to be whittled away in court proceedings because of inaction on the part of the Houses and their Presiding Officers, the vital freedom of speech of all senators in the Senate could or would be in jeopardy. I shall keep the Senate informed of any further developments in relation to this matter. I present to the Senate a letter dated 12 April 1985 from solicitors acting for Judge J. Foord in committal proceedings in the Local Court of New South Wales, and a letter dated 15 April 1985 from the Director of Public Prosecutions, both documents relating to those committal proceedings. Copies of these documents have been circulated to honourable senators. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.34) —I wish to move that the Senate take note of the statement and that with respect to the petition lodged on behalf of Judge Foord, arising out of proceedings in the New South Wales Local Court of Sydney, and tabled by the President this day, the Senate does not accede to the request contained in the petition. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for Senator Gareth Evans to move the motion? Senator Chaney —Could I suggest that the two motions be separated? I would have thought that it would perhaps be appropriate to move that the Senate take note of the statement-not to debate it at this time. If there were separate motions one could be disposed of since I understand that it is desired to deal with it now. The other could simply be left on the Notice Paper in case at a later time honourable senators wished to discuss some of the principles involved in the statement. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to separate them provided we debate them together. I believe it might well be possible to deal with them both. Senator Chaney —We will deal with one motion and there might be other elements we want to debate at a later time when we are not subject to restrictions. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think it is the wish of the Leader of the Opposition that Senator Gareth Evans move two separate motions to deal with the matters involved. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Senate is indebted to you, Mr President, for your advice as to the course of action which has been taken. The PRESIDENT —Order! I take it that Senator Evans is now moving that the Senate take note of the statement. Senator GARETH EVANS —by leave-I move: (1) That the Senate take note of the statement. (2) That, with respect to the petition lodged on behalf of Judge Foord, arising out of proceedings in the New South Wales Local Court, and tabled by the President this day, the Senate does not accede to the request contained in the petition. I am moving both motions on the understanding that they will be put separately and may be dealt with procedurally separately as the mood of the Senate dictates. I repeat that we are indebted to you, Mr President, for your advice as to the course of action which has been taken during the committal proceedings to date. I simply say that I believe that the action taken was perfectly proper in all the circumstances. The Senate has an interest to protect to ensure that its privileges under the 1688 Bill of Rights are upheld, like those of the House of Representatives under a similar constitutional provision. While it may, on occasion, be the case that difficulties will be caused in the conduct of a prosecution for a third counsel to be present taking these kinds of points in trial proceedings-a point adverted to by Mr Temby in his letter tabled here today-and while it may well be that the whole issue could properly be the subject of further consideration as to how to handle these sorts of matters in practice, if they arise in future, I believe that there is nothing inappropriate about the action that was taken over the last few days. It may well be that that is something which, as Senator Chaney has foreshadowed, he may wish to debate further and, as I have indicated, I think there is room for further consideration of how one handles these situations in practice in the future. So I am perfectly content to simply say as much as that and no more about the first motion to take note of the statement. The question, however, that is before us today and which I believe needs to be resolved very rapidly is the petition which we have had put before us by counsel for Judge Foord seeking in effect a waiver of the Senate's privilege in relation to certain written evidence put before the Senate Select Committee last year involving a statement by Mr Briese, in respect of which it is the desire of Judge Foord's counsel to cross-examine as to the content of that statement, the motivation with which it was made and the understandings which were had about it at the time. How to deal with this petition has been the subject of discussions by all parties around the chamber-I appreciate that not all senators individually would have had an opportunity either to see the terms of the petition request or, perhaps, to participate in party room debates about it-and certainly between the party leaders in this place. Senator Missen —Has it been circulated? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was circulated around the chamber about half an hour ago. I appreciate that there is some difficulty in dealing with this matter on the run as a result. Two courses of action are open to us. One is to go down the path I have indicated and simply refuse to accede to the petition here and now. The other, of course, is to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee and have the benefit of a report back to the chamber by that Committee as to whether the request in the petition ought to be acceded to. Were it not for the fact that the committal is proceeding and in fact is due to very shortly conclude, at least as far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, it may well be that the reference of the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges would be the more appropriate course. Given the fact that the trial is proceeding and it is necessary accordingly to reach a rather quick decision on this and given also that the merits of the matter do seem-as I will show in a moment-to be very clear, I have in consultation with Senator Chaney, Senator Haines and others around this chamber, including Senator Tate who is Chairman of the relevant Senate Committee, taken the view that it is appropriate to move this motion in the form that I have and I seek to dispose of it straightaway. The particular issue of privilege that we are dealing with is the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, which is, of course, binding law in this chamber by virtue of section 49 of the Australian Constitution which, Mr President, as you said in your statement, is to the following effect: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. In your statement of 25 March you indicated in a little more detail how Article 9 had traditionally been construed in this Parliament as far as questions of desiring evidence before Senate committees to be made the subject of court proceedings was concerned. In your statement of 25 March you said that Article 9 means: . . . evidence given before a Parliamentary committee may not be referred to in any court proceedings in such a way that that evidence is commented upon, used to draw inferences or conclusions, analysed or made the basis of examination or submission. You added further: This is a matter of law and the immunity cannot be waived by the Senate. The view that you stated about the meaning and application of Article 9 is, with respect, one that I share. That is not to say that proceedings in Parliament in the form of evidence before a committee or anything else cannot ever be properly before a court. The Uren case back in 1979 was one demonstration of the way in which a statement could come into evidence in a court proceeding simply as evidence of the fact that it had been made, but not in such a way as to be capable of being questioned as to its content in that court proceeding. What we have in the present case, however, from my understanding of it based on the terms of the letter from the solicitors for Judge Foord, is a request that the particular piece of written evidence before the Senate Committee not simply be put in as evidence of having been made but that it be very much the subject of cross-examination under the evidentiary rules governing prior inconsistent statements and so on, and that it be very much part of the court proceedings. Under those circumstances, Mr President, it would seem to me-and I understand that this is the view of others around the chamber who have had an opportunity to look at it-that this is a very clear case of the direct proscription in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights being infringed and as such not something that ought to be contemplated. A question does arise as to whether the Senate can ever waive the privilege that is set out in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Views may differ about this. There have been opinions written from time to time and no doubt this is a matter about which lawyers could argue. I simply say that I believe the legislative prohibition is very clear in that it would require much stronger argument than I have seen in any context to persuade me that, when evidence before a Senate committee is proposed to be used in the way that this particular evidence is here proposed to be used, it would be capable for the Senate to waive that particular privilege. It seems to me that the proscription in Article 9 on proceedings in the Parliament being questioned in any way before a court is clear cut and, although I acknowledge that opinions may differ about this, I think the overwhelming balance of opinion would be in favour of there being an absolute prohibition on such evidence being able to be dealt with in that way. Senator Missen —Mr Temby does not appear to think so. Senator GARETH EVANS —With respect to Senator Missen, Mr Temby does not address his mind to the question of whether or not waiver is capable as a matter of law of being granted. What he is saying is that he would be very happy if the Senate did choose to waive its privilege because then he would not have as a prosecutor any subsequent trial proceedings cluttered up with counsel making all these points. That is the matter that I adverted to earlier when I said that there may be some force as a practicable matter in what he said, that it may be that we ought to give consideration to the best procedures by which these points may be brought before a court's attention, but that is a very different matter from acceding to this particular request that is now before us. I make the final point that it would be a matter of concern I think for us all were there to be any strong belief in this chamber that Judge Foord's defence was going to be prejudiced in any serious way by being denied access to this particular statement. As to that, all I can say is that my understanding is that the techniques and courtroom procedures are available to defences in these sorts of circumstances whereby possible inconsistencies of statements over time can be the subject of some exploration in a court room context without the matter of parliamentary privilege being squarely brought in issue. It is my belief on the material I have seen, accordingly, that no injustice would result in this instance were we to go down the path I have indicated. That may again be a matter about which reasonable people could differ. The basic point remains: We have here a request to waive privilege and there is very grave doubt as to whether it can be waived at all since it seems to be the clearest possible case for the application of Article 19 which, of course, has a very long tradition behind it-it is not just a technical point I am making-about the protection of this Parliament and its proceedings which I believe everyone in this chamber will unanimously wish to uphold. For all those reasons I suggest that the most expeditious and appropriate way of acting in response to this letter is for us to carry the second of the motions that I moved. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(2.46) —The motion to take note of your statement, Mr President, is a matter about which the Opposition may wish to have something further to say and honourable senators may wish to debate it generally. So, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(2.47) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of the Government that the Senate do not accede to the petition presented to us by Messrs Steve Masselos and Co., solicitors for Judge Foord. My Party adopts the reasoning that Senator Evans used in support of that motion. The position is that the letter that you, Mr President, received from the solicitors enclosing what they call a petition, which is really a very detailed letter and explanation of what they are about, makes it quite clear in the reasons for the request set out on page 3 of the letter that they wish to use the statement that Mr Briese made to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge last year, which statement was subsequently made available to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, the second Senate committee on the subject, for the purposes of cross-examination of Mr Briese, who is a witness in the committal proceedings against Judge Foord, their client. They are at pains to say that they do not seek to use that statement by Mr Briese for the purpose of commencing or supporting any action against Mr Briese, which of course would be the clearest possible breach of privilege. However, they say: We do . . . challenge his- Mr Briese's- veracity on a number of matters. It is only by being able to quote to him what his statement contains that alternative propositions can be put to him. However, it is quite clear on all the authorities that it would be a breach of privilege to use the statement in the way in which they say they propose to use it just as much as it would be to seek to take action against Mr Briese, if that was open to them in any way. The most obvious protection that the privilege of the Bill of Rights confers on us as parliamentarians is that we cannot be sued for defamation for anything said in a parliamentary chamber. However, it is also held in the cases-I do not want to quote them or to go into them in any detail-that statements made in the House cannot be used to the disadvantage of a person in proceedings which have arisen out of things said outside the House but that something said in the House might be used in the way in which the solicitors clearly intend to use the statement of Mr Briese. It is also, I think, perfectly clear that Mr Briese, who was a witness before the Senate committees last year, is equally protected by privilege as would be any member of parliament in respect of what he said as a witness or in the parliamentary proceedings. It is perfectly clear from the petition that its purpose is that Mr Briese be subject to cross-examination in a way which would be in breach of privilege if this statement were available for use by the solicitors. It is perfectly open to counsel for Judge Foord to argue that this would not be a breach of privilege. It is for the courts to decide what is the ambit of privilege so that if counsel wanted to argue, contrary to my views, the views expressed by Senator Evans, it would still be open to counsel to do that in the proceedings. I think it is perfectly clear that privilege is extended in this way but, as I said, it is quite open for counsel to argue the matter. In that respect I believe that the petition being presented to the Senate is misconceived. I agree with Senator Evans that this chamber does not have the power to waive privilege. It is a privilege conferred by the application of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 by section 49 of our Constitution. I do not think it is open to one House of the Parliament to waive or alter it. A declaration of both Houses of Parliament or another Act of Parliament would be required to change it. I think it is perfectly clear that we could not effectively waive it. Let us imagine the situation if a senator or member were sued for defamation. It is just inconceivable that the mere resolution of the chamber to waive a privilege would have any effect whatever on the litigation in which he was engaged. He and his counsel would be arguing that he was protected by the statement he made in parliament. If the chamber, to use the words of the petition, 'waived the privilege', it could not possibly affect the legal protection that he has. I think the petition that we have received is quite misconceived. The legal rights of Judge Foord, as I said-if I, Senator Evans or all of us are wrong-can still be argued in a court. Maybe a court would take a different view, but I think that the propositions that are being brought before the Senate are misconceived and that we should accede to the motion that has been moved and not take any action to accede to this petition. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(2.54) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats support the Government's motion that the Senate not accede to the request from Judge Foord's solicitors that privilege be waived in relation to a statement from Mr Briese, specifically exhibit 1A. The reasons for this have already been canvassed at considerable length by both Senator Evans and Senator Durack. I propose to say only that in supporting the Government's motion the Senate will be indicating its complete accord with the proposals put forward in the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which, as honourable senators will know, was chaired by Mr John Spender, QC, which report was tabled during the last Parliament. Mr President, I would further like to indicate that we are also in accord with the statement that you brought down earlier today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to reports that the Government intends to use an expected windfall revenue, which will increase from the effects of devaluation, to reduce the deficit or to reduce taxes and charges and not to increase outlays, which is, of course, a notably different approach from that adopted in the last Budget, when the great bulk of the revenue surge was directed into increased spending. Why has the Government made this apparent 180-degree turn in its policy approach? Has any estimate been made of the likely net revenue gain from devaluation? How confident is the Minister that there will be such a gain, given that there will obviously be offsetting increases in some areas of public sector responsibilities such as overseas debt servicing? Senator WALSH —Senator Rae referred to a report or reports. I do not know what report he was referring to. If it was newspaper speculation, and given the-- Senator Peter Rae —Mr Hawke last Friday in Perth. Senator WALSH —I just wanted some clarification. Apparently the windfall gains, which I think was Senator Rae's term, that would flow from the devaluation would not be used to reduce the deficit. Exploring the concept of windfall gains-- Senator Chipp —He can't even be loyal to his own leader. Senator WALSH —Go and wash the blood off your hands. Send another 500 Australians to death in Vietnam like you did in the 1960s. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister answer the question asked by Senator Peter Rae. Senator WALSH —There are two possibilities in respect of the alleged windfall gains that could come from the devaluation of the dollar. If the devaluation led to a higher consumer price index increase than would otherwise have happened it is a probability that there would be a net gain to Commonwealth revenue, other things being equal, because the Commonwealth receipts would increase at a faster rate than Commonwealth expenditures. The other possibility is through the effect on the price of oil, and I am not going to speculate about that. So there is the possibility-and I stress 'possibility'-that there could be a net increase in Commonwealth revenues because of the devaluation of the dollar. Senator Rae then asked, I think, why the Government had done a 180-degree turn, or something like that. The Government has not done a 180-degree turn about anything. The Government remains committed to the so-called trilogy-the three undertakings which were given by the Prime Minister prior to the election, which are that expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product on average over the next three years will not exceed expenditure as a proportion of the GDP in this year; likewise, taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP in the next three years will not exceed the taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP in this year; and neither will the deficit as a proportion of GDP exceed the figure applying for this year. There was an addendum to the trilogy and that was that the money deficit recorded in this year would be reduced in 1985 and 1986. The Government remains committed to all those things. It is that which has imposed the fiscal discipline and the fiscal responsibility on this Government-a self-imposed discipline, which will be honoured by this Government-in stark contrast, if I might say so, to the irresponsible behaviour of the former Government which, in the last Budget which its discredited former Treasurer produced, set up the preconditions for a $10 billion deficit in the succeeding year. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of the letter from the Women's Electoral Lobby to all the participants in the Government's affirmative action pilot program seeking information regarding the progress of the affirmative action pilot program? Can the Minister say at what stage the program is? What information can she give us by way of report on progress to this stage? Further, can the Minister report on the case study day on affirmative action last Friday? Senator RYAN —I am aware that not only the Women's Electoral Lobby but also many other groups throughout the community are very interested in the progress of the affirmative action pilot program. In fact, all those groups in the community which are anxious to see equal employment opportunity for women, increased employment opportunity for women and more diverse employment opportunity for women have a very great concern with this progress. I am happy to report that last Friday we had the opportunity to be informed of the progress to date. The 28 participating companies and the three tertiary institutions that are involved in the pilot program reported to the working party by way of a case study presentation. I think that exercise convinced all members of the working party that a great deal of progress has been made. All the participants were able to report improvements in changes in their recruitment programs, in their analysis of the position of women within their organisations, in their understanding of obstacles to women's promotion and the employment of women in more diverse areas. I think the working party, in turn, learnt a great deal about the diverse structure of the companies and the institutions involved and the effect of different geographical locations and sizes of company-all those factors which affect the way in which employers are able to open up increased employment opportunities for women. It was also very encouraging to hear that the participating companies have decided to hold public meetings to present their findings to date to the public and involve themselves in public debate in that way so that organisations such as the Women's Electoral Lobby will be able to hear directly from the participants themselves as to the progress of the program. As well as this, the working party will publish a progress report and call for public submissions on that report. We plan to place the advertisements calling for public submissions in the media, including the ethnic media, in early May. Also, there will be more public meetings in the outlying States-that is, the smaller States-that have not had the opportunity to date to be as involved in the program. Those meetings will be organised by the Office for the Status of Women. In conclusion I would say-I think I speak for all members of the working party-that I am very satisfied with the progress made to date. In fact, I should say that the progress exceeds the expectations that the working party had. I am delighted with the co-operative, creative and energetic approach being taken to the program by the participants. I believe that during the public meetings that will be organised by both the participants from the private sector and the Government those groups and individuals in the community committed to improved employment opportunities for women will have the opportunity to make input into the development of what is, I believe, a most progressive development. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. The Minister will recall telling Senator Peter Rae on 20 March that any movement to greater reliance on indirect taxation should not be contemplated without agreement that any significant effect on the consumer price index would not be passed on to wages through indexation. I ask: Does the Minister also believe that cost of living increases arising from the devaluation of the dollar should not be passed on through wage indexation? Senator WALSH —I do recall saying that to Senator Rae a month or so ago. It was the view of the Government then, and it remains the view of the Government, that a movement to indirect taxation is a discretionary change which the Government may or may not make. The same conditions do not apply to the exchange rate since the decision to float the dollar was made. It is, of course, correct that depreciation of the dollar inevitably in the short term implies an unavoidable reduction in national income, but it also provides the opportunity to achieve substantially higher incomes and employment in the longer term, as long as the improvement in competitiveness, which it brings, can be sustained. Many commentators have suggested that discounting wage indexation adjustments is the appropriate way to deal with the inflationary effects of depreciation. The Government does have that option under examination but, given Australia's experience in 1976-77 and the succeeding year, it is only one of a range of options which we have under consideration. I think Senator Brownhill might bear in mind that it was argued by the Government of the time, following the devaluation of December 1976, that wage indexation or the then equivalent of national wage cases should be discounted because of the devaluation effect. In fact, to some extent it was discounted, on at least one occasion that I can recall, for that very reason. I remind Senator Brownhill that that action did not, however, prevent inflation from taking off again in the later 1970s and, of course, from taking off to a higher peak again in the early 1980s, just before the previous Government was removed from office. It is an option which the Government has under consideration, but it is only one of the options which are under consideration. I stress again that even if that option were applied, even if the discounting were 100 per cent and even if one could measure precisely the CPI effect of the devaluation-even if all those preconditions could be satisfied-there would still be no guarantee that that policy, in isolation, would prevent inflation from rising to a new and higher threshold. A much wider range of policies is required. In particular, an effective agreement on wages and incomes is required-the sort of agreement which this Government has had in place for the last two years, as a result of which the inflation rate has fallen from the double figure level, which we inherited from the previous Government, to around 5 per cent now. That policy, in isolation, was tried by the previous Government; it failed. It is one of the options this Government has under consideration for the future. Finally, I add that, as the Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions within the last week, this is not an issue on which a quick or hasty decision is necessary. It is not an issue which, in policy terms, will necessarily have to be addressed until the spring of this year. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen Press reports of divisions in the ranks of procedural specialists in New South Wales as a result of the Government's offer to the Australian Medical Association? What action will the Government take to ensure that those doctors who put their pockets before their patients will comply with the latest offer? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Robert Ray says, there have been reports today in the Press of divisions in the ranks of procedural specialists in New South Wales. This is not surprising in the light of the actions taken by Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney in recent weeks since the offer was made by the Government-and, in fact, accepted by the AMA. I, like most other members of parliament and, I believe, most other doctors, expect that the plebiscite which is being held by the AMA will result in doctors generally accepting this offer. One certainly hopes so. The division is a very real one. One does not learn about it only through the Press; one learns about it also from personal conversations with members of the medical profession, particularly those in the teaching hospitals and especially, of course, those salaried specialists who view with despair the attitude taken by Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney, who seem to be trying at the moment to turn avarice into a fine art in their urgent efforts to get more and more money. I think what has happened as a result of the latest statements by these gentlemen is that it is now perfectly clear that this dispute is about money and money going to the pockets of a certain group of doctors. When the agreement between the Government and the AMA was first announced, Dr Shepherd's first public comment was: 'There is only $16m in it for us'. That, of course, reflects the relative values of Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney who, in proposals to me, suggested an increase in government expenditure of $1,000m to satisfy their demands. It seems certain that the country doctors in New South Wales and many of those in the peripheral hospitals in Sydney will accept the offer and return to work. But only if the New South Wales hospitals return to normal will the Government agree to fulfil all the conditions that are contained in the offer that we made. The simple fact is that no government can allow a small group of individuals-a group of individuals who were trained initially at public expense and who trained for their specialities at public expense in public hospitals-to hold the health system to ransom and to treat patients in the way in which they have treated them, by neglecting them and by refusing to treat them. Dr Shepherd, of course, has said that this dispute is worth a life, that it is war and that people must die. That is the reason why Dr Thompson from the AMA has described Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney as having forgotten the principles of their Hippocratic oath. They not only seem obsessed with money; they seem obsessed with other things. Dr Shepherd said that the only thing this Government understands is someone standing with one foot on their throats and the other kicking their private parts. Dr Aroney said yesterday that the only principle he understood was the famous one-that if one has people by the private parts, their hearts and minds will follow. They are starting to talk not only like a couple of greedy, miserly people but also as though their basic textbook is Psychopathia Sexualis. I think it is about time that this dispute was over. The New South Wales Government will inform the Federal Government when New South Wales hospitals are again treating patients properly. When that occurs the offer will be taken up. Further negotiations on sessional fees can occur. I believe that the vast majority of responsible doctors in New South Wales will realise they have been misled by these two pseudo politicians. They have not only been misled but also the reputation of the whole medical profession is suffering. I believe that cannot be tolerated by government. I believe it will not be tolerated by the general community. Obviously, if the worst happens and doctors refuse to go back, we will have to take further steps. Other than the steps that have already been announced by the New South Wales Government, which has said quite clearly that it will have to replace doctors in the hospitals if necessary by advertising overseas, I am not in a position at the moment to announce what further actions we will take. But people can rest assured that the New South Wales hospital system and the patients will not be left to suffer in the way in which they have by this irresponsible action. Senator HAINES —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security say whether the first home owners scheme has been of more help to young childless professional couples than to poor needy households, as was suggested in the Australian today? Can the Minister say what proportion of people who have received assistance under the scheme are indeed those people who are most in need; that is, recipients of a pension or benefit? If pensioners and beneficiaries have received assistance under the scheme, will the payment be regarded as income for purposes of pension and benefit eligibility? If it will be taken into account, can the Minister say how many pensioners are likely to lose their pensions as a result of receiving a first home owners scheme payment and for how long they will lose them? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the last part of Senator Haines's question is no. The first home owners scheme payment goes into the equity of the home. It is not counted, and will not be counted, as income by the Department of Social Security. As Senator Haines pointed out, the first home owners scheme has helped many people in this country. It has helped not only many people but also the building industry in general and the economy in particular. I think the general support for the scheme throughout the building industry and the real estate industry and by most people in the community recognises this fact. Of course the people who are assisted are from right across the spectrum. It is inevitable that the groups about which Senator Haines spoke-pensioners and those on extremely low incomes-may not be advantaged in the same proportion as others simply because they have not been in a position to get the necessary deposit to get into home ownership. That is a practical reality we all recognise. However, some pensioners have taken advantage of the first home owners scheme. I happen to know a couple. I do not know the exact figures. I will obtain them from Mr West, the Minister for Housing and Construction, and let Senator Haines know. The first home owners scheme was introduced first of all to assist people to bridge the deposit gap, which is very difficult for first home owners generally. Secondly, it was introduced to stimulate the building industry and, as a result, the number of first starts in the building industry increased from, I think, 103,000 to 147,000 in a very short time. It is now expected that this figure will level out. This has had a great stimulatory effect on the community and has been of great assistance in reducing unemployment, increasing employment and increasing the growth in our economy. No one suggested that the first home owners scheme would predominantly assist pensioners, beneficiaries or those on extremely low incomes. Those groups have always had great difficulty in getting into home ownership and a scheme such as this will not reverse that situation. I will get details for Senator Haines from Mr West as to the specific matters she has raised. I will see whether I can get the percentage of first home owner beneficiaries who are in those various categories and, if the figures are available, I will let her know as soon as possible. Senator Maguire having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer- Senator Chaney-Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question has nothing to do with the administration of any department. It is asking for a comment on the Opposition and I suggest that it is out of order. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. I suggest to Senator Maguire that he reframe his question to bring it into line with a question on government policy. Senator HAMER —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has the Government considered the possibility that the blockade proposed by trade unions against the people of Queensland is in breach of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act? If so, does the Government propose to seek a restraining injunction under section 80 of the Act to protect the rights of Queenslanders which are threatened by the proposed breach of the law by union action or does the Government regard trade unions as being above the law? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of whether any consideration has been given to the implications of the proposed industrial action for breach of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The Government's position in regard to section 45D, or at least so far as the Trade Practices Act is concerned, is that it is appropriately directed to the preservation of a competitive commercial environment and not appropriately directed to the resolution of industrial relations problems or problems which are of an industrial relations character. It is very difficult to characterise the outrageous behaviour of the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland as other than behaviour of a kind directed to undermining the whole industrial relations structure as we have known it in this country, or at least in that State. With that in mind, I doubt whether the Government would be seriously inclined even to contemplate the possible application of any part of the existing Trade Practices Act in relation to such a course of activity. Senator HAMER —May I ask as a supplementary question whether the Minister is saying that, although this Parliament decided that section 45D should remain in the Trade Practices Act, the Government is not prepared to exercise its duties? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can live without synthetic moral indignation, but I make the point that the Trade Practices Commission for the whole life of section 45D never at any stage initiated any proceeding under that section itself because it, the Commission, as the appropriate arm of government to deal with these matters, shared the view of this Government that it was a wholly inappropriate piece of legislation to be finding its way into the Trade Practices Act. It is perfectly proper for any government or any organ of government to make the kind of judgments as to the appropriateness of a particular legislative form of redress in particular circumstances. Should any commercial organisation want to take advantage of what it might be advised to be the applicability of section 45D, it is at liberty to do so and this Government will not do anything to stop it. Senator McKIERNAN —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce whether there are any new figures on investment in industry. If so, can the Minister inform the Senate what the figures reveal? Senator BUTTON —I am frequently asked these questions by concerned senators who are interested in the question of the performance of the Australian economy. I congratulate Senator McKiernan and Senator Maguire on being senators who have shown a consistent interest in this matter. The latest figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on new fixed capital expenditure confirm the strength in business confidence and willingness to invest. Seasonally adjusted new fixed capital expenditure rose by 4.6 per cent in real terms in the December quarter to be 10.2 per cent above the levels recorded in the December quarter of 1983. Real investment in new buildings and structures in the December quarter of 1984 was 16.2 per cent above the level recorded one year earlier. Investment in manufacturing rose 12.1 per cent in current prices seasonally adjusted for the December quarter 1984 on the December quarter 1983. The figures reveal that there are good prospects for strong growth for 1984-85 in excess of the Budget forecast of 5 per cent. Put alongside other indicators such as the growth in employment, 90,000 jobs having been created since the start of the current financial year, consumer spending or retail sales were up by 3.2 per cent in the last quarter. Housing activities also remained at a high level, and it is clear that economic growth to date has been strong and that a firm basis exists for continued growth. I will continue on a monthly basis, as the recovery proceeds, to advise concerned senators about these figures. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said in an interview at the weekend that if the union movement throughout Australia really decides that it feels it has to take other industrial action in Queensland, that would be a very regressive thing and in fact will not solve the problems of this nation? In light of the extraordinary reply given to the Senate a short time ago by Senator Gareth Evans about the Trade Practices Act, I ask the Leader of the Government: If he agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, what is the Government doing to counter union action, particularly now that the Transport Workers Union in New South Wales plans to cut off Queensland tonight, 48 hours ahead of the organised blockade by the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator BUTTON —I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and will follow that up by dealing with the somewhat spurious connection which Senator Chaney seeks to make in his question between the answer reportedly given by the Deputy Prime Minister and the answer given by my colleague Senator Gareth Evans a few minutes ago. Senator Evans was simply making the point that this Government is not minded to take any action under the provisions of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. It is not the function of the Government so to do, I believe. The Trade Practices Commission has not of its own initiative, as Senator Evans pointed out, taken any such action in industrial disputes under the provisions of section 45D since the section was included in the legislation. The Government will not take any action under that section because, apart from anything else, it believes it would only lead to an exacerbation of an already very difficult problem which was started by the attitude of the Queensland Premier to an unfortunate situation which has been developing for some weeks. I am also asked by Senator Chaney what action the Government has taken in this matter. On two occasions the Government has supported the move of the unions concerned to obtain Federal award coverage for its members in Queensland so that in future these disputes, which are likely to arise as long as the present Queensland Government remains in office, can be dealt with by a responsible Commonwealth tribunal rather than by a tribunal which is susceptible to government pressure in Queensland. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister again what action has been taken to counter union action to give rise to a blockade of Queensland. Is there any action other than the attempt to change the registration of the unions? I ask him to consider the words he has used about the Queensland tribunal a little more carefully and tell us whether it is his considered view that it is susceptible to pressure. Senator BUTTON —Any tribunal is susceptible to pressure if at the moment it gives a decision the Premier does not like he changes the legislation relating to it. It is no good any honourable senator carrying on like a boofhead here. Any tribunal which has its legislation changed the moment it gives a decision which is not liked by the government of the day is susceptible to political pressure. It is time the Opposition acknowledged that, as the Government does. Secondly, Senator Chaney invited me to say what action the Government proposes to take in a dispute which has been flagged-if that is the appropriate expression-by the New South Wales Transport Workers Union in relation to Queensland. The answer, frankly, is none. I would not get too excited about that. Honourable senators might contemplate what action may be taken by the Government and what action the former Government took in a series of industrial disputes throughout 1981 and 1982 which brought the level of industrial disputation in this country to the highest it had been for many years. This Government, by contrast, has brought the level of industrial disputation to the lowest level for many years. There is a contrast and a difference of approach. If the Opposition wants us to call out the troops in order to stop the Transport Workers Union ban on Queensland, we will not do so. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Finance aware that Queensland is the only Australian State not having a public accounts committee? Does this failure concern the Finance Minister when millions of Federal Government money is allocated to Queensland without any public accountability system being in place in that State? Will the Minister ask that this problem be raised at the forthcoming Premiers Conference so that Queensland is asked to comply with Westminster parliamentary procedure established for over 100 years? Senator WALSH —Senator Reynolds asked three questions. The first was whether I am aware of the fact that Queensland is the only State without a public accounts committee. Yes, I am. The second question was whether this concerns me. I guess the answer also has to be yes, although what we can do about it I am not sure. It concerns me but it does not surprise me that there is no public accounts committee in the Queensland Parliament because one does not have to delve too far into the record of the Queensland Government to understand why it would not want any scrutiny or accountability of its expenditures or to have those expenditures opened up to wider scrutiny and to be made more accountable for them. For example, $5m was diverted from other areas in Queensland to build a dam on the Mackenzie River for the primary benefit of the Premier's son. It is also a matter of public record that Mr Bjelke-Petersen's would-be successor, Mr Hinze, has been a direct beneficiary-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 418 and to the reflections which Senator Walsh is making upon members of the House of Parliament of Queensland. I ask you to bring the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —I admit that it is getting close to the bone, but I have listened carefully and I do not think that there is a point of order involved. Therefore, I do not uphold the point of order; but I ask Senator Walsh to be careful in his expressions in relation to members of this Parliament and members of other parliaments. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President, but the matters to which I have referred are matters of public record. They do help one to understand-in fact, I think they provide a complete explanation-why the Queensland Government is reluctant to have a public accounts committee. By way of interjection a while ago Senator Evans said: 'Tell us about Milan Brych'. As far as I know, nobody in the Queensland Government got a quid out of Milan Brych, although they did adopt him, along with Stephen Horrath and Dr Shrian Oskar. I invite anybody who wants to know who they are to come along to my office later. The final question was whether I would ask that this matter be raised at the forthcoming Premiers Conference. I will ask the Treasurer whether it can be raised, but from my understanding of the subject I am afraid that there is not very much the Premiers Conference could do about it. Senator REID —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence advise the Senate whether the Government intends to award medals to Australian servicemen who have served or who are serving in the Sinai with the Australian peacekeeping force? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to that question is not in my defence 'hot issues' file, so I will have to take it on notice and seek an early answer for the honourable senator. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to the criticism by the States of the Federal Government's recently announced road funding package? If so, what is the Government's defence to the accusations that, firstly, there is not enough money and, secondly, large city arterial projects will be slowed down? Senator GIETZELT —I have seen such criticism, coming largely from the State governments. The Commonwealth Government believes such criticism is quite outrageous and unnecessarily exaggerated, given the way in which the Government's approach to road funding has been developed in the two years we have been in office. In fact, I believe that the Government's record in road funding generally is quite beyond criticism. Government road funding has been drastically increased. A record sum of $1,245m has been allocated for road works in the next financial year, which is 50 per cent more than the sum made available in the last Fraser Budget in 1982-83. This has been achieved in the face of very stringent budgetary constraints and the fairly tough circumstances which prevailed when this Government came to office. It is interesting that, as Senator Foreman's question indicates, this criticism has come from the State governments. Local government is to get a 5 per cent increase and, of course, we are going to have an almost similar increase, I think 4.75 per cent, in funding for our national roads and highways system. This means that the arterial roads, for which the State governments have responsibility, will profit very considerably from the increases that I have referred to. It is true that the Government would like to be in a position to make considerably more funds available because it would assist job creation and it would assist the States and the community generally to have a better road system. That is an objective with which we have no disagreement. However, we have to say that if State Ministers want more money for State roads, in addition to the additional funds that this Government has provided, they will have to find it from their own State resources. Senator KILGARIFF —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs say whether the Federal Government supports the lands rights legislation presently before the Western Australian Parliament? If not, is it the intention of the Hawke Government to introduce overriding national land rights legislation to correct the perceived shortcomings of the Western Australian legislation? Given the numerous objections which have been raised to the operation of the existing land rights legislation in the Northern Territory, would it be the Government's intention to overcome these problems in the new legislation or does the Government propose to address these problems by way of amendment to the existing Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? Finally, what effect will the national land rights legislation as proposed by Mr Holding, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, have on the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? Senator RYAN —As I have said on behalf of Mr Holding in this Senate many times-I believe several times in response to questions from Senator Kilgariff-the Federal Government has announced a set of principles and a preferred option which constitutes our position on land rights. It is our Government's preference that State legislation should incorporate those principles and should be in keeping with the preferred model indicated in Mr Holding's statement. It is not possible to make a final comment on how far the legislation now before the Western Australian Parliament coincides with the Federal principles until the legislation has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament. As Senator Kilgariff would be aware, that has not yet happened, so we do not have the final legislative outcome of the Western Australian Government's legislation. I repeat to Senator Kilgariff that the principles which our Government believes should be incorporated in land rights legislation throughout Australia, be it State or Federal, have been announced. A preferred model has been set out by Mr Holding to indicate an option which in our view is a practicable and desirable option for incorporating those principles in legislation. The achievement of those principles is being discussed by Mr Holding with the Western Australian Government. Mr Holding will make clear our Government's position on the Western Australian legislation when it has been completed by the Western Australian Parliament. I think Mr Holding has similarly indicated that the principles which we have announced could involve some changes to the Northern Territory land rights legislation. However, that is a matter that is still under discussion with representatives of Aboriginal organisations, particularly those from the Northern Territory, with mining groups, with the Northern Territory Government and Opposition and with other legitimate bodies. The Commonwealth's final position in respect of Western Australia will be clear when the Western Australian position is finally clear. In respect of the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia, the matter of putting into effect the principles announced by the Federal Government is still under discussion. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen reports of an address last week by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in which Mr Howard strongly supported the introduction of a quarterly based consumption tax with minimal and preferably no exemptions? Does the Government believe it is possible to have a consistent taxation system with, on the one hand, a broadly based consumption tax with minimal and preferably no exemptions and yet, on the other hand, one that could provide that specific items such as wine would not be taxed? Senator WALSH —The main part of the question asked by Senator Maguire was: Does the Government believe it is possible to have a view that, if there is to be a consumption tax, there should preferably be no exemptions, but to exempt, for example, wine. Clearly, of course, the Government does not believe it is possible to do that because the Government has a rational approach to this matter, an approach which is sadly lacking, I regret to note, in the Opposition. I had seen the reports mentioned in Senator Maguire's first words of Mr Howard's speech in Perth last week. I welcome Mr Howard's implicit endorsement of a tax of some sort on wine, given that there are taxes, indeed very heavy taxes, on all other forms of alcoholic beverage. It is, of course, not the first time that Mr Howard has endorsed a tax on wine. At the National Press Club last year he was good enough also to say that, given the heavy taxation of competing alcoholic products, there was a very powerful case for a tax on wine. Senator Button —What a pity Senator Messner does not get invited to the National Press Club. Senator WALSH —The National Press Club has to draw the line somewhere. I also welcome to some extent the tone of the speech that Mr Howard made last week in which he said that those people who advocated cutting expenditure were obliged to specify the areas in which they would cut expenditure. Having said that, unfortunately he then neglected to nominate the areas in which he believed expenditure should be cut. Indeed, given the fact that he set up the preconditions in his last year as Treasurer for a $10 billion deficit in the next year, it is not surprising, I suppose, that he should have dodged the responsibility that he had imposed on others. In response to the question of the broad-based consumption tax and consistency in the application of such a tax, it is perfectly clear, I would have thought, to any rational person that, if there is to be a broad-based consumption tax or even a reasonably broadly based sales tax, it is totally indefensible that a product like wine should be exempt from it. I trust that if the Liberal Party ever gets the opportunity to govern again it will follow Mr Howard's views on this matter and not follow opportunists like Mr Peacock or fools like Senator Messner who claim that-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —I am sorry; persons so ill-advised as Senator Messner, who not only argue that there should be no tax on wine but then also assert completely spurious reasons for that unjustified exemption, such reasons as if a 10 per cent wholesale tax is applied on wine, sales will decrease by 14 per cent, an assertion which has been shown to be nonsensical in the most effective of all ways, that is, by actual experience and by empirical evidence. I suggest that what underlies this even more deeply on another level is that it reveals again the split between the Sydney faction of the Liberal Party, which is more or less the dry faction, and the Melbourne faction of the Liberal Party, which is the very wet faction. It is just one of many areas in which is there has been public disagreement and outright contradiction in recent times between the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and his leader and a number of other figures, both significant and insignificant, within that Party. Senator DURACK —I remind the Minister for Finance of an answer which he gave and a view which he expressed in the Senate on 26 March this year when he characterised Western Australian Premier Burke's view on cash bonus bidding as 'displaying a degree of conceptual ignorance of the subject which was matched only by his political impertinence'. No doubt he will remember that. In light of the deferment by the Commonwealth Government of cash bonus bidding in relation to the States announced jointly by Mr Burke and his colleague Senator Gareth Evans last Friday, does the Minister now concede that the concerns expressed by the Premier and the exploration industry were well founded? Does the Minister agree with Western Australian Minister David Parker that the decision amounts to a major concession by the Commonwealth? Senator WALSH —I am pleased to note, indeed mildly flattered, I suppose, that the various members of the Opposition are such avid readers of my replies in Hansard. Yes, I remember what I said at the time. I do not think Senator Durack specified the newspaper but I know that a number of newspapers carried the statement from, I think, just Western Australian Ministers, although Senator Evans may have had his name jointly appended to it, in which it was stated that the cash bonus bidding system would not apply to areas inside the territorial sea, although that term was not used. This was the Murdoch Press report and, therefore, was probably erroneous. The Murdoch Press report reported a joint statement that there would be no application of that inside the territorial sea. Of course, that is not Commonwealth territory constitutionally and, therefore, it was not a question that ever arose as far as the Commonwealth Government was concerned. I understand, however, that somewhat more reliable newspapers have reported more or less accurately that Senator Evans, Mr Parker and/or Mr Burke had jointly stated, namely, that there would be no cash bonus bidding applications in the off-shore area administered on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Western Australian Government for two years. It was never the Commonwealth's intention that cash bids would be called in that area because that area is not regarded as particularly prospective, certainly not in comparison with the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Territory to the north east. The final part of the question from Senator Durack was: Do I concede that the Commonwealth policy is wrong? Of course, I do not. The fundamental argument advanced in opposition to it is quite spurious. The argument is that the territory is so unprospective that companies will not be able to afford a cash bonus bid. If that is the genuine assessment of the companies concerned, no cash bid will be offered and the whole question disappears off the agenda. It slides into the swamp of irrelevancy. Senator DURACK —By way of supplementary question, I ask: If it is a spurious argument, why did the Commonwealth Government agree to accede to a deferment of this for two years? Senator WALSH —It had never been the Commonwealth Government's intention while I was in that job-I understand the same policy was carried on by Senator Evans-that that particular part of the off-shore area would be put up for cash bids at this time. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to a Press report in yesterday's West Australian from the shadow Minister for Education, Senator Baume, entitled: 'Ryan in cover up'? In this report Senator Baume claims that the Minister is in breach of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act. He also alleges that the Minister for Education is hiding funding classifications of non-government schools. Since this is unlikely to be the case, I ask the Minister: What is the real situation? Senator RYAN —I must say that I find it regrettable that Senator Baume is persisting in his useless and negative strategy of putting out statements based on absolute falsehood and deliberately attempting to mislead the education community about matters of Government policy. There may well be matters of legitimate or authentic debate between the Government and Opposition on matters of education policy. Unfortunately Senator Baume has decided to avoid those and simply spends his time running about trying to stir up mischief by deliberately misleading anyone who is gullible enough to take notice of what he has printed in the Press. The facts are quite contrary to what Senator Baume claims in his Press release. Not only are they contrary to his public claim; they are also well known to Senator Baume. I am aware of this because I am aware that Senator Baume sought from the Schools Commission advice about the timing of the gazettal of the new categories system for the funding of non-government schools and was given advice, based on legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department, to the effect that the Schools Commission and indeed the Government were conforming with the legal requirements with regard to the gazettal of schools. The fact is that a period had elapsed since the announcement of the new scheme and the completion of the categorisation of individual schools into that scheme. However, I should point out that that time is not inconsiderable in comparison with the time that elapsed during the period of the Fraser Government. When Senator Baume was Minister for Education, for example, the list of schools categories was not available until November in the relevant year. I believe that the publication of the categorisation of schools will be available very shortly because the list has been approved by me for gazettal. It was approved by me for gazettal last week and any time that elapses now between my approval and the gazettal will simply be a matter of the Government Printer getting the information into the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. All schools have been notified individually, with very few exceptions, those exceptions being due to some holdups in the provision of data. Of course, once schools are gazetted they are entitled to appeal if they believe they have grounds to go into a more favourable category. The vast bulk of schools have been notified of their categories for for some time. The list has been approved by me for gazettal and is with the Government Printer now. All of these steps are in accordance with legal requirements. I conclude by saying that I think it is regrettable that Senator Baume chooses to act in such a deliberately misleading fashion, when there are no grounds for such behaviour, instead of paying attention to the real issues that confront educationalists in our society. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Education: Did I make a freedom of information request to her earlier this year seeking the release of a list of schools to which she has just been referring? Was the request properly made? Did it require a response under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act? Is it a fact that no response has been given within the prescribed time? If so, why is that the case? Senator RYAN —I was advised very recently by the Commonwealth Schools Commission of a request by Senator Baume under the Freedom of Information Act covering the matter of which schools get into which categories. I am now speaking from memory but, as I recall, I was also advised that the information cannot be released under the Freedom of Information Act until it has been gazetted. I understand that Senator Baume has been advised to that effect by the Schools Commission. Senator Peter Baume —Not so. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume says by way of interjection: 'Not so'. All that I can report to the Senate is that I was briefed on this matter by Schools Commission officers last week and I understand that, following legal advice that they have sought, they will be advising Senator Baume, if they have not yet done so, that the information he is seeking under the Freedom of Information Act needs to be in a gazetted form before he can have it. I must say that I am answering this specific matter from memory. If any further information is available or if it is necessary to qualify the information I have given I will do that as soon as possible. The fact is that the information being sought will be gazetted and there has been no undue delay caused by anything other than the capacity of the Commission to analyse carefully the data that has been presented to it. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to accept that I have received no formal notification of any kind from the Schools Commission on this matter. I therefore repeat my question to the Minister: Why was a proper response to a properly made freedom of information request not made by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which is under her ministerial control, within the time provided in the Freedom of Information Act? Senator RYAN —I will have to seek further advice from the Commission. As I have just informed the Senate, I was advised of this matter by Commission officers last week. There was discussion about how Senator Baume's request could be accommodated and I understood that Senator Baume was to be informed by the Commission of the result of the legal advice sought by it. If there has been a delay in this matter I will have to seek an explanation from the Commission as to why that was the case, but I gained the impression from my discussions with Commission officers that they had been assiduously pursuing the matter of Senator Baume's inquiry and would be responding to it as soon as they were able to do so. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that single personnel at Australian Antarctic stations are charged the full Medicare levy while single personnel in the armed services pay none? Since both groups are entitled to free medical attention but Antarctic personnel have no access to specialist or hospital treatment, will the Minister consider action to remove this anomaly? Senator WALSH —I understand that the situation is that single personnel at the Australian Antarctic stations who are Australian residents are liable for the Medicare levy of 1 per cent but that Defence Force personnel who are overseas are exempt from the levy, as I believe they are also exempt when they are in Australia proper. In considering this matter it must be borne in mind that Medicare is not an insurance plan but rather a national health pool to which persons contribute according to their income. The overriding principle of the Medicare funding arrangements is that people are asked to pay in accordance with their means. Exemption from payment of the levy is granted in limited circumstances to certain persons, including single Defence Force personnel. However, I remind Senator Zakharov that these limited exemptions reflect long-standing arrangements that have been adhered to by successive governments to provide free medical treatment to the persons concerned, that is, single defence personnel. Granting an exemption from the levy to Australian Antarctic personnel would not be consistent with the Government's position that liability for the levy should be based on the person's capacity to pay. It would also create a precedent and other employees who are provided with free or subsidised medical care while still being subject to the Medicare levy would seek to have the concession extended to them, which would thereby further reduce the base of the levy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Peter Rae proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Prime Minister and the Government to respond clearly and firmly to the depreciation of the Australian dollar. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.57) —The Senate is, I believe, rightly concerned, as has been indicated by the number of people who have shown their support of our discussion, by the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government to respond clearly and firmly to the depreciation of the Australian dollar. The Senate is concerned, as is the market concerned, and as the people of Australia and of the world are concerned, as has been indicated, by the very factors which have led to the currency crisis and the depreciation of the dollar. There has been a massive loss of confidence in this country, both within the country and overseas. One person primarily must accept the responsibility for that loss of confidence. That is the person who was recently to be heard explaining away his shuffling, his incoherence, his incapacity to come to grips with any of the problems which are causing the uncertainty in relation to the economy, that is, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. We have massive bad economic news. What do we find? We find that people have lost faith in thespianism as a substitute for government decision-making. We find that summitry has become the suspicious substitute for the capacity to take hard decisions. We find that the left wing of the Australian Labor Party has been attacking again in relation to the Prime Minister's tax agenda and almost all of the matters which the Prime Minister wishes to have as part of the policies applying to the Government of this country. If we look at the policies enunciated by the Prime Minister during the last election and then explained by him on the National when he was interviewed by Mr Maximilian Walsh, it is easy for us to see where all the problems in this country stem from. We find that interest rates are blowing out at an extraordinary rate. We find an admission that Reserve Bank activity has been taking place in forcing up interest rates. We find that our competitiveness, the lack of which has been the cause of our suffering so badly, which could be overcome by the devaluation, whatever the cause of the devaluation may have been, is at risk as things stand. My colleague Senator Messner in particular will be dealing with some of the reasons why we feel so concerned about the lack of Government positiveness and direction in relation to what it is going to do to enable this country to take advantage of the opportunities which arise out of the devaluation and to avoid the pitfalls which may beset us. I wish to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Melbourne Age of Monday, 15 April. I do not intend to quote the whole detail of the editorial although it could form the basis of a speech such as the one I am making. The editorial stated.: However, business remains cautious. Capital investment rises, but modestly. I pause there to say: Very modestly in all the circumstances. If one takes the inflation impact into account, the increased rises are extremely modest and tentative. The editorial continued: Spending by consumers is still erratic and much leaks overseas, benefiting foreign producers. Manufacturers, after a decade of rising costs, is still on the ropes, unable to compete in the international marketplace. There can be no certainty that the private sector will take over from the public sector 'kick-start'. Some spark is needed to inject confidence into the business community and provide real incentives in the marketplace. The editorial referred to the fact that since Christmas devaluation has been close to 20 per cent overall. It continued: The opportunity is to seize the benefits of the devaluation to shake off once and for all the sluggish economic performance that has bedevilled the nation . . . The devaluation could not have been better timed if it had been planned, instead of being the by-product of a series of policy blunders. A little later the editorial stated: And it is exactly that spark which could make such a sustained upturn a reality. Yet, rather than enthusiasm, the falling dollar has in the main sparked fear and gloom. Why? The answer is a widespread expectation that we will let pass the opportunity and fail the challenge. The reason for this view is the accord . . . I just wish to re-emphasise those words. They are not my words; they are the words of the Editor of the Age who has not been unsympathetic to this Government. The editorial stated: Yet, rather than enthusiasm, the falling dollar has in the main sparked fear and gloom. Why? The answer is a widespread expectation that we will let pass the opportunity and fail the challenge. A little later the editorial stated: It is not the time for equivocation. The Prime Minister's performance last week was hardly encouraging as he dithered, increasingly verbosely, around the devaluation/ wage issue. The editorial also said: Very simply, Australia has been living beyond its means, relying on the rest of the world to subsidise our endemic trade deficits. What is this Government doing about the matters which are referred to in the editorial? What is the situation? We find just a series of bad economic news. Retail sales to February continued the steep decline of January. Normally, the decline in January is very steep indeed but it levels out or even starts to pick up again in February. But that was not the case this February. This February the decline continued almost as fast and almost as steeply as the January decline, unlike what happened in 1983 and 1984. That is a matter of very real concern. Many people who have analysed the sales figures believe that the figures for January and a significant part of those for February have in fact been related to devaluation. People have been trying to beat the import price rise by purchasing goods which otherwise are likely to be affected as devaluation starts to bite into the economic community and the price of goods rises. We have a currency crisis in which there has been a 20 per cent devaluation in three months. That devaluation has been the product of the international judgment not of the economic future of Australia but of the economic management of Australia. I believe that this point is of the utmost importance. It is one that this Government cannot escape. The fact is that there is a widespread belief within this country and elsewhere that Australia remains a country of great hope and great expectation as to its future. It is a country which, if it can overcome some of its fundamental problems, has prospects rivalled by almost no other country. It is positioned in an area which will see major growth and development in the next decade and to the end of the century. It is positioned in an area where it can take advantage. It has the capacity, the systems, the training, the people and the infrastructure which would enable it to play a major part in the major growth area of the world. What is preventing that from happening? Why is it that people have made the judgment which they have made since we floated the dollar? After all, when we floated the dollar Australia was subjected to the judgment of the international market-place. That judgment is that our continuing trade current account deficit, our continuing problems in industrial matters, our continuing bad record in relation to the delivery of goods and our continuing bad administration and lack of faith and direction in this Government are matters of sufficient concern for people to believe that the Australian dollar is not worth what otherwise I believe people would rate it at. Contrary to all of the promises which we were made by Mr Keating and Mr Hawke during the election campaign last year, we find that there has been a huge growth in interest rates. We find that we now have the highest interest rates that this country has known since the Great Depression at the beginning of the 1930s. This is notwithstanding what Mr Keating said in the period running up to the election last year. The Australian Labor Party and Mr Keating appeared to be very proud that he had done such a magnificent job. On 4 November last year he said: . . . I'm sure that if, as we get through the tax run-down period of this year, where the market's always a little apprehensive now after the float, of about the capacity of funding the tax run-down period, you'll see declines in interest rates. But have we seen any indication of declines in interest rates? On 5 November last year Mr Hawke said: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down interest rates will come down too. Despite that, what we see now is an interest rate of 17 per cent and a real interest rate of 12 per cent. This is the highest real interest rate that this country has known since the Great Depression. It is one of the highest real interest rates operating in the world today. What do we find in relation to our public debt? We find that that public debt is rising at an incredibly fast rate because action is not being taken to redress the balance of trade, to encourage exports which could be encouraged by a positive and enthusiastic approach to the administration of industry and commerce policy, technology policy and trade policy. Instead, we have seen the tentativeness and desperateness of the factionalism which has rent the Labor Party and the Government into so many parts. So many people have no faith whatever in the capacity of the Prime Minister or anybody else to speak on behalf of the Government. People have no belief that whatever is said will still be said next week. Then we have the trade deficit. Huge borrowings are needed to keep up the balance of trade. Of course, the flow-on effect of the cost of high borrowings overseas makes greater the cost of the devaluation of Australia. It seems that early today, in answer to a question, Senator Walsh was not so clear in his thinking about this as he might be now that he has had a little bit more time to consider it. I ask him again whether he will answer the question a little more clearly. It seems to me that we have a situation in which the Government has adopted a very different approach. Mr Hawke in Perth last Friday referred to an expected windfall. He said: With the depreciation of the dollar and prospects for a stronger growth in employment than previously anticipated, the Government will be seeking to achieve maximum reductions in outlays in 1985-86. A little later he said: The depreciation may have the immediate effect of increasing revenue more than it raises the cost of maintaining priority. None of this increase in net revenue, if it occurs, will be used to increase government outlays. The Government will decide on the most effective means of achieving this result when the full extent of the post-depreciation improvement in the budgetary outlook is known. The result to which he was referring was given when he said: The whole of any increased budgetary flexibility following the depreciation will be applied to strengthening the economy's prospects for even stronger private sector growth in output and employment with low inflation. I remind the Senate that last August the Budget was introduced in an atmosphere in which there was likely to be an early election. All the benefits that had come from the wage pause, the breaking of the drought and the upturn in the world economy were frittered away, were spent by this Government, were used in outlays, were used to buy the appearance of an upturn in employment, were used to buy the appearance of an upturn in the economy, were used not for investment in the future of the nation, not for the reduction of debt but for the postponement of debt and, in fact, the increase in debt which accompanied the high spending, high taxing policy which was adopted by the Government in the Budget of last August. Now we find Senator Walsh this afternoon saying and Mr Hawke last Friday saying: 'Now we will adopt an entirely different approach'. What I would like Senator Walsh to answer is what is so different now from then in that sort of policy decision making. Is it that last year there was a faith in the prices and incomes accord which does not exist now, or is it that last year there was just a deliberate buying of votes by putting forth an election Budget knowing that it would have repercussions which may even lead to the need for or the creation of a situation of devaluation, with a floating currency? That would lead to a situation in which it was necessary to prop up the capital inflow of Australia by artificially propping up interest rates. That admission of the artificial propping up of interest rates is one which I believe Australians need to be told over and over again. Do not let us have any of this business that the Government is not really responsible for the interest rates which home owners and borrowers will have to pay, which will have an inflationary impact as the costs flow through to business as well as to individuals. Mr Hawke, in his interview on 10 April 1985, confirmed that it was the action of the Government which had led to the increase in interest rates. I read from page 2 of the transcript of that interview. Mr Maximilian Walsh said: And in fact interest rates have moved up in Australia quite severely and substantially of late. The Prime Minister said: There has been a move upwards, yes. Mr Walsh said: Which one would infer came from Reserve Bank action in the market place. The Prime Minister said: There has obviously been a degree of action there in the market place, yes. He was agreeing that it was Government action which was pushing up interest rates. There are other quotes to which I do not intend to pay attention. So what do we find? We find we have a situation of complete confusion about the question of wages and devaluation. On 26 February this year the Prime Minister said that no action would be taken on discounting and the priority was to maintain the accord, but Senator Walsh said that there would be little effect on the consumer price index. It was reported on 26 February that wages would be discounted. So we go on with all of these confusing statements which my colleagues will deal with in detail as we go through, showing that there is not only confusion about that sort of approach but also about what sort of policy will be adopted in relation to expenditure cuts. The tertiary fees proposal by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, was rejected by Caucus. There are reports that Senator Walsh was defeated and that Cabinet's razor gang committee was defeated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy. It is alleged that there will be a substantial increase-in fact, an 18 per cent increase-in the amount of money going to the ABC in the next year. By anybody's terms, that would be a significant increase. It hardly supports the idea of the trilogy. It hardly supports the idea of a cautious government taking every possible action to curtail expenditure. As we look through some of the other steps that have been taken we find that in the last few weeks alone there has been bad economic news on almost every count. The Australian dollar, interest rates, unemployment figures, the current account deficit and the latest retail sales figures all amount to trouble for this Government which it does not appear to be acknowledging is in existence. If it acknowledged that there was a problem and if it had a clear policy as to how it will get out of it one could have some faith, but the trilogy is more than what Mr Maximilian Walsh reminded us was the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the work 'trilogy'-a set of three tragedies to be performed in immediate succession. Is that what we are facing? Is that what the figures which we are now seeing, created by the actions of this Government, amount to? Is it not a situation in which this country deserves better, in which this country deserves that the Prime Minister and the Government should respond clearly and firmly to the depreciation of the Australian dollar, make clear what their policies will be, make clear what policy actions are to be taken to ensure that there is a restoration of national and international confidence in the country and, from that, growth of the sorts of opportunities which we all believe and hope will come to fruition for this country? This country has a tremendous future which is being frittered away by the thespianism and dilatoriness of the dilettantish Prime Minister. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.18) —Senator Rae demanded to know right at the end of his speech what policy is being followed by the Government in regard to the exchange rate. I thought that it had been made perfectly clear to anybody who wanted to listen that in response over a number of weeks to assorted informed or ill-informed demands that the Government should intervene and end the floating of the Australian dollar the Government said it will not do that. The Government has said that the decision was taken 18 months ago to float the Australian dollar and that decision stands. Having made that decision it would, of course, be absurd for a government to intervene in the way that governments which are trying to manage an exchange rate do intervene. Indeed, it would be to take us right back to the position which applied immediately before the 1983 election when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), as he now is, as a Minister in the then Government, as he then was, put on his economic saboteur or economic quisling act and a week or a fortnight before the election was held said that if Labor was elected there would be a severe devaluation of the Australian dollar, thereby precipitating a run on the dollar which ultimately fleeced hundreds of millions off the Australian taxpayers via the Reserve Bank's attempts to resist the run on the dollar which the irresponsible comments by the present Leader of the Opposition had started. Consciously or otherwise, the present Leader of the Opposition collaborated at that time with the overseas currency raiders who filched hundreds of millions off the taxpayers of Australia via the Reserve Bank. There is one issue, it is true, on which the Government has not yet stated a firm policy, because it has many options under consideration. That issue is whether the Government will argue before the relevant national wage case, which will not take place until the spring of this year, that there should be a complete or a partial discounting of the devaluation induced consumer price index changes when assessing the change that ought to be made at the next national wage case. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it perfectly clear on many occasions that that is a matter which will not become directly relevant for several months and it is, therefore, a matter upon which this Government will not be stampeded into a hasty or foolish decision. I must correct the retail sales statistics which Senator Rae mentioned twice and which, therefore, he obviously regards as being particularly important. The statements he made were correct if based on figures which were not seasonally adjusted but, as I am sure Senator Rae would know, when making comparisons over short periods such as that and especially at that time of the year, seasonally adjusted figures are the more appropriate ones to use. Even on a seasonally adjusted basis it is correct that there was a minuscule decline in retail sales in February compared with the January figure. The February figure, however, is higher than the December figure and, indeed, it is the second highest figure since December 1983; that is, it is only lower than the previous January figure. The February figure is the second highest figure since December 1983 and probably, I would expect, the second highest monthly figure ever recorded. But I cannot state that with certainty because the chart I have does not go back beyond December 1983. I repeat: It is certainly the second highest figure since December 1983 and probably the second highest figure ever recorded. That hardly supports the gloom and doom hypothesis just advanced by Senator Rae. Indeed, one cannot help wondering about Senator Rae when he makes that comment and, I would suggest, misrepresentation: Perhaps one should say 'misunderstanding' because 'misrepresentation' implies a deliberate intent and I do not know whether that was present. When the gloom and doom, supported by a misunderstanding of the retail sales figures, is put alongside the other gloom and doom messages in Senator Rae's speech one cannot help wondering whether he too has succumbed to the temptation to become an economic saboteur, an economic quisling, in the way his Leader did in the runup to the 1983 election. In determining the proper response to the price changes induced by the changing value of the Australian dollar, the Government certainly cannot look to the Opposition for any guidance. Probably the most important single consumer price index factor is the price of oil and its relationship to the Australian-United States dollar exchange rate. I remind the Senate that Mr Hunt, the Deputy Leader of the National Party these days, stated immediately after the 1983 election that he would be standing down from the front bench because he believed that it was time to make way for a younger and more active member. I do not think that was seriously disputed. He said that he would be standing down. Subsequently, Mr Anthony, the then Leader of the National Party, retired. Mr Hunt, who only one month before had declared himself to be a political corpse, was then resurrected as the Deputy Leader of the National Party. That says something about the bevy of talent that was offering, but, more importantly, it meant that we had leading the National Party both the undertaker and the corpse. (Quorum formed) Senator Sheil called a quorum because he wanted more people to hear what I was saying immediately beforehand, so I will oblige him and repeat it. I was explaining how the present Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Hunt, immediately following the 1983 election, had declared that it was time for him to stand down from the front bench and make way for a more vigorous, more intelligent or more youthful politician-a proposition with which there was no serious argument. However, following the retirement of his then Leader, Mr Anthony, Mr Hunt, who had declared himself to be a political corpse, resurrected himself as Deputy Leader of the National Party. As a result of that action we now have leading the National Party both the undertaker and the corpse. I refer to Mr Hunt because of the statement he made on 12 April-just last week-in respect of the import parity pricing policy for Australian crude oil. He said: Action must be taken to ensure that not only farmers but motorists generally are not ripped off by a policy that was devised in entirely different circumstances of fuel shortages in the mid 1970's. He added: Clearly, there is a need for an urgent review of the existing policy in the light of changed circumstances. Two days later the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and leader of the Sydney faction of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, said: One of the options apparently being looked at by the Government is temporary suspension of import parity pricing for Australian crude oil. Mr Howard added: Such action to mitigate the price effects of depreciation is illogical, economically irrational and should not be taken up. That could lead to all sorts of interesting speculation: Should the Liberal Party ever return to a position of government in coalition, when it will still carry in its saddle-bags the lead of the National Party, will it have the fortitude to throw off its neck what the Australian Financial Review called the 'stinking albatross' of the National Party or will it in future continue to do what it has done in the past-will it follow a rational policy or capitulate to the political opportunists and economic primitives who have always dominated that Party? Apart from the internal conflicts over policy within the Liberal Party there is this much more profound conflict between the Liberal Party and the National Party, exemplified very clearly in starkly and completely contradictory terms by the respective deputy leaders only last week. If the Government felt that it needed to look outside the Government for guidance it certainly could not expect to find any guidance from the Opposition, or at least any guidance that was worth listening to. I think the partial explanation for the Opposition deciding to propose this matter of public importance is pique. The Opposition is piqued-I can understand this; we are all human-that this Government has such a hugely impressive economic record. (Quorum formed) I was saying-much to the pain of the Opposition, apparently, because it decided to stop me saying it-that this Government has had a most impressive record in economic growth and economic management in general during the time that it has been in office. An extra opportunity has been given-or extra potential, if one likes-because of the devaluation of the dollar. The prospect of economic growth has been enhanced further by the recent downward adjustments in the value of the dollar, a point which the Prime Minister made last week and which the Opposition has quoted ad infinitum ever since. The devaluation has substantially improved Australia's competitiveness not only in regard to exporting industries but also import competing industries. A major challenge for the Government and for the community in general is to ensure that the competitive edge given us by that devaluation is not lost through higher labour costs. The Government has worked hard to get the inflation rate down and is determined to keep it down. It is imperative that enhanced competitiveness is not cancelled by rising labour costs. Unemployment remains at intolerably high levels. This devaluation-induced opportunity to boost employment must not be missed by raising the incomes of the employed at the expense of the jobless. The prevention of a flow-on will require co-operative effort. I say to Senator Messner that I have already made the point during Question Time that the previous Government, in which he was a Minister in its dying days-I am not sure what is cause and what is effect in that regard-argued in the mid to late 1970s that devaluation-induced price increases should not be taken into account in national wage cases. That argument was substantially accepted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on at least one occasion. But the plain fact is that that did not keep inflation down. At the end of the road of the previous Government's policy we had the highest rate of unemployment that we had had since the 1930s, the highest interest rates ever, inflation and unemployment rates in double figures-and they were both rising-and an absolute fall in gross domestic product in the last 12 months in which it was effectively in control of economic policy. The point is that it would be relatively easy for the Liberal Party-and I suppose if it were still in government this is what it would do-to rush to the Arbitration Commission and say: 'You have to discount the devaluation-induced CPI effects when you consider the next national wage case', and take no other actions or put together no policy package that would ensure that such a policy had a chance of attaining its actual objectives. This Government will not be stampeded into that sort of precipitate action which may ultimately reduce the chances of a successful policy actually being applied. Finally, I was somewhat impressed by Senator Peter Rae's remarks about fiscal responsibility and, in particular, responsibility in expenditure control. I should note in all fairness that Senator Rae was never a Minister in the last Liberal Government. There were a number of reasons for that, about which I will not speculate. But it is a fact that he was never a Minister in that Government. But Senator Messner, who will speak shortly, was a Minister in that Government. If he wants to go further down the road of fiscal rectitude, responsibility and expenditure, I hope he will give us an explanation as to why the Government in which he was a Minister produced in its dying months a Budget which left the country with a prospective deficit of nearly $10 billion, and which had absolutely no economic strategy. His Government had only a political strategy aimed entirely at being re-elected by handing out with reckless abandon bribes by way of either tax concessions or direct Government outlays to what it judged to be a sufficient number of pressure groups to buy up enough votes to save its worthless hide for another term in office. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.35) —We have just heard from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, one of the most worthless speeches that I have ever heard in regard to any economic matter or, from my point of view, any other matter. He not only fell short in any attempt to answer the major criticisms that were made by Senator Peter Rae during his excellent speech on this matter of public importance, but also, of course, failed even to try to cover up for his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is now floundering at the head of this failing Government as it falls deeper and deeper into the mire. The kind of remarks which Senator Walsh has made today will only confirm the perceptions of those overseas who are judging this country's economic performance today by making sure that the Australian dollar falls even further. It is this kind of lack of management and lack of control of the economy and of Australian affairs both on world markets and domestically that are leading to the disasters that this Government is failing to recognise. Let me deal with one or two points that Senator Walsh made. He sought to take Senator Rae to task over the question of falling retail sales in the month of February. We know full well from the statistics issued today that retail sales have fallen in seasonally adjusted terms by a most significant figure of 1.2 per cent. That is a most significant drop. But the point that Senator Rae made, which is the more important one, is that the fall in unadjusted terms, compared with the figures for January, is the greatest that has occurred for the last three years. Does that not say something about a change of face in this country? What is this Government doing about it? I was about to say that there was not even a Minister in the chamber but the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, has now entered the chamber. What is this Government doing about those vital questions? A week or so ago there was an announcement of an increase in unemployment of 30,000. Unemployment normally falls at this time of the year as school leavers are taken into industry and consequently the number who register for unemployment benefits during the December-January period starts to fall. Yet this Government shows no concern about the unemployed and no concern about the fall in retail sales. It says: 'That is nothing to do with us. We will not take any action to support the Australian dollar'. Let us try to work out what is really happening in this country. The basic issue that is at stake at present is Australia's competitive position on world markets. We on this side of the House know what that means. We know after seven years in government how hard it is to get the inflation rate down to a significant figure. We know how much of a trial has to be gone through in order to reduce our costs in this country to a level at which we can sell goods on overseas markets and, more importantly, produce goods in this country which can be sold on the domestic market and which will not be competed against by cheaper goods from overseas. Let me refer to a few statistics that result from the action of governments. First of all we have to acknowledge-the figures were announced yesterday-that there is an $11 billion prospective deficit on our balance of payments for this financial year, for the year ending 30 June 1985. That is the highest deficit that this country has ever experienced. Let us look at the inflow of foreign investment moneys as revealed recently. The inflow for the 12 months to the year ended December 1984 was some $7.8 billion. That figure falls a lot short of the $9 billion that was recorded in 1983. It is also acknowledged by those in the market-place that most of the money that is now arriving as part of capital inflow is not permanent investment money and that is reflected in the lower fixed capital investment figures; it obviously comes into Australia in response to short term interest rate fluctuations and fluctuations in the value of the dollar. I also note that even the low capital inflow figure of $7.8 billion for this year has been influenced by a large capital inflow from semi-government authorities that have been borrowing. I bet they regret that they borrowed in the period to December as the currency has now suffered a 20 per cent devaluation. Consequently higher interest rates will obviously flow through to those organisations. The same situation will apply to all organisations that have borrowed on the world markets. They will now have to recoup sufficiently from consumers-whether they be ratepayers or those who use electricity-in order to be able to pay off debts in the future. That is one of the fundamental problems that this country will face in the years ahead. Of course it exacerbates our problems with costs. Let us look at interest rates. Before Christmas, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister prophesied-I guess the prophecy is as reliable as his ability to control the various factions in the Australian Labor Party: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. I guess that he was talking about lenders, not borrowers. He stated: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. We know who will harvest the crop; it will be the lenders and certainly not the borrowers. Senator Sheil —Great prophet! Senator MESSNER —Exactly. A point we also have to acknowledge is that quite apart from nominal interest rates which we know are on the rise and which have been induced by direct government intervention by the Reserve Bank of Australia, real interest rates in this country-that is, nominal interest rates after adjusting for inflation-have risen by 500 per cent since this Government came to power in March 1983. At that stage, when the Fraser Government went out of power, real interest rates were one per cent; they are now 6.5 per cent. That is a massive increase and it is the highest real interest rate that has been suffered by taxpayers in this country for over 50 years. That is the real test of what is happening in the market-place. Overseas investors, overseas operators, even those domestically who are concerned about the future of the Australian dollar, have regarded these things even if the Australian Government has not. The public debt situation is also causing great concern. Our repayments now represent $5.6 billion of the Australian Government's Budget and that represents an increase of 29 per cent on the 1983-84 figure and 8.7 per cent of all government spending. The public debt is rising and obviously is a major factor about which we should be concerned. Let us look at the problems of import costs which have been rising. In the December 1983 quarter there was a fall in import cost of 1.6 per cent; in the latest quarter there was an increase of 4.6 per cent. Obviously this Government's policies are not working. Clearly these import rises are going to feed their way into the wages system. This is the fundamental point which has to be acknowledged and which this Government fails to acknowledge. Under the Government's present wages accord the increased costs, which are flowing in the fashion that I have just outlined and which will continue to flow and grow, stem directly from this Government's failure to address the mechanics of its wages system by which those increased amounts can be excluded from wages. Otherwise we will have a leap-frogging approach whereby costs feed into wages; wages, through the arbitration system, feed back into costs; and they in turn feed back into the wage system. Thus we will have the great leap-frogging situation which we had in the 1970s and which we found so very difficult to get of. It was brought to final account by the Fraser Government's wage pause during 1982 when no wage increases occurred for some eight or nine months. It is that kind of question that this Government has to address. It has to examine its own soul. We know the political difficulties of doing that not only within the Party-the faction ridden Party that it is-but also within the trade union movement. That is the Government's natural constituency and it knows that it has to deal with the union movement in order to find a way of reducing the flow-on of wages, to protect this country against rising costs and future inflation. But will the Government do it? Has it got the political will to do it? To date the answer, of course, is that the Government does not. Clearly, that is the nub of this argument which we are putting forward today. I commend my colleague Senator Rae for bringing forward this matter of public importance today. It draws attention to the drift of the economy in this country which stems directly from this Government's inability to grasp the realities of the market-place and to move to adjust the flow of costs in this country which will permanently damage the economy in the future. If we want any example of the paralysis of the Prime Minister let us think about who promoted the wage increases of the 1970s and, in particular, the 40 per cent wage increase that occurred in 1974. Who was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions? It was none other than Mr R. J. Hawke, the present Prime Minister of Australia. He is not interested in reducing wages or keeping them under control; he is interested in increasing them and that is where his political problem lies. He knows that his political power stems from appeasing the trade union movement, not from challenging it on the very issues which this nation has to confront in order to assure itself of a safe, economic future. That is a problem that we on this side of the chamber believe that this Government will fail to address. Otherwise we will see an increasing external debt which already reads out at $43.5 billion. I cite the figures as a proportion of gross domestic product. In 1970 our gross external debt was 12 per cent; in 1975 it was 9 1/2 per cent; in 1980 it was 12 1/2 per cent, but in 1984 it was 23 1/2 per cent. That figure will rise every year that this Government remains in power because of its big spending and obvious high deficit policies. The Government has to come to terms with the introduction of its much touted floating of the Australian dollar and has to design mechanisms which if it has the political will-the Opposition doubts that it has-it will use to try to control the flow-on that will so damage the Australian economy. The test of what Mr Hawke can do to lead this country is before him right now. Can he do it? That remains to be seen, but an awful lot of people who are selling the dollar down do not believe that it is possible. One has only to read this fantastic transcript of the commentary of the Prime Minister and Max Walsh the other night-it was a thorough rambling through many irrelevant economic issues-to understand what fear the Prime Minister is striking in the hearts of Australians and people overseas about this lack of control and his lack of competence in managing this economy and to understand the point I am making. I instance one final comment by the Prime Minister to demonstrate the point clearly. He claimed that the most recent devaluation of the dollar will create at least 100,000 jobs for Australians. If that be true, he has found the key to the solution of all our economic and unemployment problems. Australia has 600,000 unemployed people and the Prime Minister can get rid of that unemployment by devaluing the dollar to nil. Why does he not try to do that? Perhaps that is his strategy. Perhaps that is why he is raving like a lunatic about his so-called economic strategy. Perhaps that is what he has in mind. Clearly that is the idiocy of the Prime Minister's position and he stands condemned, alongside his Ministers, for failing to take action at this vital time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Scott) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.51) —In regard to this matter of public importance raised this afternoon by Senator Peter Rae, it is true that in recent weeks the value of the Australian dollar has gone down. However, it is arguable, as a number of commentators have said, that the dollar was overvalued. It had a higher value than it should have had in relation to Australia's fundamental trading relationships. The argument advanced by Senator Peter Rae assumes that the lower movement of the dollar will somehow be a medium to long term arrangement and that the dollar will stay down at those levels for a long time. But it is by no means clear that the dollar will stay down for any length of time at that value. I wonder how the Opposition will feel if in the near future the value of the dollar moves up again. What sorts of measures will Opposition members then call for in those circumstances? Will they be like some of the employer groups last year-when the Australian dollar rose-and call for discounting of the price effects of that revaluation of the dollar? If so, that will be the reverse of what is happening at present. It does not square up with the Opposition's arguments in this debate. The Opposition's record on the economy and the exchange rate is poor. Opposition members have tried to talk down the economy since they took over the Opposition benches in 1983, and yet over that period the economy has grown and grown. Let us look at the record of the Opposition on the exchange rate and recall what happened in 1972 under the McMahon Government. Then it was clear that the Australian dollar was undervalued-the reverse of the present position. The dollar should have been revalued on world markets, but that Government did nothing. For months the Australian dollar was consistently undervalued. As a result all kinds of distortions were engendered in the economy and economic costs were imposed on the Australian community. The Labor Party had to step into office and put the exchange rate to an appropriate value by means of a revaluation. The present Labor Government has floated the Australian dollar on currency markets-something the former Government would not do. At present, market forces are operating in Australian currency markets, but for some reason in this instance the Opposition does not like to see market forces in effect. One of the key reasons for the recent devaluation has been the surge in imports, the leakage to overseas suppliers resulting from increased demand in the Australian economy. That is a well-known effect and occurs frequently in open trading economies such as Australia's economy. Between 10 and 20 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product is in traded goods, imports and exports, and it is evident that in such economies the level of imports is determined importantly by the level of activity and growth in the economy. Price levels-price competitiveness-are only one factor in determining levels of imports. Unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition has a fixation about cost levels and price competitiveness and is not prepared to look at the other forces at work in the economy-forces which, in the short to medium term, can affect levels of imports. That is a very important factor to bear in mind. It is on record that in the 1983-84 financial year Australia experienced 10 per cent real growth through the year. From June 1983 to June 1984 Australia enjoyed 10 per cent real economic growth-the fastest growth in the world. That achievement has been ignored by the Opposition. Good growth is expected in the current financial year and it is now expected that the growth forecast in the Budget will be exceeded. In two financial years Australia has had strong economic growth. I believe that factor primarily has led to the surge in imports. As economic activity has picked up, there has been an increase in the imports of raw materials and capital equipment. The trend in Australia is fairly well documented for other industrialised economies which have experienced rapid economic growth. It should be noted that the surge in imports is now slowing down. For example, the Melbourne Sun this morning points out that the growth in imports in the 12 months to March this year was lower than the growth in imports in the 12 months to December last year. That points to a downturn in the growth trend in imports. They are heartening figures. It is also important to note that the slowdown had begun to occur before the downward movement in the Australian dollar. The balance of payments figures which were released yesterday also help to expose one of the other economic arguments used by the Opposition as having no foundation. I have been a member of this place for almost two years and have repeatedly heard Opposition members point to the fact that the recovery in the Australian economy has been due to an upturn in the world economy. However, export prices received by Australian producers are not at high levels. It is most unlikely to expect export prices to be at low levels when there is a strong demand for one's products on world markets. If there is any effect flowing from the upturn in the world economy in terms of the Australian economy, I think a large part of it is yet to come and has not been built into production growth in this country to date. It is also important to note that in regard to the balance of payments figures that were released yesterday there has now been, after seasonal adjustment, a balance of trade surplus-that is, an excess of exports over imports-for two consecutive months. That is a most important movement. I must concede, however, a problem in the balance of payments. It is not so much a problem in the balance of trade area, but in the capital movement area and also in regard to invisibles. Those invisible items in the balance of payments include such items as payments for shipping to overseas companies, insurance services, property income and so forth. There is a real problem in that area since Australia is now facing an invisibles deficit of some $5,000m to $6,000m each year. That large figure is a direct result of the policies pursued by the Menzies Government through the 1950s and 1960s-policies which progressively allowed, if I may put it metaphorically, the farm to be sold off and allowed increased overseas penetration of the Australian economy. Now a large part of our export bill each year effectively has to go to cover the costs to the Australian economy of a very large deficit on invisible items. That will take many years to rectify. I applaud the actions of the former Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen, in upgrading the machinery in the Department of Trade to deal with the invisibles deficit. When one boils down the substance of this matter of public importance, it is seeking to deal with the potential inflationary effects of devaluation of the Australian economy. But it should be noted that any price effects, if they exist, will take time to feed through into the economy. They will be very small effects on the next wage indexation rise to be awarded in September or October. The fact is that that rise will be paid in relation to the two preceding quarters. Any price effects in the period of devaluation will be minimal. Whatever happens on this front will happen at some time in the future. Honourable senators opposite cannot lecture us on inflation after their record in office. For seven years the Australian people were asked to bear sacrifices in the name of fighting inflation first. That was the policy of the Liberal-National Party Government-fighting inflation first. Yet when we assumed office at the beginning of 1983, inflation in this country was at double digit levels; it was 11.5 per cent. The Australian people had absolutely no return for all the sacrifices which they made for seven years in the name of fighting inflation first. Through the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions we have developed a core policy which enables economic expansion to occur with lower inflationary consequences. Our record speaks for itself in the inflation area. We have more than halved the rate, from 11.5 per cent inherited by this Government, to just over 5 per cent on the latest available information for the year to the December quarter 1984. It is the lowest inflation rate we have had for years. Senator Peter Rae —And the highest interest rate we have had since the Depression. Senator MAGUIRE —How would Senator Peter Rae propose to deal with the high interest rate? I suppose he would raise inflation. We have had a very big reduction in inflation. One of the key differences between the Government and the Opposition parties is that the Government supports centralised wage fixing machinery. The Opposition has a different policy. Centralised wage fixing machinery gives much more scope to control any inflationary effects which might be engendered through external sources. Certainly, the centralised wage fixing system has more potential to stop price and cost explosions in the pressure sectors of the economy. We still need to know what is the Opposition's policy on wages. What is the Opposition's policy on incomes? Senator Peter Rae —You are in government. What is your policy on what is happening at the moment with the depreciation in the value of the dollar? Senator MAGUIRE —Senator Peter Rae is in the Opposition. He brought up this matter today. I need to know what is the Opposition's policy on wages. On the one hand we have the Howard-Shack dry faction which wants to move away from centralised wage fixing to decentralised wage fixing with sector bargaining. Then we have the Macphee faction which supports centralised wage fixing. So it is not quite clear what the Opposition would do were it occupying the treasury bench and having to deal with the sorts of problems it is claiming this afternoon exist. Frankly, it does not have a wages policy which would offer any scope to do anything about cost pressures brought into the Australian economy from outside. We need only to look at its record in the 1981-82 period of the Fraser Government when Mr Howard was Treasurer. A partially decentralised wage fixing system developed at the time of the so-called resources boom. Fluctuations in the dollar and very rapid wage rises linked with the currency movements occurred. It was clear that the decentralised wage fixing system that the Liberal and National parties allowed to develop could not shield domestic costs from currency movements. That is the record of the early 1980s. There are big advantages, I believe, in having a centralised wage fixing policy such as that of the present Government. It is very important to bear in mind that a devaluation of the currency is not an unmitigated disaster. It has important potential economic effects on real economic activity. Devaluation should help expand domestic economic activity. As the cost of imports rises more effective protection is available, particularly for manufacturing industry and the import competing industries of our economy. Those which produce traded goods are given more protection from imports. There should be increases in the volume of production in those areas. It is possible that we will obtain more manufacturing exports as a result of the devaluation of the dollar. Our export industries whose prices are set in foreign currencies will do better because they will get bigger returns. Devaluation is not an economic disaster as some honourable senators on the Opposition benches would have us believe. The fundamentals of the Australian economy today remain strong. In the key consumption spending and investment spending sections of the economy activity is running at above the levels forecast in the 1984-85 Budget. In both the public and private sectors 341,000 jobs have been created in this country since the present Government came into office. That is more jobs than were created in the whole period of the Liberal-National Party Government from 1975 to 1983. It is very important when the Opposition proposes matters for discussion in this chamber on devaluation and controlling its effects that it makes it clear to the people of Australia what its policies are on wages and whether it supports a centralised or decentralised wage fixing system. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.07) —I have pleasure in joining Senator Peter Rae and Senator Messner in this debate. Before making the remarks I have in mind to make I will address a couple of the points that have been made by earlier speakers. Senator Walsh, in leading the debate for the Government, said-if I understood him correctly-that there is only one issue on which the Government has not yet stated a firm policy in respect of its overall economic policies; that is, discounting the consumer price index for devaluation. That is a very interesting statement. I ask Senator Walsh and the Government-perhaps Senator Cook, who will follow me in this debate, will help me out-because I would be very interested to know, and I am sure the people of Australia would be interested to know, precisely what is the Government's policy on monetary targets, interest rates, wages, the export sector of this economy, with the reduction that is taking place in export incentives, taxation and the encouragement of investment. Many people in Australia are asking questions about these matters. Senator Walsh not only side-stepped those matters but he also did not address any of the very telling criticisms made by Senator Rae and Senator Messner. In the last 10 weeks alone, since 1 February, the Australian dollar has fallen in value by a record amount to a record low. Against the United States dollar it has fallen by 17.8 per cent. Against sterling it has fallen by a massive 26.5 per cent. Against the yen it has fallen by 20 per cent. Against the deutschemark it has fallen by 21.2 per cent. Against the average of the currencies of our major trading partners the Australian dollar has fallen in value by 19.2 per cent. These are figures to cause all Australians great concern. It is no wonder that the value of the dollar has, for the first time in my memory, become a focal point of everyday conversation for most Australians. The fall in the value of our currency and, therefore, our real standard of living-let us not forget that-is symptomatic of serious problems facing Australia. Those problems are not just economic although economic factors play a major part. We are heading for a record deficit in our balance of payments on current account in 1984-85-probably a figure of $10,500m to $11,000m. That is $2,000m more than the Government forecast at the time of the last Budget. Our overseas debt is skyrocketing and with it the interest on that debt. The interest bill on our foreign debt has increased by 200 per cent since 1980 and most of that increase has occurred in the last two years. There is the answer to Senator Maguire's point, with which I agree, in terms of the importance and the significance of the invisibles deficit in the balance of payments. It is coming very largely from skyrocketing and continuing interest bill increases. Our interest bill on our foreign debt now represents 12 per cent of total exports. That means that we need $1 of every $8 worth of exports simply to meet the interest bill on our foreign debt. That takes no account at all of the need eventually to repay the debt itself. No wonder the Australian Finance Conference, in a submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council in recent days, said that our overseas debt is now threatening Australia's long term growth prospects. Our economic growth rate is declining. Gone are the heady days of 1984 when the Government basked in the wake and the wash of the recovery of the United States economy, the breaking of the drought in 1983 and the previous Government's wages pause. The decline in our inflation rate has plateaued and the rate is showing signs of increasing, despite the fact that it is still higher than those of most of the other major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and despite the fact that we still have the devaluation impact of the recent exchange rate decline to take into account. That will probably add directly about 2 per cent to the CPI. Unemployment is on the rise again. Money supply is increasing at an unhealthily rapid rate and, despite this increase in the money supply, interest rates are rising in complete contradiction of the claims of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that they would fall. As Senator Rae and Senator Messner so rightly pointed out, interest rates are rising directly as a result of the actions of this Government. We are being taxed at a record level and government charges are having an increasingly severe impact on all sectors of industry. No wonder the economy is showing signs of sluggishness again. No wonder unemployment is on the rise again. These are some of the economic reasons lying behind the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. They cannot be ignored. There are also significant political reasons, all of which add up to a Prime Minister and a government which have lost control, a government which has lost the capacity to govern. Let us look at the Government's record since the last election. It is an appalling record of vacillation, dithering, confusion and lack of leadership. First there was the MX missile fiasco, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) backed away from previously given support to our major ally, the United States, under pressure from the left wing of the Labor Party-a 180-degree turnaround-all done on the basis of a few hasty phone calls across the world without any serious consideration by the Cabinet. This fiasco was closely followed by the ill-fated visit of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) to Kampuchea and Thailand during which time he managed to put off side entirely all our friends in the Association of South East Asian Nations. Then there was the abandonment of monetary targets by the Treasurer. Then the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) got himself and the Government into all sorts of trouble over the iniquitous effects of the assets test on many pensioners and particularly pensioners on farms. Mixed up with all this has been the Government's somersault on the police tapes in New South Wales, its continuing and increasing confusion on the issue of restructuring the taxation system, the defeat of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance (Mr Walsh) over the reintroduction of tertiary fees and the most recent debacle, the confusion generated by the Prime Minister last week throughout both the union movement and the business community with his statement about the productivity case. This litany of mismanagement, inconsistency and bungling by the Prime Minister and the Government has reached alarming proportions. It is a major factor in the decline of the Australian dollar and therefore in our living standards because, quite simply, the rest of the world has lost confidence in the ability of the Australian Government to govern-and very understandably so. The implications of the dramatic fall in the value of the dollar are profound. I agree with Senator Maguire that certainly there are some sectors of the economy which will benefit in the short run, in particular the export-oriented rural and mining industries. Australian producers of goods which receive competition from imports will also benefit in the short term. But these benefits to some sectors of the economy are achieved at great cost to the economy as a whole because, in its simplest terms, depreciation of our currency means that we have to sell more and more abroad in order to pay for the same amount of imports. This automatically means a reduction in the living standards, in the real income, of every Australian, unless we can capitalise on the short term increased competitiveness which devaluation provides. The only way we can capitalise on this situation is for the Government to take firm and responsible economic management decisions in the light of the reduced capacity of the economy to pay. This involves some tough decisions. It requires the Government to exercise much tighter restraint on its expenditure. Government expenditure has ballooned wildly in each of the last two Budgets. It must be reined in, and even more extensively so as a result of the depreciation of the currency. It requires the Government to reduce its Budget deficit so that it puts less pressure on money markets. It requires the Government to reintroduce firm targets for monetary growth rates and to communicate these to the market; a market which at the moment is very confused as to where this Government is going. It requires the Government to exercise the maximum influence over the trade union movement and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to have wage increases discounted for the effects of devaluation. To say that that is a decision to be taken several months down the road is a nonsense because the longer the Government delays taking a decision on that issue the greater the lack of confidence and the greater the uncertainty that will be created in the community. It also requires the Government to use its influence to have abandoned the productivity case scheduled for later this year. It requires the Government to press ahead with freeing up those sectors of our economy where there are rigidities which prevent us from producing efficiently at effective costs. It is quite essential that the Government tackle head on the need for greater flexibility in our wage fixing system and the vexed question of the ever escalating labour on-costs that are plaguing industry generally. If we can achieve these things we can capitalise on the opportunities which the depreciation of the dollar opens up for us, but if we do not we are inevitably headed for further lack of competitiveness, increased inflation, reduced employment and progressively declining living standards. We can either try to get it right ourselves or have the mechanism of the market place impose its disciplines on us. It is essential that the Prime Minister and the Government take a lead in this. It is not too late. As Senator Rae outlined earlier, we have great potential as a nation, but that potential will not last if we continue to fritter away our opportunities under this leaderless and rudderless Government. If it does exercise leadership I can assure the Government that it will receive the support of the Opposition, but the regrettable fact is that leadership is not being given. That is the reason why Senator Rae, on behalf of the Opposition, has submitted this matter of public importance today. The Prime Minister is not only not showing leadership, he is also adding to the confusion and to the declining confidence, both within and outside Australia, by a series of contradictory and vacillating actions that are the opposite of leadership. The Treasurer also has a great responsibility to exert leadership at this time, but where is the Treasurer? He has become the invisible man of Australian politics in recent weeks. Is it because he is deliberately distancing himself from the Prime Minister; is it because he is incapable of performing his duties now that the going has got tough; or is it because the three Australian Labor governments-the so-called right wing Labor Government, the so-called left of centre Labor Government and the certainly far left Labor Government-have collectively become incapable of governing? Senator Gareth Evans —He has been out of the country. Don't you read the newspapers? Senator SHORT —If he has been out of the country in recent weeks, he should have been back here because he has a very serious problem. In recent weeks we have seen a formally factionalised government in very serious disarray. At a crucial time in our economic development we have a Prime Minister and a Government tragically lacking any exercise of firm and responsible government. The situation is serious. It urgently demands leadership. The Prime Minister and the Government are failing Australia and Australians by their inability or unwillingness to provide this leadership. The Opposition urges the Government to act now to stop the slide before it is too late. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.21) —It is in many respects a pity that the Opposition has chosen to bring on this discussion of a matter of public importance today. It is a pity because it tends to conform with the tradition of members of the Opposition to see no avenue for themselves on the economy except to carp, to criticise and in general to develop an image of gloom and doom. They have not been on strong grounds ever in that approach. They are not on strong grounds today. The economy is in firm and resolute hands, being well managed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) with the support of the rest of the Cabinet and the Caucus. Nonetheless, the gloom and doom continue to be generated and sooner or later someone will have to save members of the Opposition. What do they want? Do they want to shake business confidence, undermine the standing of the economy further and, therefore, wear the blame for any difficulties which might arise? (Quorum formed) The point I was making was that the Opposition has done nothing but try to generate gloom and doom about the economy and that, therefore, it must bear some responsibility if it is true, as it claims, that it has a special relationship with the business community and if some businessmen, in part misguided, believe the gloom and doom that it creates. Let it be put clearly on the agenda that if members of the Opposition continue to be carping, critical and doom-mongering they have to bear the responsibility for those sections of the business sector which may well believe them. Of course, the truth is that the economy is in firm and resolute hands and is developing well. That is illustrated no better than by the performance of the Australian stock exchanges trading at record levels. The performance of the stock exchanges could be contrasted with what has been described as the irrational performance of the foreign exchange market. Looking at the irrationality of some of the choices made on the foreign exchange market has encouraged members of the Opposition to bring forward this matter of public importance today. They divine a fall in the Australian dollar, which is of course quite a substantial fall, and seek to exploit that by shaking the confidence of the community through their traditional approach, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the other place and his discredited deputy, Mr Howard, have been doing, of continuing to attack and undermine the Government. The reason members of the Opposition have adopted this policy is that they recognise that a strong economy equals a strong government. They know that the economy is performing well. They therefore try to cast a spell over it in order to undermine the Government. We are seeing a debased use of economic statistics and argument for fairly base political purposes, and one ought to recognise that. It was said by my predecessor in argument, Senator Short, that were credit due credit would be given. Senator Short was not here between 1983 and the beginning of this term in 1985. He ought to be informed that had he been here he would have known that, after we had performed the miracle of the economic summit, developed the Economic Planning Advisory Council and established the accord as a firmly adopted instrument of economic regulation, something that the business community and the commentators were all giving us credit for, the Opposition was not moved to give credit where it was due but continued to try to undermine those achievements. So we are seeing nothing but a continuous stream of carping criticism. Members of the Opposition, by this matter of public importance, have tried to focus on three different areas. First, they have tried to discredit our economic performance, and I want to say something in detail about that shortly. Secondly, they have tried to undermine the accord and the Government's management of wages policy, and I want to go into some detail about that as well. Their third and most recently discovered method of attacking the Government is to pretend that somehow or other the Prime Minister is not in a firm position in his leadership of the Party. I participate in all avenues of the Australian Labor Party and its Caucus and I can say quite clearly that he is and that he has the full backing of the Caucus and of the Party in his economic management and his leadership. Let no one on the other side pretend, as Senator Short did a moment ago in reading a somewhat fanciful litany of so-called failings of the Government, that the Prime Minister is not strongly and powerfully supported by all sectors of the Caucus and that they will not make sure that our economic performance continues. Of course, we will continue in government for a long time-the very thing that the Opposition does not want. Having, I trust, therefore allayed that particular and latest creature of coalition invention, let me now move to the more important issues of the substance of the matter of public importance-economic performance and wages policy. They seem to be the real nub removed from the political froth and bubble of the Opposition's argument. It is extraordinary that this matter should emanate from an opposition which, when in government, presided over-let no one ever forget this-double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, which brought in the first negative growth rate in 30 years, and which had as its leader in the 1983 election a person who tried to talk down the exchange rate by making boo-statements about massive devaluations for purely political reasons. That is, in shorthand, part of the record of so-called economic management of the coalition when it occupied the treasury bench. It is the very reason those opposite occupy the Opposition benches now. It is the very reason their words are not credible when they talk about the economy and why they will remain where they are. Our approach has always been to take sober, considered and responsible decisions. Let the results speak for themselves. The runs in terms of this economy are certainly on the board. Members of the Opposition are talking now about international competitiveness. I remind them that that state of competitiveness is the result of 30 years of their government. The ALP has been in government for two years. If there is a loss of competitiveness-we certainly do not concede that there is to the extent to which those opposite assert-it has been their responsibility, not ours. The coalition consistently over-valued the exchange rate because it had no credible alternative for containing inflation. As a result, Australian exporters and Australian import-competing manufacturers were made internationally uncompetitive. That is the record of the coalition. Its industry policy, basic to an approach on competitiveness, is a long saga of failed protection plans. We at least have moved in the steel industry and the automobile industry-where the coalition, I might add, when in government, had policies that were in tatters-and in heavy engineering; and we have started to turn around the regressive effects of long years of neglect. We have had to pick up the pieces and make those industries healthy. They are moving in that direction now. The coalition's crowning glory was the 1981-82 wages explosion. In that period wages rose at an annual rate approaching 17 per cent. When we get to talk about wages policy that is a point that I will keep coming back to because that ought to be contrasted with our performance. The wages explosion then occurred because the coalition was talking up a lift in resources investment as a boom, a boom which, of course, did not exist. That is the coalition's proud record and its bold experiment in free wage fixing. In fact, the unions in the growth industries got wage rises which flowed through to the rest of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Industrial Relations during part of that time and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer during that time. That is the Opposition's strategy and it now has the gall to lecture us on wages policy. It lectures us with no strength in its argument at all. We all know of the celebrated Macphee-Howard tussle over what should really be the wages policy of the Opposition which has resulted only in a pathetic compromise of platitudes with no real sense or meaning to it-a vague coalition of promises and assertion that no-one in the industrial relations field believes. The truth is that the Opposition does not have a wages policy. Everyone acknowledges that wages policy is a central plank to economic recovery in this country. Let us compare the Opposition's record with that of the Government. We have an accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, an agreement that has provided a basis for an unprecedented period of wage and dispute moderation. It started with the National Economic Summit Conference, it operates through the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, it is supported by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it has, to the Opposition's chagrin, wide support in the business community and it is standing in stark contrast to the theories espoused by the Opposition. We have achieved in practice through the accord significant improvements in the economy. I might say that anyone in the media or anyone who reads the Press, who has been following this argument as to whether the accord will break and who has bet on the accord breaking down, has done his dough cold. It has not; it has remained solid. What is the record of the accord, however? Wage rises have been contained completely within its guidelines. This month a 2.6 per cent increase was the first increase in wages for 12 months. The accord, in concert with tax cuts, allowed the Medicare adjusted consumer price index to be accepted for wage indexation purposes. After rising in the early 1980s real unit labour costs have fallen back to their lowest levels in more than a decade. That is an achievement of the accord. In 1983-84 the share of corporate gross operating surpluses for non-farm gross domestic product was the highest for a decade. There has been under the accord in terms of GDP a shift away from wages and salaries towards profits. That has enabled the development of the reinvestment in the economy that we are now seeing beginning to come through strongly. That has taken place in a climate of very low inflation and expansionary economic growth, an achievement which stands without precedent in Australia. When we add to that the fact that our dispute level in terms of man days lost through industrial disputes is at the lowest for 17 years, we can pronounce the accord an unbridled success. Perhaps we ought to remind ourselves that that unbridled success has a human dimension in that now the approach in the field of general industry is much more one of co-operation and teamwork in contrast to the policy of confrontation and putting Australian against Australian in a debilitating and depleting struggle that has sapped the strength of the economy. The accord has made possible the reduction in inflation to 5 per cent from the coalition's record of 11 per cent-an unprecedented recovery. The accord is the cornerstone of our economic framework. Members of the Coalition in this debate have tried to pitch the falling Australian dollar against the accord in some battle between the two. Now they argue for the destruction of our wage fixing system. I suggest to the coalition that were we to throw out the accord and move back into the market in the way in which it suggests, the exchange rate would plummet because there would be a sudden shock and a loss of confidence in the Government. I can assure the business community that we are not about to retreat from the very successful base of our growth. The Opposition demands that confrontation replace consensus. What better example is there than a contrast of the industrial dispute figures? In 1979-80, 429,000 man days were lost. In 1980-81 the figure was 3,289,000 and, in 1981-82, it was 4,564,000. Let us contrast those figures to our record in 1984-85 of 1,326,000 man days lost. That is the comparison of the result of the Opposition's management of industrial relations, its wages policy, with the effect of our wages policy. If one wanted to go further one would look at the chaos that is now occurring in Queensland compared to the position in the rest of Australia. We have a ring-side seat for seeing the way in which the two economic systems can run. If we have confrontation we have the sort of social disharmony that is developing in Queensland all of which is based on a flagging Queensland economic performance, a performance which has dragged down the retail figures released today and which, moreover, is dragging down the generally burgeoning economic performance of all of Australia. That has to be recognised. As to the main argument that the Opposition has been putting concerning a wages policy, the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that within the flexibility of the accord there are alternatives to talking single-mindedly and stupidly about an indexation discount on the upcoming indexation case for September this year. Let me conclude with what I think is a summary quote from a respected economic commentator, Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I speak very briefly to express my concern that the borrowing policies, which have been adopted by electricity authorities around Australia and which have been encouraged by the actions of the present Government in encouraging further borrowings from overseas, have placed not only the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority but electricity authorities generally at very considerable risk of exposure to currency fluctuations, devaluation of the Australian dollar and the cost of repayment and servicing of the borrowings which have been made. The net result has been a very marked increase in the cost of electricity in the Australian Capital Territory and elsewhere. The Australian Capital Territory cost is reflected in the way in which the costing is arranged for the production of electricity which it receives on a more beneficial basis than, I think, any other State or Territory of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless it has seen a significant increase. The increase, of course, has been far worse in some States than in others. The exposure rate in all is very high indeed, to the extent of a turn from negative interest rates to positive interest rates. We are now seeing the extreme danger in which this country is being placed by the increase in interest rates which is being forced upon the country as a result of the deliberate policies of this Government to try to bolster it up. The policies of the present Government were indicated by the attitudes adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during an interview on the National program when he confirmed that the Reserve Bank of Australia had been active in the market, pushing up the interest rates to all Australians, Australians who are borrowing for home or business purposes, and Australian electricity authorities which are providing electricity at ever increasing cost to Australian manufacturing as well as to domestic consumers. It is therefore with some sadness that I note that this Government is imposing an extra electricity cost on the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. This is part of its overall policy of pushing up costs as a result of pushing up interest rates. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do not wish to discuss this matter now. We will not be able to debate General Business matters for some weeks. However, I think that this subject will be of much interest to the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.42) —I wish to address myself briefly to this report of the Family Law Council. I agree with Senator Chaney that this matter really does require a far more substantial debate than can be encompassed in only 25 minutes, particularly when a senator's time is limited to five minutes. Therefore, one is not able to do justice to a report of this character. However, I would like to address myself to page 53, chapter 3 of the report, which is headed 'Separation of the Conciliation and Judicial Functions of the Court'. The report of the Council, which was chaired by Mr Justice Fogarty, sets out quite clearly what we have all known, that in fact reconciliation counselling is really not now undertaken by Family Court officers. I believe that this development is disconcerting if it means that the options for reconciliation are not put to persons who come in the first instance to the Family Court. The report states: It recognised also, however, that those responsible for framing the Family Law Act continued to attach importance to reconciliation counselling and sought to promote reconciliation of the parties. Although I disagree with some of the recommendations in the report, I believe that both joint select committees of this Parliament which dealt with this matter considered reconciliation counselling to be a matter of paramountcy. It is quite clear that this aspect of counselling is now no longer regarded as a priority in the Family Court and, indeed, what is now taking place is that conciliation counselling is to be used in the resolution of disputes. Of course, unfortunately, that is a matter which must be attended to. However, I emphasise the fact that there is a need for a further look at a requirement for officers in the first instance, both at the court and at the solicitor level, to do all that they can, as some of them are doing, under law. I think section 14 of the Family Law Act provides that where proceedings have been instituted the judge or magistrate and the parties' legal representatives must give consideration to the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. I am talking about what should happen even before proceedings have been instituted. I believe we ought to consider again something which I floated a couple of years ago and for which I received a considerable amount of support in this chamber. I think some 20 senators supported my call for required reconciliation processes to be undertaken-that is to say, for conferences to be held by persons intending separation for the purpose of considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of marriage and, in particular, the effects of the dissolution of a marriage on any children of the marriage. One of the problems that I see emerging from this report is the recommended separation of the counselling services from the other court activities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Human Rights Commission raises a matter of principle which I think the Senate will eventually have to address. The report concerns a complaint regarding the situation in which two people and their child find themselves. The two people who were visiting Australia overstayed the time allowed by their visitors' visas and to all intents and purposes became classified as illegal migrants. They stayed in Australia for quite some time. During that period they gave birth to a son named Alvin. The then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs later determined that the parents, having overstayed the legal period for which they could remain in Australia, should be deported. The son was, by virtue of having been born here, an Australian citizen. The Minister had no power, and indeed has no power, under Australian legislation to deport an Australian citizen. However, the parents of the infant child were to be deported. Although the Minister could not deport the child, the child could not remain in Australia without being separated from his parents. Therefore, while the child as an Australian citizen could not actually be deported, the effect of the Minister's decision was to deport the child if he was to remain with his parents, who were being deported. The Human Rights Commission had a close look at this matter and made the following concluding comment in its report: In this particular case it may well be that, as a matter of Australian domestic law, the Minister was entitled to deport Mr and Mrs Au Yeung, and ignore the rights of their son Alvin but, nevertheless, acted inconsistently with and contrary to human rights. The human rights prejudiced in this case were, of course, the rights of the child. I believe that the report does no more than simply highlight a very difficult and extremely complex situation with which any Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be faced from time to time. However, I think the report is useful in that it draws to the attention of the Senate that there is here a particularity of cases in which Australian citizens effectively are deported by Australian Ministers for immigration because the only alternative that is presented is for them to be separated from their parents, particularly at a time when, as in the case of very young infant children, that is not a viable option for any of the parties concerned. I think that the report of the Human Rights Commission on this occasion simply draws attention to an anomaly in the legislation which may well need to be fixed up. It also draws attention to some of the less satisfactory procedures which have been used in the resolution of this case. Senator Peter Baume —Does it point out then what happens if aliens who are not allowed to migrate here stay long enough to have a child? Would that create a right for them to stay? Senator PUPLICK —No. It makes it quite clear that although the child, being an Australian citizen, has rights, that confers rights upon nobody else. There are two conflicting sets of rights. Senator Peter Baume —But would the remedy allow the parents to stay? Senator PUPLICK —No. There is no remedy put forward in the Human Rights Commission's report. It simply draws attention to the fact that when migration and citizenship legislation is before the Parliament it is one of the additional very complex issues to be addressed. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.52) —When one reads the report of the Human Rights Commission one wonders what sort of people we have on the Human Rights Commission. I did wish to speak to the report of the Human Rights Commission on the Community Services (Aborigines) Act, which preceded this report on the list which has been circulated, but thanks to Senator Baume I will get the opportunity to do that later. As Senator Puplick said, the facts of the matter here are not in dispute. Two residents of Hong Kong entered Australia on 15 August 1982 on a tourist visa which, they very clearly understood, gave then no rights to work within Australia. Clearly they had a finite period of six months before they had to depart Australia. In the period of the tourist visa, after living at Carlingford for two months they travelled from Sydney to Bourke and took employment there in the Returned Services League restaurant. While they were in Bourke, apparently on 19 December 1983, a child was born to them. Subsequently, they bought a restaurant at Temora. There is no way on earth that this couple were not conscious of the fact that they were breaking Australian migration law. In fact, one can come to no other conclusion than that the Human Rights Commission knew they were breaking the law consciously while they did it. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ruled that the parents be required to leave Australia as prohibited or illegal migrants-whatever the technical term was-and they left. A subsequent appeal was made to the Human Rights Commission on the grounds that the infant child was an Australian citizen. That is perfectly true, but where the Human Rights Commission was quite wrong was in not applying common sense and upholding the law of the country. An infant child is clearly a dependant, whatever the age of voting might be. In any other country in the world the infant would have been required to leave with the parents, as indeed it did. I am astonished that we are paying people to sit on a human rights commission who can come up with such fanciful, unreal and unrealistic solutions to what is really a very simple problem. If the Human Rights Commission had its way, any parents coming into Australia as illegal migrants could have children born in Australia and then turn around and claim that because the children were Australian citizens they, the parents, were entitled to Australian citizenship. We could have single parents coming in at the final point of travel for airlines, which I think is about seven months of pregnancy, and evading and avoiding the Australian legislation in relation to migration. Some of the most common complaints that I receive in my office are from people who simple cannot obtain citizenship or get entry into Australia, people who would make excellent citizens in every sense of the word. They come from every country of the world. They are being denied access because of the policies which we have in place at present. For a human rights commission to turn around and allow two people who consciously and wilfully broke the law of this country to gain residency on a trumped up ground of human rights, I think is quite wrong. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.55) —I think the occasion should not pass without my stating for the record that the Human Rights Commission's recommendations were, in fact, the subject of fairly vigorous controversy within the Government last year, as is evident from some parts of the report, and both I, as the then Attorney-General, and the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, took a view of the appropriate human rights standards to be applied to this case that was very much at odds with the view of the Human Rights Commission. I do not wish to go quite as far as Senator MacGibbon in saying that common sense was deserted on the occasion in question but I think it is probably fair to say that opinions may well differ on instances such as this as to how one appropriately weighs and balances the rights concerned. It seemed to me to be a considerable overinflation of the protections afforded under the declarations of the rights of the child for these considerations to outweigh the maintenance of the credibility and integrity of the immigration system. That was the view which did prevail. I suggest it is the view that, on second thoughts, will probably now prevail within the Human Rights Commission itself. I rise to make the point that I believe, nonetheless, the Human Rights Commission's report is a useful contribution to what is a very tricky policy question. I think that the rather more moderate tone in which Senator Puplick addressed this issue is to be commended. It is a demonstration that, as always, views will often differ in this area, but what is important is that the different views be exposed and there be healthy debate about them, with nobody taking strong positions based simply on prejudice about either the iniquity of a body such as the Human Rights Commission or the inevitability of its coming up with the right conclusions. I think the truth, as so often with bodies of this kind, is half way in between. What is important is that we have the issues exposed and debated. That is, of course, one of the very points justifying the existence of the Human Rights Commission-to enable just that to occur. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.58) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.59) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise very briefly to congratulate the Human Rights Commission at least on the recommendation it has made in its report entitled 'Human Rights of the Terminally Ill'. I was rather surprised that it was left to the Human Rights Commission to make this recommendation to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). The Commission has recommended that heroin be made available to terminally ill patients who cannot obtain effective pain relief through other treatment or drugs. The Commission has recommended that heroin be listed as a pharmaceutical benefit and that its administration by or under the immediate supervision of a medical practitioner be allowed outside hospitals. This would mean that it could be administered to all terminally ill patients who may benefit from the drug. I hope that the Minister will take up this recommendation. It is about time the Government did. Indeed, I am sorry that my Party, when in government, did not take up the recommendation by the Australian Medical Association in 1979 that heroin be made available to patients with severe pain. I used heroin professionally on others many years ago. It is a wonderful drug for the terminally ill. It relieves pain and keeps patients mentally alert, obviating the need to drug them to the extent that they do not know what is going on. Patients are then able to die with a certain dignity, without the fear of pain and without that dreadful last stage that some of us have witnessed. I believe that the Minister should take up this recommendation very speedily. I think the report makes the need for this very clear when it states: Chronic pain is perhaps the hardest aspect of a terminal illness that a patient has to cope with, as it seems meaningless as well as endless. It is likely to get worse and the pain can occupy the patient's whole attention, isolating that person from the outside world. I think that describes the situation very well. Units that will deal with severe pain have been set up. They are expert units which can usually come up with a drug that will be helpful to the patient, but they cannot always come up with a drug that will do the job that we know heroin can do. To deny heroin to terminally ill patients purely because small sections of the community abuse it, I believe, is entirely wrong. I cannot imagine why the Human Rights Commission tries to use the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or even the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons to bring forward its recommendation. I do not really mind how the Commission does it, as long as the recommendation is taken up by the Minister. I again say that I hope that the Minister who is present in the Senate, Senator Grimes, will ask the Minister for Health to take up that matter as speedily as possible. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.03) —I have some sympathy with what Senator Walters has just advanced. My brother died of a malignant disease some years ago. He died in unnecessary pain. Several lessons came out of that. The first was that the medical team was not using available analgesia properly. I have had occasion to talk to some doctors who are specialising in the treatment of the kind of pain to which Senator Walters referred. They are of the view that many patients are not receiving adequate therapy with the drugs other than heroin which are presently available. So there is a problem about present medical practice which relates to the lack of expertise by people of my profession with the drugs which we already have available and which we should be using. That is the first point. Many people could be spared much of the pain to which Senator Walters referred if available therapies were applied more expertly than they are applied at present. Some of my colleagues who are involved in terminal care have even gone so far as to say to me that their patients can be made pain free with available therapy, provided the doctors are inventive enough in the way they use that therapy. That is what they assert. On the other hand I am always struck by the fact that it seems that in our community the only people who cannot get heroin are the terminally ill. That is the real dilemma. If one wants to go to Kings Cross one can buy heroin. Senator Reid —And in Canberra. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Reid says one can buy it in Canberra. If one wants to go around the back streets one can buy heroin, except if one is terminally ill. I am, in fact, quite torn on this issue. On the one hand, heroin is far too freely available for recreational use. On the other hand, I am not sure that the medical need cannot somehow be met by the means available. One thing I do know is that if heroin did become available medically, whatever the medical benefits, we would have to pay the penalty of some small degree of increased use. I remind Senator Walters that this was the dilemma which faced a Senate committee on which she, Senator Grimes and I served. We had to consider the question of marihuana-trading off costs and benefits whichever way the policies went. So I have some sympathy with what Senator Walters said, but I think the issue is very difficult. I think there are costs whichever way she goes. As I said, I am concerned that the only people in our community who cannot get heroin are those whose needs for analgesia appear to be the greatest. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.05) —The report addresses the question of the right of terminally ill patients to have access to heroin as a means of relieving pain. It is in no way concerned with the use of heroin by addicts or for other medical purposes. The Human Rights Commission, when examining the issues involved in the medical use of heroin for terminally ill patients, received representations from a number of institutions and individuals involved in the treatment and care of terminally ill people. These sorts of people, who are involved in the hour by hour, day by day management of the intense suffering of cancer and leukaemia patients, who have had to stand by in so many cases and witness the dehumanising process of surgical, medical and radiation procedures and who have had to care for families and loved ones who too share the anxiety, the pain and the suffering of the dying, are convinced that heroin should be made available for use in the pain control of terminally ill patients and that the patients should have the right to decide for themselves how they wish to be treated in the terminal stages of their illness. People in this country have the right to make their own decisions on other medical, social or political questions which affect their own person and future, so they should have the right to have access to or to choose the form of pain relief which is most effective for themselves. The report raises a number of issues about the rights of terminally ill patients in addition to their rights to adequate pain management. It talks about the patients' right to be fully informed about their illness and the treatment they receive; the right to refuse treatment; the right to privacy; the right to respect for their human dignity, which suggests that they have the right to as normal and full a life as is possible under the circumstances; the right to be protected against all treatment that is of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature; and-I emphasise this-the right to die with dignity. If one agrees with the inherent right of the individual to manage his life one must similarly agree with the right of an individual to manage his death if, of course, he has forewarning of this possibility. Evidence reported in the Commission's report showed that there is no scientific justification for the legal prohibition of the use of heroin for pain management of the terminally ill. Whilst it cannot be shown conclusively that heroin is universally superior to other narcotic medicines, it can be shown that for many patients it is a more effective pain reliever than morphine, which is more widely used, and has relatively no side effects. In fact, heroin has been shown to be two to four times as potent as morphine and it does not impair the mental faculties. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allotted for the consideration of government papers has expired. In the ordinary course the remaining papers would be eligible to be brought up during consideration of General Business on Thursday. As there will be no General Business on Thursday, I will give an opportunity to senators who wish to do so to move a motion to take note of any of the remaining papers they wish to discuss. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.08) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Archer, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.09) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.10) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.10) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(6.11) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.12) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.13) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.13) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated April 1985. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.14) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —On behalf of the Public Works Committee I present the forty-eighth general report of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The report covers the activities of the twenty-seventh Committee during 1984. Last year was a busy year for the Committee. The Committee met on 40 occasions to conduct public hearings and site inspections, and to deal with general business. Nineteen reports covering a diverse range of works were presented. A large number related to defence works, airports and repatriation general hospitals; others concerned a film and television school, a Commonwealth and Family Court, navigational aids for ships, a Commonwealth centre, an embassy, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation studio and an electricity sub-station. The estimated cost of the works was in the order of $460m. The report makes reference to a number of matters which arose during the year, namely, amendments to the Public Works Committee Act, defence housing and Hydrographer's Passage, Great Barrier Reef. I now pay tribute to members on the twenty-seventh Committee, all of whom are still members or senators: Senator Bernie Kilgariff, who was the longest serving member on the former Committee, having been appointed to the twenty-fourth Committee on 4 March 1976; the honourable member for Farrer, Mr Wal Fife-now the member for Hume-who served with distinction as Vice-Chairman; the honourable member for Deakin, Mr John Saunderson, now the honourable member for Aston; the honourable member for Lyne, Mr Bruce Cowan, and the honourable member for Forrest, Mr Peter Drummond. The work of the Committee's secretariat also deserves mention, especially the long and dedicated service by the Secretary, Mr Dick Fenton. Finally, I would like to thank the many witnesses who assisted the Committee's inquiries during the year-departmental officials and representatives of a wide range of private and public organisations. Their co-operation enabled the Committee to carry out its functions in a knowledgeable and expeditious manner. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to changes in the membership of Estimates committees. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Sibraa be discharged from Estimates Committee E. (2) That Senator McKiernan, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB, be appointed a member of Estimates Committee E. (3) That Senators Colston and Reynolds be discharged from Estimates Committee D and E, respectively. (4) That Senators Reynolds and Colston, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB, be appointed members of Estimates Committee D and E, respectively. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.19) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which governs extradition between Australia and other member countries of the Commonwealth. That legislation is based on a scheme, known as the London Scheme, agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1966 to regulate the extradition of fugitive offenders between Commonwealth countries. All Commonwealth countries have based their domestic extradition legislation in so far as it relates to extradition with other Commonwealth countries on the London Scheme. In 1983 Commonwealth Law Ministers met to review the London Scheme and agreed to certain changes to it to improve its operation. Putting these changes into effect requires amendment to the legislation of the various Commonwealth countries and this Bill provides for those amendments to the Australian legislation. A Bill was in fact introduced in 1984 but lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament that year. In addition to the amendments dealt with by Commonwealth Law Ministers the Bill incorporates amendments considered necessary to resolve difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the legislation and to improve the structure of the legislation. The more significant amendments provided for by the Bill are as follows- Voluntary return-this procedure will allow a fugitive to waive the full extradition process and be returned voluntarily to the requesting country. Appeal by requesting country-at present only the fugitive may appeal against a magistrate's decision on an extradition application. This amendment will permit an appeal to be lodged on behalf of the requesting country if the magistrate rejects the extradition request. Executive discretion to refuse extradition-this amendment will extend the Attorney-General's discretion to refuse to extradite in any situation where it would be unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. At present the discretion may only be exercised if the triviality of the offence, mala fides or lapse of time would make it unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. Extradition for fiscal offences-this amendment will make it clear that offences against laws relating to taxation, customs duties, foreign exchange control and other revenue matters which have hitherto not been extraditable, will be extraditable. Speciality rule-this amendment will make it clear that an extradited person may not be tried in the requesting country for offences other than those in respect of which his extradition has been granted until he has been given an opportunity of leaving that country. At present the legislation provides that a person may not be tried for any offence other than an offence in respect of which extradition was sought until he has been given the opportunity of returning to the requested country. Offences of a political character-this amendment makes it clear that the magistrate may refuse extradition because the offence is an offence of a political character, or because the request for extradition has in fact been made with a view to try or punish a person for an offence of a political character. The Attorney-General has an over-riding discretion. Evidence that may be led by a fugitive-an extradition hearing is not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the fugitive but whether a case exists which would justify the fugitive's trial in the requesting country. Magistrates have in the past permitted fugitives to lead evidence to challenge the merits of the prima facie case sought to be established by the requesting country. This amendment will make it clear that such evidence may not be led. The fugitive may of course argue that a prima facie case is not established. Convictions in absentia-this amendment will make it clear that, where a fugitive is sought for an offence in respect of which he has been convicted in absentia, whether that conviction is final or not, the requesting country must produce evidence of guilt as well as of the conviction. Application for habeas corpus-at present a fugitive committed to prison to wait extradition may apply for habeas corpus to any court of competent jurisdiction. The proposed amendment will make it clear that application may be made to the Federal Court or the appropriate State Supreme Court but not both. Any appeal from the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court will be heard by a Full Court of the Federal Court. The amendments proposed will significantly improve the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. This legislation has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate. EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. That Act regulates Australia's extradition relations with countries that are not members of the Commonwealth and with which Australia has extradition arrangements. Two amendments to this Bill are of particular importance and result from the work of the task force established in February of this year to conclude extradition arrangements with appropriate countries as a matter of urgency. The first amendment will enable Australia to conclude extradition arrangements with countries which do not require the requesting country to furnish evidence of guilt but rather information as to the allegations against the fugitive. This amendment is of particular significance to civil law countries whose systems have difficulty in adapting to the provision of pre-trial evidence. The extradition arrangements of most European countries which are reflected in the European Convention on Extradition do not require the production of prima facie evidence. The second amendment will permit the conclusion of arrangements which permit extradition to be granted for any offence which carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment or more without specifically describing the offence. This latter amendment will avoid difficulties which have been experienced in the past where the same offence is described differently in law of the two countries concerned. The second amendment reflects the trend to 'no list' treaties in modern extradition law. Advice of the proposed amendments has been particularly well received by civil law countries in Europe several of which have indicated a readiness to conclude modern treaty arrangements as soon as these amendments are law. On the question of treaty arrangements generally I should add that the draft model treaty approved recently has already been distributed to some countries which the task force has identified as countries with which the conclusion of treaty arrangements should be given priority. Apart from these two significant amendments it should be noted that most of the amendments to the London Scheme agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1983 to which I referred in introducing the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 are equally applicable to the legislation governing extraditions between Australia and countries which are not Commonwealth countries. This Bill accordingly incorporates all the amendments proposed to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which are appropriate to be incorporated in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. In addition the Bill incorporates amendments considered necessary to resolve difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the legislation and to improve the structure of the legislation. As such the Bill will significantly improve that Act and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. Finally, I should say that these proposed amendments to extradition law are part of a number of measures by the Government to facilitate the fight against major crime. There is an increasing international element in major crime today and in particular major crime involving illicit dealing in narcotic drugs. These amendments should therefore also be seen as part of the Commonwealth's overall plan to combat drug trafficking. We must be able to effectively apprehend our fugitives overseas and to return them to Australia to be dealt with under our law. The proposed amendments will assist in that process, in particular, by providing a proper base for the task force on extradition to enter into efficient modern extradition arrangements with overseas countries. This legislation has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.21) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL 1985 The purpose of the Bill is to replace the Australian Meat Research Committee with an incorporated body called the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The new Corporation will have the independence, flexibility and authority to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of meat and livestock research and development. The Bill is also designed to improve the means by which expenditure on R& is accounted for by providing that those responsible for the spending decisions report to those providing the funds. Concurrently with passage of the Bill the approval of Parliament is required for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985. Other Acts to be amended are the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 and the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. For convenience the Bills will be debated together as cognate measures. The Commonwealth assists rural research in two ways. The first way is directly through organisations such as the CSIRO and the BAE. The second way is as a provider of financial support through the rural industry research funds which are known as RIRFs, and through various research grants, including the Commonwealth Special Research Grant. The RIRFs are joint industry-Commonwealth schemes established within the primary industry portfolio to fund research for individual rural industries. Each scheme is co-ordinated by a research committee. The committees comprise representatives nominated by the relevant industry and interested research organisations, and officers of the Department of Primary Industry. Research sponsored by the RIRFs is funded by levies on the industry which are matched dollar-for-dollar with Commonwealth appropriations. In the case of the meat and live-stock industry, the Australian Meat Research Committee co-ordinates research funded through the Meat Research Trust Account. A number of recent reports have questioned the organisation and funding of rural research schemes. These include reports by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Commonwealth's Role in Rural Research and Extension Services which was published in November 1982, by the Balderstone Working Group on Agricultural Policy which was published in September 1982 and an in-house Joint Management Review of the Administration of Research Schemes in the primary industry portfolio which was published in May 1983. The accountability of some of the RIRFs to the industries they are designed to serve and the relevance of the research they fund to the technical, social, economic and welfare needs of those industries has also been called into question in recent times by primary industry leaders. The more important findings of these groups were: Research committees were 'passive' in selecting projects; 'value for money' considerations were not given sufficient weight for project selection; the Department of Primary Industry should progressively divest itself of administrative involvement in the RIRFs; and more flexibility is needed in allocating funds to more diverse research activities and this could be achieved by widening the representation on research committees without necessarily increasing their size. In the light of these reports the Government agreed that changes to the organisation and funding or rural research schemes generally were desirable. Action is in hand to rationalise the existing body of rural industry research legislation which has developed piecemeal over time. In the case of meat research the reports highlighted the administrative, legal and financial constraints under which the Australian Meat Research Committee is operating. For example the Meat Research Committee is unable to enter contracts or manage its own funds. To initiate, or even slightly modify, one of its research projects requires specific ministerial authorisation. Incorporation is considered the most practical way of facilitating a more effective and efficient funding of meat research and development. It eliminates the need for outside intervention in the day-to-day administration of these activities and provides a more flexible and commercially appropriate organisational structure. A separate Corporation to manage the industry's research and development resources reinforces the key role which must be played by R and D if the meat and live stock industry is to respond flexibly and creatively to future opportunities. R and D is so important we must not allow it to be overly influenced by groups or institutions with particular functional responsibilities. The R and D Corporation will have the overall responsibility of making its own assessment of the industry environment and planning R and D accordingly. In developing an understanding of that environment it will need to understand and appreciate the objectives and aspirations of producers, processors, exporters and other institutions like the AMLC which serve the industry in other areas. With this in mind, it would be expected that the R and D Corporation would consult closely with other groups in the industry, especially the AMLC. There are provisions in the Bill which will encourage this process. I am sure there will be regular staff contact between the AMLC and R and D Corporation and at a more formal level. The Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council will provide opportunities to ensure that the industry's total resources including R and D are being directed to well defined long term objectives. In announcing the Government's proposed reforms to the meat and live-stock industry in November 1983 the Minister for Primary Industry foreshadowed the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. Subsequently the Minister set up a Working Committee to develop a blueprint for this body. The Committee included representatives from the live-stock industry, the meat processing industry, universities, CSIRO and State Governments. The Committee submitted its Report in July 1984 and this has formed the basis of the Government's decision on setting up the Corporation. In passing I would like to pay tribute to the members of the working committee for the excellent job which they did. The functions and powers which the Government has agreed to for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation will put meat and livestock research and development on a fully commercial and innovative basis. I will ensure that the whole spectrum of economic, technical, organisational and welfare issues are examined and that priorities for research effort are serviced. There is specific mention of both research and development in the title of the proposed new Corporation. This is to make it clear that the functions of the Corporation extend beyond research to servicing the adoption of innovations applicable to the industry. It indicates that in its assessment of research projects, the Corporation is to have regard to their potential to improve the position of the meat and live-stock industry. Specifically the Corporation will have the objective of maximising the return on its R& funds to the meat and livestock industries; have its members selected on the basis of qualifications and experience in the same way as is done for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation; have financial powers and responsibilities consistent with a commercial undertaking; actively seek out R& projects; prepare a rolling 5 year R& Plan of proposed activities and an Annual Operational Plan of individual R& projects to be financed; approve expenditure on R& projects across the spectrum from production to consumption; be able to enter joint ventures and exploit patents on R& which it has funded; have commercial borrowing and investment powers; be allowed to appoint staff and set the terms and conditions of their employment, in consultation with the Public Service Board; report annually on its performance against its Annual Operational Plan; and be accountable to an annual general meeting of registered members of the industry in the same way as is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985. In clause 4, meat and live-stock research and development has been defined to allow the Research and Development Corporation to pursue promising R &D projects right through to their full commercial potential. Provision has been made to include other meat animals besides cattle, buffaloes, sheep, lambs and goats if the need arises. However, it is not intended to include pigs and poultry, as these animals are subject to separate research schemes. Corporation members will be chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience. The Corporation is to consist of 11 members, namely a Chairperson, a Government member, the Executive Director of the Corporation and eight other members. The Executive Director is to be appointed by the Corporation and will become an ex-officio voting member of the Board. The eight other members will be selected on the basis of special professional skills and experience in the fields of meat and livestock production, meatworks operation, research and development, economics, finance and business management. They will be selected, for the Minister's appointment, by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. Recent changes in meat and live-stock legislation have been designed to secure the close involvement of industry in policy and planning aspects as for instance with the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. This Bill will further the involvement of industry. Under Clause 22 the Corporation is required to convene an Annual General Meeting of industry members. Attendance at the meeting is open to those whose names appear on the registers of members maintained by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Voting entitlements are the same as for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The Bill allows wide ranging powers for the AGM. The AGM can comment on or query any aspect of the Corporation's annual report or general activities. The AGM can vote on resolutions, with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council to be notified of the outcome. Under the Bill the Corporation is required to put as a motion to the AGM any planned variation to levies or charges for research and development. Finally, the AGM under Clause 28 will have the power to cause the removal of the Chairperson of the Corporation or its members. A vote of no confidence in the Chairperson or membership of the Corporation would only be carried if 75 per cent of the votes of persons registered in each of the live-stock producer and processor/exporter categories are cast at the AGM in support of the motion, either in person or by proxy. To avoid duplication and save on expenses the Corporation will not maintain its own registers of members. It will use the registers maintained by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. As membership and voting rights for both bodies are identical, maintenance of separate register would only serve to increase costs. The Corporation will reimburse the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation half of the costs of maintaining its registers of members. For the convenience of those wishing to attend the AGM of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation as well as that of the Research and Development Corporation the Bill has been drawn to provide that both meetings be held on the same day if it is practicable to do so. Other arrangements to ensure the Corporation carries out its responsibilities in a business-like manner are included in Part V of this Bill which also provides the basis for its relationship with the Minister. Under Clause 30 the Corporation will be required to prepare a long-term research and development plan. The first plan, which is to come into operation within 12 months of the establishment of the Corporation will run to 30 June 1990. Thereafter each plan will be for a five year period. The Research and Development Plan will define the Corporation's principal objectives and outline the broad strategies it proposes to pursue in the achievement of its objectives. Complementary to the five year plan is the requirement under Clause 35 for an Annual Operational Plan to set down the particular projects that the Corporation proposes to fund, the type of projects it would be prepared to fund for the 12 months ahead and its estimated total budget. It will be noted that the Bill requires both the five year Research and Development Plan and the Annual Operational Plan to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for approval. These obligations provide an accountability arrangement which focuses the Minister's and Corporation's attention on the objectives, strategies and priorities of the Research and Development Corporation in relation to its total resources and allows the consistency of the Annual Operational Plan to be compared with the Corporation's long term R &D strategy. Approval of both the research and Development Plan and the Annual Operational Plan will enable the Minister to exercise overall supervision of the Corporation's activity, without involving himself in unnecessary detail. It will avoid the constant reference to the Minister for approval of each separate research and development project or changes to projects which is a feature of the present arrangements. The Corporation will be subject to Division 2 of Part XI of the Audit Act 1901 and will thus be required to submit an annual report and financial statements to the Minister for Primary Industry. There is also a requirement that the Corporation include a copy of the annual report in its notice of meeting to members. The report will include a statement of objectives, particulars of activities funded and an assessment of its success in meeting its objectives. Thus the annual report will serve as a medium both for the Corporation to advise the industry about its activities and plans and for the industry to make judgments about the effectiveness of the operations of the Corporation. It is a further measure in ensuring the accountability of the Corporation to both the industry and the Parliament. With regard to the financial implications of this Bill and the three companion Bills, the principal cost to the Government and hence the general taxpayer comprises the amount of the Commonwealth's matching contribution. As I explained earlier the Government has matched industry funds for rural research on a dollar for dollar basis. In 1985-86 this is estimated to be $5.3m. It can be expected to increase substantially in the next few years. On 28 February the Minister announced the government's decision to increase the maximum level of its contributions for rural industry research. Our objective is to raise the Government contributions to research under the RIRFs to 0.5 per cent of the annual gross value of production over the next five years. This, of course, is dependent on an equivalent contribution by rural industries. For the meat and live-stock industry this initiative would provide an opportunity to embark on a much expanded R &D program. The Commonwealth contribution for meat research and development could increase by as much as $8-9m per annum to around $14m by 1989-90 on the basis of 1984-85 levels of gross value of production. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK LEGISLATION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1985 This Bill is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985 which I introduced earlier. Its purpose is, firstly, to effect consequential amendments to the enabling Acts of three related instrumentalities. Secondly, the Bill seeks to repeal the existing meat research legislation and thirdly, it proposes transitional provisions for the period before the new research and development arrangements become fully operational. In the case of two of the Acts that are being amended to accommodate the new R &D arrangements, opportunity is being taken to effect some other amendments of a minor nature. I will now deal with the details and rationale of the proposed changes. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act The changes to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 which are required as a result of the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation concern the provisions dealing with the registers of persons entitled to attend the Annual General Meetings of the industry that are kept by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I pointed out in my Second Reading Speech on the R& Bill that the R& Corporation will not maintain its own registers. As eligibility and voting rights for both AGMs are identical there is no point in the R& Corporation duplicating the registers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Formal provision is made for Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to give the R& Corporation access to its registers. It is also provided that the R& Corporation will bear half the costs of maintaining the registers. The relevant provisions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act are being widened to extend the applicability of the registers to AGMs convened by the R& Corporation. A provision is to be inserted to protect the eligibility of persons whose applications for enrolment on the registers have been received by the closing date but could not be processed on or before that date. The remainder of the proposed amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act are intended to clarify some existing provisions and to correct minor oversights that occurred when effecting earlier amendments to the Act. Thus the functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation with respect to recommending changes in live-stock slaughter levies and export charges are being amended to confine its recommendations to levies and charges made for the purpose of its own funding. This action is necessary because the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is no longer responsible for recommendations for changing levies and charges raised for research purposes. Amendments to the Act in 1984 were intended to remove a limitation on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation restricting it to trading only in meat and livestock that it owns. While this restriction was removed from section 9 which sets out the Corporation's trading powers, no corresponding change was made to paragraph 15 (1) (a) which authorises the use of the Corporation's trading powers to meet Australia's international commitments. The amendment in Clause 6 will remedy this inadvertent omission. Due to a similar oversight, section 26 of the Act still provides that a member of a consultative group shall be paid remuneration determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. This provision is no longer necessary now that the consultative groups have been abolished as a consequence of the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. Accordingly the Bill removes the reference to 'a member of a consultative group'. The amendment in clause 15 to section 30H of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act will clarify the necessity to set up an interim Corporation in a situation where an Annual General Meeting passes a vote of no-confidence in the Corporation and where the replacement of members of the Corporation with new appointees would take longer than a month. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act One change to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 is required as a result of the R& legislation. This is to provide for the Chairperson of the R& Corporation to become a member of the Policy Council in lieu of the Chairman of the Australian Meat Research Committee. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act The functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee are amended by the Bill to provide that the Committee will select persons to be nominated for appointment to the Research and Development Corporation as well as the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The Research and Development Corporation is to comprise 11 members. The chairperson and the Government member will be selected and appointed by the Minister. The Executive Director will be selected and appointed by the Corporation. The remaining eight are to be selected by the Industry Selection Committee. The persons selected will be required to possess qualifications relevant to or experience in the fields of activity specified in clause 28 of the Bill. Responsibility for the costs incurred in selecting persons for appointment to the Research and Development Corporation will lie with that body. The Bill provides that the Industry Selection Committee will determine the amount of the costs involved and advise the Research and Development Corporation. Repeal and Transitional Provisions The transitional provisions in the Bill are designed to effect a smooth changeover of the responsibilities for meat and live-stock research from the Australian Meat Research Committee to the Research and Development Corporation on the day that the new Corporation is proclaimed to come into existence. Provision is made for moneys standing to the credit of the Meat Research Trust Account or held by the Commonwealth for payment into that account on that day to be paid to the Research and Development Corporation. Arrangements or agreements entered into by the Australian Meat Research Committee will continue in force with the Research and Development Corporation assuming the Committee's responsibilities. Any debts of the Meat Research Committee on that day will be taken over by the Research and Development Corporation. However the responsibility for preparing the final report on the operations of the Australian Meat Research Committee will remain with that body. There are no additional costs for the Commonwealth in the Bill. The transfer of cash balances from the Meat Research Trust Account to the AMLRDC will increase Budget outlays in 1985-86 but will not add to the public sector borrowings. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The main purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to be consistent with the changed provisions for future meat and livestock research and development. The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 imposes a levy on the slaughter of livestock. Part of the levy funds the industry's contribution for research and development. The Bill provides that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) shall not recommend to the Minister a change in the research component of the livestock slaughter levy unless its proposal has been endorsed by an annual general meeting of the Corporation. As explained in my Second Reading Speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill one of the purposes of the AGM is to give members of the industry the opportunity to debate and vote on proposals to alter livestock slaughter levies. The Bill also deals with the situation where a variation of the livestock slaughter levy is considered necessary by the Corporation before the first AGM is held. The Bill provides that in this event the Corporation shall consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, the Australian Meat Exporters' Federal Council, the Australian Meatworks' Federal Council, the Council of Australian Public Abattoir Authorities and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia before any recommendation for a change is made to the Minister. The Bill will also amalgamate that component of the levy which raises funds to finance CSIRO special meat processing industry research with the general meat industry research component of the levy. As the AMLRDC is to be responsible for determining expenditure between individual research and development projects on the basis of priorities it identifies, it is no longer appropriate to set aside part of livestock slaughter levy collections to fund research into meat processing by CSIRO. The Bill also contains provision for an increase in the maximum rates for the research component of the slaughter levy and the total of the research and AMLC components of the levy. The operative rates of the levy for both AMLC and research purposes have recently been increased and in most cases are now at or very close to the maximum levels allowed by legislation. With the Government's decision to increase the maximum level of its matching contribution for rural research over the next five years up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production, it is likely the industry will be encouraged to raise its contributions. The new maximum rates provided in the Bill have been set at a level which should avoid the need for further amendments for some years hence. The operative rates of levy are prescribed by regulation under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 so this Bill will have no direct financial impact on Government expenditure or receipts. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The main purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, is to amend the Live-Stock Export Charge Act 1977 to be consistent with the changed provisions for future meat and livestock research and development. The Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 imposes a charge on the export of livestock. Part of the charge funds the industry's contribution for research and development. The Bill provides that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) shall not recommend to the Minister a change in the research component of the livestock export charge unless its proposal has been endorsed by an annual general meeting of the Corporation. As explained in my Second Reading Speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill one of the purposes of the AGM is to give members of the industry the opportunity to debate and vote on proposals to alter livestock export charges. The Bill also deals with the situation where a variation of the livestock slaughter levy is considered necessary by the Corporation before the first AGM is held. The Bill provides that in this event the Corporation shall consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters' Association before any recommendation for a change is made to the Minister. The Bill also contains provision for an increase in the prescribed maximum rates for the research component of the export charge and the total of the research and AMLC components of the charge. The operative rates of the export charge for both AMLC and research purposes have recently been increased and in most cases are now at or very close to the maximum levels allowed by legislation. With the Government's decision to increase the maximum level of its matching contributions for rural research over the next five years up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production, it is likely the industry will be encouraged to raise its contributions. The new maximum rates provided in the Bill have been set at a level which should avoid the need for further amendments for some years hence. The operative rates of charge are prescribed by regulation under the Live-Stock Export Charge Act 1977 so this Bill will have no direct financial impact on Government expenditure or receipts. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table explanatory notes and corrigenda to explanatory notes of certain departments relating to the estimates of proposed additional expenditure for 1984-85. Sitting suspended from 6.22 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Assent to the following Bills reported: Sugar Agreement Bill 1985. Marriage Amendment Bill 1985. Trust Recoupment Tax Bill 1985. Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1985. Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985. Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985. International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1985. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.03) —The purpose of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill is to amend the Act under which the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was established. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill, but it will make it clear that it considers the changes proposed to be merely cosmetic and arising from what might be described as a shabby and intellectually moribund exercise as part of a review process. The Bill, with fairly minor amendments, is the result of what might be called a politically motivated review of the Institute-the Chairman of which review was none other than the former member for Maribyrnong, Dr Moss Cass. The purposes of the Bill to which we should address ourselves are minor. They are, first, to provide positive encouragement of improved community relations by expanding the objects and functions of the Institute; secondly, to amend the Act which governs the Institute to provide for an increase in membership of the Council of the Institute from nine to 12; thirdly, to eliminate several sex-specific terms and make other technical adjustments. That is the sole effect of this Bill-which I think all honourable senators, particularly those on the Government side, will acknowledge certainly does not warrant the effort that has gone into this kind of review process initiated by the Government with all the fervour of its first period of office in 1983. It has produced a mouse. Let us review the history of the Institute. It was established in 1979 when the Fraser Government accepted the proposals of the Review of post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants-the so-called Galbally report. The Fraser Government then provided considerable funds for the establishment of the Institute. Its functions were deemed to include such things as the commissioning of research into multiculturalism; education of the community, including dissemination of information to the community on multiculturalism; preparation of suitable materials for use in educational institutions; and the provision of advice to government and to civic bodies on the implementation of multicultural policies. It was acknowledged that an important part of the then Fraser Government's commitment to the principles of multiculturalism should be set out as follows-and I quote from the speech setting up the Institute at the time: Australian society and culture has already been enriched by artistic, intellectual, lingual, culinary and other contributions of migrant cultures. The development of a multicultural society involves the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups to maintain and foster their ethnic languages and cultures, and requires efforts on the part of all Australians to adopt a multicultural perspective and to promote social harmony in cultural interaction. The Government will encourage a multicultural attitude in Australian society by fostering the retention of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and promoting intercultural understanding. The Institute was established with the support of the Australian Labor Party. However, Dr Moss Cass, the ALP spokesman on immigration matters at the time, expressed a difference of view on the approach to be taken. He said that the ALP did not see it as an academic institution but as a community-based resource sensitive to community needs. He also differed on the approach to operation and objectives. Labor's policy in the course of the 1983 election campaign contained a commitment to review the Institute. Upon gaining government Mr West, the then Minister for Immigration, announced the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. That was headed by none other than the ALP spokesman Dr Moss Cass, the former member for Maribyrnong. He was assisted by eminent critics of the Institute in Miss Eva Cox, Professor Jayasuriya and Mr Alan Matheson. The Chairman of the then Council of the Institute, Mr Galbally, on learning of the membership of the review, advised the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the then Minister for Immigration as follows: Given its composition, it would seem highly unlikely that the Committee would undertake its task in a fair and impartial manner and that its objectivity could be most certainly questioned. Senator Grimes —Who said that? Senator MESSNER —That was a quote from Mr Galbally. Senator Grimes —He is a great example of objective-- Senator MESSNER —He happened to be Chairman of the Institute. At least three members of the review had been known to criticise the Institute prior to their appointment. Dr Cass, who was the Chairman of the review, is on public record as describing the appointment of the Director, Mr Petro Georgiou, as 'a blatant and unpalatable case of patronage'. He said that the Institute was a 'new club for the old boys', 'paternalistic tokenism of the worst possible kind' and that its membership was 'sadly unrepresentative of ethnic communities'. Mr Matheson had criticised the Institute as 'seemingly determined to arrogantly discourage any attempt to foster government and community co-operation'. He claimed that an invitation to a distinguished scholar to speak on multiculturalism was a 'political ploy to push Fraser-Reagan-Thatcher economic policies'. Miss Eva Cox has described the Institute as the policy research institute which is 'most politically suspect'. These were three people who were asked to undertake that serious review. As early as October 1983, before the review was completed, newspapers were already reporting the review exercise as some kind of political vendetta. The review reported on 8 December 1983 and the Government accepted only two recommendations-that it be tabled in Parliament and that there be some kind of public discussion. In its comprehensive and detailed response of 17 December of that year the Council of the Institute gave a thorough repudiation of the Cass review. Amongst other things it said that the review had not discharged its terms of reference, that its whole methodology was unsound and abounding with errors and that the conclusions were at odds with evidence. The review was scathing of the Institute in achieving its statutory functions and amongst other things it said: In fact, it is extremely difficult to make any positive comments particularly in areas of management and operational style. The Council, in its response, asked how this conclusion could be drawn by the committee of review when its own experts in a report entitled 'A Management Overview of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs' said: . . . internal operating and administrative procedures seem to be particularly effective and efficient. Yet the committee of review reported that that was not right. The Council continued: Considering that the Institute commenced operations with no staff and no procedures in 1980 the establishment of comprehensive and tight administrative procedures is a significant achievement. That was the response of the Council of the Institute. The committee of review sought to dismiss the Institute's success in presenting worthwhile research and advice for government on the basis of the former Director's previous association with the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. It said that, as a result, the Institute's recommendations were somehow politically sanitised or pre-determined. That was the whole basis of the determination of the committee of review. It certainly was not based on any kind of objective analysis as has been brought forward quite clearly by the Council's rebuttal. However, when the Hawke Government considered the 1982 decision of Malcolm Fraser's Government on the Institute report the Labor Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who I think was Mr West, said that 90 per cent of the recommendations accepting the Institute's work had already been implemented by the former Fraser Government. That seems to me to say it all. It puts paid to the review committee's views that portray the Institute's Council, its staff and its members, particularly its Director, Mr Georgiou, as unrepresentative, politically partisan and indifferent to multiculturalism. The Hawke Government accepted that the Fraser Government had implemented most of the recommendations. As a result of the Government's consideration of the Cass committee review a fresh round of consultations was undertaken. A report entitled 'Looking Forward' was produced and it collated the views of those interested in the Institute and the whole issue of multiculturalism. Many submissions revealed the Cass report for what it was-a document born out of prejudice, not cultural or racial prejudice but political prejudice. Let me quote the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia. That body is well known in Australia as a non-partisan political operator in the area of multiculturalism. It damned the view of the review committee as follows: . . . while accepting that this spectrum of opinion on multiculturalism exists, rejects this analysis in the report as biased, and party political. That is a direct criticism of the action of the review committee and, in particular, the chairman of that committee, Dr Moss Cass, the former Labor member for Maribyrnong. This Bill is another piece of camouflage. I believe the Government recognises that the review was a failure. Obviously it was a tremendous cost to the community. It was set up for political purposes and it has failed to bring forward any worthwhile recommendations or proposals. This legislation gives us merely three or four fairly innocuous provisions, which do not add up to much, in order to amend the affairs of the Institute. In other words, the Government itself acknowledges that the report of the Cass review was entirely out of court. Perhaps it endorses the view of the Federation of Ethnic Communities that it was a politically biased report. There is no attempt by the Government in the second reading speech or in any other statement that I have read to say that the Council of the Institute has been criticised wrongly, nor has its former Director who was criticised in the review been absolved in any way or any apology given to him. It seems to me that the action of the Government in introducing the Bill and the statements of Mr West in some way have implied that this is a correct interpretation of events but nowhere has the Government seen fit to admit that the criticisms brought out by the committee of review were wrong and based on political prejudice. What was the cost of the inquiry? I hope the Minister can tell us. I would like to know, for instance, what was paid to each member of the inquiry and what sums of money were paid to consultants. What was the cost of the consultations that were carried out by the committee of review right across Australia? What was the cost of the services to the review, particularly staff, stationery, printing, advertising and so on? We need to know more about all those factors. I hope the Minister will be able to help us when he winds up this debate on the second reading. Senator Grimes —Do you want to give me the birth certificates and all the other things that you are criticising here tonight? Senator MESSNER —I think we can look those up in other places. Senator Grimes —You are a bit scathing, are you not, about people who try to do a job for government? Senator MESSNER —We are merely asking the Government, which made the decision to establish a review, the costs that have been suffered by the taxpayer as a result of that political decision. Senator Grimes —Because people do not agree with you you have to denigrate them personally. Senator MESSNER —The Government did not accept the review's advice. It found that it was a nonsense. It went into it for purely political purposes. The Government found that the whole thing bounced back on it. The Government is now trying to skate out of it by refusing to acknowledge the facts as is the Government's habit. Let me set down the views on multiculturalism of the Liberal party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Senator Elstob —Heaven forbid. Senator MESSNER —I did not think I would hear Senator Elstob make such a remark. Senator Elstob is known for his qualities of moderation in this place and he has the respect of honourable senators from both sides of the Senate. For Senator Elstob, without hearing any statement to support his claim, to start accusing the Opposition parties of having racist attitudes is quite beyond the pale. Many of us will now have to revise our opinion of Senator Elstob. That is quite an unusual position for him to adopt vis-a-vis our parties in opposition. The point is-I think the Minister's violent reaction is an indication that he accepts this point-that this review has cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money, for nothing. Our parties have a strong belief in a bipartisan approach on immigration and ethnic affairs. That has been demonstrated over a long period through, we believe, co-operation and discussion between government and opposition. I am proud to say that between the present Minister, Mr Hurford, and the shadow Minister, Mr Ruddock, there is a very firm understanding, a very strong understanding, about the way in which the immigration policies should be administered in this country. We want to maintain that kind of understanding. I am glad to see that Senator Elstob acknowledges that point. Maybe he has had a rethink since my attack on him. Maybe he does agree that that point is quite relevant. This Bill has given us our first opportunity in several years to discuss multiculturalism in a commonsense fashion. I welcome the opportunity to say again that there is hope that we will be able to maintain a truly bipartisan approach on all major questions on immigration and multiculturalism which face this nation. The Opposition supports the concept of multiculturalism and our policy at the last election, which was prepared by Mr Hodgman, the former shadow Minister, supports all that. I quote from our policy statement: We believe in multiculturalism as an enhancement of the Australian way of life; to be welded into our national tradition and to be recognised as strengthening our nation. We recognise the desire of ethnic communities to participate equally in all aspects of Australian political, economic and cultural life. We agree this means that all Australians should be able to relate to our institutions and that measures should be taken to ensure equal opportunity to participate in both the benefits and the sharing of responsibilities. The forebears of many of us come from overseas. Certainly Senator Elstob would know about the contribution of the German community in South Australia, which I believe to be a classic example of the development of multiculturalism, albeit over the last 130 or 140 years. I am very proud of my forebears from that community and I believe that demonstrates the desire and the real intention of our parties to extend and develop the whole concept of multiculturalism. Nevertheless, bearing in mind all the points that we have raised and our concerns about the Government's motives in this matter, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was a wasteful extravagance and a purely politically motivated exercise involving the unnecessary expenditure of public funds'. (Quorum formed) Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.27) —Mr Acting Deputy President, this debate and my modest participation in it have been interrupted by the second call for a quorum by the Opposition Whip. I find it absolutely incredible that on this night, when most members of the Senate are being entertained by the second or third largest and most powerful nation in the world at the Lakeside Hotel, the Liberal Party of Australia wants to play fourth form debating points in calling for quorums in this chamber on the basis of a spurious and ridiculous claim that it is the Government's responsibility to keep the House. Let the Opposition Whip know that I resent those kinds of games being played in the Federal Parliament and I resent the spurious conclusion that he has reached that if the House is counted out only the government of the day, whatever party happens to be in government, will get the blame. If this House is counted out the whole Parliament, every one of us, will be held in contempt by the Australian electorate. The next time the Opposition Whip calls for a quorum to try to score a cheap debating point, let him please think of that. I doubt very much that the leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate approved of his doing that. The fact that he did it and that he is the Opposition Whip I believe earns him the condemnation of this chamber. I say that by way of opening remarks. Senator Messner —For serving the Senate, which is what he is elected to do. Senator CHIPP —I am challenged to answer an interjection from Senator Messner relating to keeping the Senate. It is the responsibility of every senator in this chamber to keep up the numbers. This is not just a matter of a convention that has been invented that the government of the day must keep up the numbers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Chipp, I think you have made your point. Would you come back to the motion? Senator CHIPP —Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thank you. The Australian Democrats strongly support the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill. The effect of the Bill is to expand the functions of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, to clarify the role of the Institute to provide government consultants and to expand the community education function of the Institute. My Party is acutely aware that a tolerant multicultural society must be of prime importance in the national priorities for the future of this nation. We now have people from 140 different ethnic backgrounds who speak 90 different languages and who practise 80 different religions. As well, there are 400 or so-(Quorum formed) Let it be known that the Party which pretends to be the government of this nation has again called a quorum in this debate while a reception is being conducted by the Republic of China at the Lakeside Hotel. If that is the best that the Party pretending to the government of this country can do, God help Australia. As well, there are 400 or so Aboriginal languages which are disappearing at the rate of two a year. Senator Jessop —How many Aboriginal languages are there at the moment? You wouldn't know. Senator CHIPP —Mr Acting Deputy President, will you assist me by protecting me from the results of the free hospitality dispensed by the Chinese Embassy, in the person of Senator Jessop, or do I have to deal with him myself? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I call for order on my left. Senator Jessop —You are incapable of dealing-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Jessop! Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. There is a great deal of back and forth in this debate at the moment and Senator Chipp is seeking your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. Of course, he is entitled to your protection, but I suggest that, if he directs his attention to the Bill, he is less likely to get the interjections to which he is presently objecting. I also point out that the reception by the Chinese was from 6.30 to 8 p.m. and that, even if honourable senators were walking back to the Senate, which I am sure they were not, they would be back in Parliament House. I am sure that they were back at 8 o'clock. If they were not, they should have been. At any event, I think that Senator Chipp-- Senator Elstob —What is the point of order? Senator Chaney —My point of order is that Senator Chipp is entitled to the protection he is seeking from the Chair. I am suggesting that the Chair might also suggest to him that he speaks to the Bill instead of attacking honourable senators and describing them as government senators. If he describes Senator Jessop as a government senator he is likely to be outraged. I suggest that if we get on with debating this multicultural Bill we will all be able to go home earlier. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, as Senator Chaney has been allowed to speak to a point of order-I am not sure what the point of order was about-I should like to make clear a couple of facts on the same point of order. Senator Chipp was complaining that for the second time in half an hour tonight-- Senator Chipp —The third time. Senator Grimes —For the third time an unnecessary quorum was called and when he was speaking he was continually interjected upon by members of the Opposition, who obviously are determined to turn this debate on a very serious subject into a flippant evening. We do not intend to do so. Obviously Senator Chipp does not intend to do so. I think that not only interjections but also utterly irrelevant and non-existent points of order, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, should be ruled out of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chaney had no point of order. Senator Chipp, I understand, was trying to relate his remarks to the Bill but was being hampered by fairly constant interjections. I call Senator Chipp. Senator CHIPP —I was saying that in our truly multicultural society there is an ethnic mix which is unequalled anywhere in the world. The aim of the Government's policies must not be to totally assimilate migrants, as some people would have it do, but surely to help them retain their cultural heritage to the benefit of all Australians and to the benefit of Australia. My Party is aware of the many reasons why people might migrate to Australia. There are economic reasons and political reasons, and sometimes people migrate because they literally have nowhere else to go. An ugly side of Australian politics has recently emerged. Thankfully it has submerged again, hopefully permanently but maybe temporarily. The raising of the immigration debate and the stirring up of latent racist sentiments are viewed with the utmost concern by my Party. We believe that those people who have raised those racist sentiments, whether under the guise of academic comment or under the protection of political advantage, are to be utterly and totally condemned. We abhor the raising of issues which might encourage racism and we feel a genuine concern for the difficult position it puts some of our migrants in, a position which is inexcusable. Unfortunately there appears to be a general belief by successive governments of this country that ad hoc measures are sufficient. Governments have shown interest in migrants, language policies and multiculturalism only since the 1970s. This has by and large been a belated, piecemeal approach which has produced unnecessary stress and suffering for generations of people. Previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, are to be commended on the vigour with which they have pursued policies relating to migration to this country. Unhappily the task that attends the care, the proper accommodation and the proper integration of those migrants into our community, which generally is the function of State governments, has not been fulfilled. It would be easy for a Federal government or the Federal Parliament simply to say: 'There in Richmond in Victoria is a ghetto of Vietnamese. Therefore, it is the State Government's fault'. Technically, I suppose, if one wanted to make a cheap point, that could be true, but the Federal Parliament and Federal governments of all persuasions-and I share blame in this as much as any member of this Parliament-are also to blame because it was those Federal governments which brought these people to Australia, which induced and, in some cases, seduced them into coming to Australia; and once they came here, many of them not speaking our language, they were left to their own devices. Who can blame them if, for their own protection, being in a strange country and not knowing the language, they congregate together, as any species does for its self-protection? I believe that, while we in Australia can be proud of our record of sharing our country with people from societies less privileged than ours, we have a lot to answer for for what we have not done to them in education, housing and assistance once they got here. This has by and large been a belated, piecemeal approach and has produced unnecessary stress and suffering for generations of people, the effects of which will probably not be shown until the next generation. The difficulties many migrants face with language compound the problems they face when settling in Australia. Let us think for a moment of the incredible advances made in teaching language to the new settlers, for example, in Israel. The Falashas of Ethiopia are taught their new language and much more, systematically and scientifically, before being expected to fend for themselves. Australia has never invested in these sorts of resources, in its greatest asset, its people. I take this opportunity again to urge the Government to adopt a national language policy and program. The longer it is delayed, the harder it will be to implement. I pay a rare compliment to Malcolm Fraser who I believe was in favour of a national language policy. Senator Jessop —How do you define that, though? I am interested. Senator CHIPP —It is a policy which we overtly adopt at this level, because the States do not have the resources to do it, of ensuring that every child in Australia can speak, say, two languages. Senator Jessop —Good idea. Senator CHIPP —I believe that it is and I believe that Mr Fraser believes that it is, but a former Liberal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I think without the authority of Cabinet, said: 'It is a crazy idea; why not have a national music policy, a policy of making sure that every child can play a musical instrument?'. I believe that the two are incomparable. I believe that this is one area, a very important area, in which the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Democrats would be unanimous in their view if a vote was taken. I believe very strongly that a national language policy is crucial to the development of Australia's multicultural aim. Last Thursday in the Age a Professor John Power of Melbourne University was reported as suggesting that immigration and ethnic affairs policies be given a much lower profile. One is never surprised, I suppose, by what comes out of some of the ivory towers which we luxuriously endow in this country. In reality this suggestion would be a victory to the racist polemicists who have been given such widespread publicity lately. It would be a retreat from the understanding that migrants to this country deserve and need-the serious, careful planning of a department within the Federal Government. Now is the time to tell the racists of this country that they will not get their way through fear tactics or by intimidation and that Australia's democratic institutions will not be broken down or downgraded. Senator Button —Dr Power made a more serious point than that, about the split of the department, which you may wish to address. I think that was a very serious point. Senator CHIPP —Indeed, it was. I plan to make comments about that in the Committee stage of the debate. I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his interdiction. Senator Button —Will you stop getting the two sides of this chamber mixed up? It has not been your forte tonight. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry; did I say 'Leader of the Opposition'? Senator Button —Yes. I spent seven years in that role and I don't intend to get back to it. Senator CHIPP —Old habits die hard with an old pro. I hope the Leader of the Government will forgive me. The recent report issued by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs called 'Reducing the Risks' pointed out that migrants endure longer and higher rates of unemployment. At this time the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should be expanded, not intimidated into disbanding. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs has a very important role to play in helping the Government to adopt humane and reasoned policies, backed up by research as well as help, in the area of community educational activities. The Democrats strongly and warmly support this Bill and commend the Labor Government for its work in this area and for introducing it. There is one small but serious suggestion as to how we believe that the Bill could be improved. There has been in our view a serious omission in leaving tertiary educational institutions and research institutes out of the Bill. The Bill states that the functions of the Institute are educational and 'conducting, commissioning and encouraging research', as well as the 'collection and dissemination of information'. The Bill lists these bodies with which the Institute is to liaise. I hope that we stop using 'liaise' as a verb because it always offends me when I see it being used as a verb. The Leader of the Government will know in a flash, being a purist in English, that one can be in liaison with another person, sometimes an exquisitely pleasant liaison, but it is very difficult, in my teaching of the English language, actually to liaise with another person. Senator Button —I assure the honourable senator that my purist view enjoins me to explain that that is something I would never know in a flash. Senator CHIPP —I accept the Leader of the Government's word for that. In listing these bodies with which the Institution is to liaise, consult and co-operate, the vital contribution of tertiary and research institutions has been omitted. We have suggested to the Government and the Opposition that it might be acceptable and agreeable to them in the Committee stage to accept an amendment by the Democrats to that effect. We hope that the chamber will find that amendment agreeable. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.46) —Most of the things I wanted to say tonight have already been said by Senator Messner, so I will not delay the Senate for long. There are a few points in relation the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill which I would like to raise because, as was said by other speakers, including, I think, Senator Messner, it provides an opportunity for the Parliament to look at some of the broader issues of multiculturalism which we rarely have the privilege of doing. I wish to make a few points. First of all I welcome what I think has been a very bipartisan approach by all political parties to the concept of multiculturalism in Australia, and in particular to the magnificent role and part that migrants to Australia over many years have played in the development of this country. As the report 'Looking Forward' said in the first chapter in April 1984, almost 99 per cent of the Australian population are immigrants in the normal sense of the word. So I suppose we can all claim credit as migrants for building the Australia that we have today. I place on record my appreciation of the contribution that migrants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds and from all countries have made to Australia, particularly in the last 30 to 40 years since the end of the Second World War. I also point out to the Senate, as has already been done, that the creation of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was an initiative of the previous Liberal Government, the Fraser Government. It followed the recommendations in the Galbally report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants which that Government commissioned in the late 1970s. That report, from which the creation of the Institute flowed, was really concerned with specifics. Galbally was particularly concerned, as Senator Chipp has mentioned, with the question of language communication development for migrants in Australia and with tackling specific issues. One of the things I would like to raise later is the question of the amendments that the Government is now proposing concerning the Institute and its affairs, which the Opposition supports and whether the concept of multiculturalism and the role of the Institute in that will not be changed very significantly by some of these amendments in a way which has escaped the attention of both Houses of Parliament to date. Without necessarily disagreeing with the proposition, I am concerned about whether the amendments, and particularly the amendment in clause 3 (a), cover all Australians in the way that they should. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives said: The AIMA Council reported widespread support for the general ideals of a multicultural society and in particular the need to address the issue of social inequality and to relate multicultural policy to all- and I underline the word 'all'- Australians. The amendment to the Act that is proposed in the Bill before the chamber does just that. I would be interested to hear the comments of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on the implications that flow from that. My understanding of the amendment is that we are now saying for the first time that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs will have direct relevance to all Australians-and that means to 100 per cent of us. Whilst not disagreeing with that, I would like the Minister to comment on whether the Institute is going to be geared to fulfil the extraordinarily wider role that is implied by the amendment. As I see it, the amendment will involve the Institute in a wider range of activities concerning all Australians regardless of whether or not they regard themselves as migrants and regardless of the fact that they might have lived in this country for 80 years. I want the Minister to comment on whether the facilities of the Institute will be sufficiently geared to cover the range of activities that will necessarily be involved. For example, it is proposed under proposed new sub-section (1) (c) and (d) of section 6 of the principal Act to give the Institute specific directions to liaise, consult and co-operate with and to promote the co-ordination of activities and services of departments, authorities and agencies at the three levels of government, community groups, voluntary agencies, the media and employer-employee and other organisations. This very wide-ranging extension of the existing role of the Institute has implications for the role of the Institute and in particular for its capacity to fulfil that role if, as is implied in the second reading speech, the Institute will be subject to the budgetary constraints that will apply across the board in the period ahead. I think this is a very important point. It seems to me that by amending the legislation in respect of the activities of the Institute we are running a risk of moving away from the specifics for which the Institute was originally created. We could be giving the Institute such a wide role that we may really run the risk of losing sight of those specifics and the original purpose of the institute. It may be that the Institute will get into so wide an area that it will not be able to cover the breadth of activities now envisaged. Despite what I have said, I find it very interesting that, with one exception, the Government's proposed changes to the activities of the Institute are very minor. This would seem to me to run contrary to the whole approach of the Australian Labor Party, when in Opposition, to the Fraser initiative in this area. For example, Senator Grimes, speaking in this chamber on 22 November 1979, made various specific proposals. In fact, six specific amendments were moved at that time by the then Opposition. Senator Grimes on that occasion said: . . . that such an Institute should not be just a matter of tokenism to ethnic communities. He also said: The Opposition is disturbed by the restrictions under which the Institute will be placed and its status. It seems to me that the changes that are now being proposed do not take account of what were then fairly trenchant criticisms by the Opposition of the then Government in terms of the operations of the Institute. I just wonder how much tokenism there is in the changes that are now being proposed by the Government-changes which, as I say, the Opposition accepts. The changes to the legislation give us the opportunity to consider the whole issue of what we really mean by multiculturalism in Australia. I hope we have a united view on that issue, although I guess different people place different interpretations on the word 'multiculturalism'. To me multiculturalism means the preservation within an Australian cohesive community of the cultures and values that people from different parts of the world bring to this country when they come here as permanent residents. I think the preservation of those individual cultural values and differences is enormously important. They have contributed enormously to the development of this country and they must be preserved at all costs. At the same time we must continue to bring cohesiveness into play because I am sure we all want to see Australia as one society. In fact, that comment was made specifically by those involved in the report entitled 'Looking Forward'. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on whether he feels that the changes proposed in the Bill conform to what has been traditionally a bipartisan approach to and recognition of the great value that various ethnic communities and individual immigrants have made in the course of our history. I would be interested in any response that might be forthcoming from the Government. I am very pleased to see that the Government in its amending legislation is essentially endorsing the basic thrust of the original Institute as proposed by the Fraser Government. This is an indication of bipartisanship. It is interesting to see that the Labor Party, now in government, appears to be accepting the fundamental premises on which the Institute was created. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.59) —As a Liberal senator from South Australia it is a real pleasure to support the legislation that has been introduced by the Government in an area which is increasingly bipartisan in this Parliament; that is, our approach to the importance of a multicultural Australia. Both sides of the chamber recognise the importance of ethnic communities and Aboriginal communities in Australia alongside what has too often been described as the predominant English speaking Australian tradition. I recognise the main momentum of Australia's history and people and the importance of distinctly English institutions, such as parliament, the law, journalism, the structure of universities and the nature of so much of our education system. Throughout my thinking lifetime I have always felt that Australia is more than that and that it is a diverse country. I am proud to be an Australian. I am proud to be a part of a multicultural Australia, a part of a community that is more than the English speaking culture which I love. The community of which I am proud to be a part has a wide range of languages and cultures represented by the original Australians and the various waves of immigrant Australians. Senator Short, who spoke before me, and indeed speakers who have taken part in this debate both here and in the other place, have endorsed the importance of all Australians coming to recognise that we are part of a multicultural community. I am proud that it was a Liberal government that had the opportunity to set up the original Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs by the 1979 Act. I was elected to this chamber in 1977. I took my place here in the middle of 1978. In my first months as a member of the Senate I was excited to be a part of the Government members' discussions which led to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, defining what we meant by the word 'multiculturalism'. Subsequently I have often referred to section 5 of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979 as defining quite precisely what I mean, what I understand the Parliament to mean and what I believe the Australian community should mean by multiculturalism. Section 5 of the Act sets out the objects of the Institute. I put it to honourable senators that there is not a better definition anywhere of what we all mean by multiculturalism than that expressed by the four objects of the Institute. They refer to all Australians. It is not a set of objects which refers only to the minority groups with languages other than English. For example, the first object is 'to develop among members of the Australian community an awareness of the diverse cultures within that community'. It is at this point that the amending Bill that is before the Senate will improve that original definition, because it will take away the words 'that have arisen as a result of the migration of people to Australia'. The intent of that amendment is soundly to incorporate the original inhabitants of Australia, those important citizens who are members of the Aboriginal communities of Australia, entirely within the words that I have read from the principal Act. The second object is 'to promote tolerance, understanding, harmonious relations and mutual esteem among the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia'. So there is not only the development of awareness among all Australians but also the promotion of tolerance, understanding and so on. The third object is 'to promote a cohesive Australian society by assisting members of the Australian community to share with one another their diverse cultures within the legal and political structures of that society'. There is no abrogation of the framework of law and politics in this country. There is one Commonwealth Parliament; there are State parliaments and local government institutions. There is a set of established precedents from the English tradition in our legal system which are accepted within Australia. Within the framework of our law and politics we have the object of promoting a cohesive Australian society. The fourth object is 'to assist in promoting an environment that affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the opportunity to participate fully in Australian society and achieve their own potential'. In many ways this is the most real, personal and important area. I notice that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, is in the chamber. There is a genuinely bipartisan view in this area. I regard those four objects of the Institute which we are debating tonight as the best definition of multiculturalism in Australia. What is important-I feel this very keenly as a Liberal senator-is the importance of every individual in Australia. A minority of people-not members of this Parliament but, I am afraid, some people in the community-want to stereotype people and deny some individuals their individuality, their personal being, their growth into their full potential. I do not seek to claim any monopoly as a Liberal on that view of the importance of every individual. I hear from most responsible quarters of the Australian community a similar affirmation that every individual is important and that all of our programs and institutions in Australia ought to encourage each individual to grow into his full potential. Each person has gifts which ought to be exercised. We are indeed callous and inhumane if we limit the gifts and potential of any individual. Unfortunately, this appears to have been genuinely acknowledged in Australia only in the last decade or 12 years. Prior to that time, I think it is quite unexceptionable to say that Australia was far too bent upon a multicultural Australia, some sense of assimilating each individual into the one common and rather narrowly defined culture. There was a lack of tolerance and a lack of understanding of the individual potential of each Australian. When I think about the period 20 or 30 years ago I am horrified at the illiberal attitudes that so many Australian institutions had towards our fellow citizens. That is why I was so proud to see that fourth object in the 1979 Act which, of course, continues apace now and defines the positive qualities of multiculturalism. I remember during the last election campaign that, as is the wont of politicians to give short synopses of what they stand for, or some biographical sentence, my supporters and I put forward that 'Senator Baden Teague, Liberal, South Australia, supports a multicultural Australia'. I suppose that was meant to indicate that I had some interest, involvement and concern for immigration and ethnic affairs questions and indeed for Aboriginal questions. I happen to be a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Council, representing the Senate, and take a very real interest in Aboriginal communities questions and development and in ethnic communities questions and development. A few people rang me up. I admit that they were supporters of my Party. I understand that this matter, largely through the efforts of the leadership of both sides of this Parliament, now has the majority support and understanding in Australia. These few people who telephoned quite genuinely wanted me to explain to them why I was supporting what they saw to be ghettoism in Australia whereby individual communities would not have full access to the mainstream of Australian opportunity. It was a pleasant task for me to explain these objects and the total commitment of the Liberal and National parties to a multicultural Australia, despite certain ambiguities on the part of one or two parliamentarians in the middle of last year. I was proud that during the Fraser Government period this Act came into force with these four objects included. I was able to show that there was no support for language ghettos in Australia but rather that, in the terms of these objects, we would have a cohesive Australia within the framework of the established law and parliamentary processes in which there would be every right and encouragement for every individual in Australia to achieve his or her potential. I take this to mean, in part, the ability of all Australians to have access to English, for example, so that they have the ability to express themselves in the language of employment and in the language of public activity. I take it to mean also the ability of Australians to have every right to retain the language of their birth for their personal use, their family use, their religious use, their community use and their cultural use. I can recall saying on a number of occasions to meetings of ethnic communities that in the 1950s it was very often the case that immigrant families would say to their children they would no longer speak Czech, Dutch, German or Italian because they wanted to make sure that the children maximised their knowledge of English. Therefore, they said to their children: 'We will not speak our home language any more and you will spend all your time speaking English'. Many of those who are now in their twenties, thirties or forties had the opportunity of being bilingual. Unfortunately, many of them now regret that their parents' genuine decision-I believe that it was from another era and does not continue now-discouraged them from keeping the second language intact. I make the contrast that in the last five or seven years-all the time I have been a member of the Senate-there has been a growing and I think now a majority acceptance that young children in a family speaking a language other than English can rightly be encouraged to go on to become 100 per cent proficient in English without the need to limit their use of the home language. It is possible for much higher goals to be expressed by Australian residents and citizens nowadays by saying to children: 'We want you to have the higher goal of being 100 per cent proficient in English and 100 per cent proficient in the home language'. I believe that there is a dialogue between the two language skills and that such children are doubly blessed in their ability to understand language and community cultures, and to reinforce their ability to communicate in English through their skill in an alternative or second language. Nothing I have said and nothing that these families in Australia profess denies that there is one national language in Australia, and that is English. Alongside that single, universal language there is now a very real and positive encouragement for families to continue to use and appreciate their language and culture, and in that way to enrich themselves and the Australian community. This Bill which is before the Senate, as I have said, strengthens those four objects and, to my mind, strengthens the definition implicit in the original Act by fully incorporating the Aboriginal communities of Australia. As is known to the Senate, there were more than 200 language groups amongst the Aboriginal people of Australia. Unfortunately, some 50 of these languages are now extinct. Of the 150 or so that remain only 50 are judged by linguists to be likely to be retained into the next generation. Only some 15 Aboriginal languages have sizable speaking populations. I believe that the approaches of the past decade to Aboriginal language and community questions-there are, for example, bilingual schools in many areas of Australia-will mean that there is the opportunity of reinforcing the maintenance of Aboriginal languages to the very substantial gain of those Aboriginal individuals. That will not diminish in any respect the opportunity for every Australian, including every Aboriginal Australian, to have full access to and understanding of English as he or she may choose in order to participate fully in the employment opportunities and public life in Australia. The Bill provides for a broadening of the membership of the Institute Council from nine to 12 members, specifically to allow wider community representation in the governing body of the Council but also to make sure that there is facilitation for the inclusion of an Aboriginal person. I know that in the Australian Government arrangements of the former Government and the present Government there was and is a department for immigration and ethnic affairs and another department for Aboriginal affairs. But in an institute such as this it is important to see that we are one Australia and that the four objects of the Institute, as amended and about which I have spoken, comprehend all the ethnic communities and all the Aboriginal communities of Australia. As I have said, there are about 150 Aboriginal communities in Australia defined by language group and there are more than 100 ethnic communities in Australia defined by language group. These 250 Aboriginal and migrant communities are all comprehended by the four objects of the Institute, as amended. It is entirely welcome that there is this ability to include an Aboriginal representative on the Council and, indeed, an explicit commitment for the Institute to involve itself in Aboriginal community matters. I believe that we should see a closer liaison between the Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies has been established now for some 25 years. It is a statutory body, like the Institute of Multicultural Affairs and has, despite its longer history, some objectives in common with the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Certainly there ought to be established between the two bodies informal-indeed, formal as well-liaison to ensure that they are able to co-operate in their common areas of interest and endeavour. Let me take the opportunity to put again to the Senate what I have put on an earlier occasion-that the spirit of that amendment which includes the Aboriginal communities with the migrant communities of Australia ought to be extended in one specific particular amongst the Aboriginal people. For more than 20 years now many in Australia have referred, as I have referred in the past, to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities of Australia as if the Torres Strait Islanders were not in the same category as the Aboriginal communities of Australia. I believe that, whilst there are racial and linguistic differences between the people who speak Kala Lagaw Ya in the Torres Strait and Meriam Mir on Murray Island, they are nevertheless two language groups in the Torres Strait which are a further extension of the 250 language groups of the mainland, the rest of Australia and, indeed, had there been survivors of Tasmania. I believe the time has come in Australia when we no longer need to refer to Torres Strait Islanders as though they were some oddity, exceptional or that they should be a demarcated group of Aboriginal Australians; rather, we should speak of the Aboriginal communities of Australia knowing that they fully include the Torres Strait Islander communities. I make that remark in the spirit of the bipartisan support for this Bill that is before us, which takes the step of including the Aboriginal communities with the immigrant communities of Australia. I again state the importance of the Institute as a research body and note that clause 4 of the Bill redefines the functions of AIMA. These functions squarely include the objective of AIMA to provide information and advice to the Commonwealth Government. New sub-section 6 (1) (a) states that there is to be provision of advice to the Commonwealth Government relating to the achievement of the objectives of AIMA. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are just as important. There is a new emphasis in this sub-section which I welcome. I believe that until now, in the first period of operation of AIMA, there was too much emphasis upon the first priority that AIMA should have had, and that that concentration on this first priority was to the exclusion of some access to community groups. That first priority was to give direct guidance to the then Fraser Government on the implementation of the Galbally report on the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants and all of its related matters. Whilst AIMA was rightly, I think in retrospect, concentrating on the priority of getting that right, after this review we are, happily, seeing explicit reference in this new sub-section to the publishing of reports, the gathering and dissemination of information, the conducting of research, and the promoting, conducting, commissioning and encouraging of community educational activities-all of these things in liaison with community groups. I know that many community groups in Australia felt that AIMA was an aloof body while it concentrated on this first priority of giving advice in a highly technical and demanding area relating to the Galbally report. I believe that the Council and the staff of AIMA should foster an ability for individual Australians with genuine interest to be able to gain information, to submit material and to find that it is a community resource. There ought to be just formal consultations. AIMA should have a wide open door in advising government-the Opposition as well-and the Parliament and also a wide open door to promote dialogue, advice and support for community groups. I believe this emphasis is appropriate to this second stage of AIMA's development. I make a final reference to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy which was tabled in the Senate in the first week of this session and note the unanimous support of the three Government senators and three Opposition Liberal senators who took part in the formulation of this report. In particular, with regard to the Bill that is before us, a number of chapters and recommendations among the more than 120 recommendations in the Senate Committee's report touch upon the functions and concerns of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. There is an endorsement in the Senate Committee's report of the philosophy with which I began my speech tonight, about the importance of ethnic communities, the importance of Aboriginal communities, the importance of the maintenance of language resources that are within those communities and the proper fostering of each individual's potential. I am sure that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, in its reformulated and strengthened role, will go on to play a very important part in the achievement of the general thrust of the Senate Committee's recommendations. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9..27) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. As the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, I do not wish to detain the Senate for long. In the eight years in which I have sat on the front bench in the Senate for the Australian Labor Party, during which time I have spoken on immigration and ethnic affairs in this place, I think there has been a general attempt on most occasions to ensure that the debate on all aspects of our immigration and ethnic affairs policies has been conducted in an unemotional, rational, sensible and sane way. Tonight, after hearing the speeches made by Senator Chipp, Senator Short and Senator Teague, one can only agree that that has been the case at least in regard to those three senators. Of course, there has always been a great tendency in this community and a great temptation on the part of people from all sides of politics, I suppose, to take advantage of what they see as undercurrents in the Australian community about ethnic affairs and to take advantage of the passions that are sometimes aroused. I think we have seen that in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, I think we saw that earlier tonight in the debate, but certainly not from the last three speakers I have named. This Bill, which has the support of both sides of the House, aims to amend the legislation covering the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs by expanding its membership and its terms of reference, and in some cases making those terms of reference clearer so that it can fulfil its aim of developing awareness amongst the Australian community of our multicultural society. I think it is worth pointing out that this Institute, as a couple of speakers have said, was established by the previous Government with the general support of all parties in this Parliament. We are a multicultural society and we should develop a multicultural society which has features of tolerance, recognition of our past, recognition of the skills and all of the features which were mentioned by Senator Chipp tonight and which our great, diverse, ethnic origins have contributed to this community. The Institute was developed with bipartisan support and has bipartisan support. There were some differences in the way in which members from both sides of the Parliament thought the Institute should operate. I do not think that is a defect; it is one of the strengths of our democracy. It is a desirable, healthy and appropriate situation in a society such as ours. As has been pointed out, the Institute is a statutory authority; it is governed by a council; it has a measure of independence from government and although it must, and should, recognise the direction in which the community should go it has that independence and that is very important. In passing I just say that I think it is very unfortunate that the debate started tonight with a severe and trenchant criticism of the Committee of Review into the Institute of Multicultural Affairs which was established by the present Government. It was always thought and accepted by both sides of the Parliament that such a review should occur. Senator Messner spent most of his speech tonight-if honourable senators read the House of Representatives debate they will find the source of his speech was the speech made by Mr Ruddock in another place-attacking the members of the Committee of Review. It would be very easy for me to reply in kind. In this place it is not hard to make the same sort of speech that Senator Messner made about Dr Cass, Ms Eva Cox and Alan Matheson. It would be very easy to reply to that speech by making the same sorts of remarks about the likes of Frank Galbally and Petro Georgiou. I will not do that and I did not do that in the eight years when I was Opposition spokesman for immigration in this Parliament. It is a waste of time. It is the sort of speech which results in the situation we had last year in this country which was finally solved before the last election by the then Opposition's, and now Opposition's immigration and ethnic affairs policy being delivered to the Press and the community of this country not by the shadow Minister but by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That was a very sensible and sane move and the change that was made after the election was for the good and for the cohesion of our community. I believe I should say no more than that because I have been in debates in this place which condemn the xenophobia and racism that have gone on. They were debates about which Senator Baume, who is not here tonight, and I were the subject of attacks by various racist and xenophobic groups in this country. As a child in the post-war years I grew up in Albury, New South Wales, where at that time there was a very large influx of refugees. Over the years I have seen the changes that have arisen in this country as a result of the great influx of people from different societies and different ethnic groups. I have seen this country enriched in every way-culturally and in all of our social developments-by the influx over the years of a great diversity of people. This has resulted in a policy which is bipartisan, or tripartisan, in this place. We should have what has been termed a multicultural society. As an Australian I am very proud that all honourable senators can in this place say in general: 'We support a multicultural society'. As the report of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs states, a multicultural society encompasses the two broad meanings of that word. The descriptive meaning is that it is a society in which people of different ethnic and racial origins live together satisfactorily. The second meaning describes certain policies, certain institutional arrangements and community attitudes which ought to exist and which we hope will continue to exist in this society to keep it the socially cohesive society in general that it is and to develop and enrich our society as a result of the great admixture of not only races but also cultures and historical traditions. It was because of that that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was established, with the support of both sides of the Parliament. It was as a result of that that the present Government established the review of that society. It is as a result of that review that this legislation is before us tonight. The legislation expands, widens and broadens the activities of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The Government certainly accepts Senator Chipp's very sensible amendment to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985. The Government will accept that amendment tonight at the Committee stage of the Bill. Senator Chipp is quite right in pointing out that the incorporation of the trade unions, tertiary institutions and research institutes does make it clearer what the Government means in clause 4 of the Bill. The Government believes that that amendment is a sensible addition to the Bill. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment which was moved by Senator Messner and which was not referred to by any other Opposition speaker tonight. The amendment, indirectly and in the way in which Senator Messner directly mentioned in his speech tonight, attacks the personal reputations and the political and intellectual integrity of those people who conducted the review. As I have personal knowledge of at least three of the people on that review, I and the rest of the Government reject that attack and in rejecting that attack we reject the Opposition's amendment even though it does not affect the legislation as it exists. Senator Short in his speech expressed some concern-I can understand it-as to whether the Institute has the resources to carry out its functions to develop amongst the whole of the Australian community the functions with which it is charged under its legislation and its amended legislation. I point out to Senator Short that under section 5 of the original Act-it is one section which is not altered-the objects of the establishment of the Institute, which had bipartisan support, were to develop amongst members of the whole of the Australian community the functions which were then listed under that section. In times when resources are difficult and in times of budgetary difficulties people may say that the Government has not provided the Institute with sufficient resources to develop it in the way in which it was originally intended or in the way intended in the expanded terms of reference which will be given to it in this legislation which will be passed tonight. Unless we set our horizons high, unless we give the Institute broad aims and objectives and unless we resist the temptation to narrow in the terms of reference of the legislation the Institute's aims and efforts, it will never succeed. If we tried to provide the Institute with the resources that it may like and everyone else may think it would like, it would be an enormous drain, I dare say, on the budget because these things tend to be very open-ended. But at least we have set in train, with support on both sides of Parliament, an institution and have broadened and developed its capability. With people of good will on the board of the Institute as well as on both sides of the community, I believe that it can make a great contribution to the concept of multiculturalism, which is very dear to my heart and which I believe should be dear to the hearts of all Australians. I thank honourable senators for their contributions; I thank the Opposition for not opposing the legislation. I reject the amendment moved by Senator Messner because I believe that it adds nothing to the debate or to the legislation. It unnecessarily denigrates people who did a good job, a job that was asked of them by government. I do not believe they deserve the criticism they received in the amendment, and certainly not the criticism contained in Senator Messner's speech. I desist from taking political points and answering in kind the sorts of accusations and allegations that were made by taking a similar line to other members on whom such attacks could have been made. As I have pointed out, in the Committee stage the Government will accept the amendments proposed by Senator Chipp and the Australian Democrats. I hope that the Senate will give this Bill a speedy passage. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Messner's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sheil, G. Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. 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. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Carrick, Sir John Hearn, J. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Coleman, R. N. Chaney, F. M. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, Peter Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.50) —I move: Page 2, clause 4, proposed new sub-paragraph 6 (1) (c) (iii), after 'trade unions', insert ', tertiary education institutions, research institutes'. I move that amendment for the reasons I gave in my speech in the second reading debate. Both the Government and the Opposition have indicated their support for the amendment. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.50) —I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that the Opposition sees merit in the amendment and will support it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.50) —I have already said that. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed from 28 March, 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. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that- (a) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the western alliance will be preserved and strengthened following: (i) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the United States for its testing of the MX missile, and (ii) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (b) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by: (i) record government taxation and spending, (ii) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets, (iii) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry, (iv) the level of public debt repayments, and (v) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability; and (c) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay'. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.52) —In making my opening remarks on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech I take the opportunity to welcome the new senators. We have seen them in operation over the last month and they have made a valuable contribution here. Honourable senators have over the past few weeks, in making their speeches on the Address-in-Reply, replied to, notionally, the Speech of the Governor-General but, of course, it is the speech of the Labor Government prepared by its draftsmen. It is one of the ironies of the Westminster system of government that it places a person such as the Governor-General, a man who is well respected in Australia, an admired and trusted public figure in the community, in the position of delivering a speech full of the empty rhetoric of the Hawke Labor Government. The Government professes to be a government of consensus. It says that it is bringing Australia together. It says it is a government of economic growth. Rather than those things, we see a government in confusion, a government in disarray, which is fighting within its factions and policies, and decisions changing overnight. Its policies in the Northern Territory, for example, on Aboriginal land rights are those of a government of division, not consensus. Its policies in relation to uranium mining in the Northern Territory are those of a government of economic restriction not economic growth. Honourable senators have only to look at the operation of the Federal Labor Government's policies in those fields in the Northern Territory to see how short of the mark the rhetoric falls. One of the nation's greatest potential income earners is uranium. Yet the Hawke Government's policies prevent the development of uranium mines within the Northern Territory. Its policies permit the development of the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia and the granting of new export contracts from the two Northern Territory mines at Ranger and Nabarlek. However, the policies also prevent the development of a number of other known deposits, including Jabiluka, which is one of the world's largest low cost uranium deposits with 207,000 tonnes of uranium worth $16 billion and 11 tonnes of gold worth $150m. A further deposit at Koongarra of 13,000 tonnes of yellowcake will also be prevented from being developed as a result of Federal policy. What logical rationale could there be for this discrimination by the Commonwealth against the development of the Northern Territory's uranium? The argument that there is an oversupply of uranium is surely not a reason for disallowing our uranium to compete in the world markets, which should determine the viability of the mines. The development of Australian uranium to a competitive level of production is a matter for the industry and not for the Government. The only government intervention which should occur is the strict maintenance of international safeguards in the industry. In any event, the belief that there is a world oversupply of uranium cannot go unchallenged. The 1984 report of the Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC, stated: The market-- that is the uranium market-- provides opportunities for Australian uranium producers to gain additional contracts and to increase exports beyond present levels. If Australia were to secure one third of the uncommitted share of the market, a reasonable assumption on the evidence available, that would lead to a doubling of the amount contracted for delivery between 1984 and 1996. Most of the new exports would occur in the 1990s. In recent years uranium has become a major export item for Australia, with sales comparable in value to some other important minerals and agricultural products. The annual value of uranium exports increased from $70 million in 1978 to over $360 million in 1982. If sales were to increase in future to the extent suggested . . . and if the price were to remain at $A77 per kilogram of uranium oxide (a reasonable expectation for long term contracts, which generally fluctuate less than the spot price), the annual value of Australian uranium exports would rise to over $1000 million by 1993. The total value of exports in the decade 1984 to 1993 could exceed some $6000m. Australian production of uranium is likely to be determined as much by government policy as by the availability of markets. That is to the detriment of the Australian people. That is just what we see happening in Australia today. Government policy is denying Australian producers the right to go ahead and develop the vast potential wealth of the Northern Territory. It is allowing the markets of the world to be snapped up by other countries to the detriment of the Australian economy. So much for discussion in Australia today! At a time when the Northern Territory is being attacked by the Labor Government for its level of contribution to national income it is the ultimate hypocrisy for the Commonwealth to say to the Northern Territory: 'We will not let you develop your uranium deposits'. The Commonwealth is fettering the Territory's ability to develop its most valuable natural resource. It is fettering the Northern Territory's ability to become self-reliant. It is fettering the Northern Territory's ability to increase its population. Of course, the Australian Labor Party's left wing is the thorn in the side of this Government where uranium and related issues are concerned. Its opposition to uranium mining is based upon two basically unfounded assumptions. The first is that the mining of uranium within Australia is in itself unsafe. The second is the assertion that in releasing Australian uranium onto the world market we may be assisting those countries which would use uranium for non-peaceful purposes. The section of the ALP which continues to oppose the mining of uranium on the basis that there are dangers associated with mining ignores the fact that uranium developments in Australia are governed by the most stringent of safety precautions, regardless of the government in power. There is also the view within the Labor Party that mining of Australian uranium should be prohibited on the basis that to allow it to proceed and to sell uranium on the world markets would be to encourage nuclear proliferation. This ignores the fact that countries such as Argentina, Canada, Spain, South Africa and a host of others are selling their uranium all over the world. If countries want to obtain uranium for non-peaceful purposes they do not have to come to Australia for it; they can go to one of about two dozen countries which are making their uranium available to anyone who has the purchase price. We in Australia could develop our uranium deposits and sell our uranium subject to stringent conditions of supply. In the process we would be providing employment and a boost to the national economy. If this Government is genuinely concerned about unemployment in this country it has the opportunity to do something about it in this industry. In my opening remarks I referred to the Government being one of divisiveness, not of consensus. Nowhere has it created more division within the Australian community than it has in the Northern Territory with its land rights legislation. However, it may be working on spreading that division to the States with its preferred national land rights model, which would operate in all the States. Little wonder that the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, is at odds with his own Party over the proposed Federal legislation. He has probably had a look at what has happened in the Northern Territory, where since the commencement of the operation of the land rights legislation 33.7 per cent of the land area of the Territory has been granted to the Aboriginal people under inalienable freehold title, with a further 13.2 per cent granted under claim. I suggest that these figures are slightly out of date and that the total now would be closer to 50 per cent. Once these claims are granted, a total of some 453,660 square kilometres will have been alienated-just less than half of the total area of the Territory. As there is no time limit for the lodging of claims there will probably be more to follow and it is difficult to forecast under the present system what will happen in the Territory in the next few years. The amount of land subject to claims and land handed over under freehold title to the Aboriginal people will have to grow to more than 50 per cent of the land in the Northern Territory-it could climb to 55 per cent or perhaps 60 per cent. The inalienable freehold title which has been granted to the Aboriginal people is a more secure form of title than any other Australian can hope to acquire. It guarantees that the land will remain their property and the property of their descendants regardless of how they choose to utilise or not utilise the land and no matter what debts they incur. In the Territory there is an increasing awareness of the divisive effect of the present land rights legislation. When one group in the community can lay claim to public reserves, stock routes, coastline and roads and can exclude other members of the same community from those claimed areas, there is the potential for disharmony and tension. That is what is occurring in the Territory now. It also creates a form of apartheid, the likes of which would be condemned if it occurred in another country. In the Northern Territory Aboriginal people may legally enjoy access to public places that are under Aboriginal control-including reserves, roads and beaches-yet other people are required to obtain permits to gain access to those places. This form of apartheid has been a part of our way of life since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and this situation is making it increasingly difficult for the two races to live alongside each other in peaceful co-existence. I have been working on a private member's Bill, which will involve amendments to the existing legislation, in an effort to overcome the unfortunate situation which has developed in the Northern Territory. This proposed legislation, which has not yet been presented, is based on the package of amendments that were agreed to by the various land councils, the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government some time ago. It is a package of amendments which, while recognising Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory, will remove the tension which exists in the present situation. I believe that the need to rectify the legislation which operates in the Territory cannot be overstated. Not only is the Commonwealth legislation creating tension between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals but also there is ill-feeling within the Aboriginal communities as well. The land rights legislation is effectively setting Aboriginal against Aboriginal, which is odd when one considers that it provides for the granting of land to the traditional owners. Situations have arisen whereby there are disputes at to who are the traditional owners. A recent example is the granting of Uluru-that is Ayers Rock-to the Mutitjulu community at Ayers Rock. That community represents a number of groups which have made claim to the Rock, yet there is some doubt as to whether they represent the true traditional owners of Ayers Rock. Other accounts suggest that the traditional owners of the Rock were the Yunkutjijra tribe, which was possibly wiped out by an epidemic of influenza in the early 1920s. Doubts as to the ownership of the Rock have been expressed not only by members of the white community but also by a leading Aboriginal spokesman, Alderman Bob Liddle, who has stated that he is not convinced that the Mutitjulu community truly represents the original owners. I add here that Alderman Liddle, in making his comments on the ownership of the Rock, did not claim that the Mutitjulu community was a tribe, as Senator Ryan suggested in the Senate some two or three weeks ago when I attempted to gain some information as to the reliability of the anthropological studies upon which the Government relied in determining the ownership of the Rock. Unfortunately, Senator Ryan did not provide that information but instead proceeded to attack Alderman Liddle and to insinuate that he did not have the best interests of the Aboriginal people at heart. I assure Senator Ryan and other honourable senators that Alderman Liddle, whose family has come from the Ayers Rock area over the decades, is deeply concerned with the problems of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. As a member of the Aranda tribe, Alderman Liddle has unquestionable ties with the Aboriginal people. Anyone who knows him would be aware that he would never act in a manner which was not in their best interests. The criticisms which Senator Ryan made of Bob Liddle are, unfortunately, typical of the way in which recognition of responsible Aboriginal people is being abandoned in favour of the recognition of their white spokespersons. If Senator Ryan and the Government of which she is a Minister are truly concerned with the welfare of the Aboriginal people, they would do well to listen to those who have lived with the Aboriginal people as part of the tribe rather than to those opportunists who have set themselves up as Aboriginal authorities. Senator Ryan's source of information on Aboriginal issues is completely unreliable if her recent comments on the Strehlow collection are anything to go by. Honourable senators would be aware of the debate on the Strehlow collection of Aboriginal artefacts. In sending the Strehlow collection out of Australia, Bob Liddle was protecting it from a group of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who are not the traditional owners of the stones but who wanted to obtain the collection for their own purposes. Strehlow lived with the tribe for many years and was accepted as one of them. The stones given to him were so sacred to the tribe that for anyone other than a member of the tribe to look at them, let alone handle them, would have meant death not so very long ago. Even today the handing over of the Tjaringa stones to other than the rightful tribunal owners could hold dire consequences for the wrongful recipients. Alderman Bob Liddle, in taking the action he did, should be congratulated, I believe, for preventing a group of people who claim the sacred stones from obtaining custody of them under false pretences. I understand that plans are being made for the return of the stones to the Northern Territory once the trustees can be assured that they will be kept in safety beyond the grasp of those who have no entitlement to them; and we certainly look forward to that day. Senator Ryan's defamatory remarks concerning Alderman Bob Liddle are disgraceful and irresponsible. This Government's track record on land rights in the Territory also is disgraceful and irresponsible, the most recent example of its mishandling of its responsibilities to Aboriginal people and other Australians being the handing over of Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal association with doubtful credentials. I am talking about traditional ownership. I have also mentioned that there was some controversy as to who represents the traditional owners of the rock. As I said earlier, I tried to obtain enlightenment from Senator Ryan as to how ownership of the rock was determined, but to no avail. The fact that she did not even attempt to answer my question only adds to my concern that, in handing the rock to the Mutitjulu community-not tribe-the Federal Government was playing politics. In its eagerness to hand over the rock to any group of Aboriginal people, the Government has overlooked the fact that the Mutitjulu community is a creation of white man and, therefore, cannot amount to the traditional owners of the rock. It is an association, a white man's version of what is needed to bring about control of the situation; it is not a tribe made up of traditional owners. One only has to look at the spokesman for the community to see how traditional the community is; its spokesmen are white men. Not only are they not Aboriginal but they have frequently disallowed contact between outsiders, including members of the media, and the Aboriginal members of the community. This is regrettable. I have the honest belief that the Aboriginal people have the ability and the right to speak on their own behalf. I do not think this is happening. I would have thought that any government with any concern for the well-being of the Aboriginal people would be concerned at the potential in this sort of situation for the manipulation of the Aboriginal people by a few white activists who are interested only in building little empires for themselves at the expense of the Aboriginal people. There is a lot of hypocrisy regarding aspects of aboriginality. Government sets up organisations supposedly to encourage Aboriginals to participate in their own well-being, their self-expression, their future, et cetera. But really I find that on so many occasions it is not the Aboriginal people who are speaking; it is other people. Yet it is the Aboriginal people who wish to be heard. Unfortunately I believe that the Aboriginal people, the true traditional owners, are not being heard. I say this not from my own assumption but from what I am being told by the very many old, traditional owners who still exist in central Australia. They wish to speak to government. They do not have the opportunity. The Government's approach to land rights in the Territory has seen claims laid to national parks which should be available for the enjoyment of all Australians and indeed the people of the world to come to see our natural wonders. Apart from the social impact of the legislation, it has virtually brought a halt to mineral exploration in the Territory. Since the imposition of the land rights Act only six agreements for the development of projects have been completed and all of those were for projects for which exploration had been completed prior to 1972 and did not therefore require Aboriginal consent. The mining industry has virtually abandoned the Northern Territory as a result of the impossible conditions which have been imposed by the Commonwealth legislation. In the Territory there is uncertainty as to what our position will be once Mr Holding's preferred national land rights model is implemented. Of course, we are not too sure just what the Federal Government is going to implement, whether it will be the Federal version or amendments to the Territory Act. Some people have expressed the view that almost anything must be an improvement on what we have now, but I am concerned at the reservations which have been expressed from so many quarters about the Holding legislation. Many are unhappy with it-not only the Aboriginal people but also, of course, the various industries. The Federal Government's obvious misunderstanding of the wishes of the Aboriginal people was reflected only last week in the reported signing of an agreement between the developers of the Koongarra uranium development and the traditional Aboriginal owners of Koongarra to proceed with development against the express wishes of the Federal Government. This Government wants the land returned to Kakadu National Park and development of the project halted, despite the fact that the deal between the Aboriginal owners and the developers is reported to be worth as much as $300m in cash, annual rental and royalty payments and royalty equivalents over a 14 year period. That sort of money would mean that the Aboriginal owners would have a real say in determining their future, yet the Federal Government opposes the arrangement. If the agreement between the Aboriginal owners and the developers, Denison Australia Ltd, does not convey to Messrs Hawke and Holding the clear message of the Aboriginal people that they want to stand on their own feet, nothing will. The outcome of the negotiations between Denison and the Aboriginal people, including the Northern Land Council Chairman, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, has shown that the Aboriginal people are able to decide independently what is in their best interests. They realise that it is in their best interests to become financially independent. It is common knowledge that Aboriginal people do not want to have to rely on government handouts. They want to contribute to the development of the Northern Territory. The signing of this deal will mean that they are able to assist in the creation of revenue and employment opportunities in the Territory-if the Federal Government so permits by allowing this mine to be developed. It is time that this Government abandoned its pick and choose policy as to which uranium mines should be developed and ceased to play the rich uncle to the Aboriginal people. They have shown that they know the road which they wish to take. It is the road to self-sufficiency and self-respect, not the road to patronising handouts, which is all that is offered by the Government. While the Labor Government's offering to the Aboriginal people is nothing more than tokenistic, its offerings to the Territory as a whole have been virtually non-existent. The promise made by Mr Hawke prior to the 1983 election that the Alice Springs-Darwin railway would be proceeded with has been abandoned and it now seems that the Territory faces an uphill battle to obtain Commonwealth support for the upgrading of airport facilities at Darwin. There has been an abrogation by the Commonwealth of its responsibility to contribute to the maintenance of Alice Springs Airport. The Commonwealth has seemingly ignored the millions of dollars which have been spent on world class tourist facilities at Yulara in its refusal to provide assistance to upgrade the facilities. Only recently the need for such upgrading was demonstrated by an accident which occurred at Alice Springs Airport when a woman and two children were struck by a baggage truck moving across the tarmac. The limited space in front of the terminal combined with the heavy traffic means that there is just not enough room for passengers and staff to go about their business safely. Similar problems persist at Darwin Airport. We have been promised a new international terminal there, but of course in the last few days the Government has indicated that it does not intend to go ahead with this much needed international airport, despite the fact that the Public Works Committee has made the recommendations and the Federal Government has already funded some $10m or $15m. Despite the fact that contracts have been let, they have now been halted. Senator Peter Rae —Devaluation has given a tremendous opportunity for tourism to be boosted. Senator KILGARIFF —Of course. This is one of the main aspects in the Northern Territory. Millions of private enterprise dollars have now been spent by international and national firms in creating these new hotels and tourist facilities. I find it rather amazing that the Government has cancelled the contracts and the project. Darwin has been left with no real international airport, but with a hangar that was built before the Second World War, a hangar that can withstand winds of only some 75 knots per hour. The Government has been very shortsighted in not going ahead with this new project because it would have brought to its coffers many millions of dollars in taxes and other revenue by the increase in tourism in the Northern Territory. I regret that the Federal Government has not seen fit to go ahead with this project. I believe that not only has it been short-sighted but also it has been very hard on the contractors, the sub-contractors and the workers on this project. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.24) —On 22 March I raised the question of staffing in one of the primary schools in the Australian Capital Territory, the Curtin Primary School. I dealt on that occasion-it being the Friday afternoon adjournment debate-with just one of the 11 schools which we had problems with the staffing formula as it has been applied in 1985 by the officer of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. On that occasion Senator Gietzelt, the Minister present, said: Senator Reid has raised a very interesting problem which obviously requires attention by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). He went on to say: I will see that it is drawn to the Minister's attention and I hope that some response will be made early next week to the matter that has been raised. Certainly the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has discussed this matter with the Australian Teachers Federation and, I guess, with members of the Schools Authority. It was reported in the Canberra Times that she had expressed considerable sympathy for the problem faced by the primary schools, but unfortunately no change has been brought about in the attitude of the Schools Authority to the schools which have been affected. I certainly know that a number of parents who had wanted to discuss the matter with the Minister, and who have not been able to, are disappointed about that fact and hopefully she will at some stage find time to discuss the matter with parents. Originally 11 schools were affected by the problem that I shall identify. The problem has been resolved, one way or another, in a couple of those schools but the teachers support resolution of the matter in Campbell, Curtin, Mount Neighbour and Wanniassa primary schools. I personally would add a couple of others to the list, but I accept the view of the teachers that there are four schools for which there is still a very good case for resolution. We operate in the Australian Capital Territory on a formula for the staffing of primary schools of one teacher for 30 pupils. That formula has operated since 1979. It was conveyed by the then Minister for Education to the Chairman of the Schools Authority in a letter which set out the basis of the staffing formula. It stressed the need for organisational stability in the schools. I suggest that it is perhaps that aspect of the matter that is not receiving sufficient attention, in the consideration of the staffing in these four remaining schools. The problem in each case is that this year, on the day that is classified as census day, when school resumed in February, each of the schools finished up with fewer pupils than had been projected. The numbers that were expected had not been put forward by the schools themselves, and they had not been dreamed up by principals and added to and multiplied in the hope that they would finish up with more teachers. They were numbers which had been agreed upon based upon demographic figures of the National Capital Development Commission and the Schools Authority. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of anyone in particular. The consequence of this is that children in our primary schools are having their education disrupted. It certainly was not the schools which made the mistake. The Evatt Primary School was given five teachers more than it finished up being entitled to. The number it was told it should cater for was 570. The number the Evatt Primary School community expected was in the vicinity of 420 to 440. It in fact got 420 initially and then 441 within a few days. If it had been allowed to accept its figure initially, it would not have been in the mess in which it finished up, of having to reorganise totally. In a primary school, one teacher being withdrawn or even, as in the case of Curtin, 0.4 of a teacher being withdrawn, means that a whole class is without a teacher and the whole school has to be reorganised to compensate. Children in the Australian Capital Territory do not turn up at school in neat little numbers of 30 to go into a class at any level-kindergarten, grade one or anything else-so some flexibility needs to be used in working out how to put children into classes. There are in a number of cases as a consequence composite classes. In the lower grades, perhaps, this is not harmful and does not really matter. I suggest, though, that when it comes to grade six children it is not in the best interests of their education. Grade six is an absolutely vital year for children to be educated to go into the high school system. One of the schools affected, in a newer area, has finished up with 17 pupils in grade six. The number will probably grow during the year, but it looks as though it will not have a grade six class. It will have to have a composite grade five-six class. I suggest that those children, in spite of the dedication of the teachers who are looking after them, are being disadvantaged. To look more specifically at the schools, Campbell Primary School finished up with one teacher being withdrawn. Campbell Primary School confidently and reasonably expects its numbers to grow during this year because of the staff moving into the Defence Force Academy, many of whom will be living in the area of the Campbell Primary School and will be enrolling their children there. What is even more absurd is that the teacher in question was withdrawn from the school and sent to the O'Donnell Education Centre. That is another story in itself. At the same time the facilities of the O'Donnell Education Centre have been totally withdrawn from benefiting children at non-government schools because the centre cannot cope with the service being extended. It seems quite absurd that in those circumstances, of withdrawing the facility from all the non-government schools, a teacher should be sent there from the Campbell Primary School. I attended a meeting last night that was held at Stirling College. The principal of the Campbell Primary School, Mr Jarvis, explained that Campbell is now only seven children short of the number which would enable it to have the extra teacher, and yet she is being withdrawn. In relation to the Curtin Primary School I will not go through again the details that I gave on 22 March. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter dated 7 March 1985, which sets out information, and the attachment to it, which gives a breakup of the numbers of the classes depending on whether the school finishes up with nine or 10 teachers. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CURTIN PRIMARY SCHOOL Carruthers St, Curtin, ACT 2065. Telephone 81 0555 7th March 1985 Director (Resources) Office of the A.C.T. Schools Authority In this submission I propose to outline the reasons why the Principal and Staff of Curtin Primary School believe that the staffing level should remain as calculated on the agreed figure and the possible outcomes if the formula is applied strictly to the present enrolment. (a) The agreed figure; the agreed figure (298) upon which we were staffed was drawn from the best available information-demographic figures, local information and numbers of children in the school. (b) Minimal difference; the difference is only 11 children. Since the census date, in fact only 10. (c) This school community is quite confident that the difference will be made up this Semester. In 1983 the school was reorganised (at the very beginning of its existence) because there were extra children after Census Day. In 1984 parents made successful representations for extra staff for a similar rise in numbers, and the school was re-organised. (d) On Census Day (8.2.85) I checked the mathematics of the formula with the primary Staffing Officer, acknowledging a drop in numbers, but was assured that a cut in staff (for .3) was unlikely, and in view of the difficulty of re-organisation, inappropriate. (e) Substantial re-organisation; Attachment A shows the nature of the changes necessary to re-organise for the deficit of 10 children. (f) This school community believes it has special reasons for requesting the retention of the present staff. Please see attached letter from the School Board. (B) Also the school accommodates two special classes, Learning Centre and J.A.C., the only ones in the Woden Valley. Teachers have willingly implemented the Authority policy on integration of special children but with increased numbers, in composite classes, it would be unreasonable to expect them to accept these, sometimes difficult, children, and the programme would suffer. As can be seen from Attachment A, all classes in the school would be altered. Fifty one families would be distressed by changes for their children, twenty of whom would be seen to have been ''put back''. The Principal and Assistant Principal spent 25 hours of individual interviewing (apart from work done by staff in 1984) to establish appropriate placings for children. A re-organisation now would be impossible to justify educationally and there would be discontent and stress for the rest of the year. Staff have made suggestions about ways to cope with a drop in staff, without re-organising all classes, or having to accept a compulsory transfer-if necessary we could offer .4 of specialist help of various kinds to another school which was both short staffed and nearby. Two Band 2 Officers with Band 3 eligibility, one of whom is a nominated compulsory transferee for 1985, have and will continue to apply for Band 3 positions. If one were successful it would be possible to replace her with a Band 1.6 part-time teacher until the end of the year. It would not be possible to use a part-time teacher to avoid re-organisation unless a sharing arrangement was established with one of the senior staff presently providing the relief component. This would mean teachers relinquishing their relief time, and all those special activities which add lustre to our programs would be reduced or abandoned. This proposal would have to come from staff and could not be imposed. Parent members of the Board are very concerned at the proposal to re-organise the school, both from their own point of view and that of parents as a whole, and about the likely effect on pupil and parent morale. They request the opportunity to discuss the matter with representatives of the Office of the Schools Authority before a decision is taken. Implementation of any adverse decision should be delayed to enable them to consider their position. Dr Price refused an interview on 6 March, but I believe a confrontation of some kind with parents is inevitable. There has been much talk of children leaving Government schools for the private systems. The numbers of children who have done so at Curtin is insignificant in the overall scheme. However in my experience children (or their parents) do not change systems because of poor teaching, inadequate programs, lowered standards, crowded classes, cranky Principals or industrial action by teachers, or any of the oft-quoted evils of Government systems. They leave because of what their parents perceive as instability, unpredictability, staff intransigence (or in transit-ence). They want to know where their child will be this year and at least next year, and with what teacher. The most important links are the human ones, the relationships which are formed with teachers and other children. It is the sudden breaking of these relationships, and the loss of the rapport which has developed, which is justly seen as disruptive to the learning process and distressing to the parent, teacher and child alike. The Public Relations aspects of this exercise are most distressing to this staff. Teachers do not wish to be seen by parents as disorganised, or careless of children's welfare. They do not want to renege on the careful placement arrangements they have made for children, and they hate having to tell parents that the situation is out of their control. They are concerned for the good name and credibility of their Principal, their school and their system. Should this submission be unsuccessful and it becomes necessary to nominate a teacher for compulsory transfer, I will notify the office accordingly. Mavis Chalker Principal TO FORM 9 CLASSES IF NECESSARY Present figures K 29 + 8 new to come = 37 K/1 17 (to be enlarged from K) = 17 1/2 17 + 13 = 30 2/3 17 + 13 = 30 3 31 = 31 4 30 = 30 4/5 9 + 17 = 26 5 29 = 29 6. 30 = 30 6 29 = 29 288 Reorganisation K 29 + 8 new - 8 to K/1 at Easter 29 K/1 17 + 8 from K + 6 from 1/2 (25 + 6) 31 1/2 17 - 6 x 1sts + 13 + 6 from 2/3 (11 + 19) 30 2/3 17 - 6 x 2nds + 13 + 6 from 3rd (11 + 19) 30 3/4 30 - 6 (to 2/3) + 6 from 4th (24 + 6) 30 4 30 - 6 (to 3/4) + 9 from 4/5 33 4/5 eliminated - 17 to 5th - 5 29 + 17 from 4/5 - 12 to 5/6 34 5/6 30 + 12 from 5th - 7 to 6th (12 + 23) 35 6 29 + 7 from 6th 36 288 Senator REID —The numbers at Curtin Primary School have already increased. It has 12 more students since the time in question. Mount Neighbour Primary School was 18 students short and, of course, it loses a significant portion of a teacher. I wish that all honourable senators could have heard Mrs Sue Riley, the President of that school's Parents and Citizens Association, explain what the loss of a teacher mid-term has done to that school. The timing is appalling. Surely, if it is to happen, it could have been done quite differently from the way it has been done. I shall not again go into details of the Evatt Primary School because apparently agreement has been reached that the teachers will go and the school will be reorganised mid-term, which I find extraordinary. The Wanniassa Primary School is losing a teacher to Taylor. Wanniassa is an expanding area. It is quite clear that in Oxley there are a number of children who will go to the Wanniassa school during this year. So the numbers are likely to change considerably. There are currently 250 houses being built in Oxley. At the beginning of the year the Schools Authority apparently forecast 42 extra children and then changed the number to 20. The consequence is that all the other children will have their classes totally reorganised and disrupted. Mr President, I also seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a notice which was prepared by the Principal of the Wanniassa Primary School setting out the points and the impact on the school of what in fact has occurred. Leave granted. The document read as follows- IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PARENTS OF WANNIASSA PRIMARY SCHOOL Staffing cuts Most parents will be aware that for the past three weeks Wanniassa Primary School has been threatened by the removal of a class teacher, which has now occurred, because of the A.C.T. Schools Authority's decision not to staff our school on projected enrolments from Oxley-a decision made in March, ten weeks into Term 1. There have been many news items in the ''Canberra Times'': ''Teachers given transfer notices''-5.4.85 ''Teachers to plan action on transfers at meeting''-11.4.85 and lastly ''Ryan backs decision to move teachers''-13.4.85. While most information put in the press and TV news bulletins has more or less given the correct picture, up until last weekend at least, the news item in the ''Canberra Times'' dated 13 April 1985 does not. The first misleading statement is: ''Schools where actual enrolments were different from projections knew that staffing adjustments were likely.'' Taken together with the following paragraph, this could, and is probably meant to, give the impression that Principals of those schools are bad managers for not organising the school to cope with the adjustments when they came. That is how I read it and that is what I am told the tactics are meant to be-to try and put the blame for all the disruption in the schools, and the consequent insecurity and concern, on the Principals' shoulders. First point: Principals could only know that staffing adjustments were likely, at the earliest, three weeks ago, that is, half way through the term. The statement in the paper gives the impression that Principals knew at the beginning of the year (although, of course, the Schools Authority is careful not to say that). Actually, quite the contrary idea was given to me one week before the school year commenced, when the Staffing Officer said that I would be getting another full-time teacher, extra to my entitlement, based on the predicted 515 pupils by July. I questioned this, checked my calculations which showed, if anything, that I was only entitled to an extra part-time teacher, and so asked why I was getting this teacher. I was given to understand that my Oxley enrolments would be sufficient to warrant her retention, if needed. Hardly a way of telling me that I would be overstaffed and in danger of losing staff! Second point: Later, after the census, when indeed our February enrolments were down by 32 on the February prediction, Mr Tim Boutsis left and was not replaced. Also the teacher whom I did not want originally was transferred to Belconnen High School. These losses more than compensated for the drop in the predicted February enrolment, and even at that time I had no knowledge that the estimated 42 Oxley enrolments would not be counted as part of our enrolment for assessing staff entitlements. Third point: About four weeks ago I was told that the demographe had gone back to the NCDC for another assessment of what to expect from Oxley by mid-July, and that the new estimate was to be about 20. Even so, there was little to worry about in regard to retaining our 14 Band 1 teachers, particularly since enrolments were coming in from Wanniassa in addition to Oxley. Fourth Point: It was not until I was asked to have a contingency plan ready for class reorganisation in case I should lose a teacher that I knew what was being tried. This direction was given just prior to the parent meeting (Monday, 1 April) which was called to explain the Schools Authority's action to you and at which Mr Peter O'Connor, the President of the A.C.T. Teachers' Federation, spoke. The School Board met directly after that meeting, and composed and had typed a letter objecting to the proposed reduction. This letter was addressed to the Chief Education Officer with copies to Senator Ryan and Mrs Ros Kelly as well as the Chairman of the A.C.T. Schools Authority and Staffing Officers. The letter and the copies were delivered by hand the next day. The Chief Education Officer and Staffing Officers would have had the letter in their hands before 9.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 April. No reply has been received by the Board or me personally, to date. Mrs Annette Lewer was given a transfer notice to Taylor Primary School late on Thursday, 4 April, in spite of many phone calls by parents and attempts to see the Chief Education Officer, Dr Hancock. Although Mrs Lewer injured her right wrist and was on sick leave last week (which the Staffing Officers knew because I told them), she was sent a telegram and later a letter telling her that she was on unauthorised leave and therefore could not teach her class even if she wanted to. For the four days of last week Mrs Lewer's class has been taught by myself and Mr Maher (Assistant Principal), to avoid disrupting the Year 1 classes (reducing three classes to two and taking Mrs Harrison to teach Mrs Lewer's class). The 17 classes were maintained in the hope that those responsible for Mrs Lewer's transfer would see the nonsense in transferring her to a school (Taylor Primary School) which already had an extra teacher, not on a class, and which would then gain two extra teachers (supernumeraries) for the rest of the term. Meanwhile Wanniassa would be forced either to reorganise classes for four weeks, until the end of term, or suffer very difficult administrative restrictions, with the Principal and Assistant Principals trying to make a teacher available from among the remaining staff. You will see how important it is to receive the truth about what is happening to your school by referring to the school staff or the School Board or the P. and C. Executive who know, rather than be misled by what you read in the paper. It is also important for you to attend the Public Meeting tonight, at 7.30 p.m. at Stirling College, if you can possibly go. Whatever the outcome of the strenuous efforts being made on your behalf by the School Board, P. and C. and individual parents, as well as the total staff, you can be sure that teachers at this school always consider the children first and will spare no effort to protect them. Many of you who come into the school often, know that we are a dedicated, unified and happy staff, assisted by generous and happy parents. Left to ourselves we operate an efficient and properly managed school where individual rights are always upheld and where help to those in need is always offered. We intend to keep the school unified and happy in spite of all this unnecessary disruption and mischief which has caused so much personal hardship. 15 April 1985 Judith Kedge Principal Senator REID —It seems extraordinary that the teacher being withdrawn from Wanniassa is being sent to the Taylor Primary School, which already has an extra teacher not with a class. So that school will have two supernumeraries. I am at a loss to explain how that would be regarded as reasonable. I understand that one of the teachers from one of the schools was being sent to the Farrer Primary School and the Principal of that school did not even know that he was getting an extra teacher. The problem exists not only in relation to those schools which are losing teachers but also in relation to the receiving schools. I have heard the explanation of what has occurred at the Duffy Primary School. Again, unfortunately, a grade 6 class is being affected. The class was to have had a particular teacher at the beginning of this year. That teacher was sent relieving to some other school. So the children in grade 6 at Duffy had a casual who replaced their teacher. Now the class is to get a teacher from one of the overendowed schools. The transferee is to take up her position at Duffy either today or tomorrow, which is well into first term. She will be there until the actual teacher who has not been teaching at the school so far this year returns at, I think, the end of June. So by July of this year that grade 6 class will have had three different teachers, not allowing, or course, for any relief teachers it may have had during that time because of the sickness of a teacher or for any other reason. What concerns me most about all of this is the particular hardship and the particular difficulty for the grade 6 classes which have been affected. I am also concerned about the problems for kindergarten children who just do not get the opportunity to get to know a teacher and who have been put in different classes during the first term. The real problem is, of course, that the children are being regarded merely as numbers in schools; they are not being regarded as young people in need of education. This is not a political issue; it is quite clearly a question of the administration of the way in which teachers are allocated to schools. If a mistake was made in the counting and the numbers that ought to be compensated for. There is no way that it can be suggested that the schools were at fault. If it is a matter of going to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and saying 'We have made a mistake and we need a little more money to compensate for this in four schools for a short period', that should be done. But given the transfers that are taking place, I question seriously whether money has anything to do with it at all although I must say that within this community a number of suggestions have been made as to why this has occurred. Everybody seems to be blaming everbody else. The most popular recipient of blame is the Department of Finance. There is no way that I can see that the Department could possibly be making the decisions or be responsible. I suggest to the Minister for Education that perhaps she should intervene to see whether more money can be obtained if necessary, not that I believe that is the case. The Minister should talk to the Schools Authority. Now that it has been agreed that the problem exists specifically and critically in respect of four schools she should see whether a solution can be found for them so that the children in our primary schools can be given stability and can get on with their education without the sort of disruption to which I have briefly referred this evening. I think we need to know, and the Minister needs to confirm it, whether or not the Schools Authority, if it is able to meet from its resources the teacher requirements of the schools that I have mentioned-that is, Campbell, Curtin, Mount Neighbour and Wanniassa-it has the authority to make the decision in relation to these schools. I ask whether there is meant to be flexibility with the formula so that there is stability in our schools, no matter how the problem arose. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.36) —Mr President, I wish to take this opportunity during the adjournment debate to make a personal explanation. On 4 April I was arrested in Brisbane for an alleged breach of section 5 (1) (c) (i) of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985. I appeared before the Magistrates Court and pleaded not guilty of the offence. The magistrate allocated 30 May 1985 for the case to be heard. However, the prosecutor then asked that I enter into an undertaking that I would not loiter upon any land or road giving access to any establishment under the control of the South East Queensland Electricity Board or the Electricity Commissioner. The magistrate agreed to that but extended it for some reason unknown to me beyond the request of the prosecutor to include 'or in the vicinity of any land or road upon which is being performed any work in connection with the supply of electricity'. Virtually what that meant was that I was placed under house arrest in that I could not enter upon any road where repair work was being carried out on, say, a local transformer. Such an undertaking would have put me very much at risk. Had I signed the undertaking and inadvertently in travelling from my home to the city used a road which was in the vicinity of some construction or repair work I would have been in breach of the bail legislation, which carries severe penalties. I was not prepared to place myself at risk. I also thought that the undertaking was unfair, having in mind that I had not as yet been found guilty of any offence. I refused to sign the undertaking and I was held in custody until 6 o'clock that night. My representatives made an appeal to the Supreme Court to have the undertaking removed. The undertaking was removed by the Supreme Court. Had the undertaking not been removed the prospect was that I would have had to stay in gaol until 30 May. This morning I attended another gathering of people at Cleveland. The group of people were not positioned outside the South East Queensland Electricity Board depot but, in fact, were positioned in a road off the road in which the SEQEB depot is sited. There were no placards. There were no comments, no taunts and no calls. It was a passive gathering of people off the roadway, on the footpath. A like number of police were present. About 50 to 100 police-I do not know the exact number-were present. I think that for every member of the group who was there a police person was also there. I made an inquiry of the inspector in charge as to whether there would be any problems. He said he believed that although we were some 100 yards away from the depot we were in breach of the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act. He said that he was not responsible for the legislation but he was responsible for seeing that the legislation was obeyed. It was his view-he was quite pleasant and genial about it-that the gathering was in breach of the Act. He advised us to disperse. We did disperse. We moved to the other side of the road. The group had scattered. There were four of us standing on the footpath. We were advised-that is, I; the member for Kurilpa, Anne Warner; a young solicitor; and an official of one of the trade unions-that we were still in breach of the Act even though we were standing on the footpath talking about other matters. Then there was a sort of Mexican stand-off situation when the police were not certain what to do. We were not certain whether we should move or stand our ground as citizens since we did not believe we were in breach of any Act. The inspector then advised that we were still within sight of the depot and, therefore, were in breach of the Act. After a couple of moments he decided to arrest us. So unfortunately I found myself arrested again. I intend to plead not guilty. The problem which I bring before the Senate now is that I am required to attend the court at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. If I do not attend that court I am in breach of the bail requirement which says, on my undertaking, that I will appear before the court tomorrow. Tomorrow is a sitting day of the Parliament. Tomorrow at 8 o'clock I am required to chair a meeting of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and to carry out other duties in this place. I am informed by my solicitors that the possibility is that I will be asked again to sign an undertaking, an undertaking which I would find difficult in conscience to sign. If that is the case, on this occasion I will find that I may be held in custody until the date on which the case is to be heard. I will insist that the case be heard as soon as possible. The Act has not been tested. As I mentioned, the hearing of the previous case was postponed until 30 May, some 60 days later, and an undertaking was placed on me which, as I have explained, was an unfair undertaking. It was so proved and was so decided upon by the Supreme Court. Therefore, I will insist tomorrow that the case be heard as soon as possible. The point that the Parliament has to consider now is whether it has first call on the services of its members. The Parliament also has to consider whether this Act, which does not carry an option of imprisonment, is a civil Act or a criminal Act and whether or not the privileges of the Parliament are in some way breached. I am not claiming privilege. I do not intend to claim privilege before the court tomorrow because there are other people involved besides myself. I do not see any reason why I should claim privilege. I put to you, Mr President, that what the Parliament has to consider is that by this type of Act, which is untested, a member of parliament can be apprehended and held in custody. The Parliament would need to determine just whether that puts the Parliament-either House of the Parliament or a committee of the Parliament-at some risk. If the will of a majority of Government members is to be determined at any time, a situation may arise when one member of the Government may be absent-from either the House or a committee-and the decision may, for that reason, go against the Government. That is a hypothetical situation, but we have found ourselves in the Senate on a number of occasions to be so close-shall we say 'in balance'-that one or two votes could alter a decision of this place. I put it to the Senate that the Parliament will have to determine whether or not it has first call on the services of its members and whether it holds precedence over a court when a court demands the appearance of a member. I have asked for a pair. I ask the Opposition to give some consideration to granting that pair for tomorrow so that this matter can be given some consideration, and not in haste. For that reason, and for the other reasons which I have mentioned, I cannot leave other people to face the courts alone tomorrow. That explains why I am not seeking privilege but I insist that the matter be examined and that advice be sought. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.47) —It is my understanding that an application has been received in relation to Senator Georges for the granting of a pair and that an indication has been given by the Opposition that so far as the Opposition is concerned he will be granted a pair, not only for tomorrow but on an ongoing basis in the event that that is necessary. I would like to add one suggestion of my own. My suggestion is that the question of the need for a senator to attend to his duties in the Senate would perhaps be appropriate to be weighed up by a magistrate when dealing with the question of bail. The matters that have been raised tonight and the possibility that if it were not for a co-operative Opposition serious damage could be done to the determination of the operation of our parliamentary democracy in Australia are matters which could be placed before the magistrate for consideration as to the terms and conditions of bail. I simply make that comment in an attempt to be helpful and not in any way to be provocative either to the court or to the cause or to intervene in any way in commenting about the cause. I also wish to confirm that I am told that the Opposition will co-operate with the granting of a pair in this case, but I do add that further rider that I hope the needs of the Senate can be taken into account. The example of chairing the committee concerned is one of the types of matters that can be taken into account. It is not just a question of a vote: it is the services of individuals which are required here as well. I wanted to take the opportunity of making those points without in any way commenting or making judgment upon the circumstances which have been raised. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.50) —I want to speak for a few minutes on the Bosch report. That report was recently completed and handed to government. It relates to cost recovery in the aviation industry. In these days of communication it is still very difficult to get the ear of government and authority on some matters which are of grave concern to some people in Australia. Once again I will refer briefly to the construction of the international airport at Darwin. I hope that the Government, after looking at the Bosch report on cost recovery in the aviation industry and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, will reconsider the situation and find that it would be economically viable to continue with the project, which has been cancelled. The Bosch report makes very many recommendations. Some of the recommendations are that particular projects should be justified in both financial and economic terms; that each major airport project should be subjected to financial and economic analysis to determine whether it is economically justifiable and whether costs can be fully recovered; and that there should be an immediate moratorium on all significant new investments and projects of the Department of Aviation not already approved by government unless it can be shown that they will reduce attributable costs or be fully recoverable. The report goes on to talk about the aerodrome local ownership plan. It states that all future transfers should be subject to evaluation to ensure that unnecessary upgrading is not undertaken and that transfer will be a cost saving to the Commonwealth and industry. The report also makes recommendations which I think are of note, particularly as they affect the Northern Territory at present. One recommendation is that substantial reductions in departmental costs are necessary. The Committee supports decisions to separate airport and airway charges. There is a recommendation to improve planning in order to involve more closely those who will use and pay for these facilities. It goes on to make other recommendations. It is noticeable that since the Bosch report was tabled some projects in Australia have been cancelled-I refer particularly to the International Airport at Darwin-yet construction under other projects around Australia within the aviation industry which cost much more money are continuing. Perhaps someone has been so enthusiastic, at the tabling of the Bosch report, that there has been somewhat of a jumping of the gun, with the effect that the construction of the international airport has been cancelled. I would have thought that before this was done there should have been this review, this immediate moratorium, that was suggested in the report. The first of the recommendations of the Public Works Committee in relation to this project is: Facilities at Darwin Airport for international and domestic passengers and aircraft are grossly deficient and measures designed to rectify the situation should be implemented. The second recommendation is: The staged northern development option for the development of facilities at Darwin International Airport has operational and cost advantages over other options examined and is supported. The third recommendation is: The Committee is satisfied that the factors which contributed to the design of the proposed new terminal and associated aprons and taxiways at Darwin International Airport were rigorously examined by Commonwealth departments and reflect realistic forecasts and spatial requirements. The Committee goes on to make other recommendations relating to the upgrading, as an interim measure, of the old war time hangar. An unfortunate aspect of this cancellation is that already the Federal Government has spent some $12m to $15m on the development of this project. The cost might be $12m, $13m or $14m; it is something like that. I understand that at the same time the contractors and sub-contractors who were working on this project have been told to cease their work and to put in their claims for the work which has been carried out and which has not been claimed for up to the present. Goodness knows what that amount will be. With the work that has been done now, perhaps it will be another $10m. Perhaps it will cost the Federal Government some $25m to cancel the project. Of course, this does not take into consideration the enormous cost and planning involved in this project within government departments such as the Department of Housing and Construction. There is the cost of relocating the supervisors and officers of the Department of Housing and Construction from Adelaide to Darwin and the immense costs involved in the preparation of the site. One could well imagine that something like one-quarter of the cost of the terminal has already been spent. The cancellation of this project means that some one-quarter of the cost of the project-as I said, $25m or thereabouts-is money down the drain. I would like to see a review of this situation. I believe that the Federal Government, its departments which have recommended this project, the Northern Territory Government and, indeed, private enterprise should take part in a conference of all interested parties, if this is the way this International Airport is to be constructed. I believe that Australia and the North cannot afford the cancellation of this project. When the project came before the Public Works Committee of this Parliament it was estimated that it would cost some $95m. I believe that with a review of the plan the cost could possibly be adjusted and there could be savings so that the project may not have to cost some $95m. I am extremely concerned that this contract should have been cancelled out of hand. At the moment absolutely hundreds of millions of dollars-that is no exaggeration-of private enterprise money is coming into Australia, is being generated out of Australia and also within Australia, for the building of international hotels in Darwin and Alice Springs. The investment is enormous. I believe that it would be to the benefit of the Government to encourage this investment in the Northern Territory to develop the tourist industry and to bring about employment-to develop the North. Indeed, investment in this industry could be so enormous that a considerable amount could be recovered by the Federal Government in taxation and by other means. The Darwin International Airport project would be to the benefit of Federal Government's coffers. I believe that the investment that is now coming into the North was encouraged by the fact that the Federal Government saw fit to construct this new international terminal at Darwin. The matter must be reviewed. I for one do not think that the contract should be cancelled. I am not prepared to say or to believe that the recommendations of the Bosch report are such that they should cancel out such a project. I suggest once again that there should be a conference between the interested parties to see what can be done to rectify the situation. When one considers the various international airlines that come into Darwin now and will do so in the next two or three years, it is clear that their international travellers will have to be subject to being brought into the reception area of the existing Darwin terminal which, in effect, is an old wartime hangar constructed before 1942. Indeed, if one looks carefully at its roof, one can see that it still shows signs of damage from the Second World War. I was present at the weekend when Cyclone Gretel hit Darwin. This old terminal, as I understand it, can withstand winds only up to 75 knots per hour or 80 miles per hour. This is an impossible situation. One would concede that in times of cyclones, with winds of high velocity, people would have to be evacuated from this old hangar, this so-called national and international terminal. At present, of course, the Customs facilities and the handling of people has been described by travellers from overseas as being worse than they have experienced in any Third World country. It is my suggestion that this project is far too important for Australia, having regard to the fact that it is the front door of Australia. It is the northern door through which so many people from overseas enter Australia. Their first thoughts, on being subjected to the incredible inconveniences in the present terminal are: 'Is this really Australia? Do they want tourists in Australia?' I ask the Government to reconsider the situation. There has been a lot of emotion. There have been attacks on the Government with, I think, good reason because I believe that it has jumped the gun. But I think that the situation should not be lost and I ask the Government to reconsider. In the interests of the development of the north and in the interests of one of its major industries, the tourist industry, the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise should bring about a package for the Northern Territory in which both airports-that is, in Darwin and Alice Springs-are upgraded so that they support the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that are now being invested in the Northern Territory. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to add to what I said earlier to lend some support to the remarks which I made. I did not have the information available to me at the time that I spoke. In the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons at Westminster on 1 December 1967, that Committee, which contained some very well-known members of the House of Commons, expressed this view: They are strongly of the opinion that the courts, whether civil or criminal, should give appropriate weight, when exercising their discretion over such matters as the fixing of dates and the grant or refusal of bail, to the importance of the Parliamentary function of a Member who may be involved. I wanted to add that because it is further to the comments which I made when I spoke earlier. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.05) — The views of Senator Reid on education matters will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate Minister, as will the somewhat lengthy views of Senator Kilgariff. I note Senator Georges's factual explanation of the situation which he described. I concur very much with the reading by Senator Peter Rae of the extract from the House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which I think very neatly summarises the position as I understand it. I hope Senator Georges will be assisted in any endeavour tomorrow by making available to the magistrate, if it becomes necessary, the appropriate extracts from that report. I wish Senator Georges every success in his skirmishes, not in the political field but in the legal field. He has survived them very successfully in the past and I am sure he will do so in the future. The PRESIDENT —In regard to the matter that has been raised by Senator Georges so far as it relates to my responsibilities to the Parliament, I will discuss that matter with my parliamentary officers. I agree with the suggestion put to Senator Georges by Senator Peter Rae, namely, that the needs of this Parliament to have its members serve the Parliament and parliamentary committees should be put by Senator Georges to the magistrate before whom he is appearing tomorrow. In that respect I am arranging for a photostat of the extract from the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be made available to Senator Georges for his appearance tomorrow. I also suggest that, because he is a member of the Government Party and has raised in the adjournment debate the question of the future of the Government should the Government be deprived of its members through an alleged breach of a State law, he should discuss that aspect with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for appropriate advice as a member of the Government Party. I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) was present when Senator Georges spoke and that Senator Button, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has responded to the remarks made by Senator Georges. I join with Senator Button in wishing Senator Georges well. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I am concerned only at the suggestion that Senator Georges, as a member of the Government Party, is entitled to some special advice from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) which any senator would not be entitled to receive. I believe that a member of the Parliament is entitled to receive some advice and assistance. I hope that what was perhaps intended by you, Mr President, was that parliamentary counsel or an officer of the Attorney-General's Department could assist in giving some advice in relation to the matter of attendance and rights of attendance, should that become necessary, to a member of this place, from whichever side of the chamber he may be drawn. The PRESIDENT —I certainly endorse the remarks made by Senator Peter Rae. I merely mentioned that Senator Georges should discuss the matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his capacity as a senator and as a member of the Government Party in the Senate rather than that I, as President of the Senate, should discuss the matter with the Attorney-General on Senator Georges's behalf. I thank Senator Rae for giving me the opportunity to make my explanation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.09 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 183-Parking and Traffic Amendment No. 1. Defence Act- Determinations 1985 Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 131A-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 131 (Prohibition Relating to the taking of Shrimps and Prawns off Northern Australia) No. 137-Prohibition Relating to Trawling in specified Areas of Proclaimed Waters off North-Western Australia. Health Insurance Act-Order under sub-section 6 (2), dated 26 February 1985. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act- Appointments- Department of Aboriginal Affairs-C. E. Corowa Department of Transport-J. M. Spierig Determinations 1985 Nos. 17, 22 Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determinations 1985-No. 1. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs. Telecommunications Act- By-laws 1985- Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 45 Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 54. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGE-ASSENT TO LAW: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency has, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following laws: 29 March 1985- Message No. 2-Sugar Agreement Act 1985 (Act No. 6 of 1985) Message No. 3-Marriage Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 7 of 1985) Message No. 4- Trust Recoupment Tax Act 1985 (Act No. 3 of 1985) Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 (Act No. 4 of 1985) Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 5 of 1985) Message No. 5-Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 8 of 1985) Message No. 6-Quarantine Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 2 of 1985) 5 April 1985- Message No. 7- Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Act 1985 (Act No. 9 of 1985) Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 10 of 1985) International Development Association (Special Contribution) Act 1985 (Act No. 11 of 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What contracts have been entered into between the Department of Trade and the firm of Dun and Bradstreet in each of the last five years. (2) What has been the purpose of such contracts and what has been the amount of money paid to Dun and Bradstreet in each instance. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no contracts but see below. (2) The Department purchases Dun and Bradstreet's 'Exporters Encyclopaedia' annually. In addition, commercial status reports on importers or potential importers are obtained on an ad-hoc basis, mostly by Trade Commissioners acting as agents for the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Australian exporters or, occasionally, the Department. Some are obtained from Dun and Bradstreet, and the cost is normally recovered from the originator of the request. (Question No. 5) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 February 1985: Are there long delays in the payment of practitioners, such as doctors and pharmacists by the Department of Social Security, 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 Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The majority of practitioners's accounts are paid by the Department of Social Security within one month and most are cleared within two months of falling due. In about ten per cent of cases longer delays occur and these are due mainly to problems associated with the particular claim. It should be noted, however, that the procedures in force for remuneration of doctors appointed as Commonwealth Medical Officers, and who undertake medical examinations in connection with invalid pension eligibility, do not require the doctor to render an account for each examination. Under the procedures Commonwealth Medical Officers are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. This means that on average payment is made some three months after the service has been rendered. The Department has no evidence of hardship being caused to practitioners generally by reason of delay in payment of claims. The total amount of all expenditure for medical and pharmaceutical services is approximately $3m per annum and its delayed accounts would comprise a negligible proportion of the total paid by the Commonwealth Government for such services. Nevertheless, the Department of Social Security is conscious of the need to pay accounts for services and supplies promptly and work is currently being undertaken on an improved accounts payments system which will automate processing currently carried out manually and, when implemented, will reduce the time taken to pay accounts. (Question No. 8) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 February 1985: (1) What level of financial and staff support will be provided for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Task Force (Prof. D. Penington, Chairman) for the balance of the financial year 1984-85. (2) Have specific funds been earmarked for support of the Task Force in the financial year 1985-86; if so, how much. (3) Will the Minister for Health give an unequivocal undertaking that no attempt will be made to restrict the public statements issued by the Task Force. (4) What is the relationship between the AIDS Task Force and the AIDS Advisory Committee. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My Department provides secretariat and financial support for the AIDS Task Force. The financial allocation for 1984-85, to cover the Task Force's travel, sessional fees and incidentals, is $18,244, of which approximately $3,100 remained unexpended as at 21 March 1985. A Departmental officer is acting full-time as secretary to the Task Force and six other officers, who deal with AIDS matters day to day, provide part-time support to the Task Force. (2) As allocations for 1985-86 are subject to confidential Budget deliberations, I cannot answer this part of the honourable senator's question. The matter of support of the AIDS Task Force will be considered in negotiations between my Department and the Department of Finance. (3) No. The AIDS Task Force is responsible to the Australian Health Services Council which is a Commonwealth/States body not subject to my direction. (4) The Task Force reports to the Australian Health Services Council and provides advice on medical-scientific aspects of AIDS and on public health measures required to prevent and manage the disease. The purposes of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS is to provide two-way communication between the Federal Government and the Australian community on AIDS and its implications. It does this by advising me on how best to inform and educate the general community and particular groups as necessary on AIDS, and also on the development of counselling and support services for people with AIDS and those responsible for their care. The Task Force provides medical-scientific advice and information to the Advisory Committee. Although the two bodies report to different authorities, close co-ordination of their activities is facilitated through my Department. (Question No. 31) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Was the kangaroo placed on the United States list of threatened species held by the United States Office of Endangered Species in 1974. (2) Did the Australian Government at that time claim that there were at least 100 million kangaroos in Australia. (3) Was a United States ban on the importation of kangaroo products then imposed but subsequently lifted in 1981. (4) Is there a current proposal before the US Fish and Wildlife Service to make, or has there been made, a final rule to remove the three largest species of kangaroo, the red, eastern grey and western grey kangaroos, from the US Threatened Species List. (5) Has the Australian Government refused or failed to supply to the US Office of Endangered Species any meaningful data despite that office's request over 18 months, for pertinent information; if so, why has the Australian Government not supplied such information. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 30 December 1974 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service published its finding that the red, eastern grey and western grey kangaroos were threatened and the three species were listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973, with effect from 29 January 1975. (2) I am not aware of any such claim being made in 1974. In submissions to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the population estimates provided by the Australian Government have been based on advice from State wildlife authorities, and scientists from CSIRO and universities, following aerial and other surveys. (3) Yes. The US import ban was lifted from 29 May 1981 after the Australian States established, to the satisfaction of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that their management programs were effective and that commercial importation of kangaroo products into the USA would not result in detriment to the species. (4) On 8 April 1983 the US Fish and Wildlife Service notified in the US Federal Register that it proposed to delete the three species from the threatened list under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973. On 24 April 1984 the US Fish and Wildlife Service gave notice in the Federal Register of its withdrawal of the proposal. The decision was based on data from the Australian Government indicating that kangaroo populations had declined as a result of the 1982-83 drought. In its Federal Register notice the US Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that kangaroo populations still number in the millions and that the Australian States have demonstrated efficient conservation programs. Furthermore, the US Fish and Wildlife Service noted that it may propose deletion of the three species from the US threatened list if additional information becomes available to confirm the speed of the kangaroos' recovery from the effects of the 1982-83 drought. (5) No. In fact the opposite is true. In a letter to Marian Newman of the Kangaroo Protection Foundation dated 7 May 1984, the USFWS wrote: ''You charge that the Australian Government 'duped' the United States on the kangaroo issue, and has demonstrated 'extraordinary deceit'. As far as we are concerned, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Australian Government has been completely open in its dealings with us, and has been very willing to provide any information we requested. In fact, it was the Australian Government's honesty in providing the latest data on declines in numbers that led to the withdrawal of our delisting proposal. The Australian Government has never tried to 'dupe' the US, and it has not been deceitful in any way.'' (Question No. 34) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) In each of the last five years, how many applications for payment under the Bounty (Books) Act have been refused on the grounds set out under each of the following sections of that Act: (a) sub-section 8 (1); (b) sub-section 8 (3); (c) paragraph 8 (4) (a); and (d) paragraph 8 (4) (b). (2) How many individual items were involved in each of the refused applications referred to in (1) above. (3) On how many occasions did the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce make use of the provisions of sub-section 8 (5) of the Act to seek external advice on the determination of applications referred to in (1) above; and to which bodies did the Minister refer such matters for advice. (4) How many applicants for a review of the Minister's decisions not to grant payment on the grounds set out in Section 8 (other than sub-section 8 (2)) were made in each of the last five years, and how many of such appeals (if any) were upheld. (5) Is bounty under the Act payable on items which may offend certain provisions of State legislation but which do not in any way offend any provisions of Commonwealth or Territory legislation. (6) For the purposes of sub-section 8 (1) of the Act does 'a law of a Territory' apply to all the laws of the Northern Territory. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) 3 (1981); 2 (1984) (b) 10 (1982); 4 (1983) (c) Nil (d) Nil. (2) 53. (3) 1 (one). Advice was sought from the Attorney-General's Department Canberra. Advice was 'not to grant payment of bounty'. (4) 1 (one) application was made in 1981. Application for review was upheld. (5) It may be possible. However, without some further detail regarding the 'certain provisions' of the State legislation referred to it is not possible for me to provide a more definitive answer. (6) Yes. (Question No. 53) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: What have been the costs to date per head of freight each way and itemised services as detailed by the Department of Primary Industry for quarantined livestock at Cocos Island for: (a) goats; (b) sheep; and (c) cattle Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The costs involved in the importation of livestock through the Cocos Island Animal Quarantine Station are primarily a matter between the importer, the exporter and the importing agent. My Department's involvement is limited to supervision and oversight of the preparation of animals in the country of origin and the actual quarantine at the Cocos Island facility. (Question No. 95) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Will the Minister for Health provide an answer to Question on Notice No. 1088 (Notice given 23 August 1984) concerning the incidence of repetition strain injury in the Department of Health. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As at 1 September 1984- (1) Word Processors 20; Stenographers 56; Typists 136. (2) Word Processors 4; Stenographers 12; Typists 10. Senator Walsh —On 25 February (Hansard, page 114) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, without notice: Is the Minister aware of the lack of confidence in Australia Post, as expressed recently by the Confederation of Australian Industry, other organisations and consumers? Is the Minister aware that the basis of this lack of confidence is the long delays in postal deliveries for both standard items and special services, for example, priority paid? Given that Australia Post includes in its advertising timetables for delivery of postal articles, could the Minister advise whether the Government intends taking action under sections 52 or 53 of the Trade Practices Act, which, in effect, prohibit false advertising, or whether the Government will investigate what action needs to be taken to ensure that Australia Post's performance matches both its statutory obligations and its advertised practices? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission: Yes. I am aware that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) made claims about Australia Post's mail service performance at last year's Prices Surveillance Authority hearing associated with Australia Post's application for a price increase, and that it issued media statements concerning the same matter. The CAI's Director of Corporate Affairs wrote to me on behalf of the 'Australian business community' expressing dissatisfaction with the mail service being provided by Australia Post. I note also that, since the honourable senator asked this question, the CAI has announced its intention to establish a 'postal users council' to monitor the movement of mail. Where possible, and particularly within metropolitan areas and over inter-capital routes, Australia Post aims to provide next working day delivery for mail posted by specified times. Over the years, performance in all States except New South Wales has been consistently good. In relation to the mail service in metropolitan New South Wales, Australia Post is keenly aware that, for many years, the service has been generally below that received by the rest of the country. Performance in the Sydney metropolitan area has also impacted on Australia Post's ability to deliver on time, mail travelling to other States. For the past eight months, some 75% of ordinary enveloped mail was delivered on time in New South Wales. In February 1985, about 78% of mail was delivered on time. Even with the lower level of performance in New South Wales, something like 11 million pieces of ordinary enveloped mail are delivered on time across Australia each working day. The Priority Paid service has continued, in the current financial year, to operate with a high level of reliability and, with a guaranteed 'money back' provision, 98% of articles were delivered on time Australia-wide to February 1985. In New South Wales, the success rate is 97%, with the delivery performance in other States ranging up to a success rate in excess of 99%. In regard to information provided by Australia Post on its service standards and scheduled delivery times, this information is designed as a guide only to users of the post. Australia Post has intensified its efforts to improve performance in New South Wales and a range of initiatives has been taken over the past 14 months. More recently, detailed action had been taken to correct problems which have become evident in the last few months. Australia Post is very much aware of the difficulties and inconvenience which mail delays cause its customers, and maximum management effort is being directed to overcoming the problems associated with the level of performance against prescribed mail service standards in New South Wales. Senator Walsh —On 26 February 1985 (Hansard, page 173) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me a question concerning the national wage case. In my reply I undertook to seek information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning the provision within the wage fixing principles for six-monthly consumer price index (CPI) adjustments. The Minister has provided the following response. Parts (a) and (b) of Principle 1 of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's wage fixing principles are as follows: '(a) Subject to Principle 3, the Commission will adjust its award wages and salaries every six months in relation to the last two quarterly movements of the eight-capitals CPI unless it is persuaded to the contrary by those seeking to oppose the adjustment. (b) For this purpose the Commission will sit in February and August following the publication of the CPI for the December and June quarters respectively.' The increase in the CPI in relation to the September and December quarters 1984 was 2.7 per cent. This is the increase that would normally apply in the February/March 1985 National Wage Case. The relevant CPI movement for the two quarters preceding (i.e.-0.2 per cent for the March and June quarters 1984) was not applied following a conference of national wage parties in September 1984. If adjustment were made for this negative CPI factor, the relevant quantum to be applied would be 2.6 per cent-the growth in the CPI between the December quarter 1983 and the December quarter 1984. The Commonwealth supported an adjustment of 2.7 per cent in the February/March 1985 National Wage Case on the grounds that to support any lesser figure as the basis of full indexation would effectively involve a change in Principle 1. Any such change to the basic Principle underlying the centralised wage fixation system at this stage would be undesirable, particularly given that a major review of the Principles is due in six months time. Senator Walsh —On 26 February 1985 (Hansard, page 179) Senator Colston asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning the level of industrial disputation in Queensland. In my reply, I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The table below provides a comparison between Queensland and the rest of Australia of working days lost per thousand employees for the period January 1984 to November 1984. These figures show that up to June 1984 Queensland compared favourably with the Australian totals. However, after June the situation deteriorated in Queensland with the level of industrial disputation being greater there than for the rest of Australia. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AUSTRALIA (MONTHLY), AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, SERIES 6321.0, TABLE 5 Period Queensland Australia(a) 12 months ended- January 1984 169 235 February 1984 172 234 March 1984 164 236 April 1984 178 245 May 1984 203 252 June 1984 242 248 July 1984 252 246 August 1984 260 248 September 1984 263 246 October 1984 278 245 November 1984 284 246 (a) includes ACT and NT. Source: Industrial Disputes Australia, December 1984, November 1984, October 1984, September 1984, August 1984, July 1984, June 1984, May 1984, April 1984, March 1984, February 1984, and January 1984. It must be noted that Queensland has one of the lowest percentages of coverage of employees by Federal awards. In Queensland 25.1% of employees are covered by Federal awards as compared with 42% of all Australians being covered by Federal awards. Senator Grimes —On 26 February 1985 (Hansard, page 176), Senator Reynolds asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the Rite-Gro Pty Ltd factory fire in Brisbane. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: My Department contacted the Queensland State Health authority at the time of this incident. I understand a senior State toxicologist was at the scene of the fire and assessed the potential for health hazards to the residents in surrounding areas. Following this, State Government chemists checked for environmental pollution. It was the assessment of the Queensland Public Health authorities that human health hazards and environmental pollution were minimal. My Department was advised of the results of all relevant tests. The Queensland authority did not request any Commonwealth assistance.