Tuesday, 23 April 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 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 three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 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 the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 2,049 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the 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bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets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 Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 202 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of certain undersigned Australian and overseas students respectfully showeth that: 1. The overseas student program brings in a multitude of cultural, political and educational benefits as well as a net financial gain of $A5 million p.a., in foreign exchange. (Ref. Goldring Report) 2. Overseas students are under financial constraints. Most depend on their families for this financial support. The Goldring Report found 62% of overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than $A15,000. 3. The imposition of high overseas student charges will deprive many overseas students from getting a tertiary education and qualification in Australia despite their academic abilities. High charges will determine education in Australia for overseas students on economic grounds. 4. The imposition of sudden and drastic increases in visa charges will also particularly disadvantage those current students, many of whom will be forced to discontinue their studies. 5. Overseas students do not displace local students. They represent a mere 3.4% of tertiary students. (Goldring Report) 6. The fluctuations and uncertainty in overseas students policy has led to uncertainty, stress and fear in overseas students. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray that: 1. The Government re-affirm a commitment to its policy that supports the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries through access to Australia's education and training resources. 2. The Government formulate a consistent and considerate policy concerning overseas students. 3. The Government reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the legislation of such a high increase in visa charges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Colston (from 225 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 277 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 United States 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 McKiernan (from 80 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australia and ASEAN-Challenges and Opportunities-text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs made in the House of Representatives on the 19 April 1985. 2. Australia's Diplomatic Representation in Africa and the Adjacent Indian Ocean Island States-text of a statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs made in the House of Representatives on the 22 April 1985. 3. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964-together with letters for the delay in tabling the report under section 34C (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as amended. 4. Australian National University 1983 report Part 2-pursuant to section 33 (2) of the Australian National University Act 1946-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report. 5. Commonwealth Schools Commission recommendations for 1986-report. 6. Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 12 of the Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977. 7. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1982-report on financial assistance granted to each State-pursuant to section 65 of the Act. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, left for New York on 20 April. He will return on 25 April and, in his absence, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is Acting Treasurer. I further inform the Senate-something which perhaps I should have done yesterday-that on 21 April Senator Gietzelt left on overseas duties. He will return to Australia in late May. During his absence, the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, will be Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, will be travelling overseas from 27 April until 12 May. During his absence Senator Ryan will be the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, will represent her in the lower House. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister that on 27 March he said that he had a tentative intention to release the forward estimates of expenditures in May and that last Friday he said that he had not changed his position. I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister, when asked at his Press conference yesterday whether he would release the forward estimates of outlays, said: Well, forward estimates are not there in a releasable form because what is happening is that we undertook the expenditure review exercise early in this year. I might add, Mr President, that I am asking this question because I think that was the only grammatically correct sentence that the Prime Minister used in the Press conference. I ask the Minister: Which of them is correct on the question of the availability of the forward estimates? If the Minister says they are both correct, what has happened to change the status or availability of the estimates since Friday, other than a desire by this Government to prevent proper scrutiny of its policies? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney is trying to synthesise some inconsistency where there is none. On 27 March I said that I had an intention to release the forward estimates in May. I think I said then-I have certainly said it since-that no decision had been made by the Government about whether that would be done. That is still the case. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that a statement of real reductions from expenditure will be made in May and they will be compared with figures which had been in the forward estimates at an earlier period. Whether there is any point in releasing the full forward estimates which were actually prepared at the end of 1984 is, I suppose, a matter of opinion and a question yet to be decided by the Government. In relation to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that expenditure cuts amounting in total to $1 billion would be announced in May, I stress that they will be real cuts from expenditure-not the phoney cuts from expenditure which we saw when the previous discredited Government in 1981 produced a synthetic figure of $560m which its razor gang had slashed off expenditure and which the Prime Minister of the day described as eventual ongoing savings. What that means is savings accumulated over an unlimited number of Budgets. For example, the cancellation of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway by itself was, by Mr Fraser's definition, a saving of $500m. What this Government will be announcing in May will be savings of $1 billion from the 1985-86 notional or forward estimates budget. Senator REYNOLDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister familiar with the Australian Bureau of Statistics' State government deficit figures which revealed that the Queensland Government's estimated deficit for 1983-84 was about $835m? Can the Minister indicate when the 1984-85 deficit figures will be made available? Does he anticipate any improvement in Queensland's deficit estimate? Senator WALSH —With regard to the last part of the question, it was earlier expected that the 1984-85 estimates would be released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today. It is now expected that they will be released tomorrow. Given the general state of the Queensland economy, I certainly do not expect that those ABS figures will show any improvement on the figures for the previous year. With regard to the earlier part of the question, it is correct, as Senator Reynolds said, that the State Budget deficit for 1983-84 was $835m. But that is not all the story; indeed it is less than half the story. The deficit of the State authorities which operate off-Budget was estimated at $914m. So the State Budget deficit for that year was approximately $335 per capita and the total public sector deficit, that is, the State Government Budget plus that of the State authorities, was $703 per capita. In other words, that clearly suggests that Queensland is heading down the Argentinian road. The rest of Australia will not go down that road, although I must add that it is made considerably more difficult for the rest of Australia to avoid going down that road as a result of the handicap that Queensland is currently imposing on the rest of the country. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask whether the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that Australia 'cannot simply go on running up debts and living beyond its means'. I ask further whether the Minister agrees that this situation would be aggravated if claims at the next national wage case are not discounted for the effects of devaluation. In the light of Mr Hawke's call for the belt tightening, will the Minister now indicate firm Government support for that option? Senator WALSH —Unintentionally, no doubt, this question is related to the question just asked by Senator Reynolds. We might get various definitions of when a country is living beyond its means, but one definition which I think would find widespread agreement is that when economic growth is taking place at a sufficient rate for unemployment to be coming down, and assuming that the pre-existing Budget deficit was an inappropriate deficit, then the deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product ought to be reduced. If that does not happen, the structural deficit is increasing. Any government which persistently runs a structural deficit is clearly a government which is living beyond its means. Such a government is the Government of Queensland. It is doing so to an extremely irresponsible degree. As to the other question, the claims which may be made at the next national wage case, which is due, I think, in September, consequential to devaluation are not likely to be large. Even if the full consumer price index effect of the devaluation is claimed, it is not likely to be large because that will incorporate the two quarters ending March and June of this year, and in those two quarters the devaluation effect on the CPI is expected to be quite small. If the exchange rate stays at around its present level, at a later time it will be more significant. The Government's attitude to this, which has been stated by the Prime Minister on certainly one occasion and probably on more occasions, and which has been repeated by me here, is that there is no urgency to develop a government response to that at this stage, given that the hearing is not likely to take place until September. As far as I know, that remains the Prime Minister's view, and it remains my view. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to Senator Walsh in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. No doubt the Minister is aware that the past Director of the National Party in Queensland, Mike Evans, in evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1983, indicated that donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation are tax deductible by writing off large donations as advertising costs. I therefore ask: Is it possible that those who purchased knighthoods in Queensland have been given a tax deduction by this Government? Can the Minister guarantee that no public money by way of taxes or Totalisator Administration Board revenue has been used to facilitate the purchasing of knighthoods? Senator WALSH —I acknowledge that I have a rather hazy recollection of Mr Evans making the sort of statement that Senator Robert Ray attributes to him; that is, that donations to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation will be tax deductible. I do not know whether that statement is correct, but I shall endeavour to check that up with the Commissioner of Taxation to see whether those deductions are in fact allowed. Assuming that they are allowed, it seems to me, unfortunately, highly likely that a knighthood for Sir Edward Lyons was purchased because he made a large donation to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. If that happened, it is regrettable that it happened. When a national government makes laws which are deemed to be appropriate for the country as a whole, it is a pity if deviant States abuse those laws in the way that there is a prima facie case that they have been abused in Queensland. On the broader question of that particular knighthood, I noted with some satisfaction this morning-I trust that the report was correct-that Mr Hinze has overridden the objections of the Premier, who was endeavouring to protect his good friend Sir Edward Lyons, who, as Chairman of the Totalisator Administration Board of Queensland, was a party to a decision to invest TAB funds with a company of which Sir Edward Lyons was either the sole or part proprietor, which was, of course, a clear breach of the Queensland TAB Act. That sort of behaviour did not distress the Premier at all, obviously because he continued to support Sir Edward Lyons. But apparently Mr Hinze thought it was a bit rough and a bit more than they could get away with even in Queensland. Mr Hinze is not a man known to shirk-- Senator Ryan —He is not noted for his delicacy. Senator WALSH —Yes, he could be so described. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is getting well away from the provisions of the taxation laws of this country. I ask him to come back to the question. Senator WALSH —I certainly shall, Mr President. Mr Hinze is not the most highly regarded politician in Australia, but I am sure many people will be relieved to know that he is not quite as bad as the Premier of Queensland. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that the road through the Daintree Rainforest, reopened at the weekend, has now become impassable yet again? Is the Minister also aware that, after an American tourist's car was bogged yesterday on the edge of a cliff, the shire engineer is today supervising the withdrawal of all council equipment, such as bulldozers and graders, from the road and also the possible removal of stranded private cars. Can the Minister assure the Senate that her colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will report in detail on these matters to Parliament after his fact finding visit to the Daintree rainforest next week? Senator RYAN —I can certainly assure the Senate that I will pass on to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, Senator Macklin's request for a full report of what is happening, paying particular attention to the incidents that were the subject of Senator Macklin's question. I am sure that Mr Cohen will respond to that request. Senator BOLKUS —Has the attention of the Acting Treasurer been drawn to statements made by the Victorian Premier on this Government's decision, as announced yesterday, on the price of Australian crude oil? In view of the criticisms, can the Minister advise the Senate of the financial consequences of this particular decision? Can he also say whether any of the criticisms are well based? Senator WALSH —I have seen Press reports this morning reporting Mr Cain as having been critical of yesterday's decision to maintain the import parity pricing policy and associated allocation system for Australian crude oil, a decision which I understand was endorsed publicly-this is worth putting on the record-by both Senator Chaney and Mr Howard. Mr Cain was critical of that decision. In that decision there are revenue implications for both the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria. I have not seen an agreed figure on the revenue implications for the State of Victoria because the calculation is tied to a level of production. One of the major companies concerned, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, puts it at something greater than $20m. The Department of Resources and Energy has a figure of about $28m. That is additional revenue which will accrue in Victoria if the 1 May price is maintained as against the previous price. It would appear from all that that what the Premier of Victoria was saying is that Victoria does not really need the extra revenue which will accrue to Victoria because of that price increase. If that is the case, and given that the Government is facing a very difficult budgetary situation, I think it is reasonable for the Government to take that into account when determining collections from Federal taxpayers that ought to be paid to the State of Victoria, and I will certainly be doing that. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Minister of the Prime Minister's words on 13 November last year when he said: Never in the last decade has there been anything like the combination of favourable economic prospects that now exists. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's comment yesterday at his Press conference when he said: This community cannot simply go on running up debts and living beyond its means. Was the Prime Minister deliberately mis- representing the economic situation in an attempt to get re-elected or have the Government's monetary and fiscal policies, its failure to stand up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and capitulation to the left wing on foreign policy destroyed those bright prospects in the space of just six months? Senator BUTTON —Far be it from me to intrude a personal view. I recall saying last year, at about the same time as the Prime Minister made his remark, that any government would have difficulties with budgetary problems in the next three or four years. Senator Messner took the statement of the Prime Minister out of context and referred to this quotation: 'A favourable combination of economic circumstances now exists'. I do not personally regard that as being inconsistent with what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister. Of course a very favourable set of economic prospects now exists for this country if the difficulties which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday can be properly handled. I am sure that the Prime Minister was referring to the fact in November, as he might have done yesterday, that the Australian economy is basically sound, that we have had a very significant reduction in inflation, and that there has been considerable improvement in employment. A number of indicators of economic importance are very favourable at this time. For those reasons, I do not regard the two statements as being at all inconsistent. Of course it is true that a country cannot live beyond its debts. A question about that has already been addressed to my colleague Senator Walsh, and he answered that question in the same way that I would have, given a similar question. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister's reply not indicate that the Prime Minister was fully aware at the time of his previous statement last November that the country was running up debts and living beyond its means at that stage and consequently that he misled the people during the election campaign? Senator BUTTON —No, it does not indicate anything of the sort. Senator FOREMAN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport state whether Australian National is considering reducing the Bluebird rail service from Mount Gambier to Adelaide? Is the Minister aware that any further reduction of rail services could mean the closure of the Kalangadoo railway station and the consequent redeployment of its workers? Is the Minister also aware that most railway workers and their families do not wish to leave their communities and that the communities suffer economically when they do? Does the Minister agree that any further closure would be in contravention of the undertaking by Australian National that no reduction in services would follow its takeover of the South Australian railways? Senator RYAN —The Minister has provided me with some information on the matter raised in Senator Foreman's question. The Australian National Railways Commission is currently investigating alterations to the Mount Gambier-Adelaide rail passenger services with a view to upgrading the night service. In order to determine passenger preference for departure times, AN recently surveyed Mount Gambier and Naracoorte residents. Due to the inconclusive results of the survey, a decision on the service has yet to be made, but alterations may involve a reduction in the number of day train services. The Minister is not aware of any plans to close the Kalangadoo railway station. Legislation passed in 1983 requires AN to act in a commercial manner, with the goal of reducing the substantial operating losses experienced over the past decade, which, of course, are funded by the taxpayer. In this regard there are no easy options. AN has progressed towards this goal, while at the same time taking account of public interest. The recent purchase by AN of specialised piggyback wagons to carry trucks and other vehicles is part of a strategy to improve business opportunities, which, of course, will benefit the staff. AN's customers are discriminating and they have other transport options. AN can best serve its employees by becoming a more efficient and commercial operation. It has redressed its staff surplus only through natural staff attrition and, more recently, has introduced an early retirement scheme. Some $16m has been provided by the Government for this scheme, which provides an attractive option for long-serving rail workers and their families. The Minister is not aware of any undertaking by AN that there will be no reduction in services. In fact, the transfer agreement provides for South Australia to go to arbitration should it disagree with proposals by AN to reduce services. The best thing that the Government, Australian National and its employees can do to ensure the future viability of the rail system and long term job security is to make AN a more efficient operator relative to its competitors. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Finance to the Prime Minister's Press conference yesterday at which, with respect to the claimed $1 billion spending cut, the Prime Minister said: It represents a cut of $1 billion in the 1985-86 year from what would have been the case if we had in 1985-86 continued the policies operating in 1984-85. The Minister has already confirmed that this simply means a reduction against the forward estimates of expenditure. Can the Minister confirm that the reduction effected from that figure in 1983-84 was more than $1,600m and in 1984-85 more than $1,300m, so that these reductions from the forward estimates this year are less than in each of the last two years? I further ask the Minister: What would have been the total expenditure required to continue the 1984-85 policies in 1985-86 without the $1 billion reduction? Senator WALSH —I certainly will not answer the last question. I have had, I suppose, a couple of dozen journalists pestering me with that question for about the last two months. I have not answered any of them and I will not answer Senator Vanstone. Senator Chipp —Give Brian Toohey a ring on the phone. Senator WALSH —Go and wash the blood off your hands. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I ask you to ignore the interjection and answer Senator Vanstone's question. Senator WALSH —Normally I would, Mr President, but when the interjection comes from the former Minister who officially presided over the first death lottery in 1965-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to answer Senator Vanstone's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I do not have in my head what the margin was between the ultimate estimate of expenditure for this year and the 1984-85 forward estimates of expenditure. I do know, though, that there was a massive reduction in the forward estimates of the deficit issued in March 1983 when the discredited former Treasurer was removed from office, because he had left this Government with a prospective Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. However, the origin of a great deal of that record and irresponsible deficit did not appear as Budget outlays because the Fraser Government and the former Treasurer preferred the devious route of hiding expenditure by transferring it from outlays to taxation concessions. At the time that the discredited former Treasurer brought in his last and worst Budget that particular subterfuge was used to a quite alarming degree because it had the additional advantage not only of hiding expenditure by transferring it from outlays to taxation forgone but also it deferred at that time the cost of the hand-outs which were announced in the 1982 Budget to the next financial year. It did so because when a new tax expenditure is announced, minus only the degree to which it can be utilised by pay as you earn taxpayers, the cost of that tax expenditure is deferred in to the next year. That is precisely the subterfuge which the discredited former Treasurer used to a record degree when he introduced his last Budget in 1982, because of course the Fraser Government was contemplating the premature election which it ultimately called and which led to its removal from office. But that bit of fiddling with the books, which the former Treasurer had done, of course left this Government with a tremendous problem-the tremendous problem of coping with the inherited cost, the Budget blow-out caused by the wild and irresponsible spending spree of the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer. We had considerable difficulty coping with that. I am not sure how much was taken off the forward estimates of that year because the forward estimates, by definition, include only estimated outlays. Nor, as I said before, am I certain how much was taken off the forward estimates of outlays produced in early 1984 for this financial year, but I will get that figure and supply it to Senator Vanstone. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the Minister consider that any purpose would be served by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, attending the meeting of procedural specialists in Sydney next Saturday? Will Mr Hawke be attending? Senator GRIMES —I certainly do not see any purpose in Mr Hawke, Mr Wran or others attending the meeting of procedural specialists which has been called, as Senator Sibraa says, in Sydney next Saturday. Mr Hawke and, I understand, Mr Wran and others were invited by Dr Shepherd, the president of the procedural specialists, to explain the offer that the Government has made to the Australian Medical Association in an effort to settle the New South Wales dispute. That offer has been developed and has been explained at any number of meetings with representatives of the medical profession. Recently Dr Shepherd and his colleagues wrote to both the Prime Minister and the Premier asking for further minor explanations, and those letters have been replied to. Despite that, Dr Shepherd, within a few hours of the offer being announced, said that he believed it was unacceptable, that he was not going to accept it and that he expected his members would not accept it. Dr Shepherd will be chairing the meeting next Saturday and he will sit there with 200 proxy votes which he may use himself, as he did at the last meeting. At the last meeting about 400 people attended-it is expected there will be fewer people this time-and those 200 proxy votes will decide any result, and the chance of Dr Shepherd changing his mind in the light of his statements I would expect is very unlikely. Senator Crowley —How many proxy dollars? Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney and his colleagues have put several questions to Senator Walsh this morning about people living beyond their means. I would like to point out that the claims of Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney and his colleagues would increase the public expenditure this year by $1,000m and would serve only to bloat the pockets of people such as Dr Shepherd, who earn many times the average weekly earnings in this country. Mr Hawke has announced and has informed Dr Shepherd that he will not be attending. I understand, after hearing Mr Wran, that it is most unlikely that he or any representative will attend. The Federal Australian Medical Association sees no purpose in attending. Explanatory letters, explaining why we will not go, have also been written. The result of the meeting is almost a fait accompli. So in answer to Senator Sibraa I can see no purpose in the Government sending a representative to a meeting of this type. I just hope that a sufficient number of people at the meeting will convince Dr Shepherd that he should take notice of the fact that the plebiscite conducted by the AMA shows that the overwhelming percentage of doctors in this country believe that Dr Shepherd and his colleagues should return to work, should cease their industrial action. One can only hope that that will occur at this next meeting, but I do not think one can have too much faith in that result. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Finance, follows the question asked by Senator Vanstone. I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 1 for the last two years. At page 257 of Budget Paper No. 1 for 1983-84 it was pointed out: Decisions have been made to reduce expenditure by $1,214m on a range of programs inherited from the previous Government. At page 273 of Budget Paper No. 1 for 1984-85 it is pointed out that the Government pruned the forward estimates by $1,315m. I ask the Minister: Does not this indicate that the much vaunted $1,000m cuts that the Prime Minister announced yesterday amount to something less than has been achieved by the same Government in each of the last two years and that, therefore, the announcement is scarcely relevant to the international concerns which exist about the Government's programs and that this is simply the puffing of the normal procedures of preparing a Budget? Senator WALSH —I take it that the purpose of that question, consistent with the actions of the Liberal Party in February 1983, is to try to talk down the Australian dollar. The Opposition is again engaged in economic sabotage. Members of the Opposition are economic traitors practising economic sabotage. The present leader of the Liberal Party said in 1983 that if a Labor government were elected there would be a massive flight of capital from the country and the dollar would have to be devalued. There was a flight of capital from the country, as a result of which Australian taxpayers, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, lost hundreds of millions of dollars to international currency speculators. That was a result of the sabotage perpetrated by the present Leader of the Opposition. The dollar, of course, is now floating and Australian taxpayers cannot be robbed by foreign speculators, as they were in 1983. Nevertheless, some damage can be done to any country if a disloyal opposition insists on continuing to run a policy of economic sabotage. That is by way of introduction. I do not know whether the figures quoted by Senator Chaney are correct because I do not have the two relevant Budget Papers here. However, I take it that the implication of his question is that the Government is obliged every year to make expenditure cuts of greater magnitude than it made the previous year. I do not regard that as a reasonable expectation of or a reasonable demand to be made upon any government. The further any government goes in exercising control over expenditure and reining in the irresponsible spending of its predecessor-in turning around the wild spending spree upon which Mr Fraser and Mr Howard embarked in their last year in government-the more difficult it becomes every year the exercise proceeds. Having shaved off, so Senator Chaney tells me, something in excess of $1 billion in the previous two years, I think any government which manages to take off a further $1 billion in the third year is practising an extremely disciplined approach to public expenditure. This Government is doing so. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the document relating to the 1983-84 Budget and ask the Minister for Finance whether he acknowledges that in the same Budget the Government introduced new policies with increased outlays of $2.485 billion. In other words, instead of practising restraint, the Government increased expenditure by $2.485 billion. I ask him whether, in light of that fact, he will reconsider his answer about restraint being shown by the Government and admit that the Government's present budgetary problems are totally of its own making, its having increased expenditure to record levels in the last Budget. Senator WALSH —There was a significant element of new policy in the 1983-84 Budget. I cannot say off the top of my head how much it was, but certainly there was a significant element of new policy in it and, therefore, of increased outlays attributable to that new policy. The reason for that is related to an answer I gave earlier; that is, the subterfuge employed by the Fraser-Howard Government when Mr Howard was Treasurer of concealing the true level of outlays by transferring them to tax expenditures, by substituting tax expenditures for Budget outlays. In that case, as I said earlier, that subterfuge had the additional advantage of sending the cost of that wild spending spree on to the next Government instead of the previous Government having to pick up the bill for it. That was a bonus as far as the previous Government was concerned. A significant extent of our new policy spending in 1983-84 with a carry-over into 1984-85 was that this Government terminated many of the tax expenditures of the previous Government and converted them to Budget outlays. The first of the two biggest items-there were a number of others-was the conversion of the previous Government's taxation deduction for interest paid on housing loans into the first home owners assistance scheme, a scheme which was much more equitable and cost-effective because it was targeted on the marginal home buyer instead of being an across the board handout. The other major change was related to the introduction of the Medicare policy and the transfer of what had been a tax expenditure under the previous Government to a Budget outlay under this Government. Senator HEARN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. As the year 1985 has been declared by the United Nations as the International Year of the Forest, has the Government considered a national forestry policy to repair the devastation caused to trees and soil in Australia since settlement? Would this not be a substantial way of marking our two-hundredth anniversary, and would it not be also a valuable training-employment opportunity? Senator WALSH —The Government is committed to a national approach to the protection of the environment and rehabilitation of degraded areas. It has already implemented a soil conservation scheme and is directing funds to a national tree program, particularly through the community employment program. Budgetary resources preclude large-scale reafforestation schemes, at least in the near future. I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry to see whether he has anything to add to the answer I have given. Senator COLLARD —I refer the Minister for Finance to the Prime Minister's Press conference yesterday, at which he said: Of course the other thing which has affected the forward estimates is the whole volatility of the currency. Will the Minister advise the Senate what effect the volatility of the currency has had on the forward estimates of expenditure? How much has this volatility added to the cost of continuing 1984-85 policies into 1985-86? Senator WALSH —There are a number of rather technical terms and somewhat arbitrary variants of technical terms used in talking about this subject. Forward estimates and adjusted forward estimates are somewhat arbitrary terms. A forward estimate, according to some definitions, is an estimate of expenditure under programs for which there is no continuing legislative backing. Those forward estimates are then sometimes, and I would expect always, adjusted. A judgment is made about programs which do not have continuing legislative backing and some allowance is made for those in the forward estimates. This year, for example, there is no continuing legislative requirement for the Commonwealth to pay any share of Commonwealth taxation receipts to the States. I must say that sometimes that is a tempting option. There was an expectation, which was accepted, that, of course, there would have to be significant continuing Commonwealth payments to the States, even though there was no continuing legislative requirement to do so. I am not sure of the context in which the Prime Minister said that. The definition of a forward estimate, about which the Prime Minister, a number of other people and I have been talking for the last couple of months, is that, broadly speaking, there are programs for which there is a continuing legislative requirement and programs for which it is deemed, somewhat arbitrarily, that there is a practically inescapable requirement, such as the one I have cited. The devaluation of the currency has made a significant difference, or it would if those forward estimates were to be updated. I expect that the point the Prime Minister was making-I will check with him later-was that, because of devaluation, the cost of government purchases overseas has risen substantially since the forward estimates were prepared because they were prepared on a different exchange rate. I am not sure what the exchange rate was but it would have been something above 80c. That is certainly not applicable at present and it may or may not be applicable in the future. A reassessment of those estimates based on today's exchange rates obviously leads to a very significant increase in the Australian dollar cost of items which are purchased overseas, principally defence equipment. I expect that it was in that context that the Prime Minister made that comment. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister seen an article in the Age newspaper today referring to the success of Repco Australia in Launceston in managing repetitive strain injury in that company by joint action by management and unions? The plant manager, Mr James, states that the rehabilitation and prevention program has reduced working hours lost due to repetitive strain injury from 3,960 in 1982 to nil so far in 1985 and has saved $14,000 a year by halving the company's workers compensation payments. Can the Minister comment on this success story, particularly in the light of the reduced costs to industry and the encouragement for further employment, as well as the satisfactory outcome for workers? Can the Minister draw the attention of this program to the Public Service task force which is looking at RSI? Senator WALSH —I have no knowledge of this matter, but I will see that a report of the results of that study are referred to the Public Service Board task force which is inquiring into the matter. On the question of repetitive strain injury, I must say that I think it should be approached in a calmer way than it has been by a number of people. Given that for RSI, as distinct from tenosynovitis, there is no precise medical diagnosis of the condition, nor is there any easily explainable anatomical cause, a good deal of caution should be exercised in making judgments about this. There is a belief-I pass no judgment on whether it is correct or not-that the complaints are partially psychosomatic. If there is any truth in that belief I do not think it does any good at all to talk up the question, particularly when there are clearly some commercial interests who stand to gain if the problem which exists is exaggerated beyond its true proportions. Some obvious examples of those who have a potential interest because of the potentially larger market are those who supply paramedical services and equipment and what is delightfully known as ergonomic furniture. However, I will certainly make sure that the results of that study Senator Crowley outlined are referred to the Public Service Board task force. Senator CROWLEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister make a comment about the reduced costs to industry and the encouragement for further employment that these figures present? I resist asking him to refrain from medical opinion. Senator WALSH —Well, if it really happens, obviously it is a good thing. It is like motherhood. Who could be opposed to it? I have no idea how soundly based those claims are. I will have it assessed by the task force. Senator SHEIL —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, follows the Press statement released by the Minister for Primary Industry today after his meeting with the President of the National Farmers Federation. Does the Minister believe that the Minister for Primary Industry's reference to the President of the National Farmers Federation as 'rather immature' is a satisfactory response to the farm costs problem? Does the Government believe that its farm costs summit has been a successful means of reducing farm costs? Has the Government finally resolved its estimates of the costs of tariff protection on agricultural production? Senator WALSH —I was present at that meeting last night, as indeed I was at the previous meeting, but I have seen neither Mr Kerin's Press statement nor the Press statement or other comments from Mr McLachlan to which presumably the Minister's statement was a response. Senator Sheil asked whether the Government had clarified its attitude to the cost of tariffs to primary industry. I am not sure what he was trying to get at there, but as a result of technical discussions conducted between public servants from Treasury and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the staff of the National Farmers Federation, the assessment of that cost which had previously been made by the NFF has been cut in half. The assessment previously made by the Government has been increased somewhat. I do not have the precise figures with me, but they have come close together. There are still disagreements on purely technical grounds about some other matters. One point which was made at the meeting and which, I suggest, Senator Sheil take on board is that the existing structure of a great deal of Australian industry, both in the primary industry sector and in the manufacturing industry sector, is structurally inefficient and that because so much of Australian industry is structurally inefficient there are significant problems. The point was also made-this would be correct for both the manufacturing sector and the primary industry sector-that the basis for that structural inefficiency was laid down in the 1960s under and virtually at the directive of a former leader of Senator Sheil's Party, Sir John McEwen. It might be instructive for Senator Sheil to look over the McEwen record with respect to a particular Australian industry which has very great structural problems. I refer to the motor vehicle industry. In the early 1960s the Australian motor vehicle industry was, by the standards of Australian industry in general, relatively efficient; that is, it had an effective protection level of about 30 per cent and a healthy growth rate. After almost 10 years under the tutelage of Sir John McEwen, and in the period beyond that because of the policies which he had laid down, principally in the local content plan, the Australian motor vehicle industry had an effective protection rate of about 90 per cent. It was struggling to maintain its existing level of output and was certainly unprofitable compared to what it had been in the early 1960s. That is very unfortunate. One of the other points made last night was that no government can be expected to turn around in a couple of years the accumulated problems of structural inefficiency caused by almost two decades of bad government. During almost all of those two decades Senator Sheil's Party was not only in coalition with the Liberal Party but also was the primary architect of the very structural inefficiency about which he and the National Farmers Federation now complain. Senator ZAKHAROV —Can the Minister for Education inform the Senate of the financial arrangements which are available in the Australian Capital Territory for the tertiary students who may need to take out loans to supplement their tertiary education assistance scheme allowances? Senator RYAN —The arrangements in institutions in the Australian Capital Territory would be similar to those in institutions throughout Australia. I am just looking to see whether I have any specific information. Every tertiary institution has been allocated an amount of money. Honourable senators will recall that that money was got by reducing the per capita non-needs based subsidy to residential colleges. The institutions themselves have been asked to draw up procedures for making the loans available to the students, although guidelines were issued from the Tertiary Education Commission to the institutions. Those guidelines emphasised the need to give priority to students who needed to live away from home and who had difficulty meeting their accommodation expenses, whether those accommodation expenses were at a residential institution or in private accommodation. The guidelines also stipulated that there ought to be student representation on the committees that make the decisions about the allocation of funds and that students should have access to those funds either on a loan basis with a no-interest condition of repayment, on a loan basis with a subsidised interest repayment or, in some cases of extreme need, by an outright grant to the student which would not require repayment. To date I have not had a specific report from the institutions but I hope that students are benefiting from this more equitable use of funds available for accommodation needs than was the case in the past. I will ask the Tertiary Education Commission for a specific report from institutions in the Australian Capital Territory-the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education-and I will make that information available to Senator Zakharov. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The Minister will undoubtedly have seen the text of a speech given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, to a National Meeting of Concern on science and technology held in Canberra on 16 April in which Senator Button said, in attempting to justify the false proposition that there had been an increase in appropriations to support scientific research: But it is other innovations in which the biggest increases are in the pipeline, and if you then add those to the appropriations for existing schemes and bodies, a very significant increase in science and technology funding is evident. As I said, some of these figures are perforce estimates, but they are as follows, projected for 1985-86: 150% tax concession, revenue forgone: $80m . . . Since the Minister for Finance has today described the transfers of outlays to taxation concessions, when compiling figures on expenditure, as 'devious' and as a 'subterfuge', will he now brand Senator Button as a devious practitioner of subterfuge in his comments made to the scientific community? Senator WALSH —I presume that that is the bottom of the barrel question. It certainly takes the prize for puerility. It may surprise Senator Puplick to know that I have not read Senator Button's speech, although a very good speech I am sure it was. I do have a few things to do these days other than to read Senator Button's speeches, much less Senator Puplick's. But I will take Senator Puplick's word for it that Senator Button said that the estimated cost of the 150 per cent deduction was what he claimed it was. Senator Puplick then attempts to equate that with what the Fraser Government did in its last year in office. The full year cost of the assortment of tax concessions which the Fraser Government offered in its last year in office was, from memory, about $600m or $700m, all added on in one year in a Budget prepared by a devious Government, led by a devious Treasurer and a devious Prime Minister, in preparation for a premature election. It was a Budget full of handouts with no economic strategy whatsoever. It was a political strategy designed to buy up and bribe a sufficient number of pressure groups to satisfy that Government's desperate desire to cling on to power. Those were the circumstances in which the host, the gaggle, of tax expenditures of 1982 appeared, by a Government which wanted to bribe the electorate and to devise a method of not including the cost of those bribes in its current year's estimates or its current year's deficit. The devious former Government worked out a strategy to transfer the cost of that to the next Government, which it hoped would be itself but which, of course, turned out to be another. That is not the circumstance in which the policy to which Senator Button apparently referred recently was conceived. That was conceived in the circumstances of a government that everybody knew would be returned to office and would be held responsible for the things that it had done, for its own deficit, a government which knew it would have to accept responsibility for the policies that it had put in place. That is quite different from the expectations of the previous Government, apart, of course, from the enormous difference in the order of magnitude of the figures. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I ask whether the Minister has noticed a report in yesterday's Courier-Mail quoting the Queensland Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn, as asserting that: Thousands of Queensland school leavers were missing out on a tertiary education because of unfair Federal Government funding. What is the accuracy of this statement and of other claims made by Mr Gunn at the same time? Senator RYAN —The statement is quite inaccurate. I am growing rather tired of having to point out the inaccuracies of the statements that are made repeatedly by various Ministers in Queensland, which demonstrate, perhaps, the bad effects of a lack of tertiary education provision in the past. They seem unable to deal with the facts of the matter, which have been put on the record not only by me in this place a number of times, and in public statements and Press statements in Queensland and in statements by my Federal colleagues, but indeed by the reports of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission itself. The fact of the matter is that Queensland, under our funding and participation policies, is actually receiving favoured treatment in terms of the number of tertiary places available in that State. The reason why there is a lower participation rate in tertiary education in Queensland than in any other State in Australia is historical and one for which successive State Governments in Queensland are mainly responsible. The backlog in participation ratios in Queensland developed in those years prior to 1974, when higher education funding was the responsibility of State governments. During those years, years in which the Liberal Party and the National Party in coalition governed Queensland, there was a very low expenditure on higher education. As a result, the participation rates in tertiary education were very low. It is also a fact, as it has been for many years, that expenditure on secondary education is also low in Queensland by comparison with other States, and, therefore, the number of students completing secondary education and thereby qualifying themselves to go on to tertiary education is still lower than it ought to be and lower than it is in other States. Another contributing factor to the lower participation rates in tertiary education is that technical and further education represents the largest sector of tertiary education, and the recurrent funding for TAFE is still mainly a State responsibility, although, of course, the Commonwealth contributes to the recurrent funding of TAFE and makes a generous contribution, up to 70 per cent, of capital funding for TAFE. Nonetheless, it is not possible for greatly increased participation of numbers in TAFE unless State governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities and make adequate numbers of teachers available. All those historic reasons, which are results of Queensland State Government decisions, contribute to the present situation in which there is a lower participation in tertiary education in Queensland than that in other States. Since the Hawke Government has been in office we have made very effective efforts to overcome that problem. For example, of the 3,000 extra higher education places made available in our first Budget, 700 went to Queensland, so Queensland got the lion's share of those extra places for 1984. In last year's Budget, again, funding is made available for an extra 15,000 tertiary places over the triennium, and again a much higher than simply per capita proportion of those places will go to the State of Queensland. The percentage set out by the Tertiary Education Commission of enrolment growth for Queensland for the triennium is 9 per cent as against the national average growth of 6 per cent. I do not want to go into tedious lengths about this matter. In fact, it should not have been necessary for me yet again to correct a statement emanating from the Government in Queensland. I hope that all who are interested in tertiary education in Queensland will address themselves to the facts. I hope that, in particular, Ministers in the Queensland Government will stop making these misleading and erroneous statements, which can attract only justified criticism to their own performance and compliments to the performance of the Hawke Government in this area. Senator VIGOR —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware of a report in the Age of 13 April headed ' ''Junk Mail'' means profit for all, says eager Australia Post'? The article states: Late last year, Australia Post sent a letter to about 30,000 organisations asking them to be included in a catalogue of mailing lists available for rental or sale. Is the catalogue, known as 'the list of lists', to be distributed free of charge by Australia Post? Does the Minister approve of this involvement of Australia Post in facilitating direct mailing of unsolicited advertising material? If the Minister does not approve, what action does he intend to take? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Minister that Australia Post is established as an independent statutory authority and is required, under its Act, to perform in a commercial manner without support from taxpayers' funds. I expect the view would be taken that that is a commercial activity. Senator WALSH —Senator Sir John Carrick yesterday asked me a question in which he referred to a question he had asked me on 28 February in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy. I apologise for not having procured a reply before this. It is a fairly lengthy reply. I will read it if the honourable senator wishes; otherwise I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the Honourable Senator's question: On 27 February 1985 I announced that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) and associated legislation would be introduced as soon as possible to provide for a determination of service areas and related technical conditions for licensed broadcasters, the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The introduction of the service area amendments will streamline and modernise existing legislation and enable it to cope with the demands for new and technologically advanced services. While it is proposed to apply the service area concept to the SBS, no changes will be made to its operating provisions until the Government has made a decision on its future role. The Committee of Review of the SBS reported to the Government on 31 December 1984. A number of recommendations contained in the Report would, if accepted, require changes in the present legislation. I will also be making a statement on this aspect when the Government has had an opportunity to consider the Report. The Government intends to introduce amendments to the ABC Act during the Budget sittings which will invest the ABC with a greater degree of freedom in the exercise of its powers and functions under the legislation. Specifically, the amendments will empower the ABC to: establish subsidy companies to undertake business activities appropriate to the activities of the ABC in association with private companies; provide for the forfeiture of office of ABC employees on certain grounds consistent with the provisions of the Public Service Act; and enable the ABC to employ staff as unattached officers consistent with the Public Service Act. Amendments will also repeal the Minister for Communications' power to prohibit broadcasts as this is a power which is considered to be incompatible with the freedom of a democratic society in time of peace. The position of the staff elected Director on the ABC Board will also be formalised in time for future elections. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.08) —Mr President, I propose to raise a matter relating to privilege after the matter of urgency which is to come before the chamber. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 23 April, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide adequate information to enable proper judgment to be made of its economic policies.' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide adequate information to enable proper judgment to be made of its economic policies. The Opposition brings forward this matter of urgency because it believes that it is quite apparent that there is a serious situation facing Australia in the lack of confidence that has developed in the policies of this Government. We think it is serious that the Government is not addressing these problems in an honest and direct way that is likely to provide a solution. We had the extraordinary situation that yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took the trouble to make a statement that was indicated as being important, to hold a Press conference, and to have something of a media blitz on the proposition that the Government was going to move to present a major statement on expenditure to the Parliament in May. The Prime Minister's statement says that the statement will cover major expenditure savings decisions contributing to a reduction of at least $1 billion in 1985-86 Commonwealth outlays. The uncertainty with which the Prime Minister has expressed the meaning of his intentions and the inability of the Prime Minister to be specific about precisely what this undertaking means has done nothing but add to the uncertainty that surrounds the future of this Government. In a way today's Question Time brought out the difficulties that are faced by the Government in convincing a sceptical and ever more sceptical financial community that it is serious and that it is being honest in its dealings with the public and the Australian community generally. All this fuss is about a purported reduction of $1 billion in 1985-86 Commonwealth outlays. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, made it quite clear today that we are talking about a $1 billion reduction in the forward estimates of expenditure. It is also apparent from the questions that were asked today, if not from the answers, that what is being puffed up is no more than the normal budgetary preparation which goes on each year and which results in the Government pruning the initial estimates that departments have laid out for the following financial year. In Question Time today the Opposition quoted from the Budget Papers of previous years, and let me do so again. In 1983-84, the first year of the Hawke Government, that Government set about precisely the task which it is currently undertaking and which is the subject of the announcement that we are to have in May. The fact of the matter is that in that year, according to the Budget Papers, the Government made decisions to reduce expenditure by $1,214m; in other words, nearly 25 per cent more than the $1 billion about which the Prime Minister made such a fuss yesterday. In the following year the Government went through the same exercise and managed an even greater reduction-a reduction which, on the face of the Budget Papers, was $1,315m. It was going through exactly the same process as it is going through at the moment. Of course, it is a process that the Fraser Government went through and it is a process which any government necessarily goes through. Senator Walsh tried to make some virtue out of the cumulative effect of the saving efforts of this Government. That was a pathetic and, in my view, dishonest attempt to find virtue where there is none and a rather pathetic attempt to obscure the facts. It is typical of why I believe that the financial community-the international community in particular-is losing confidence in this Government. Senator Walsh was saying that it becomes harder each time to prune, that each time one prunes one gets into harder wood. He ignored the fact that, under this Government, there have been very substantial rises in expenditure. He ignored the fact that, in the first Budget, discretionary decisions by the new Government increased outlays by $2,485m and he ignored the fact that there was a massive increase in outlays last year. It is simply rubbish to assert that, in some way, this Government has been cutting back on expenditure when we have currently a Budget which is the highest spending Budget in Australia's history. What has happened is important for Australia and it is also important for this Government. What has happened is that the credibility of the Government is crumbling. That is affecting Australia's standing internationally, and that is affecting our currency. Senator Walsh tried today to blackmail the Opposition out of making any comment about the deficiencies in the Government's performance. He accused us of acting in a way which was disloyal to Australia. I can only say, in response to that, that it is the duty of this Opposition to point out to the Government the error of its ways and to endeavour to get the Government to behave in a way which is more consistent with Australia's interests. There are two broad areas where this Government's credibility is crumbling. It is crumbling with respect to the perception of its having any ability to control expenditure. It is rather nice that, in this debate, we actually have two Ministers in the chamber. We have Senator Walsh and sitting next to him is his colleague the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. Of course, Senator Walsh has good cause to know that Senator Ryan has been a major contributor to that growing uncertainty about the Government's capacity to control expenditure. Her resort to Caucus to get the reversal of a decision on university fees was, of course-- Senator Ryan —Get your facts right. You are absolutely wrong. Senator CHANEY —Perhaps the Minister can enter into this debate later and give us the facts. The fact of the matter is that Caucus made it clear that it was not going to have any truck with Senator Walsh's proposal. We had the spectre of the bad old days of the Whitlam Labor Government being raised by many people and waved around the heads of members of this Government. But in any event it is good to know that Senator Ryan is, unusually, in the chamber and will participate in the debate. I look forward to her participation. Mr Deputy President, that really touches on the second area of great uncertainty, and that is the uncertainty as to whether this Government still has the ability to govern at all. Of course that is a related issue because we know of the factionalism in the Australian Labor Party, the factionalism that poor Senator Walsh tries to find repeated in our Party. His pathetic attempts to do that are again an example of the intellectual dishonesty that is beginning to afflict the Government. The fact of the matter is that we have a faction-ridden Labor Party which last weekend saw its major State conference in Victoria reduced to a bout of fisticuffs. We have a situation where the ability of the Government to act is totally circumscribed by its relationship with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a situation where on major issues of economic management the agreement which has been made by the Government with the trade union movement is at odds with the decisions which this Government knows it should be taking in the national interest. We have here a situation of great uncertainty. This uncertainty is damaging to Australia and there is a need for this Government to address those areas of uncertainty and find remedies. We have recently had floating around this chamber allegations of intellectual dishonesty. It was suggested by Mr Duncan that Senator Walsh had engaged in arguments which could not be said to have been intellectually honest. Senator Walsh responded vigorously to that in this chamber last Friday. I believe that it is time Senator Walsh, as the Acting Treasurer and as the Minister for Finance, pondered the reality of the Government of which he is part because I believe the fundamental lack of any showing of intellectual honesty at the moment is at the heart of the problems that it has with the financial community. The reality is that it is the lack of intellectual honesty in the statements being made by the Prime Minister, in particular, but also by Senator Walsh as one of the senior spokesmen for this Government, that is eroding the confidence of the community in this Government. To some extent Senator Walsh cannot be blamed as he is as much a prisoner as a master of the system; but it is also true that he is a major contributor to some of the canards that are run by this Government and, in particular, his dishonest trumpeting of the argument about the $9.6 billion deficit, which I will come to a little later, is one of the contributing factors to the discrediting of the Government of which he is part. We know that the Government cannot deal honestly with the reality of devaluation-it cannot do so because of the ACTU-and so it temporises, stumbles, fumbles and mumbles and simply refuses to face up to the economic realities that the community is waiting for it to face up to. One simple line would fix the uncertainties about the effects of devaluation on the Australian economy. All that this Government has to say is that it will urge the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to discount wage rises to the extent that devaluation-induced consumer price index increases occur. That is all that is required. But the sad fact of the matter is that the ACTU has this Government in its thrall and it is simply not open to Senator Walsh or the Prime Minister to get on their feet and make that simple statement. Instead we get generalisations about preventing the deleterious flow-on of price increases which are caused by devaluation. The Government is simply incapable of facing up to that simple central statement which is required of it. The Government cannot deal honestly with questions of expenditure, and I draw the Senate's attention again to the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday. The Government has made a big deal out of nothing and it will be seen to have made a big deal out of nothing. The usual procedure followed by governments every year-a procedure over which my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle presided for the years she was Minister for Finance-is that they prune the forward estimates. Look at the existing commitments this Government has made-the commitments of the trilogy, the commitments that the Prime Minister keeps repeating as his demonstration of his bona fides in the economic field. We do not find in the statement of yesterday that the Government is claiming that it will be able to better the commitments it has made on previous occasions; all we find is that the Government is saying that the May statement will allow the Government to meet its trilogy commitments for 1985-86. There is nothing new in that. The Prime Minister has been saying that over and over again since last November, and the trumpeting of yesterday advances us no further down that track. What we have is the same tired repetition of the Government's failure to come to grips with the central problem that arises from depreciation. If I may again quote the statement, the Prime Minister says: The recent depreciation provides Australia with a great opportunity to boost production and employment in export and import competing industries. We would say amen to that, Mr Deputy President. He goes on to say: To seize this opportunity we must avoid the dissipation of our improved competitiveness through a new inflationary cycle. That could be done if the Government grasped the nettle I have referred to, but instead it refused to do so. This Government is continuing to try to mislead, to shade the facts and to hide the facts. I ask the Senate to look at the first answer that the Prime Minister gave in this Press conference yesterday, when he said: From day one we moved to cut government expenditures in a way which would enable the deficit to be brought down. That is simply untrue. It is untrue that this Government moved from day one to cut expenditure so that the deficit would be brought down. It is untrue that this Government brought the expenditure down. I have already quoted from the Budget Papers which this Government produced and it cut expenditure by $1.2 billion and then increased expenditure by $2.5 billion. The Prime Minister misled Australia again at his Press conference. He cannot tell the truth on economic matters and that is why the markets are so doubtful about the Government. This brings me to the point at which Senator Walsh is so much at fault. Senator Walsh is one of those who has gone around trying to spread the impression that the Fraser Government had a deficit of $9.6 billion. Let me read what the deficits were under the Fraser Government. In its first Budget it was $2.7 billion. In the second Budget it was $3.3 billion. In its third Budget it was $3.4 billion. In its fourth Budget it was $2 billion. In its fifth Budget it was $1.1 billion. In its sixth Budget it was $548 million; its highest deficit in its last year was $4.4 billion. There has been no $9.6 billion deficit. It has been a dishonest argument put forward by this Government that there has been. The fact is that the forward estimates which this Government will not release, and has not released since 1983-84, suggested expenditure which would have given rise to a $9.6 billion deficit in the first year of the Labor Government. Of course, this Labor Government did not accept that. It set about an expenditure pruning operation and, notwithstanding the fact that it also increased discretionary expenditures, its deficit was not $9.6 billion but $7.9 billion. The fact of the matter is that this Government was able to increase its programs, to institute new expenditure and still reduce the deficit to more than $1.6 billion less than that fictional $9.6 billion figure. I simply want to say to Senator Walsh that for so long as he persists in using dishonest arguments in this chamber and elsewhere, the international financial community will continue to hold in contempt the public statements of this Government which are not statements on which anybody can rely. The reality is that the $9.6 billion deficit figure is a hoax, and it is as much a hoax as the figure which the Prime Minister put before us yesterday when he suggested there was something new in the normal $1 billion pruning that has gone on over recent months. There are plenty of statements from Australian Labor Party people, from members of this Government, which indicate that Senator Walsh and others have been peddling a lie in this area. Mr Keating was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 July 1984 as saying: If Mr. Fraser had remained in power their Budget deficit would have been about $6.5 billion. Mr Hurford is quoted in Hansard on 2 April 1984 as saying: They- that is, the members of the Liberal Party of Australia- would have had a deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion less than we have been prepared to have. Of course, the final proof is that when this Government was asked to do no more than produce the same forward estimates in 1984-85 that it produced in 1983-84, it refused, because we were told by Mr Hawke and Mr Dawkins that those figures were unreliable, illusory and so on. It is a shame that a Minister such as Senator Walsh, who is prone to give us all lectures on economic probity and who reacted so sharply to the suggestion that he had been guilty of intellectual dishonesty, should lend himself to this sort of activity, which is so destructive of the Government of which he is a part and of the country he is seeking to serve. A whole series of questions has to be answered-no doubt we will not get answers until next May-about this so-called $1 billion saving. However, it certainly appears from the information we have now that what hard-working Minister Walsh has been able to achieve is something less than was achieved in the last two Budgets in terms of reductions in the forward estimates. It appears-we do not know whether it is because of the Caucus, because of Senator Ryan, or for whatever reason-that the cuts which are to be announced are less than the cuts which were effected to programs in the first two years. Yet Senator Walsh has been working with a current Budget which presents the highest expenditure in Australia's history. So he cannot claim that he is not cutting into a fat beast. He is cutting into the fattest beast in Australia's history and he has produced the smallest result of recent years. We will want to know from this Government and, perhaps more importantly, the general community and the financial community will want to know, what is the base from which this $1 billion is being cut. What are the forward estimates figures? The sooner the forward estimates figures are released the sooner there will be some certainty in this area. Not a lot of time is left to me in this debate, but I wish to make a couple of other points. We have the problem of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Senator Walsh is very keen in these debates to stress the lack of resolve of previous governments, particularly previous Liberal governments. He is very fond of pointing to the efforts of his own Government as showing a much better style and class. I say only that I hope Senator Walsh will not hide the fact that in terms of Budget deficits and of increases in government expenditure, the results of the Government of which he is a part have been grievously in excess of any of the results achieved by the Fraser Government. In other words, in those negative senses, we find that the Hawke Government is running Budget deficits which average 3.8 per cent of gross domestic product as against Mr Fraser's 2.3 per cent. We find that expenditure under the Hawke Government is growing by about 7 per cent per annum in real terms on average, compared with growth under the Fraser Government of around 2 per cent. The real cause of this Government's difficulties was Mr Hawke's insistence on a pre-election Budget last year. I believe that the 1982 Budget brought down by Mr Fraser was correctly reflationary in a period when there was a great drop in private expenditure. There was no similar reason for the sort of Budget which was brought down last year. Indeed, the difficulties the Government now faces are the direct result of its irresponsible Budget last year. It made large increases in discretionary expenditure. It squandered the one-off surge in tax collections and maintained a fiscal stance at recession levels instead of coming back to earth. The Government stands condemned. Only if it becomes honest in its pronouncements on economic matters will Australia get back on course and people respect us. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.29) —The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, opened his speech by boasting about the series of questions the Opposition asked today, which apparently the Opposition has concluded was highly effective. As a result of those questions, the Opposition made the great discovery that the reductions of the order of $1 billion to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was referring yesterday were reductions from the forward estimates of expenditure. I have been telling journalists that for about the last two months. I have been telling them that that was the sort of target the Government had and was the base from which the forward estimates figure would be measured. So all the questions the Opposition was asking revealed nothing except an attempt by it to find out what the forward estimates figure was. As I have been doing for the last two months, I refused to give the Opposition that figure. Senator Chaney has repeated the rather puerile points made during Question Time by way of questions from the Opposition that the actual 1983-84 Budget amounted to $1.2 billion below the figure for the forward estimates of expenditure. As I said during Question Time, it was very much easier to cut into the programs which the Fraser Government presided over during the wild spending spree period in its last desperate year in office than it is to cut into a leaner Budget. Nevertheless, it was not entirely without pain that those cuts were made from forward estimates in our first Budget. Senator Chaney placed great emphasis on the fact that for the 1984-85 Budget, estimates of outlays were $1.3 billion lower than they were in the forward estimates. Therefore, said Senator Chaney, the effort the Government is making this year is puny and puerile compared to the effort it made last year. Superficially there may be something in that, but in fact there is not. The forward estimates published early in 1984 contained, as do all forward estimates, an estimated deflator. The deflator on which those estimates were based was 9 per cent. I believed at the time that the figure was too high, as did many others. The figure was produced by Treasury, the Secretary of which at that time was Mr Stone. That is not unconnected with what I believe is the fact that that deflator estimate was determined more by ideology than mathematics. It was a wish rather than a measurement and it turned out to be very, very wrong. When the Budget was finally prepared the deflator estimate had fallen to 6 1/2 per cent, and indications are that that figure will be pretty accurate. The difference between those two figures is 2 1/2 per cent. I acknowledge that the deflator figure is not relevant to all Government outlays. I do not have with me the precise percentage to which it is relevant, but it is relevant to the great majority of Government outlays. If it was applied to all Government outlays, the truth is that those forward estimates published early in 1984, due solely to the over-estimate in the deflator, were about $1.2 billion higher than they ought to have been. I see Senator Messner wrinkling his nose. That figure is subject to the qualification I made about all outlays being affected by the deflator. I acknowledge that that is not the case but the overwhelming majority are. I calculate that up to $1.2 billion is entirely attributable to the erroneous deflator incorporated in the forward estimates at the time they were prepared. Although, for a reason to which I referred earlier, there has been a significant change since then, it illustrates the point that forward estimates, if there are massive parameter changes, are highly unreliable. Lest the Opposition should seek refuge in that comment and say that, therefore, the forward estimates produced in 1983 were equally unreliable, there were not massive parameter changes between those assumed in the 1983 forward estimates and the actual outturn. In 1983-84 any error it may have contained would have been slight and any error attributable to an incorrect deflator having been built into the model of the estimates was trivial. In 1984 the situation was very different. A deflator of 9 per cent had been built into the estimates, when the final outcome in the Budget estimates was 6 1/2 per cent. I do not know whether, having been enlightened in that respect, Senator Chaney now wants to castigate the Government for not being rigorous enough in pruning expenditure last year, but he cannot have it both ways. This year the deflator built into the forward estimates, principally because of Mr Stone's retirement as Secretary to the Treasury, is a far more credible figure. I am not going to tell honourable senators what it is. Senator Chaney —But it is credible. Senator WALSH —But it is credible. It was credible at the time it was produced, in my judgment, as the one produced in 1984 was not credible, in my judgment. The one produced this year was credible. If it needs any revision, because of the devaluation, the required revision might well be upward. The actual outcomes and the forward estimates this year, as in 1983, are not likely to be substantially affected by changes in the deflator. The $1 billion reduction which the Prime Minister forecast yesterday, which I have been talking about for a couple of months, and which will be announced next month, is the outcome of adjustments to programs and real expenditures, not to parameter changes. In the 1984-85 forward estimates, published early in 1984, the changes in the outlays outcome and the forecasts were overwhelmingly due to the changed parameters. Parameter changes will not be related to any significant degree at all to the $1 billion reduction which will be announced next month. They are attributable to adjustments to programs. That is in marked contrast to the much vaunted Fraser Government's razor gang of 1981, which laboured for some months in a blaze of publicity about the ruthless razor gang getting stuck into the fat of Government. The Review of Commonwealth Functions Committee ultimately produced a booklet entitled 'Ministerial Statement-Review of Commonwealth Functions', which does not have in it one figure quantifying an actual reduction in programs; not one single figure quantifying the massive and ruthless attack on bloated government expenditure which that Committee claimed to have made. There was a global figure given by the Prime Minister of the day, who said: Compared with the costs of continuing programs on the basis of existing policies and arrangements, the estimated overall effect of these measures will be an eventual ongoing saving in Budget outlays of the order of $560m. I do not know whether that was true, even with the heavy qualification, but it does not matter very much. The point is the qualification. No doubt that discredited former Government, in its characteristically devious way, hoped that the public would be fooled by that figure and would interpret it to mean that the Government had taken $560m off next year's outlays. It meant no such thing. If it meant anything at all, it meant that the Government had made some adjustments to policy as a result of which at some time in the future, over an indefinite number of Budgets, outlays would be reduced by $560m. I made the comparison earlier with the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. The eventual ongoing saving in Budget outlays-to use the former Prime Minister's words-attributable to cancelling that decision was almost $500m, but the Budget savings for the year in which it was cancelled were, from memory, of the order of $10m. The actual savings in projected outlays in the 1981-82 Budget from the Fraser Government's razor gang exercise, given that they were never stated, were probably of the order of $10m, $20m or, if one is generous, $50m; certainly nowhere near $500m. If it had been anywhere near $500m or $560m, it would have been quantified and specified. I have some sympathy for Senator Chaney as he was a member of that Government and, I believe, one of its more, if not most, responsible Ministers. But he suffers from a bit of pique and jealousy because the best that that Government could produce was an unspecified and undetailed assertion that $560m had been saved over an unknown period in an unknown number of Budgets from adjustments to an unknown number of programs, the financial consequences of which were not quantified. I can understand Senator Chaney being a bit piqued that, given the puerile and pathetic effort of the Government of which he was a member for that result, this Government is about to deliver a figure and an outcome that really mean something. Senator Chaney also referred to the deficit-I think the term that I almost always use is 'prospective deficit'-inherited by this Government of $9.6 billion, incorporating a deflator which was not unrealistic as the estimates of outlays produced one year later showed. That was a real figure, a prospective $9.6 billion deficit. That is what this Government inherited and that is what the previous Government had denied in the week before the election. On both the Tuesday and the Friday prior to the March 1983 election the discredited former Treasurer had asserted that the Budget deficit for 1983-84 would be of the order of $6 billion, when he had been told that the correct figure was $9.6 billion. He had been told the correct figure yet he publicly asserted that it was $6 billion. He was up to his neck in the conspiracy with the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, to deceive the people of Australia. That is the man whom Senator Chaney would have as an alternative Prime Minister and that is the man whom the Opposition would have as an alternative Treasurer. If one looks at his record as Treasurer, one sees that it is marginally better than his record as a fearless and frank discloser of truth in the week before an election. Mr Howard presided over five Budgets. The errors in outlays for the first three of those Budgets were within reasonable bounds because nobody can predict outlays with any real precision, even if there is no intention to do otherwise. But in his last two years, his record deteriorated rapidly. In his second last Budget the error in actual outlays outcome as compared to projections was $463m and in the last year it exploded to a massive $1,915m-almost a $2 billion error in the estimates of outlays. If outlays figures containing errors of that magnitude were to be consistently published, one could argue that they would not be of much enlightenment to anybody, as indeed the outlays figures published early in 1984 were not very enlightening, given the erroneous deflator figure that had been built into them. If one looks at the deviation between forecast deficits and actual outcomes produced by the previous Treasurer, one sees much the same pattern emerge. His first Budget of 1978-79 had a deficit $665m higher than he had projected. That is substantial but it is acceptable. It is not so wildly at variance with the predicted deficit that one could say that a prima facie case had been made for either gross incompetence or worse. In 1979-80 he got closer. In 1980-81 he was also reasonably close, in fact, somewhat closer. Then, the rot set in. It was the same old pattern, not only of increasing magnitudes of error, but of the changes always going in the same direction. In 1980-81 his Budget deficit was in fact $400m lower than had been projected. In 1981-82 it was $450m higher. So in one year some $850m had been added in the direction of an understatement of the deficit. But that was nothing compared to what was to come. In his last Budget the deficit which he estimated was understated in comparison with the final outcome by $2,799m, which even exceeded, in absolute terms, the error of his outlays estimate. Finally, Senator Chaney was critical of me for-to use his emotive and misleading language-'attempting to blackmail the Opposition' into not criticising the Government on the grounds that it would destabilise the economy, the dollar and so on. Under normal circumstances that might be a reasonable comment to make. Under these circumstances, however, it is not. It is not because the people who are in charge of this Opposition, or rather its Leader, have an established record of economic sabotage for perceived political gain. In the two weeks before the 1983 election he shouted to the world that if Labor won government there would be a massive devaluation of the dollar. Because of his economic sabotage there was a flight of capital from the country followed by a devaluation of the dollar-the self-fulfilling prophecy which that opportunist Leader of the Opposition, with no scruples at all, employed for perceived political gain as a result of which Australian taxpayers were defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars by foreign currency speculators. That is the sort of thing that this Opposition continues to do. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.48) —We are considering a motion that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide adequate information to enable proper judgment to be made of its economic policies. This debate is, or should be primarily, about the non-release of forward estimates. That is my understanding of the sort of information that this Senate and this Parliament need to enable them to make their judgments. To put it into context, that is one piece or area of information which the Government has been very disinclined to reveal, not only to the Senate and to Parliament, but to the people of Australia. I find this very hard to understand because it contrasts dramatically with the provision of adequate information by the Government in a lot of other areas. I believe that the Government should be praised for the sort of information that it has provided to the Parliament and to the public at large, in particular the sorts of things that it has done through the economic summit which was followed by the creation of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which has been a channel of information to the public and to the major decision-makers out there in the private enterprise area. Hopefully, the tax summit will do the same sort of thing. I also draw a contrast with the sort of information the Government provides through its Ministers and its departments to Australian Democrat senators. In contrast to the forward estimates, that information has been unrestricted; it has been generously given. There has been no door closed to the Democrats in their search for information, whether it be information relating to specific Bills or to other areas of inquiry. I compliment this Government for opening its doors to honourable senators in that way. I am told that this contrasts dramatically with the approach of the Fraser Government, when doors were firmly locked and bolted against Democrat senators in their search for information. However, we and the public have been kept in the dark and are being kept in the dark about this Government's economic plans and economic strategy. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that that is having an effect right across the nation-an effect of uncertainty which goes beyond the nation. Nobody is now sure of the direction the Government may take. This lack of knowledge of the Government's economic plans and strategies is having an effect on the Government itself and on its policies. It is having an effect on the Parliament. The Parliament cannot adequately debate the Government's economic strategies, as indicated by the motion before us. It is probably having an effect on government departments, which are unsure of the nature of cuts and the degree of stringency that may be introduced in the next Budget. It is also having quite an impact on private enterprise because there is a degree of uncertainty in the market-place as to the direction this Government is likely to take in the next few months, the direction it may be compelled to take. Nobody has access to the information on which rational judgments may be made. Private enterprise particularly, including both Australian and overseas investors in private enterprise, needs that information. If we had that information available-I believe that governments do have it available-it should be on a three-year rolling Budget basis and not just an annual forward estimates basis, so that we could see ahead the plans, the strategies of the Government for the people of Australia. We need to bear that in mind. We are not just talking about the Government of Australia. It is most unfortunate that this Government has recently reverted to a practice, which we have seen over the years and decades, of providing us with inadequate information in this chamber. I think it is fair to name one honourable senator who has been very disappointing. I refer to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who either has been poorly briefed in carrying the Treasury portfolio from time to time or has deliberately denied information to the Senate. I have not been the only person to suffer from this. The Australian Democrats have found it very difficult to get meaningful information in answers from Senator Walsh to questions asked in the Senate. I hope that as a result of this debate he will realise the importance of keeping the Senate and honourable senators informed so that we can make our judgments on legislation and on Budgets that will come before the Parliament. The Government is again following the patterns of the past. That is very disappointing from a Government which complained bitterly about this pattern but which has refused to reveal information such as the degree of foreign ownership of the assets of this country. That is not something that needs to be kept secret from the people of Australia. I have put a Bill before the Parliament to have created by the Government a register of foreign ownership. It has been studiously ignored so far through two Parliaments. That is typical of the gradual clamping down on information, the clamming up to keep information away from the people who have ultimate responsibility for the decisions that come through this Parliament. We the parliamentarians need to know why we are about to have imposed on us and on the country a May mini-Budget, call it what you will. Today Senator Walsh suggested that he had made forecasts. Two months ago I predicted, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, that we would have a May mini-Budget, and now we are. It has been revealed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the necessity is there; the belt tightening has to take place. Nobody has been told why it is necessary, other than as an international public relations exercise. We have not been told whether in fact the May expenditure cuts are even necessary. Is it simply to fit in with a planned reduced deficit? If so, we want to know what that planned deficit is to be. It does not make sense to come into this Parliament and just say 'Let us slash $1 billion off the expenditure side of things' without putting it into the context of the total deficit, without our knowing the total estimated expenditure as revised at this month, and without knowing the total estimated revenue as revised at this month. We also need to know what will be the effect on jobs. I will go into that in more detail a little later, but that seems to be one of the critical elements which has not been addressed by anybody-the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Acting Treasurer (Senator Walsh), or anybody on behalf of the Government. If this is only an international public relations exercise aimed at the international financial markets, and if they do not respond to this dramatic gesture-they have not yet responded as a result of yesterday's announcement-we will get the worst of both worlds. We will finish up with a further devalued dollar and with lower economic activity as a result of withdrawal of funds from the economy. That will lead us into an even more rapidly downward spiralling of the economy. I am willing to accept that there are some benefits from the devaluation which has taken place and is taking place at the moment. One of the benefits this Government seems to want to slide over very quickly is the massive benefit it will get from the petrol price increase. It will get another major benefit. As a result of the increased exports it will have more taxes in its coffers. We have had no estimate of what sorts of benefits to revenue this is likely to bring. When we do not have that information in front of us, how can we make judgments on whether the expenditure cuts are justified? Why are we having a further $1 billion cut? It cannot be that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been persuaded after all these years by the Fraser rhetoric-which was that a lower deficit would lead to economic recovery-because that has to be one of the most discredited economic theories that has ever been promulgated. Yet that seems to be the sole rationale for this further $1 billion cut in expenditure at this time-just to reduce the deficit. I am a little surprised that the Government is moving in that direction. Recently we have seen pressure on the Government to forgo petrol price increases. If the Government had been willing to forgo those increases, that would have enabled industry and taxpayers to benefit immediately from the devaluation. We would all have benefited. It would have flowed right through the economy. Why were the pleas ignored? There must have been a reason; but no one knows. What information is the Government withholding which can rationalise what it has done by allowing the import parity pricing policy to continue at this stage of economic development? It is appreciated that the Australian devaluation has another major benefit overall to the Australian economy. We shall get increased exports from it. We shall have reduced imports from it. That will result in an improved trade balance. So we are getting a lot of pluses out of this devaluation. I think it is accepted, also, that the devaluation itself was necessary. The Australian dollar was over-valued. A float provided the opportunity for it to reach its true value; but at this moment, it has been devalued too far and it is subject to further international pressure. But the market will respond to responsible economic management if it is given the information. There is no need to follow the United States Government policies. The United States has the biggest deficits, both trade and domestic, that the world has known. We do not have to follow down that path. The Australian Democrats want us to focus on real remedies and be rid of this obsession with the deficit. We believe that the key to Australia's economic revival is getting the rate of employment up and getting interest rates down. The last Fraser deficit resulted directly from the high rate of unemployment. Now we have the problem of how to stimulate the economy through more jobs. Once it is on stream, the economic gnomes will endorse it, and we shall get our increased dollar value, back to its real value. Interest rates are the crucial ingredient for Australia's economic revival because, next to unemployment, the biggest worry for most Australian's is the interest rate. We had Mr Fraser endeavouring to reduce the deficit, and interest rates skyrocketed. Labor, in the past two governments, has reduced the deficit by $1 billion per annum, so it says, and yet still the interest rates are very high. The real interest rate, the difference between interest charged and the rate of inflation, is now between 8 per cent and 10 per cent, probably the highest that this country has ever had. Home loan interest rates, which have risen 0.5 per cent in the past fortnight, will probably increase further. That is where the concentration needs to be. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the motion today because we believe that all governments-not just this one-need to provide full information to this Parliament. We believe that the improvement in the provision that we have seen under this Government is not sufficient and that the present Government and any future government will have an obligation, as a result of this motion being carried today, to provide the information that the Parliament needs. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.04) —It is not very often that we get an opportunity to agree with Senator Jack Evans on economic matters, but I agree with his statement today that the Government has certainly been less than forthcoming in the provision of information to this Parliament and to the people of Australia about the current economic situation in this country. We do not have to look too far in order to determine the reasons for that. There is a simple reason why we had the much vaunted prime ministerial Press conference yesterday, and that is simply that it was a political stunt to try to re-establish some kind of confidence in the Australian dollar. But the very reverse is likely to happen, because the very arguments that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was seeking to advance in his Press conference yesterday can be seen for what they are-shot through with holes like a Swiss cheese. Indeed, they are so vague and so incomplete that no one will trust that information out in the market-place, not least the financial currency traders who today have reacted by putting the Australian dollar down even further. Why is it that the Government is not seeing fit to release a proper package of information about the forward estimates? During the Press conference yesterday, Mr Hawke was asked whether or not the billion dollars that he says he is saving off the deficit was to be cut from the forward estimates. In a rather confusing answer, he gave us some idea that perhaps they were coming off the forward estimates of expenditures. He said: . . . forward estimates are not there in a releasable form because what is happening is that we undertook the expenditure review exercise early in this year. This is apparently an attempt by the Government to tell us that it cannot give us this information because it has been working hard to get the information ready, but it cannot be released to us-we who would be seeking to make decisions upon it. Without going too far into the inherent unreliability and the contradictory nature of that, let us just go on and say that a journalist at the Press conference asked the Prime Minister: 'How do you know that, indeed, you have got a billion dollar reduction if you cannot tell us off which items of expenditure this is coming?' The Prime Minister said: 'We have got the figures'. But indeed, he will not release them. Why is it that the Prime Minister will not release that information so that the market can make up its own mind? I put it to the Senate that one of the chief reasons for that is there in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. In reply to a journalist's question about why he would not release the information, he said: . . . the other thing which has affected the forward estimates is the whole volatility of the currency. Senator Walsh, during his rambling speech, gave us a further hint as to that when he said, sotto voce in answer to an interjection, I think, in connection with the items of expenditure that were not being disclosed, that this would have a dramatic impact upon the Budget itself. This is the reason why we are not being told about the actual items of expenditure that will be affected; because the Prime Minister knows that whatever the estimates are now, they will change substantially as a result of any further changes in the currency, and obviously they may be in a downward direction. That is what he is covering his tracks about. He wants to be able to say something about that in clear terms at a later stage. He does not want to have to own up to it today, and certainly he does not want to admit to it when he is trying to build up some kind of farrago that demonstrates that there really ought to be confidence in the Government when it is clear to the rest of the world and to the Australian people that there is no confidence. I guess that if all the people in Australia had access to the transcript of the Press conference yesterday, from which I quote, they would get a very clear impression as to what is wrong with this Government. We got an explanation as to why the forward estimates would not be released when the Prime Minister said: And so the simplest way and the accurate way of putting what we are about is that, put it this way, that in respect of forward that would have existed before we undertook the expenditure review process, these decisions that we are taking represent a cut of at least a billion dollars. I can see, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you are looking puzzled-and you are not the only one. It is an absolute masterpiece of gobbledegook, and if the financial community of Australia, let alone those of New York, Washington, London, Paris and everywhere else, cannot understand it, it is no wonder that the Australian dollar is collapsing. Because this Government has absolutely no control over what it is doing the country is descending into economic disaster. Let us examine one or two of the points that were raised by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the course of his remarks. He continued to purvey the story about the $9.6 billion deficit for 1983-84 that he lay at the door of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard. That, of course, was disowned by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) in Hansard on 2 April last year when he said that the Liberals would have had a deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion less than the deficit last year. Consequently, Senator Walsh's argument falls apart. This was denied even more by the very fact that on 2 July 1984 the Treasurer, Mr Keating, said: If Mr Fraser had remained in power their Budget deficit would have been about $6.5 billion. This is at least $3 billion less than what Senator Walsh is claiming would have been the situation. When we and, I believe, the Australian Democrats pushed the Government at this time last year to reveal the forward estimates, the Government would not disclose the information. Why? Because the information was not reliable at that time. That is absolutely remarkable! One year when it suits the Government politically it is reliable and the next year when does not it is not disclosed. What are the people of Australia going to say about the present situation? The Government is prepared to tell us that it will knock a nice round sum, $1,000m, off the deficit but it is not prepared to tell us why and where? What can the people expect? They cannot believe that nonsense, nor are they likely to. That is why the people of Australia have no confidence in this Government. We ought to have a further look at some of the activities of the present Prime Minister in his role as the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions over many years. It is ironic that in the last two years Mr Hawke has received praise for attempting to solve the very problems that he had a very large part in creating. We know that he was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions from 1969 until 1980. He is now being applauded for licking his self-inflicted wounds. It is an unfashionable fact but Australia's falling competitiveness over the last 26 years has been due in no small part to Mr Hawke's personal success as an advocate for the trade unions in working for the ACTU. For years Mr Hawke advocated higher wages and shorter hours regardless of the implications for Australia and its place in the world economy. It has created what Mr Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has said is the Hawke factor in unemployment. Max Walsh, writing in the Bulletin, was clever enough to find out about this point when he said. Hawke's first great arbitration victory was in 1959 when he persuaded the Commission that the policy of wage fixation it had pursued from 1953 was incorrect. Hawke won a 15 shilling (i.e., 6 per cent) increase in the basic wage and, soon after, went on to win a 28 per cent increase in margins for skill. That the combination of these victories caused a trebling in the rate of inflation . . . to 3.9 per cent and ushered in the corrective credit squeeze of 1960 was a lesson never understood fully by the Labor movement. The evidence still is that the Prime Minister, now in his other role, has not learned that lesson yet. In 1970 Mr Hawke proclaimed that 1971 would be the year of the 35-hour week in Australia. There was no talk then of productivity deals; the demand was for more pay and less work. In 1974 Mr Hawke severely criticised the Whitlam Government-we know how free that Government was-for opposing a 27 per cent wage increase for airline pilots. Around this time he expressed the ACTU's policy on wages as follows: We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it's quite likely to reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in inflation. He took great issue with the Whitlam Government in 1975 and opposed full wage indexation and claimed that on top of indexation the unions should be able to bargain for wage increases. It is little wonder that Mr Hawke came in for criticism from former Senator Jim McClelland, a Minister of the Labor Government at that time. He summed up Mr Hawke's attitude as follows: I remember him saying to me. 'Yes, we'll cop wage indexation but only if we can get anything else we want on top of that'. This is the man who claims to have invented wages moderation. Is it any wonder that the people of Australia cannot believe him and that the Australian dollar is falling so dramatically? Mr Hawke's record on wages is absolutely appalling. We know that. He has the temerity today to claim that most of the problems that are occurring in the economy today are due to the actions of conservative governments over the last 35 years. I will quote some figures on the increases in average weekly earnings for the years 1966 to 1972. The nominal increase in wages during the period of the Holt, Gorton and McMahon governments was 8.3 per cent. From 1972 to 1975, when Mr Hawke had a great deal of influence over the trade union movement and was pushing wages higher and higher, that figure was 18.6 per cent. In the years 1975 to 1983, in the period of office of the Fraser Government, it dropped to 11.3 per cent and under the Hawke Government it is now 7.9 per cent. The point is that the rate of increase was most significant when driven by the activities of the previous President of the ACTU in his former role. Let us take one or two other government expenditure figures to demonstrate the truth of this argument. If we compare the growth in real Budget outlays with gross domestic product increases we will see that under the Menzies Government there was an increase in outlays of 3.2 per cent compared with a growth rate of 4.7 per cent. Under the McMahon Government there was an increase of 3.9 per cent, but a growth rate of 4.5 per cent in the economy. Under the Whitlam Government the reverse occurred; there was an increase in outlays of 11.1 per cent and a growth in the economy of only 2.8 per cent. Under the Hawke Government there was an increase in Budget outlays, of expenditures, of 7.1 per cent whereas there has been a growth in the economy of only 5.3 per cent. This is a disaster. How can the people of Australia believe Mr Hawke when he comes out with a farrago such as he put forward yesterday? In conclusion I will mention a pertinent comment made in the Syntec edition of 1 April 1985. I do not have time to read it all. Syntec states that there has been a process of winking and nodding. The Government should wake up to itself and seek to gain the confidence of the community again. It can start this right now by providing straightforward, honest and direct information so that Australians and those overseas who are making decisions about our markets can form their well based opinions on the Government's policies and intentions in place of the fumbles, farragoes and falsehoods that the Prime Minister sought to push on the Australian people yesterday. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.19) —Today's urgency motion is fairly thin in content. That is probably what prompted the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, when he first spoke to the motion, to let off a whole host of red herrings before he got down to the more substantial area. I think it is necessary to answer one or two of them. First of all, he was most upset that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, may have implied a degree of disloyalty to members of the Opposition over their comments on the economy. I do not know whether that was Senator Walsh's intention, but there is not much doubt about where he may have got the hint of that tactic, because it is one that has been employed by those who sit opposite ever since the Australian Labor Party came into politics. They have based most of their election campaigns on the hint that Labor is not necessarily loyal enough to this country's interests. If Senator Walsh ever implied that, it is absolutely certain that he picked up the tactic from honourable senators opposite. That tactic has been used since 1981 while I have been a member of this Parliament. The second thing Senator Chaney did was to attack the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. He accused Senator Ryan of using Caucus to obtain agreement for her views on tertiary education fees. That simply is not true. Senator Ryan did not raise the matter in Caucus and she did not even raise the matter in the Caucus committee. We happen to have a Federal policy that is binding on the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and that was raised in Caucus and an appropriate decision was made. Honourable senators may ask whether Senator Ryan was behind the scenes in it all. That is not true either. She would have won quite easily in the Cabinet committee and in Cabinet. There was no need for her to take that matter to Caucus. So again Senator Chaney is wrong. Senator Chaney then went on to make some gratuitous remarks about a faction-ridden Labor Party and he denied that there was any difference of opinion within the Liberal Party of Australia. He is right there. Arthur Calwell was right 20 years ago when he said that there were only two places in this country where we do not get an argument: In the cemetery and in the Liberal Party. That is fairly right. But what Senator Chaney has overlooked is that whenever the Liberal Party has to form a government it has two very large factions-one called the Liberal Party and the other called the National Party of Australia. Those factions rarely, if ever, agree with one another. The worst squabbling in any government in this country's history has always been between the Liberal and National parties. We just have to look back to the issue of devaluation in 1971-that issue is now in the air again-to see what happened between Anthony and McMahon when they disagreed over devaluation. Senator Chaney brought up the question of intellectual dishonesty. I can recall debates in this chamber when we were in opposition. We sought all sorts of information and we were given absolutely nothing. Senator Chaney went on to say that if we could answer one question all the problems would be over. If we answered one question and implemented a policy under which wages were discounted for the consumer price index increases caused by depreciation, all the economic problems would be solved. That sort of economic simplicity would not even be found in the Queensland National Party. Even members of that Party are more sophisticated than to put a point like that. But when we have a motion such as this from the Opposition, it is nice to think of the good old days when it was in government for seven and a half years. Imagine the sort of information we got when we were in Opposition. I remember going to a meeting of Estimates Committee C and asking for information. It took 11 meetings and 40 hours before Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle would produce a post-Budget survey and I think it was only because of the persistence of former Senator McLaren and others that we even got that. The former Government rarely, if ever, gave information. At Question Time Senator Sir John Carrick always gave us a long and detailed answer. The trouble was that he gave the same answer to every question every day of the week. We never got any information. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, as the former Minister for Finance, was the greatest stonewaller I have ever known. I admire her for her ability never to answer a question in this chamber. That is the way it was. Now we suddenly have the born again civil libertarians and economists opposite coming into the chamber and saying that they want more information. In some ways I sympathise with them. I want this Government to make available more and more economic information. The more often it does that the more the past and tawdry efforts of the former Government in regard to economics become apparent. It is necessary not only to make economic information available but also to recount the deeds of the past so we can make a fair evaluation of how this Government is going. The real problem is that we have Stalinists opposite in this chamber. I do not mean that in the sense of where they are in the political spectrum; I mean their approach to history. They have forgotten history. For them the past seven and a half years from 1975 to 1983 have disappeared. On 24 October last year I asked in this chamber: Where are all the Fraserites? There must have been a lot of them opposite and there must have been a lot of them in the other chamber because when Andrew Peacock accused the then Prime Minister Fraser of disloyalty and a hundred other sins, Fraser won the consequential leadership battle. Where have all the Fraserites gone with their adherence to those economic policies from 1975 to 1983? They have disappeared under a rock. They cannot be found. Suddenly, what has emerged out of that cocoon, two and a half years later, is people who now claim that they can solve the economic problems of the time. Whilst it is true that we should make enough economic information available to enable reasoned debate in this chamber, I do not think it would make any difference what information we made available to those opposite-I exclude the Australian Democrats-in the Liberal and National parties. I do not think it would matter to them because they do not know how to analyse it and act upon it. All they did from the period 1975 to 1983 was implement outdated economic ideas and ideologies based on the statistics. Of course, they did not use statistics properly on all occasions. The 1977 Budget shows that they rubbidy-dubbed the figures. They bodgied up the figures they produced that year. Those who want to analyse the figures now will see that in reality the last Liberal Government produced in that period some of the worst figures for any of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Let us look at the former Government's record. In its last 12 months in office the Liberal Party, led by Fraser, lost 187,000 jobs. We have only to compare that with the figures we have made available to see that 360,000 jobs have been created. Unemployment has come down from 10.4 per cent to 8.8 per cent and, at the same time, the participation rate has gone up in that period. The inflation rate has gone down from 11.5 per cent to 5 per cent. Those statistics are available. Do honourable senators opposite want to debate those statistics? We do not see members of the Liberal Party coming into this chamber and saying that they want to debate the employment figures or the inflation rate. The reason they do not wish to do so is that they do not like those statistics. They do not come into this chamber and debate the question of economic growth because there was a negative economic growth rate for the last 12 months they were in power. In a very short period of two years and a couple of months this Government rejuvenated the Australian economy and we have a growth rate of which we can be justifiably proud. When it comes to making economic information available, we set up the Economic Planning Advisory Council through which we can consult some of the key people in the Australian economy, be they employers, employees or important organisations. The economic information that has been made available by those people and the advice they have been able to give has been very beneficial to the economy and the Australian Government. Let us look at the two summits-one which has been held and one which is to be held. It is true that we did not invite anyone from the Opposition to the first summit. I guess that we felt that if we had invited Howard or anyone else, we would probably discredit the summit. We did not want their diseases from the past inflicted on people in the future. Nevertheless, in a very kindly gesture, we offered the Opposition an opportunity to appear before the tax summit where all this information will be available to it, where it can debate matters and make a contribution. What has been the response from members of the Liberal Party? They do not want to turn up. Where will they be? Will they be skiing at Thredbo or going there for another get-together? This is where all the disjointed forces of the Liberal Party have to go every six months to kiss and make up. That is where they will probably be. They have refused to attend the tax summit. The reality is-- Senator Lewis —Kiss and make up. Listen to the Labor Party from Victoria. Senator ROBERT RAY —That has been mentioned before, Senator Lewis. If the honourable senator wants to go into the history of some of the things that happened to the Liberal Party in the late 1970s, the various rorts and fights that went on, I will go into them with him. I will condemn them wherever they occur. I did not see Senator Lewis getting up to condemn the roughhouse tactics used by dairy farmers when they cut hydraulic cables and all the rest. Senator Lewis is selective in his criticism of any of those areas. Let me move on to another area where the Government has been able to exchange information usefully. I refer to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the area to which Senator Messner so incompetently devoted most of his speech. We have established a relationship with the ACTU that has been beneficial to the Australian economy. We have managed to provide it with information so that it can make reasoned decisions and so that it knows what is going on. When the Liberals were in power all they wanted was confrontation with the ACTU. They did not sit down reasonably and discuss the future of the Australian economy and they did not let the ACTU into the decision-making process. It was excluded as much as possible. Through the accord we have managed to consult with the ACTU at every opportunity, so it has been able to take a far more responsible attitude to the development of the Australian economy. If members of the Opposition were so serious about bringing on an urgency motion today, why did they not read the record of the Estimates committees over the last couple of weeks, when the Department of the Treasury and other officials were here. How many questions on economics did the economic gurus opposite ask? Virtually none; they were far too lazy to do their homework. They did not persist and did not pursue the amount of economic information that they may have wanted. If they are not capable of doing that I suggest that they not bring on these pious motions. I concede that there is a need for more economic information to be made available. I would like to see in the long term the material provided to the Economic Planning Advisory Council made available to all parliamentarians to assist us. I would like also to see a decent wealth inquiry in this country. That is something those opposite would never support. They are all in favour of inquiries into poverty but they are never in favour of inquiries into wealth. When we come to vote on this motion we will be voting not on whether the Government should make more information available but on whether it has made enough available, and to make that sort of decision this Government's record can be compared only with that of the Liberal Party. I say again that the born-again civil libertarians and economists opposite would not give us anything when they were in government; they would concede absolutely nothing. They were reduced to the Opposition benches and now they expect everything to be handed to them on a plate. Senator Chipp —This locks them in for next time. Senator ROBERT RAY —It does not lock them in for next time, Senator Chipp. We know what will happen; they will crawl back under the rock in exactly the same way as they did two years ago. We know that. Senator Lewis —Just give us another chance and see what we will do in two years time. Senator ROBERT RAY —I doubt whether the Opposition will get another chance, especially given the style, the panache, we have seen exhibited by the front bench in the last couple of weeks. Oppositions in this Parliament and most parliaments of the world are in a disadvantageous position. Members of this Opposition will have to learn to get off their behinds and go and do some work and research the hard way like we had to do in opposition. They have been given more of a start by this Government than I would ever have given them in terms of resources and material. I must say my colleagues the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and others have been far more kind than I would ever have been or than members of the Opposition ever were to us. Their usual policy is to starve oppositions to death. This Opposition has had more information and material made available to it than any other opposition in history. What have members of the Opposition been able to do with it? Absolutely nothing. Senator Chaney made a pathetic speech, containing dozens of red herrings, and addressed his attention to the main area for no more than three of four minutes. I believe that this urgency motion is basically a farce. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the intention behind it other than the speeches that have been made implying that this Government has been less forthcoming with economic information. Compare its performance with the record of the last Government and it has been brilliant. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.33) —Senator Ray said that this is a pious motion. That statement is typical of the lack of understanding by members on the Government side of just what is going on in the Australian economy and of some of the reasons why it is going on. This debate is all about the fact that the Government has provided totally deficient information on key areas for which it has responsibility and on which depends, importantly, the very health of the Australian economy. As a result of this deficiency in information, confidence within the Australian business community is flagging rapidly. As well the international community is registering its concern by continuing to push the value of the Australian dollar down to almost daily record lows. Confidence can be a self-sustaining process but so too can falling confidence. I warn the Government that unless it takes urgent steps to stem the tide it will be too late. There is no doubt at all that in the business community both here and abroad there is increasing concern about the direction in which the Government's economic policies are heading. There is a growing feeling that the Government is rudderless and leaderless. The attempts of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to shore up the situation a couple of weeks ago by going on national television and asserting that the Government was in control of the economy only made matters worse. As soon as a leader goes public and proclaims 'I am in control', people will, very correctly, draw only one conclusion-that he is not in control. So what should the Government do? It should do several things, and the first is that when it does provide information it should not provide it on a selective basis to privileged groups. Information is selectively available to one group which the Government has placed in a totally privileged position, and that is the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The ACTU was quite improperly provided with economic data before the finalisation of the 1984 Budget. It was provided with and consulted on data and that data was available on a basis which did not apply to any other section of the Australian community. It appears now that a similar sort of process is occurring, although cloaked in apparent secrecy, in terms of the negotiations between the ACTU and the Government on tax reform. I simply make the point that if it is good enough to give information to some groups in the community, it must not be done selectively. The second thing that the Government should do is not be selective as to when it releases specific information. I refer particularly to its release of forward estimates figures. In 1983, immediately after winning government, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) released what purported to be the estimates of forward expenditure and forward revenue for the defeated Fraser Government. Those two sets of estimates were totally misleading. As Senator Chaney and others have already pointed out in this debate, comparing those two sets of figures, particularly the revenue figures, is totally misleading. The Labor Government did that and later in 1983 it released its own forward expenditure estimates. It did so again in 1984. This year it refuses to do so. The obvious question is why, and the obvious answer is that there is a major split within the Government on this issue. There is yet another split, and this time it is not even on a factional basis. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has said several times that it would be his intention to release the estimates. On the other hand the Treasurer has said no. That great strong leader, the Prime Minister, again has vacillated and has refused to make a decision, to adjudicate. The real point I want to make is that if it was good enough for the Government to release the figures in 1983 and again in 1984, why should it not do so again in 1985? The only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the Government has something to hide; that it deliberately wants to deceive or at the very least confuse the Australian community. Without having the forward estimates available it is not possible to judge the worth or otherwise of yesterday's Press statement by the Prime Minister announcing so-called expenditure cuts of $1 billion in 1985-86. What does that figure and the Prime Minister's statement mean? For a start, the fact that he did not make the statement in Parliament when Parliament itself was sitting suggests either an incredible contempt for the Parliament or that his statement is nothing more than another dose of the windy rhetoric that has become the trademark of this Government. On the face of it, the so-called expenditure cut means virtually nothing. It is a cut of $1 billion, but $1 billion off what? Is it $1 billion off $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion? Is it less of a cut-and it appears to be, as the Minister for Finance was forced to acknowledge today-off the forward estimates than was the case in each of the last two years? So what is this $1 billion all about? It is simply not possible to say, until we have much more information. What will be the currency impact? What will be the effect of the devaluation in terms of government expenditure within that $1 billion dollar context? Again that question was asked today and again it was not answered. Even in the last two years, when the reduction in the forward estimates spending was greater than has been announced for this year, when the Budgets finally came out we had real increases in spending at a rate which approached the horrifying and crippling increases of the Whitlam years. The average real expenditure increase by this Government in its last two Budgets has been 7 per cent. That is not far short of the real increases that occurred during the years of the Whitlam Government and it is more than three times the rate of increase in government spending that occurred during the whole of the average of the seven years of the Fraser Government, despite the fact that in two of those years we had significant increases in spending. As a result of what has happened in the last two Budgets, with near record increases in spending, we have also had record increases in taxation and in government borrowings. We are now more highly taxed and more highly borrowed and have the highest real interest rates in our history. I wish Senator Walsh well in this attempt to reduce government expenditure. All I can say is that his attempts to date appear to have failed miserably, but-this is the point-we simply do not have enough information to make a judgment. That is the reason for today's debate and the reason why the motion before the Senate today is an urgency motion. I also say to Senator Walsh that if he is not successful, if he does not reduce the rate of increase in government spending to zero or near zero, and if he does not reduce the Budget deficit to a maximum of $5 billion, the Government will lose all credibility within the Australian and international communities and the result on our economy will be horrendous. I refer the House to reports in today's Press of the visit to Australia by Mr Peter Grace, who is President Reagan's adviser on cost cutting. In Melbourne yesterday he said that America was on a straight course to national bankruptcy, constituting the unforgiveable rape of future generations, and that Australia was in an even worse position. He said that students should riot and parade in the streets about this. What he was really talking about was the wasteful expenditure by governments in America and Australia and the effect that has on Budget deficits and therefore the putting into hock of future generations. It is absolutely crucial, not just for the health of the Australian economy today but for the future health of the economy and the well-being of future generations in Australia, that we get our government finances much more in order. There are other very important issues on which the Government is simply not coming clean. Why does the Government not recognise publicly that the devaluation of the dollar, which has occurred largely as a result of this Government, means automatically a fall in our real gross national product and that it therefore requires a fall in real wages if the potential benefits of the devaluation are to be reaped? The Prime Minister referred to it obliquely in his Press statement yesterday but he was not prepared to come clean with the necessary consequences in relation to real wages. On the AM program this morning the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge that the belt-tightening, which both he and the Treasurer very correctly say is necessary, has to flow through to a reduction in real wages. It is absolutely essential that the Government make it known very soon that it will seek to have the devaluation effects on the consumer price index excluded from the next national wage case. If the Government refuses to do this it is abrogating its responsibilities in what is undoubtedly a key issue of the economy. The depreciation of over 20 per cent in the value of the Australian dollar over the last three months represents a cut of something like 4 per cent in the real value of the Australian national product. Whether the trade unions, or anyone else for that matter, like it or not, Australia is now a poorer country than it was three months ago. That in turn implies the necessity of a cut of the same order, on average, in real returns to all factors of production. Clearly, the Government needs to tell the ACTU and the rest of the community very firmly that we can no longer, in these changed circumstances, support the full indexation of wage rates. The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, are refusing to bite the bullet on this issue. Another key area in which the Government is not coming clean is the area of monetary policy. We need information on the Government's monetary policy. What is the policy? Why did the Government not come forward much earlier and say that it was deliberately pushing up interest rates to the highest real level in Australia's history to prop up the Australian dollar, at a time when the dollar has been falling as a result of the policies of this Government, and there has been international loss of confidence in this Government? Why did the Government abandon its monetary targets earlier this year and why has it refused to introduce new targets? The Prime Minister missed a golden opportunity yesterday, when making his statement on expenditure, to say something about monetary policy and monetary targets. I urge him to do so in his May statement. The primary need is to restore a clear monetary target by which the performance of the Government can be judged. There has been too much deliberate fudging of the policy issues by emphasising the current problems of interpretation of particular monetary growth figures. It would give great confidence to the business community in particular if monetary targets for the next 12 to 15 months were established very quickly and announced, and there is no earthly reason why that should not be done. The Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty, is reported to have told union colleagues recently that the Government is lacking vision and has lost direction. I heartily agree, but it has also lost the capacity to be honest with the Australian public. It is unwilling to take the Australian public into its confidence and, as a result, it is losing the confidence of the Australian public. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.48) —I rise to speak on the matter of urgency brought down by Senator Chaney, which states: The need for the Government to provide adequate information to enable proper judgment to be made of its economic policies. I wanted to read out the subject of the motion because judging from the last few contributions from the Opposition, I think it has lost its way in attempting to follow the lead set by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). That a member of the Liberal Party of Australia could move such a matter of urgency in this chamber is, of course, demonstrative of the extraordinary effrontery and gall it continues to show. I should have thought that a member of the Party which perpetrated upon the people of Australia the great lie and frustrated the provision of information to enable proper judgment to be made who moves a motion such as this must have a pretty awful memory. The very first thing with which the Hawke Government was confronted when it took office in early 1983 was the great lie about the size of the deficit. We came into office having been told that the deficit was going to be $6 billion. Within a matter of weeks-indeed I think within only two weeks-it was pretty obvious to the Government that, as the figures showed, because expenditure had at no stage been reined in the Budget deficit was going to come in at $9.6 billion. Yet the same Party that perpetrated this great lie upon the Australian people, in a deliberate attempt to frustrate proper judgment being made of what it had been up to, in the words of this motion, comes in today with this matter of urgency. One comes up with another inevitable conclusion from some of the contributions by the Opposition. After two years and some months in opposition, the once great Liberal Party that ruled Australia for so long has suddenly realised that the born to rule mantle its members put upon themselves is gradually coming apart. No longer are they sitting in positions of power from which they can dole out, miserably, bits of information from time to time. Suddenly they are confronted with the sad spectacle of being on the other side, of having to wear whatever the Government is prepared to dole out to them. Obviously that is not sitting easily upon their shoulders. Those anxious to get into government, anxious to be sitting on ministerial seats, are finding that the distance between themselves and the ministerial seats gets greater and greater every day. The Opposition must have been terrified when the Hawke Government took office that it would adopt the same stance as the Fraser Government adopted in regard to the way it handled the dissemination of information to enable judgments to be made on economic policies. Fortunately for the Liberal Party and the National Party, they would have discovered within the early months of the Hawke Government that that was not to be the case. If the Opposition had had any doubt about the sort of government the Hawke Government was going to be, and how it would handle the dissemination of information, it had only to await the first economic summit, which took place in the House of Representatives chamber only two years ago. There, for the first time, the Hawke Government established that it would share information with all sections of our community, with the trade unions, with those representing the poor, with business-with everybody-to make sure that enough information was on the table for us all to make deliberate and rational judgments. However, it must be said-I would like it put into the record of Hansard very early in the piece-that enough figures must be around for senior Opposition spokespersons to make judgments. Indeed, I am sure that members of the Opposition would not be prepared to believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, would in any way not be able to make a proper judgment. I quote from a Press release by John Howard of just a few days ago. Commenting on the publication of the national accounts figures for the December quarter he said: I welcome the economic growth disclosed by the December quarter national accounts figures. They indicate that for the year to December 1984 overall growth was 4.6 per cent with non-farm growth being at 5.1 per cent. This is good economic news for Australia. They are the real statements I would like members of the Opposition to take into account. If one had listened to what has occurred here over the last couple of hours one would not have heard much acknowledgment of the real benefit and good done by the Hawke Government. I am pleased to see that John Howard, at least, was prepared to recognise it over the last few days. The matter of urgency attempts to refer to two areas. The first is the question of whether forward estimates should be published. The second is whether the suspension of monetary targeting, however temporary it may have been, may have upset members of the Opposition. Let us look at the first area. The reality is that no decision has yet been taken as to whether the forward estimates will be published. After the Government has put forward its May statement, a decision will be taken on this matter. As I understand it, the Prime Minister reiterated today that it is still within the realms of possibility that those figures will be published. The benefit to be gained from the publication of the forward estimates has, however, been completely taken away by the Government's announced policy on the trilogy. That represents an unprecedented discipline on this Government and, indeed, would have done on any previous government, insofar as finance is concerned. It is a commitment, a forward indication of fiscal policy, the clearest commitment ever given by an Australian government. It commits the Government to hold outlays growth and receipts growth to the growth in gross domestic product. Furthermore and, I think, most importantly judging by the contributions of those opposite, it commits the Government to reduce the deficit in money terms. If one is to reduce the deficit, obviously one has to look at outlays. In the last few days the Government has given the clearest indication I can remember in decades of what it is going to do about outlays. The Prime Minister's statement yesterday about the cuts of $1 billion must have given those opposite some idea of the Government's target. The statement yesterday was made so that people can make a proper judgment about economic policies. Forward estimates, as we all know, are not a reliable guide either to total expenditure in the years ahead or to spending on specific programs. Ministers, whether at Expenditure Review Committee meetings or in Cabinet, have to go through those estimates and make decisions on cuts. They make changes. Things are altered up or down. In the end one comes out with the Government's decisions. The targets have already been revealed. The trilogy which we have announced our commitment to and which we will keep is the real information the Opposition needs. I will get to monetary targets later. First, I mention the question of Budget deficits. I am staggered by the fact that anyone opposite could raise the question, given the performance of the Opposition in the last election campaign. One does not have to go back to the Fraser years. One has only to look at Andrew Peacock's performance when he was promising all and sundry anything they wanted during the last election campaign. A quick rundown of promises suggests that more than $10 billion would have been added to the deficit last year if the Opposition had been elected to office. We would have had a deficit of $17 billion. All talk of fiscal responsibility went out the window. The ridiculous claim in the first place that ordinary families were $22 worse off and that their position would be immediately restored would have added $6 billion before one got to anything else. The figures I have just outlined do not even include any reference to what it would cost for the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, the other promise which was trotted out towards the end of the campaign and which would have cost more than $1 billion to implement. That sort of fiscal irresponsibility is too much for any country to handle. This country certainly could not handle it. Whatever the position of this Government on providing economic information, it is an awful long way in front of what the Opposition doled out when it was in government. During the seven years of office of the Fraser Government I cannot remember information flowing out of the place; there was not even a trickle. Let us look at the $1 billion expenditure cuts that were announced yesterday. One has to go back to the period of the Lynch razor gang in, I think, 1981 to look at any claim by the Opposition about its intentions. The Lynch razor gang finally announced cuts of $560m. We announced cuts yesterday of $1 billion. Yet of the $560m in cuts announced by the Lynch razor gang, less than half was ever gone on with. Less than half of the promises of the Lynch razor gang were ever attempted in expenditure cuts. The Opposition never showed a commitment to being prepared to cut expenditure. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made what was an announcement of great importance, that finally this Government is about expenditure cuts. We have announced $1 billion worth of cuts. To the extent that this mater of urgency reflects the complaint about the abolition of monetary targeting, all one has to do is concede-it is a concession that most, if not all, of the financial pundits around the country have already made-that the momentum caused by the movement from non-bank to bank institutions, because of the deregulation we introduced over the last few months, has distorted any possibility of getting proper monetary targets, at least in the intermediate period. The Government has not said at any stage that monetary targets are abolished for all time. All the Government has said is that for the foreseeable future, that is, for the next six months, while the movement for non-bank to bank institutions takes place because of this Government's policies on deregulation-policies so often talked about but never acted upon by its predecessors-monetary targeting had to be done away with. That does not mean for a moment that the Government has moved away from its non-inflationary monetary policy. It could not do that. It will not do that. No amount of complaints by the Opposition would ever bring the Government to do so. I return to those words about providing adequate information. The Government's purpose for a very long time has been to insist upon that sharing of information in a wide range of areas. First, the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which the Liberal Party has promised to disband, has had a very significant effect in Australia for some time now. Information sharing has been going on at EPAC since its formation over two years ago. The Construction Industry Council set up by the Government, and the Australian Mining Industry Council-in all there are 11 industry councils-are further examples of bodies with which the Government is sharing information. We have the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which took a long time to bring about by careful negotiation, information sharing and consultation, which is the hallmark of the Hawke Government. It has meant that wage growth has been contained for the first time in many years. One only has to go back four years to see that in one year of the Fraser Government wages growth was 17 per cent. By consultation and sharing information with the ACTU the Government has kept wage growth down to a 2.6 per cent increase in 12 months. In the housing industry the Government set up the Construction Forecasting Committee in 1983. In the housing industry, home dwellings commencement have grown from 105,000 to 150,000 in just two years. That is the sort of policy this Government is about. It has brought about a huge growth in home starts, new jobs and new confidence in that field. All that was done while material prices stayed fairly flat. They were not forced up and there was more non-inflationary growth. This debate ought to be about growth. The Government is counting on growth with its trilogy, and it is growth that will see Australia come out of its uncompetitive position. In the last year we have had real growth of 5.7 per cent with 4 per cent from the non-farm sector. That is what this Government promised to deliver and it is what we have had. In fact, we have had more growth than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. There ought to be some acknowledgment from the Opposition in this chamber that the Government's economic policies have worked. If we are worried about the fall in the value of the dollar, doomsday predictions arising from past failures ought not to be the way we judge the matter. We ought to judge it on the real figures, which show that Australian is going ahead once again. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.03) — This afternoon we have been debating this motion: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide adequate information to enable proper judgment to be made of its economic policies. What have we heard in response to that motion? We have had the defence from Senator Walsh, who has continued on his policy of obfuscation and downright deception. Senator Robert Ray agreed with the motion and said that we should not have moved it, and Senator Richardson almost wept at our failure to give the Government sufficient credit for the work it has done, but he did not answer why the Government will not do what it promised to do. That is what we now want to know: Why have we not had an answer from any one of the members of the Government-the future Opposition-on the reasons why they are not doing what they promised to do? Let me quote what they promised to do. It is stated on page 22 of the Labor Government's policy paper, issued on 9 February 1983, before the election which was unfortunately won by them: All public authorities to be required to engage in forward financial planning on a 3-5 year basis, such plans to be presented to Parliament for debate, and the general forward operational plans of each authority for the forthcoming year to be the subject of report in that authority's annual report. That would enable us to deal with about two-thirds of the total expenditure. When will it happen? We have not had it yet. The former Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, produced a paper in April 1984 in which he said: As with proposals canvassed in Reforming the Australian Public Service, many of the reforms in financial administration discussed here . . . the (Coombs) Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration and the (Reid) Review of Commonwealth Administration . . . have, over the years examined a number of the issues. The reforms set out in this paper affect all levels of budgeting and financial management. They are concerned with the roles of Ministers and Parliament, as well as of managers of Commonwealth agencies. The main themes are focusing and streamlining the Government's own decision making on budget priorities; improving the information base and the processes for parliamentary and public scrutiny of the budget and program implementation; and upgrading the financial management of programs in Commonwealth agencies. If Mr Dawkins sat in this House, he could not do anything but vote for our motion. On page 10 of that paper, in paragraph 3.6, he said that, following the release of the forward estimates, the Government 'plans to continue to publish and develop the forward estimates of outlays to assist parliamentary and public scrutiny and debate on these matters'. Yet this afternoon three Government speakers have denied what Mr Dawkins has said, denied their own Government's policies, saying that they are entitled to engage in this form of sleight of hand which has left us in the position where we can only believe that there is some reason for their failing to fulfil their much vaunted promise. I give them credit for what they did. I do not give them credit for what they are now doing. By introducing the information systems they provided, they did something which was worth while. It was a development of the programs we had undertaken. I thought that the Department of Finance was entitled to take some credit, as it did on page 4 of its 1983-84 annual report, for what was being done in relation to the provision of information, but suddenly the whole information system has come to a halt. We have a major split in the Government, as Senator Short reminded us. As Senator Chaney said, the Government is hiding the facts, shading what is happening in the economy and engaging in sleight of hand. Is that the new trilogy? Is the new trilogy: Why, why, why are we not receiving the information we ought to receive and which the Government promised to give us? On that basis, the Government ought to vote with us, because we are talking about its policy which it announced and propounded. We were saying it ought to be done. To give members of the Government the opportunity to vote honestly with us in support of the motion, I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Sheil, G. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. Vigor, D. B.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lajovic, M. E. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G.MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McKiernan, J. P.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Coleman, R. N.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Gietzelt, A. T.Brownhill, D. G. C. McIntosh, G. D.Scott, D. B. Tate, M. C.Jessop, D. S. Ryan, S. M.Collard, S. J. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-It will not come as a surprise to honourable senators to hear that the Senate will need to sit an additional week following the adjournment of the House of Representatives for the winter recess. This should enable the Government's legislative program for the autumn sittings to be completed. Accordingly I inform honourable senators that the Senate will sit an extra week from Monday, 27 May. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. The Opposition notes that the Government will require the Senate to sit four weeks in a row. I wish to make the point that the Government, having undertaken the two weeks on two weeks off sitting pattern, which has proved reasonably convenient to the Government, although it puts all of us under some pressure during parliamentary sittings, is now making a bit of a welter of it when it lifts us for 10 days and then takes us back for four weeks straight. I again express the view that I do not think it is in the interests of the health of even the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he should sit for four weeks continuously. I think it is an unwise sitting pattern and I simply remind the Senate of what you would remember well, Mr President, namely, the very great damage done to senators' health during the life of the Whitlam Government, when there were very heavy sitting and legislative programs. I believe it would be wise if the Government could plan the session ahead in future in a way that would preclude the need to sit for such great lengths of time. The Opposition will, of course, co-operate in these sittings, but I have a strong personal view that it is a very unwise way to conduct the Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I also believe that it is unwise to have four weeks straight sitting. I recall the vigorous debates that were held here some four or five years ago on this very point-how people were exhausted at the end of that period of sitting. I thought that the possibility of having three weeks on, then a week off, followed by a week back would be more appropriate. I suppose I need to place on record that I oppose this motion. I do so particularly for those 14 constituents with whom I was going camping in that week. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.18) —by leave-I move: That the Senate reconsider its decision to deny the petition lodged on behalf of Judge Foord, made on 16 April 1985, and further consider the statements of the President made on 28 March 1985 and 16 April 1985, relating to interventions by the Senate in actions commenced against Mr Justice Murphy and Judge Foord, and the general powers and responsibilities of the Senate in regard thereto. I feel it necessary to raise this matter at this stage because I believe that the decision made last week by the Senate needs to be reconsidered because the basis on which we made it was wrong. I believe that what has transpired needs to be reconsidered today because the trial of Judge Foord is already before the court and is at the stage where a submission of no case to answer has already been raised. Before the Senate meets again the question of the determination or otherwise of Mr Justice Murphy's action will be taken a further stage. I believe the decision made by the Senate last week was mistaken, and I wish to give some evidence of that and to refer to some of the statements that were made. I say this with no disrespect to you, Mr President, because I believe that there is some mistake in the advice you were given, which advice has been upheld by both Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack. I find myself in disagreement with the advice on which the Senate acted. Last week the Senate said that it had no power to waive its privilege and to allow the material the respective counsel for those two gentlemen had sought to allege and use in court to be used. My view is that that is wrong. The Senate has that power and the question that arises is whether we would, in our discretion, grant that permission. Therefore, I believe that the decision that was made a week ago was mistaken because it was based on a false premise. I refer in my motion to two statements, one of which you, sir, made on 28 March 1985 relating to the action taken by counsel on behalf of the Senate in respect of the action taken against Mr Justice Murphy. I should refer also to the statement you made on 25 March. Both of those statements are matters that are to be taken note of by the Senate and are on the Notice Paper but have not yet been dealt with. Motions were moved in both cases by Senator Chaney to refer both statements to the Senate, but they have not been discussed by the Senate. But more significant, sir, is the statement which you made on 16 April 1985 and which was followed by two motions in the Senate. One was a motion by Senator Gareth Evans to take note of the statement, which likewise remains undebated in the Senate. There was a further motion refusing leave for counsel for Judge Foord to use the evidence in the trial in which he is presently involved. In that statement, sir, you made reference to the proceedings and to the powers under section 49 of the Constitution, which 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. These incorporate the particular important provisions which are included in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which you referred to as: 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. I take the view that what is being done is not that of questioning or impeaching this. But this does not entitle one to conclude that it is not possible to deal with or to have reference to these statements out of Parliament. It is perfectly proper in my view for defendants who desire to raise the question of their right to liberty and to raise a question of inconsistent statements made by witnesses before Senate committees. I take it that is not a matter of impeachment or questioning out of Parliament. Yet you have concluded, sir, in that statement that this does have that effect. I refer to the first statements that I challenge, namely, the ruling that a statement made by a Senate committee is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be examined in court proceedings. I do not accept that. Also in your statement you said: . . . 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. Again, I do not think that is correct; I do not think it is not possible to examine such statements elsewhere. Likewise, Senator Gareth Evans, in speaking on this matter, said: . . . as I have indicated, I think there is room for further consideration of how one handles these situations in practice in the future. Therefore, the matter is left open. On the other hand, he comes to a conclusion that the statements which you have made are correct. He said: 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. Likewise, at the end of his statement, he says: . . . 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. At that stage I interjected: 'Mr Temby does not appear to think so'. Senator Gareth Evans referred to Mr Temby in other terms which I will come to later. Likewise, Senator Durack in the debate said: . . . I do not want to quote them or 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. He said further: I agree with Senator Evans that this chamber does not have the power to waive privilege. That is essentially the question at issue. All those gentlemen, no doubt with full belief in the position that they have taken, have taken the view that there is no power to remove or waive that privilege and that in fact this is not a question therefore that comes up for consideration by this House. My contention is that that is not so and it certainly is not so since the amendment made in 1970 to standing order 308 of this House's Standing Orders. That standing order now reads: The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not, unless authorized by the Senate or the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. The important point is that cases were referred to by learned authors prior to the time when those words were inserted. In fact, one can see this referred to quite clearly when one looks at the material which was contained in the report of the witnesses before the legislative committees of the Ontario Law Reform Commission of 1981. In that reference, under the heading of 'Waiver of the Privilege by a Legislature', the learned authors of that report state: The most important source of uncertainty concerns whether the privilege respecting witnesses is one which can be waived by the Legislature . . . However, the Australian Report- Here they refer to the report by Messrs Greenwood and Ellicott- appeared to harbour no doubts. It stated that the general rule is that no evidence so given [before a legislative committee] can be used against a witness in any other place without the permission of the House . . . The Report subsequently elaborated on this proposition: The reference given to that case which had been relied on was the case of Regina v. Wainscott, a Western Australian case of 1899 where the standing order was similar, where permission was not given by the relevant assembly. A very strong reason was then used-this may be used in argument against my proposition-that is, that in fact it may be said that a witness who gives evidence before a Senate committee is entitled to expect to have the protection of that evidence and to expect that it will not be used against him. But I suggest that it is altogether a different matter where that witness is a person who might be embarrased by such evidence and where the witness is a person who may be charged and have his liberty set at nought by that statement. The footnote to that quotation in the reference to Regina v. Wainscott states: It should be noted that, at the time the Australian report made its observation concerning the right of Parliament to withdraw the protection afforded to witnesses, there existed Standing Orders in the Commonwealth Senate and House of Representatives, akin to the previously mentioned 1818 resolution in the United Kingdom, specifically protecting legislative committee witnesses. In fact, what has happened is that we have amended our Standing Orders. For the fullness of it, I think I should refer to the fact that a further standing order-390-appears to have some relevance to this matter. It states: All Witnesses examined before the Senate, or any Committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of the Senate in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence. That is in general terms and I agree that, without the right which standing order 308 now gives to the Senate to allow evidence to be given elsewhere and to be used elsewhere, that would have a greater significance. Reference is made to two other documents, and including the reference in Odgers's Australian Senate Practice which points out: Prior to 1970 the words 'unless authorised by the Senate or the Committee' did not appear in S.O. 308, but the rule was amended to its present form to remove conflict with the Parliamentary Papers Act and also to bring the standing order into line with practice. It is very important that we realise this fact and bear in mind the statements which were made by Mr D. C. Pearce, who is a noted authority on these matters, in his article 'Inquiries by Senate Committees'-Australian Law Journal, Volume 45, November 1971-in which he refers to the case of the Queen and Merceron, and suggests that it may now be wrong. He said: The decision in Wainscott- which is the 1899 case to which I referred- when taken into account with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the various authorities refusing to admit evidence of members' statements made in the parliament, would seem to be good authority for the proposition that statements made by a witness to a parliamentary committee cannot be put in evidence against him at a subsequent criminal trial. Note, however, that in Chubb v. Salomons- he gives the reference for that- evidence of the proceedings was admitted where the House of Commons had consented to that evidence being given. Likewise, there is the case in Canada referred to in the report to which I have referred, which likewise sets out where evidence was in fact allowed to be given of the malpractice of a member, so that his privilege, in Regina and Robinson, was denied. So there are a number of precedents, and our Standing Orders have been changed, so I suggest that the rule is wrong. One comes from the question of power to the question of the exercise which we should make, the merits of this application. That is why I suggest that it should be reconsidered further. My motion should probably be forwarded further to the Privileges Committee to enable it to look into this question and to advise on what should be done. The matter should not be left as it is at present, with us appearing to intervene and to refuse the right of admission. Very significant was the letter which was presented to the Senate last week, to which I think little attention was given. It was a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, to the President of the Senate, dated 15 April 1985. In that letter, he said: However, we have no objection to prosecution witnesses being subjected to cross-examination in relation to prior statements made, wherever they may have been made. It is in the interests of justice that this should not be prevented. Further, he said: If the Senate can lawfully waive privilege, or not give instructions for Counsel to appear on its behalf at either trial, then that would be an entirely satisfactory position so far as the prosecution is concerned. That is the prosecution that is being presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. One might imagine that the interference, the meddling, which the Senate may commit in a criminal trial may be of harm to the prosecution as well as of harm to the defence. The defence counsel claim various entitlements. They want to use the statements by Mr Briese, and they want also taken into account the statement which he has prepared and given first to a Senate committee in regard to conspiracy theories. It is not for us to determine the significance or importance of that. It is certainly such that counsel for the defendants have considered that this is an important matter to be raised by them before the respective trials. As I read it originally, through the interventions which Mr Simos made on behalf of the Senate-not with any prior instruction from the Senate; I am not suggesting in any way that he had acted improperly in that regard; it was a matter which had to be determined in a hurry-what he did was very gravely to interfere with prosecutions and proceedings which were taking place. I can understand the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that he could see no reason, provided that we could see our way clear, why we should not allow such evidence to be given. There is grave danger in this Senate taking a view that it should protect everything that is said in the Senate. It is clear that what is said to be a breach of the Bill of Rights, if it is a matter, to use the terms that you used, Mr President, in your statement, or the terms of the Bill of Rights: That the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament- Literally, that might sound to mean that one could not say that Joe Blow made a stupid speech in Parliament today. As we know, the Press, exercising its rights of freedom of speech, constantly does that. It is constantly vigorously attacking things that are said and done in this House-and rightly so. Therefore, we must look for some lesser ground. It will be noted that the President and the honourable senators who spoke on this matter on the previous occasion used various words to describe the restriction that they saw. I think we should be very careful not to impose too great a restriction upon the use in criminal trials of material that is used in this Parliament. It is all right to say, as Mr Simos says, that he tried to instruct counsel as to how he could use the evidence in proceedings without actually disclosing that it came from this assembly. But those who have any experience of legal trials will know that it is very necessary to say to a witness, 'Have you made an inconsistent statement earlier on this subject, have you earlier taken a different view on this subject?', and for the witness to say, 'No'-and then not to be able to produce the material on which he has done it is absolutely vital so far as he is concerned. I am suggesting that there is a grave danger of this Senate doing an injustice by an unwise and, indeed, mistaken view of the width of the Bill of Rights. I give these reasons because it is important that they be put before the Senate. It is important that we should look again before we make this final decision. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.36) —Despite having listened very carefully to Senator Missen, I do not believe that there is a case to be made for reconsidering the decision that we made on this matter a few days ago. The basic reason why I say that has not to do with the merits, such as they may be, of having the particular evidence in question able to be the subject of cross-examination in the forward proceedings. The reason I make the point that I do, in the first instance, has to do, and really overwhelmingly, with the power of this Parliament or this chamber to make the evidence available in the way that Senator Missen proposes. The short point I make is the same as I made last time, and I shall make it again even more forcefully today: I do not believe that the Senate has the power, even if it wanted to and even if there were a good case on the merits for doing so, to make available this evidence to the court in the way that is proposed by counsel for the defendant, namely, for that evidence to be able to be, in itself, the subject of cross-examination with a view to testing out prior inconsistent statements or anything else of that kind. Let me explain the steps and the reasoning. The first point is that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 is part of the law of the land of this country. It is not a standing order of the Parliament that can be put to one side simply by a resolution of the House of parliament in question. It is a matter of law which stands in its own right and has to be construed and applied by the courts as such. This is a point that was well made by Senator Durack in his contribution to the previous debate. Most of us have thought in terms of the Bill of Rights being applied as the law of the land through the operation of section 49 of the Constitution. I think-although I am just having the point checked at the moment-that it is also true to say that quite apart from the operation of section 49 of the Constitution, the 1688 Bill of Rights is part of the inherited statute law of Australia and is still applicable as such in its own right. I see that Senator Missen shakes his head. Is he confident of that? Senator Missen —I am confident of this Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be fascinated to hear Senator Missen's authority. I have a recollection of Mr Justice Isaacs muttering something to the contrary in a case which is presently being looked at. I have just received a note saying that every law reform commission in Australia which has looked at it has said that the Bill of Rights still does apply in its own right in Australia, quite independently of the operation of the Constitution. I shall try to get chapter and verse for that before the end of the day. Irrespective of that, its operation, by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution, gives it equally that status of being part of the law of the land until it is subject to a declaration, presumably in legislative form by this Parliament, to the contrary. Of course, no such declaration has been made. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is there as a proposition of absolute legal force. It says, as we know, that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. Senator Missen said that he doubts that this has anything to do with what is involved here; that is, that the evidence of a particular witness before a Senate committee can, in his view, be properly the subject of cross-examination before a criminal court proceeding. I take issue with him on that very fundamental point and I do so as a matter of law. The truth of the matter is that the courts have held that the privilege contained in the Bill of Rights not only prevents parliamentary proceedings from themselves being the subject of civil or criminal action; it also prevents those proceedings-by proceedings, of course, it is well established that we include the proceedings before committees-from being referred to before courts in such a way that they are questioned in a very wide sense of that word. What has been said or done in the course of parliamentary proceedings, including evidence before a committee, may not be commented upon, may not be used to draw inferences or conclusions, may not be analysed and may not be made the basis of cross-examination or submission. This principle is a matter of law which simply, whether we like it or not, holds good, quite regardless of any action that might be taken by the particular House of parliament concerned to prevent any violation of it or, indeed, to attempt to waive such operation. The authority for all the assertions I have just made is a case that Senator Missen is possibly familiar with, Church of Scientology of California v. Johnson-Smith, 1972, Volume 1 of Queens Bench Reports at page 522. That is the formal confirmation in the courts of a view of the meaning of Article 9 which has been the perceived view for as long as I can remember this subject having been debated and written about. That really ought to be the end of the debate so far as we are concerned. Where, however, the confusion comes in in so many debates of this kind is between this issue of proceedings in parliament being questioned in this way and, on the other hand, proceedings in parliament being in some way adduced into evidence and made the subject of reference in the courts. The truth of the matter equally here is that there are all sorts of ways in which the proceedings in parliament can be the subject of mention or reference or somehow be dealt with in court proceedings. It is possible for evidence of proceedings in parliament to be adduced for a variety of legitimate purposes which do not violate the Bill of Rights prescription. For example, a person being sued for defamation on the basis of a Press report of what happened in parliament might need, or want to adduce, Hansard to support his own case to establish that the Press report was a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in parliament. So the Hansard is adduced into evidence as an accurate account of what was said in parliament and used as a touchstone against which to test the fairness or the accuracy of something else. That is not the same thing as saying that the report of the Hansard is itself the subject of cross-examination or questioned in the sense of the bona fides, with which the statement was made in the Parliament, being called in issue. Similarly, there have been instances of Hansard being adduced for the purposes of proving that a government decision or statement was made in parliament on a particular day and evidence of that perhaps being relevant for all sorts of purposes. There is a continuing argument as to whether, if evidence is to be adduced for any of these lesser purposes, we need parliamentary permission to do so. Parliaments have sometimes asserted that they have a right to be consulted on such matters. The courts, by contrast, have rather tended to say that it is a matter for the courts to determine. They will have regard to the scope and extent of this privilege, but it is for them to determine whether evidence can be adduced and not for parliament to claim any privilege or purport to waive any privilege in that respect. But I hope it is appreciated that what I have said leaves quite intact the principle of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights that even though evidence of parliamentary proceedings, including perhaps the evidence of a witness, may thus be adduced in some context, it cannot be made the subject of questioning in any of the ways that I have identified including, in particular, being the subject of cross-examination which is what, of course, is in issue in the Foord case that is before us again. The final point that needs to be made is one that does address the merits of the matter. Senator Missen's motion falls on the power question because however much we might worry about the merits, if we have not got the power to do something and if that is clearly and unequivocally established, there is not much point in debating it or even pursuing it to the point of a resolution. Let me just quickly address the question of merits as I did perhaps in too abstract a way last time in order to indicate that I do not believe any particular injustice will flow in the circumstances of this case because there will be many in the chamber who will be worried about that aspect of the matter and not give tuppence for the legal arguments that I have just been employing. I understand that approach even though being a lawyer I would occasionally wish otherwise. Let us address the merits of whether this particular defendant's defence will be prejudiced by an inability to test what may well have been-I say nothing about this particular case-a prior inconsistent statement, the proof of such which may then be of some utility for the defendant's case. The point here is that it is well established that if a witness has made statements before a parliamentary committee and it is desired, in effect, to examine him on those statements, it is possible to design a line of questioning aimed at eliciting those same statements in the court's proceedings. It is really a matter, as a practical consideration, of simply asking the witness: 'Is it not the case that you have said previously in another place, or another forum that X is the case?', without being specific as to what that forum or previous occasion may be. Senator Missen —But that is very lame, is it not? Senator GARETH EVANS —It may be very lame, Senator Missen, but since witnesses are on oath and obliged to answer questions in this particular way it is perfectly possible for cross-examination, professionally conducted, to draw out inconsistencies of a kind that may prove useful to defendants if the truth of the matter is to be finally established. I cannot be any more precise than that without giving specific examples which get too close to the kind of situation that we are immediately confronted with. All I say is that it is possible, by the careful, professional conduct of a case, to cope with this particular evidentiary problem that thus may confront a defendant in a way that does not offend the terms of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I believe, from my understanding of the present case, that that course of action or procedure is open to the defendant and his counsel in this matter and, as such, we ought not to be unduly alarmed-albeit that I would say we cannot do anything about it-by a possible miscarriage that might flow here from the lack of access to be used as a foundation for cross-examination of the actual evidence that may previously have been adduced. In a nutshell, that is the situation as I firmly understand it to be, that there simply is no power for the Senate to deal with the matter in this way. The fact that there are standing orders providing for the publication of evidence is simply not to the point. It is not to the point for the purposes of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights whether the Senate has authorised the publication or not authorised the publication, purported to waive its privilege or not purported to waive its privilege. Whichever way one comes at the problem, it is a matter of law, it is a matter of legal power and that power simply does not exist. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.50) —I want to speak only briefly on this matter. It has been debated fully on a previous occasion and shows signs of being debated fully again, which is perhaps unnecessary. Senator Missen has moved a motion that the Senate reconsider its decision to deny a petition lodged on behalf of Judge Foord for leave to use certain evidence which was given before a Senate committee by Mr Briese. We had a debate on this matter and the Senate made that decision. Senator Missen wants us to reconsider that. He also wants us to consider statements made by you, Mr President, in regard to interventions by the Senate, as he calls them, in committal proceedings against both Mr Justice Murphy and Judge Foord. Those statements refer to different questions, although they relate to the use that could be made in those proceedings of evidence given before Senate committees. As to the latter part of Senator Missen's motion, Mr President, it has been the Senate's intention to debate your statements, in particular your statements relating to future proceedings that might be set in train in regard to both these people as a result of a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions to you and others. Those are matters which the Senate has reserved for future debate and I do not think there is any need to consider them now. The only real matter with which we are concerned is whether we should reconsider our decision to deny the petition by Judge Foord's solicitors. I have nothing to add to the arguments that were used by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and me in this chamber a week or so ago in support of that denial. I point out that that was an opportunity for Senator Missen to use some of the arguments he has now used. He now bases his case on a different point, namely, that some matter was overlooked in the argument at that time, and he relies very much on standing order 308. I accept what Senator Evans has just said about that. I simply cannot see what relevance standing order 308 has to this matter. Even if it had any relevance, it is not within the power of the Senate unilaterally to declare a privilege because section 49 of the Constitution makes it quite clear that the privileges we have can be changed only by both Houses of Parliament and not simply by one House adopting a standing order. I do not see what relevance standing order 308 has. Even though we may not have had that in contemplation when we spoke on this matter before, as I have said, it seems to be totally irrelevant. Senator Missen's concern is that there has been a misinterpretation of the ambit of section 9 of the Bill of Rights. He does not believe that it has the effect which Senator Evans and I have adopted when speaking in the Senate and which you have adopted, Mr President, in your statements to the Senate. As I pointed out on the previous occasion, if our view of the ambit of the Bill of Rights is wrong that is a matter which is justiciable. The courts have held that they can determine the ambit of parliamentary privilege. It is perfectly open to Judge Foord's counsel, or any other counsel in any court in which this question may arise, to argue that the privileges of the Parliament do not extend in that way and that matter can be resolved by the courts. I would be very surprised if the courts adopted a narrow interpretation of that section in light of the decisions which have already been made in the courts, in particular in the Church of Scientology of California case to which Senator Evans has already referred. There are other decisions to the same effect. I do not believe that we took into account wrong considerations when we previously debated this matter and made our decision. In those circumstances, I see no reason why we should reconsider our decision. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.55) —I was not present at the time the proposition was put before the Senate, but I have become familiar with the debate. I am indebted to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and to Senator Durack for their comments. Mr President, you might recall that I was concerned to the point where I approached you on this matter. On reading the transcript of the Murphy case, I was surprised to see that the Senate had authorised a Mr Simos to appear before the court to protect the privilege of the Senate. You explained to me that, on advice, you thought that it was necessary for this to be done. I still have considerable reservations about that decision and, for that reason, I am attracted to Senator Missen's motion. I am attracted to it because our counsel has intruded into the court in such a way that the defence of the person accused has been hampered. I do not think it was the intention of the Senate to do that. I think the intention of the Senate was to inform the court of the position of privilege and the position of evidence given before a Senate committee. If we read the transcript we find that, in effect, Mr Simos on behalf of the Senate constantly entered into argument and debate as to whether or not privilege pertained. In my view the defence was seriously hampered. It is a serious charge that is before the court, and a person on a criminal charge is now hampered by counsel appearing on our behalf to protect the privilege of the Senate. It was on his judgment that he intruded time and again. In my view, that hampered the defence of the person concerned. For that reason I have a view similar to that of Senator Missen. In spite of the statement that the Senate cannot unilaterally take a position on this matter, I think the Senate can at least make a decision to withdraw its counsel, having advised the court, and allow the matter of privilege to be determined by a magistrate or a judge. He can determine, on the objection of the prosecutor or the defence, whether certain evidence should be allowed, whether it is adduced or other evidence. Even if the Senate decides not to allow the evidence to be used by the court in a more direct fashion, I believe that the Senate ought to take the view that its counsel should be withdrawn. As far as the Murphy case is concerned, I know that there are difficulties and that the matter is still before the court. Let me just point out that heavy weight was put on the fact that Mr Briese's evidence was not contested. If it had been contested before the Committee we would not be so far down this sorry path. A matter that exercises my mind is that it was almost at the point of that evidence being contested. Senator Haines and Senator Tate would know just how close, on the Friday before the Committee wound up, we were to that evidence being contested. As it happened-I will not go into the details-it was not contested. We now have Mr Briese's evidence before the court being defended a second time by the Senate through Mr Simos. In my view, that was an unfair intrusion by the Senate. If the matter had come before the Senate for approval to provide counsel on behalf of the Senate I would have objected. We are not clear who Mr Simos represents before the court. On the first day he represented the Senate, according to the transcript; on the second day apparently he represented himself, as a friend of the court; and on the third day he represented you, Mr President. It is difficult to cut through this confusion but I come back to the fact that the defence of a person on a serious charge has been materially affected by the decision to provide counsel on a continuing basis before the court who can intrude at will. My view is that if we cannot allow the evidence of a committee to be presented because of the points that Senator Evans and Senator Durack have raised, we ought to consider further whether we should continue to have expensive counsel before the court and interfering with the process of that court. Senator Chipp —The magistrate does not have to accept his advice or submissions, does he? Senator GEORGES —No; nevertheless if someone was continually raising points of privilege it would have, shall we term it, a destabilising effect-I might even say a demoralising effect-on the defendant. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Temby claims it is destabilising for the prosecution, too. Senator GEORGES —If it is destabilising for the prosecution it would certainly be destabilising for the defence and for that reason we ought to get counsel out of there as quickly as possible. Perhaps it is too late. Senator Gareth Evans —You may be right about that; it is still a matter for separate debate and it is still on the Senate Notice Paper. Senator GEORGES —I am raising it now but I might accept Senator Evans's point that there is no way in which the Senate can unilaterally make a decision on it. Senator Chipp —You have raised a good point but that is not the point Senator Missen raised. Senator GEORGES —I am inclined towards Senator Missen's arguments. I may be influenced by what I feel about this matter. I can say, since there is no party position on this, that if it comes to a vote I will be voting with Senator Missen. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a sentimental vote, it is not a rational one. Senator GEORGES —We sometimes come to a better conclusion if we are sentimental rather than rational, and that is advice that Senator Evans ought to take. So often he puts forward a good legal argument and the result is disastrous for someone. That goes for most lawyers. Let a little bit of sentiment exercise itself in this place. It should be taken on board that we do not need this expensive and sophisticated counsel who is supported by junior counsel and briefed by solicitors, all of whom must be costing us a packet. We certainly do not need such a continuance of this Senate's representation. Let me get back to the fact that both charges are extremely serious and the defence of those two people ought not to be impeded in any way. Therefore I am inclined to believe that the argument of Senator Missen, which was as well put as the argument of Senator Evans and Senator Durack, is worthy of support. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.04) —The arguments of Senator Missen were very compelling and cogently put. They were put on the basis of the hunger for civil liberties that he has expressed over the years. I listened to what Senator Gareth Evans had to say, which was simply that as a matter of law the Senate is not able to waive its privilege. He referred to the case reported in Volume 1 of the Queens Bench Reports of 1972 and, while not doubting for one minute the complete accuracy of what he said, I thought, as a matter of habit, that I ought to check that volume. Apparently in this august place that volume which deals with the privileges this House may or may not have is missing. I do not for one minute suggest that Senator Evans had anything to do with the missing volume but I wonder whether, while the Estimates committees are still meeting, it would be possible for this Parliament to see its way clear to spend perhaps $80 on a volume of Her Majesty's Queens Bench Reports of 1972, Volume 1. Be that as it may, the point made by Senator Missen and I think re-emphasised by Senator Georges is this: We, being an institution which over the years has often proclaimed that it is interested in civil rights and in protecting the liberty and reputation of the citizens of this land, now have occasion to consider a situation where a particular person is threatened with the loss of his reputation and liberty. It is a dreadful, outrageous thing for anybody to spend one night imprisoned when he should not. It is said by Senator Evans, when talking about the merits of this subject, that really it does not matter because if a person is an effective cross-examiner he can in effect overcome the disadvantage of not having a document before him. It is my belief-perhaps Senator Missen would agree with me-that it makes a very great deal of difference if one has to cross-examine a witness without the document on which he is being cross-examined. If the full statements the witness has made cannot be put to him the effect of the cross-examination may be very much reduced, to the extent where liberty and reputation are compromised. It may well be that this House cannot waive its privilege but in deciding whether or not it can-we accept for the purposes of this argument that it cannot-we must accept that that privilege may have affected in the past, may presently and certainly may well in the future, affect the reputation and the liberty of a particular person or particular people. In other words, the fact that this privilege exists may mean that people's liberty and reputations are much compromised. That is a matter of grave moment and a matter that ought to be subject to debate which is perhaps better prepared than our present debate. It is a pity in a way that proper opportunity has not been provided for members of this chamber so that a full scale debate could have been undertaken. Senator Chipp —Are you arguing that it is lawful for us to waive that privilege? Senator COONEY —I am saying that I am not now in a position to say whether or not it is. I have listened to what Senator Evans has said and, knowing the outstanding lawyer that he is, I will accept what he says. All I would like to do is check what the case law says. I have been denied that opportunity because the Estimates committees which apparently operated before I came to this place did not make available Volume 1 of the 1972 Queens Bench Reports. On a more serious note, I am saying that if the law is, as has been said, that we cannot waive the privilege, that privilege has the effect of denying justice being done to different people at different times. It may well mean that no justice will be done on this occasion because it may be-it is a matter for the person's legal advisers-that the legal advisers do not have the opportunity of cross-examining a witness with the effect that they might otherwise have had. The fact that they cannot cross-examine that witness with the effect that they might otherwise have had may mean that there is an injustice, and if the law is that we cannot waive our privilege that inability may have led in this case and may well lead in the future to injustices being done. That is the point. It is a matter of serious moment. Senator Durack —Do you think, for instance, that we ought to be able to waive our privilege to enable one of our number to be sued? Senator COONEY —If the honourable senator is asking me what my opinion is, it is this: That there ought to be an opportunity to waive the privilege but the circumstances in which that is done should be circumscribed with proper protection in the situation that he talks about. Nevertheless, it ought to exist. In effect the honourable senator is saying that there ought to be an absolute prohibition against waiving privilege. What I am saying and Senator Missen is saying is that there ought to be exceptions to that where people's liberties and reputations are at stake. Senator Haines —What about the protection of witnesses? Senator COONEY —The protection of witnesses is a serious matter. Senator Haines —What about witnesses before the committees, though? Senator COONEY —Of course witnesses before the committees should be protected. It is a matter of balancing the circumstances. The statement against the witness should never be able to be used to prosecute him. In this instance the witness's liberty is not at stake but perhaps his reputation is. In protecting the witness under the present circumstances, to save his discomfort and reputation, we may well be compelling somebody to go to gaol. That is the effect of it. It is a matter of balance, and when we are looking at the balance we must look, on the one hand, at whether a witness may feel discomfort or that his reputation is being affected, and on the other hand at the threat to the person on the other side who may well have to go to gaol for a considerable period. Senator Gareth Evans —As to discomfort to witnesses, there has been 300 years of protection of free speech. Senator COONEY —That is a different matter. The Minister is asking what the law is. The question I was asked was simply what I thought, and that is what I thought. I think that for 300 years, if that is what it is, it has been wrong. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.12) —in reply-I wish to reply to the debate. Senator Haines —The honourable senator has done it for you. Senator MISSEN —Yes, I know. I shall keep it very short. The fact is that various matters were raised by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and Senator Durack. I thank Senator Georges and Senator Cooney for their contributions to this debate. I do not agree with the fundamental proposition of Senator Gareth Evans that the Bill of Rights is part of the law of this country. Professor Enid Campbell's book Parliamentary Privilege in Australia concludes: . . . the statutes guaranteeing freedom of speech in Parliament in England were of purely local application and were not therefore applicable to newly settled colonies. . . . Article 9 of the Bill of Rights did not and does not therefore apply of its own force to State parliaments. It applies to the Federal Parliament solely by the indirect method that section 49 of the Constitution brings in the privileges of the British House of Commons. Senator Gareth Evans —What are you quoting from? Senator MISSEN —I am quoting from Professor Enid Campbell's book. She maintains, and I maintain also, that it is not part of the law of parliament; it was introduced in the States and colonies by separate Acts of parliament and to some extent by common law provisions. I think that is important because you are relying on the terms of the Bill of Rights. I am saying that the provisions of that are not adequate for the present. They are not sufficiently clear. You will tell us- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to the honourable senator that he direct his remarks to Senator Evans through the Chair. Senator MISSEN —Yes, Mr President, I will do that. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that they are part of the law because the Bill of Rights says so. So far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, it is not an adequate statement of the law covering present conditions. No answer whatsoever has been given to the point I made that the criticisms which are made every day of this chamber and the other chamber by members of the Press would perhaps under Senator Gareth Evans's interpretation be a questioning of the actions of this Parliament. They are not covered by the Bill of Rights and we clearly do not accept that to be so. I agree entirely with Senator Cooney that this is a case where we must separate the situation. If there is a chance that a person may lose his right to liberty, we should be very careful before we exercise this privilege. It is maintained by Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack, and I deny it, that this is a matter which cannot be refuted or waived. I point out that when we dealt last week with the petition which asked us to waive this matter, we did not say: 'No, we cannot do this'. The motion that was passed reads: 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. Is that a piece of hypocrisy on our part or does it mean what I think it means, that we have the power and we have not done so? Therefore, I think we accept this fact. I have given the Senate examples of what happened in Canada which, of course, is also affected by the Bill of Rights. Canada has allowed the use of evidence in the case of a person prosecuted under Canadian law. I believe that we should not be accepting the statement which was made and that this is beyond a doubt a matter which can be used. Senator Durack, by way of interjection, asked Senator Cooney: 'Do you think that we ought to be able to waive our privilege to enable one of our members to be sued?' It may mean that. The case may be one where we could exercise a judgment and allow one of our- Senator Durack —We ought to be more careful then. Senator MISSEN —Perhaps we ought to be more careful than we are. Perhaps our behaviour in this chamber would be better if we did have to exercise that discretion; but I think it is very unlikely that we would allow it to be used in that way. In this case we are saying that evidence which was given before a committee and which is now regarded by counsel and the people who were charged as being vital and important is being sought so that it can be shown to be inconsistent. Senator Gareth Evans said that there are other ways around this. Senator Cooney pointed out that this is no answer, that in fact it is quite obviously a lame way of trying to defend a case to suggest that one cannot put the type of evidence which has been used against a person. I therefore maintain the case that I have put forward. I thank those honourable senators who support it. The Senate may not prefer to have this matter dealt with in another way in the future but merely to deny it. If so, I think the Senate must have it on its own head. Question resolved in the negative. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-During the debate I raised the possibility that you, Mr President, may reconsider the appointment of people to appear before the courts, and I hope you will consider that matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to seek leave to move a motion at this stage, but I do think that the expressions of opinion in the Senate seem to indicate that perhaps you should reconsider your decision to have counsel before the courts on a continuing basis to protect the privilege of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already explained my reasons to the Senate for the action that I authorised to be taken. I will give consideration to the matter raised by Senator Georges. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I raise a matter of privilege pursuant to standing order 118. Recently amendments were prepared for moving in the Senate in respect of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. These amendments were prepared purely for the purpose of the proceedings in the Senate and were not disclosed except to honourable senators, and only to some honourable senators, for the purpose of discussion of the forthcoming proceedings. It appears that a departmental officer has improperly discussed the amendments with interest groups, has misrepresented the nature of the amendments and has caused those interest groups to approach honourable senators on the basis of the misrepresentation. I received a telephone call prior to Question Time from a worker in a non-government organisation with regard to an amendment which she alleged I was moving to this legislation. I was rather puzzled because, as the conversation ensued, she was clearly referring to an amendment foreshadowed by another honourable senator during the debate last night, although I had in fact prepared an amendment to that amendment. Although I had prepared an amendment to that amendment, I was puzzled as to how she could have known about the amendment I had prepared, as it had had fairly limited circulation at that stage. Some time later, near the end of Question Time, I received a note from a member of Senator Chipp's staff who had been contacted by welfare organisation representatives saying that they had been told by a departmental officer that Senator Haines, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, had an amendment which the Department did not like. Since then, my office in South Australia has been inundated with phone calls from representatives of organisations concerned that a Democrat amendment is to be introduced with the apparent intention, deliberate or otherwise, to hold up or destroy the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program legislation. Apart from the fact that the amendment I prepared this morning could not do any of those things, I am concerned about suggestions that it could. Similar calls have gone to Senator Chipp's office in Melbourne and to his office here and, I understand, to Senator Grimes's office here. None of the callers appears to know what is in the alleged amendment but are acting on information that has come, directly or indirectly, as I understand it from the departmental officer concerned that the amendment would, in fact, damage the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill and, therefore, funding to non-government organisations. As you are aware, Mr President, there are sound authorities for the proposition that the protection which applies to proceedings in either House under section 49 of the Constitution also extends to the preparation of and dealing with documents which are prepared wholly for the purpose of those proceedings. Therefore, it would be open to the Senate to treat as a contempt improper dealings with such a document, for example, an amendment which has been prepared for moving in the Senate. Therefore, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges-The improper disclosure and misrepresentation by a departmental officer of an amendment prepared for moving in the Senate. In moving the motion, I indicate that, should the matter be referred to the Committee, I will provide the Committee with whatever further details of the incident I have outlined it requires. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —On behalf of the Government, I indicate that we have no objection to the motion moved by Senator Haines. Of course, she will provide the Committee of Privileges with further information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, consideration of Government Papers be not proceeded with this day. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.23) —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 ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the second report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Button, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is the culmination of a comprehensive process of review by this Government of the operations of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust which began with the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General in his report on the Trust's financial statements for 1981-82. The Auditor-General's report was tabled in the Parliament on 7 December 1983. In response the Government established, in January 1984, an inquiry into the management and operations of the Trust which was conducted by Mr J. V. Monaghan. This inquiry addressed both the specific matters raised by the Auditor-General and a range of more general concerns. Mr Monaghan was then a Commissioner of the Public Service Board and is now Auditor-General. Following receipt of Mr Monaghan's report, a working party, which included representatives of the ACTU and relevant industrial organisations, was established to examine and consider a number of matters associated with the conclusions and recommendations of the report. The Monaghan report and the report of the working party have been tabled in the Parliament. The management of the Superannuation Fund by the Trust and the investment performance of the Fund are important to both the contributors and the Government. Contributions made by members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme are held in the Fund. It is from the Fund that members' retirement or separation benefits are paid in addition to any Government financed benefit to which they may be entitled. The Government established and maintains the Scheme in its role as a responsible employer, concerned for the well-being of its employees not only during their working lives but in their years of retirement. The income of the Fund is a very important element of the benefits which contributors receive and the Government would wish to see the maximum possible return accruing to contributors. I should make it clear that the Government in its role of employer does not make any contributions to the Superannuation Fund but meets employer-financed benefits from moneys appropriated for that purpose. The Fund is made up solely of employee contributions and the income earned from investment. Since its establishment in 1976 the Trust has under the Superannuation Act 1976 been independent of any external direction of its management and investment decisions. This Bill will not alter that position. The Bill does, however, provide for changes that will: Clearly define the Trust's objective and duties; Strengthen its ability to manage and invest the Fund in the most effective and efficient manner; Enhance its accountability; and Enable it to operate in competitive financial markets with a degree of freedom and flexibility in investment no less than that afforded the larger private sector superannuation funds. In the future, the Trust's specific objective will be to manage and invest the Fund so as to maximise the return earned. In doing so, the Trust will be required to have regard to: The need to make payments out of the Fund; The need for equity among contributors so that as far as is possible, one generation of contributors is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged in relation to another as a result of investment strategies pursued; and The need to exercise reasonable care and prudence to maintain the integrity of the Fund. The majority of the specific duties set down for the Trust are designed to ensure that the Trust operates efficiently and effectively to achieve its objective. Among other things, the Trust will be required to establish investment policies and programs, to establish strategies designed to achieve the investment policies and to develop and maintain appropriate plans and procedures to implement the strategies. It will be required to ensure that it has available the resources necessary to achieve its objective. In addition, the Trust will be charged with the duty of informing contributors and appropriate industrial organisations representing contributor interests about the management and investment of the Fund. As a major investment institution the Trust comes into possession of and, indeed, generates a good deal of sensitive commercial information. In providing information to contributor organisations the Trust will be required to take into account the need to protect commercially sensitive information. To strengthen its capacity to manage and invest the Fund in today's intensely competitive business environment the Trust will be increased in size from three to five members. These five members will be: A full-time principal member who will be nominated by the Minister for Finance for appointment by the Governor-General after consultation with the ACTU; An additional full-time member nominated by the ACTU after consultation with relevant industrial organisations representing contributor interests; and Three part-time members, two of whom will be nominated by the ACTU after consultation with relevant industrial organisations and one by the Minister. If the Minister so decides, the additional full-time member may be appointed as deputy principal member of the Trust with the duty to act as may be necessary for the principal member with all the powers and duties of that office. This revised structure of the Trust recognises that the Fund is comprised solely of contributor's moneys and that both contributors and the Government have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the Trust's operations. The Government considers that the Trust is accountable both to contributors and, as a statutory authority, to the Parliament. Accountability will be enhanced by several means. Additional representation on the Trust by persons nominated by the ACTU after consultation with relevant industrial organisations representing the interests of contributors to the scheme is one means of emphasising accountability to contributors, as is the duty to inform those organisations and contributors generally about the management and investment of the Fund. Members of the Trust will also be required to fully divulge any interests they may have, whether of a pecuniary nature or otherwise and whether direct or indirect, to their fellow Trust members. Arrangements will be maintained to ensure that Trust members will not participate in decisions on any matter in which they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, unless the Trust as a whole considers participation to be appropriate in all the circumstances. It may not, for example, be inappropriate for a Trust member who has a personal small holding of shares in a large public company to participate in the Trust's consideration of investment in the shares of that company. While the Government expects that the Trust will endeavour to accommodate both the letter and the spirit of publicly stated Government policies bearing on its functions and operations, it also recognises the Trust has responsibilities to contributors. Accordingly the Bill provides that the Trust will be required to specifically consider the import of any statement of Government policy relevant to its functions that may be provided to it by the Minister. A copy of any such statement of Government policy will be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of it being provided. No statutory obligation will be imposed on the Trust to comply with policies brought to its attention by the Minister, but the Trust will be expected to include an account of action subsequently taken and appropriate comment in its annual report. Accountability will be further enhanced by requiring the Trust to furnish to the Minister an interim annual report, together with financial statements, in any circumstance where it is unable to meet its obligation to report to the Parliament within the time specified by the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Minister will make such interim reports available to the ACTU and, upon request, to relevant industrial organisations representing contributor interests. This requirement will, of course, not absolve the Trust from continuing to make every attempt to have its annual report available as soon as possible. To increase the freedom and flexibility of the Trust to compete for attractive investment opportunities with the larger private sector superannuation funds, significant changes will be made to its investment powers. Investment will be defined in the widest possible terms to include any expenditure designed to obtain a present or future financial return, whether by way of income, profit or otherwise. The Trust will be able to enter into any form of investment, alone or jointly with others, constrained only by the need, expressed in its objective, to exercise reasonable care and to have regard to equity considerations. In addition the Trust will be empowered: to use external investment managers to invest and manage some portion of the Fund, if that is considered by the Trust to be an appropriate course in the light of the Trust's own resources; to underwrite or sub-underwrite investments; and to control, manage, or to enhance or protect the value of its investments, or to enhance or protect the return from any investment. In the sphere of Commonwealth Government functions, the charter of the Trust and the nature of its operations differ markedly from most other organisations. In recognition of this fact and that the responsibilities and duties of the Trust require independence of operation free from direction, the Bill enables the Trust to employ the staff necessary to carry out its functions, duties and powers. The Trust will be able to determine the terms and conditions of employment of its staff with the approval of the Minister. The present staff attached to the Trust are officers of the Department of Finance. They will have the option of accepting offers of employment with the Trust under its independent staffing power or remaining as Department of Finance officers. It is expected that there will be few, if any, of the present staff who decline offers of appointment with the Trust. Rights to re-enter the Australian Public Service for staff accepting offers of employment by the Trust will apply under the staff mobility provisions of Part IV of the Public Service Act. APS officers accepting employment with the Trust in the future will also be covered by these mobility provisions. The staff of the Trust not covered by the mobility provisions of the Public Service Act will be able to compete for all advertised vacancies in the APS. If selected for an APS vacancy, a member of the Trust's staff who meets the normal APS requirements for entry will be appointed to the vacant office. Provided that the person has been employed by the Trust for 12 months, there will not be any requirement to serve a probationary period in the APS position. The Bill contains a number of consequential and other technical amendments in relation to the Trust. In addition, the Bill confers on the Commissioner for Superannuation, who is charged with administering all elements of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme not relating to the management and investment of the Fund, the powers of a secretary of a department under the Public Service Act. The present staff servicing the Commissioner's requirements will be established as a separate branch of the APS. Staff members will remain appointed or employed under the Public Service Act. Finally, the Bill contains amendments to the cost recovery arrangements under the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976. The amendments will enable the Minister for Finance to: Limit an employer's liability to the cost of the employer-financed share of any benefit that accrued under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme to an employee for service with that employer; Determine that employers who, prior to 1 July 1981, were treated as if exempt from the requirement to meet the cost of superannuation benefits are formally relieved of the pre-1981 liability; and Require an employer to meet its liability to the Commonwealth on a pay-as-you-go basis as if the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme were funded, rather than let the liability build up until benefits are eventually paid. There is no financial impact on government as a consequence of the changes in respect of the Trust. By regulations made under the Superannuation Act, all costs involved in the management and investment of the Fund, including staff costs, are borne by the Fund and this is to continue. The Government expects that removal of restrictions on the investment powers of the Trust will enable greater returns to be generated by the Fund for the benefit of contributors. There are no implications for additional expenditure or revenue by conferring secretary powers on the Commissioner for Superannuation or establishing the staff required to service the Commissioner's functions as a branch of the APS. The cost of administration of the Superannuation Act, apart from the costs incurred in the management and investment of the Fund by the Trust, is presently met by appropriation to the Department of Finance. The same cost will continue to be met by appropriation, but to the Commissioner for Superannuation in future. There may be some small, unquantifiable saving in the attendant removal of the present minor duplication of administrative effort between the Commissioner's office and the Department of Finance proper. The employers that under the cost recovery arrangements operating prior to 1 July 1981, were treated as if exempt from any liability would, but for the proposed changes, technically have a legal liability to the Commonwealth for the unpaid amounts. However, in practice, because the employers concerned would require additional funds from the Budget to meet the unpaid contributions, the payments by, and to, the Commonwealth would balance out, leaving the budgetary situation no different from what will be the case under the proposed amendment. Contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme have justifiable expectations that the return earned by the Superannuation Fund on investment of their contributions will be at least comparable to the returns earned by the larger private sector superannuation schemes. They are also entitled to expect that the body charged with investment of their contributions will invest with care and prudence and be fully accountable for its decisions. The measures introduced by this Bill, which owe much to my predecessor as Minister for Finance, the Honourable J. S. Dawkins, MP, remove any impediment to the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust fulfilling these expectations. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. Bill presented by Senator Harradine, and read a first time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.28) — by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- My interest and concern about the general subject area of experimentation on unborn human life extends over many years. It is based on the fact that life begins at conception and on my belief that human beings, whether born or unborn, deserve the protection of a legal framework enabling the development of their full human potential. Honourable senators may recall that as far back as 15 March 1977 I questioned the then Minister for Health about a particularly grotesque suggestion by a South Australian Professor that material from aborted foetuses could be useful in transplants, particularly if the unborn baby had been deliberately aborted by a mini-labour method in which there were completely sterile conditions and the baby was 'only just alive'. Almost eight years later to the day that same Professor, who has recently retired as the Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Adelaide, and who had spent the intervening years as a pioneer of IVF techniques in South Australia, was suggesting that experiments should be undertaken on frozen embryos. It is a long succession of comments of this nature, made as recently as 12 March 1985, that has prompted me to bring forward this Bill to 'prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation'. I am aware that within our community, indeed within this Parliament, there are people with a somewhat different philosophical view to mine but who nevertheless regard experimentation on human embryos as abhorrent. My drafting instructions were prepared with this in mind in the hope that the resultant Bill will attract the broadest possible Parliamentary and community support. Furthermore I am not asking senators to vote on the general question of whether or not IVF should be prohibited. I have decided to limit the scope of this Bill to experimentation on human embryos which is abhorrent to the general community but which has been undertaken in Australia and which some scientists would wish to pursue in the absence of a clear prohibition. The first subject to deal with is the argument often advanced in the form of a question: 'What is so special about the fertilised egg? If you are so concerned about a fertilised egg, why are you not equally as concerned about sperm and ova?' This comment has been made by a number of people, including Dr Helga Kuhse of the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University, when she referred to the discarding of fertilised eggs in an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 19 June 1984. Dr Kuhse wrote: '. . . everything that can be said about the newly fertilised egg or embryo can also be said about the egg and sperm . . . if it is not wrong to waste eggs and sperm separately, it is difficult to see what would make it wrong to discard an egg shortly after it has been fertilised by sperm'. (Dr Kuhse, I might add, recently represented the Victorian Euthanasia Society at a voluntary euthanasia congress in Europe and so it is reasonable to assume that her views about human life at its commencement fit a consistent thesis covering the whole of human existence.) However there is a fundamental difference. The explanation of this has been clearly expressed by Rev. Dr Francis Harman who was a member of the Victorian Waller Committee. According to a report in the Melbourne Age on 11 September 1984, Dr Harman argued that the human embryo is not just a further progression of its formative constituents-the sperm and ovum-but a new entity as distinct ontologically from each as water is distinct from hydrogen and oxygen. 'It is human life', Dr Harman said. 'As soon as the 23 paternally derived chromosomes are united through fertilisation to the 23 maternal chromosomes, the full genetic information necessary and sufficient to express all the inborn qualities of the new individual are gathered irrevocably in its DNA . . . (which) controls every phase of the development of the individual from conception to death: coloring of eyes, coloring of hair, height and all the other identifying characteristics.' Mr Tonti-Filippini of St Vincent's Hospital Bioethics Centre, has also explained this fundamental difference in this manner: 'The successful fertilization of a human egg with a human sperm produces a progenitor human cell. That is, it produces a unique cell which has the power to organize its multiplication and differentiation in a way which ordinarily leads to a human adult, without requiring any action from outside other than the availability of nourishment and the provision of a favourable environment.' It is ironic that any confusion about the formative constituents and the embryo itself should have arisen again in the context of the debate about IVF. I am sure that with all the publicity about what is happening in the IVF laboratories, the public has come to better appreciate that the scientists are involved with the creation of human life in a test-tube. They are not bringing into being chickens, or rabbits, or elephants. No. It should be quite clear to everyone that what they are involved with is the creation of new human life. I wonder if the scientists realise that in the process they have diminished the usefulness of one of the oldest canards in the abortion debate, namely, that human life only develops at some mysterious and unfathomable later stage and that early abortion does not really result in the destruction of innocent, unborn human life? After all, the Royal Commission on Human Relationships-most of whose findings I disagree with-had no difficulty in stating: 'From the moment of fertilisation, or fusion of the male and female gametes within the fallopian tube, a new life has its beginning' (Volume 3, page 149). Needless to say, back in 1977 when the Report was written, it was not anticipated that fusion could take place somewhere other than in the fallopian tubes, that is, in a laboratory test-tube rather than in a woman's body. In a similar fashion, the 1977 Report of the New Zealand Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion commented; 'From a biological point of view there is no argument as to when life begins. Evidence was given to us by eminent scientists from all over the world. None of them suggested that human life begins at any time other than conception' (Report, page 184). Do certain scientists wish to experiment on this most vulnerable human life? They do. As everyone is well aware, the two pioneers in the IVF area were Dr Robert Edwards and Dr Patrick Steptoe. Both were joint authors of a book entitled 'A Matter of Life'. In the concluding chapter authored by Dr Edwards, he wrote: 'I often think of that embryo which grew for nine days in our culture, of how it wriggled out of its membrane and expanded beautifully. Consider again that embryo: within it all the stem cells of the body's organs were differentiating and growing, appearing steadily one by one. This, for me, was excitement magnified because it offered all the beginnings of human embryology to us; here was the chance of watching and analysing the appearances and growth of the different tissues of the body-the heart, the blood system, the brain. Those tissues could one day form in front of our very eyes!' He went on to ask: 'Will we be able to discover how these cells appear and develop so regularly? Will we be able to extract the stem cells of various organs from the embryo, the precious foundation cells of all the body's organs and use them therapeutically?' It is interesting to note that Dr Edwards was then writing after he had grown an embryo in a petri dish for nine days. It was reported in the Melbourne Age on 23 June 1984 that the same Dr Edwards had subsequently grown an embryo for 13 days. The newspaper commented: 'This is already nine days longer than it has so far been necessary to culture an embryo to create a pregnancy and it died only after it failed to attach itself to the glass petri dish it mistook for the wall of the mother's womb'. Mind you, Dr Edwards does have some qualms. Later on in his chapter, he wrote: 'To grow foetuses to later stages of growth when they take a recognizable human shape and then extract their organs would be utterly wrong and is a repugnant concept.' Others have fewer qualms: According to the Melbourne Age of 23 June 1984, the UK Council for Science and Society has suggested that embryos should be allowed to develop for six weeks but only for use in medical research. The Council suggested a limit of six weeks because it claimed this to be the earliest stage at which an embryo begins to grow a head or limbs. What is the justification offered? According to Dr Edwards: 'I can only offer the balance between the sheer necessity of acquiring knowledge and the value to be placed on embryos before any of their senses or the central nervous system begin to develop'. Where then, does that place the newborn infant, the young child, the teenager, or the adult, who might be malformed in a way whereby one or more of their senses is not properly developed? What are some of the experiments and research which are being talked about? One should bear in mind that just as the 1977 Royal Commission on Human Relationships did not envisage conception occurring other than in a woman's fallopian tubes, today's suggestions-unreal as they might sound-might prove to be tomorrow's reality. One should also bear in mind that similar research in the veterinary area has often proved to be a forerunner to the replication of similar research in the human sphere. In 1981, for example, the Victorian IVF pioneer Professor Carl Wood raised the possibility of embryos being left to grow in the laboratory until nervous tissue formed. He said this tissue may be suitable for transplant into adults suffering from various forms of nervous disorders, including paralysis. According to the Australian newspaper of 28 October 1981, he said that some scientists were approaching the Queen Victoria Medical Centre team with proposals for this kind of 'extremely imaginative' research but ethical implications had first to be considered. Two years later there was a further report in the Australian of 19 September 1983. It reported on the visit to Australia of some American scientists who were experts in the biochip field. They had received a grant of $30,000 from the US National Science Foundation to develop a biochip to restore sight to the blind by using embryonic nerve cells as a bridge to link the visual cortex of blind people to a biochip implanted behind their eyes. Late last year Dr Edwards was again in the news. This time he was raising the possibility of human embryos being placed in animals to study early developments. According to a report in the Hobart Mercury of 21 December 1984, he denied that he had plans of this nature but . . . valuable lessons about embryo development could be learned by briefly implanting human embryos into sheep, rabbits and pigs to improve the technique of artificial fertilisation and to minimise abnormalities. In a report in the Canberra Times on 17 May 1984, Professor Carl Wood revealed further suggestions that he had come across. He said: 'In the future it may be possible to change the embryo or the foetus and people have put to us that maybe the brain of a male embryo should be injected with female hormones to reduce the killing trait without altering the reproductive capacity, on the assumption that our species has developed sufficiently to make male aggressiveness unnecessary for survival'. It would appear that there are some incredible Dr Strangeloves just waiting for an opportunity to follow the technological imperative: If there is a possibility of it happening, it should be attempted. This is what I believe Anglican Bishop Shevill was referring to when he wrote of 'technolatory'-the worship of technology; a term which he indicated was adopted from another writer, Frederick Ferre. Dr Edwards has also referred to the suggestion that it might be possible to identify embryonic cells destined to develop into specific organs. According to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 19 October 1984, Dr Edwards thought these cells could be used to correct blood disorders or repair damaged tissue in the organs of adults. Two years earlier, in the Guardian of 10 July 1982, Dr Edwards was reported as saying that human embryos could be grown in laboratories to provide tailor-made material for transplants . . . Heart muscle cells could be obtained from the three week old embryo without great difficulty, he said, and it should not prove too difficult to obtain tissue from an embryo aged 13-17 days. Finally, I refer to warnings made by Professor Bede Morris of the Department of Immunology at the Australian National University (Canberra Times, 21 July 1984). In a lecture organised by the University of Adelaide Foundation he stated that embryos could be grown in vitro, cloned and placed in suspended animation. Individual parts could then be grown and used to renovate parts of the body as they wear out. 'The technology for doing this in animals is already with us and this technology can certainly be transferred to human medicine'. '. . . Self-cannibalism' he said, 'will be the ultimate aspect of self-indulgence'. At least two major committees of inquiry have looked at this question of research and experimentation on embryos. Both have approved of it in certain circumstances and yet not even this satisfies those members of the scientific community who would treat human beings no different from an animal. The first inquiry-the UK Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology- was chaired by Dame Mary Warnock and its report was published on 18 July 1984. Apart from approving of trans-species fertilisation-a research method which I am sure many people would also regard as abhorrent-it also approved of experimentation on embryos up to 14 days after fertilisation. One condition was that the couple responsible for the embryo should be informed and give their consent-a concept not dissimilar to the discredited 19th Century philosophy which supported the slave trade. Incidentally, the Inquiry rejected the use of embryos for testing drugs because of the risk that it would lead to the 'manufacture' of embryos on a large scale. The 'dissent' to the Warnock Committee's recommendations about experimentation appears at pages 90-93 of the Report. Its signatories included Professor John Marshall, a Professor of Clinical Neurology. Space does not permit the reproduction of the entire content of this dissent but there are some important views expressed to which people, with a different philosophical approach to mine, might better relate. The dissenting report states: 'The special status of the human embryo and the protection to be afforded to it by law do not in our view depend upon the decision as to when it becomes a person. Clearly, once that status has been accorded all moral principles and legal enactments which relate to persons will apply. But before that point has been reached the embryo has a special status because of its potential for development to a stage at which everyone would accord it the status of a human person. It is in our view wrong to create something with the potential for becoming a human person and then deliberately to destroy it.' The dissenting report also refers to an argument which I have disposed of earlier, namely, that an ovum or a sperm has the potential for becoming a human person. The report states: '. . . neither alone, even in the most favourable environment, will develop into a human person. They do not have this potential. The embryo, on the other hand, given the appropriate environment, will develop to the stage at which there would be general agreement that the status of a person be accorded to it'. It also refers to so-called 'spare' embryos: 'In our view experiments on 'spare embryos' are wrong. But even if they were deemed right, the consequences of permitting them would be unacceptable. There would be a strong temptation for doctors to harvest more embryos than strictly required for the immediate therapeutic purpose in order to provide 'spare embryos'. 'Spare' would become a euphemism'. The report continues: 'Moreover, as the number provided by this means would not meet the large demand foreseen by our colleagues the pressure for permission to create embryos specifically for research would grow. Likewise, limitations on the time and type of research would be eroded . . . '. The majority recommendations of the Warnock Inquiry have not yet been implemented by the UK Government. On the contrary, what has happened is that a Private Member's Bill, incorporating a prohibition on experimentation received overwhelming support in a free vote in the House of Commons in February of this year. The Second Reading of this Bill was passed by a vote of 238 to 66. This Bill, which was entitled 'The Unborn Children (Protection) Bill', was presented by Mr Enoch Powell and supported by Sir Bernard Braine and Sir Gerard Vaughan, among others. I imagine that many of those who supported Mr Powell's Bill would be in the same position as myself; that is, we would not share some of his views on other unrelated subjects but everyone would have to concede that a vote of 238 to 66 is very convincing and obviously included significant cross-party support. The Bill itself was preceded by a petition campaign in support of the prohibition move which attracted two million signatures-said to be the largest number of signatures on any petition presented to the Commons this century. The Warnock Inquiry had reported on 18 July 1984. Between 19-23 July, the interdenominational group 'The Order of Christian Unity' commissioned a public opinion poll of 1,878 respondents seeking their views on various aspects of the Warnock Inquiry's subject area: 92 per cent opposed inter-species breeding experiments; 85 per cent believed there should be a law to control experimentation on human embryos; 51 per cent believed all experiments on human embryos should be banned by law. This last result corresponds with the two public opinion polls in Australia whose results have been published and of which I am aware. In March 1984, 59 per cent of Australian respondents disapproved of experiments on fertilised eggs, 34 per cent approved and seven per cent were undecided. By July there had been a slight change but still a similarity in the relative proportions. They were: 54 per cent disapproved, 32 per cent approved and 14 per cent were undecided. These results must be taken note of because of the immense favourable publicity which the overall subject of IVF has received. People's inherent concern has survived the repeated blandishments of the scientists of which a good thing it all is. The Warnock Report was followed by a further report from the Waller Committee in Victoria in September 1984. It recommended research provided it was approved by a Statutory Authority, but limited it to the excess embryos produced by patients in an authorised IVF program. The scientists on the Committee were not happy. Professors Prisilla Kincaid-Smith and Roger Pepperell dissented. For them, the creation of embryos purely for experimentation was 'ethically acceptable'. Dr Alan Trounson threatened: 'Some of us would be prepared . . . to give up work and go to London or wherever to do the necessary embryonic research'. Dr Ian Johnston, the head of the Royal Women's Hospital-Melbourne University team, said that the report was 'nonsense' and that he was sad that the Committee had not allowed a freer rein in the area of research on embryos. The Victorian Act which followed from this and earlier reports from the Waller Committee, i.e. the 'Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984'-Number 10163-both prohibits certain procedures and then permits them under certain circumstances. It has yet to be proclaimed. In Section 6 (1) it states that 'a person shall not carry out a prohibited procedure'. In 6 (2) it describes a 'prohibited procedure' as (a) cloning; or (b) a procedure under which the gametes of a man or a woman are fertilized by the gametes of an animal'. In 6 (3) it states that 'a person shall not carry out an experimental procedure other than an experimental procedure approved by the Standing Review and Advisory Committee'. In 6 (4) it states that an 'experimental procedure' in 6 (3) 'means a procedure that involves carrying out research on an embryo of a kind that would cause damage to the embryo, would make the embryo unfit for implantation or would reduce the prospects of a pregnancy resulting from the implantation of the embryo'. At 6 (6) it also prohibits a procedure that involves freezing an embryo. We then turn to Section 29 and find in 29 (7) that 'In the exercise of its functions, the Committee . . . (b) shall ensure that the highest regard is given to the principle that human life shall be preserved and protected at all time . . .' It seems to me that all the Victorian Act does is to transfer the decision about experimental procedures to a Standing Committee of eight and what happens in the future will depend on where the numbers go and how many follow the line of Dr Edwards who does not believe that life begins at fertilisation and concedes that his position offers the early embryo 'very few rights, if any'. I am aware that one suggestion which has been advanced is that rather than permitting an open go for experimentation an upper limit should be introduced. In both the Waller and the Warnock reports 14 days has been recommended as an upper limit. Let me state quite clearly that I believe this to be a nonsense. Society will start off with 14 days and then there will be a demand for an extension and we will see it creep up until 20 days and then 28 days, and so on-all for the purpose of satisfying those scientists who can see the opportunity to experiment with more mature cells or tissue. Distinctions of 14 days or 7 days or 20 days post conception have no basis in scientific fact, let alone in ethics. All that one can say is that an embryo would be well and truly implanted in the uterus by 14 days and it was implantation which was used by the Waller committee to justify its arbitrary selection of 14 days. Furthermore, any proscription on research, or maintenance in vitro, of human embryos beyond 14 days would be utterly unenforcable in practice. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that information of unique value would be obtained from the maintenance of human embryos up to 14 days in vitro, leaving aside for the moment the ethical issue involved in so doing. The creation of embryos with use in experimentation in mind, either overtly or using the 'fig-leaf' of fertilising an excess in the course of producing embryos for implantation in the ovum donor, would introduce a classification into society of two classes of human subjects. There is no physiological difference between a 'wanted' embryo and an embryo that is produced for utilization by others. These two classes of humans will be differentiated solely on the attitude held towards them by third parties-respectively, the expectant parents or the researcher. The value placed on individuals in society at present may frequently depend more upon the view that is held of them by other members. Nevertheless, the allocation to first or second-class membership at the time of conception would be a particularly blatant extension of any existing failings of society. Fertilization of ova in excess of the number that the operator is prepared to implant in the ovum donor is synonymous with the deliberate creation of a group of second-class human embryos available for experimentation. It is also important to note that to produce an excessive number of ova frequently involves the administration of drugs to promote superovulation. There is growing concern about the exploitive character of this process which creates a hormonal imbalance with long term consequences. I am advised that at the U.K. research institute at Bourne Hall women who are seeking routine sterilization go to the top of the waiting list if they are prepared to agree to undergo superovulation beforehand so that their ova can be harvested for use by the experimenters. It might be argued by some Senators that this kind of subject should be left in the hands of an organisation such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) but there are several reasons why I do not support that suggestion. It is clear that the NHMRC has decided to confine its activities to only a clearly defined and limited sphere and, secondly, the Council has already referred to this subject in guidelines which it has issued and I find the favourable reference to experimentation in that document totally inadequate and, indeed, contrary to the intent of my Bill. The limited role to which the NHMRC confines itself has been illustrated by a recent case involving a proposed tri-national trial, funded by the UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC), and involving doctors and patients in the UK, Israel and Australia. The trial involves the use of multi-vitamin supplements for pregnant women so as to test their effectiveness in the prevention of neutral tube defects. On the surface it sounds admirable but questions about the ethical nature of some aspects of the trial have been raised in the UK (following which the original manufacturer of the trial drugs opted out) and also in Australia in a letter from Dr Peter McCullagh which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia on 4 March 1985 and in recent correspondence between the ACT Right to Life Association and the NHMRC and the Commonwealth Department of Health. The NHMRC confines itself to constructing guidelines to be followed by the recipients of the grants which it distributes under the authority of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 and the associated order-in-Council. Because this unethical trial is being funded by the UKMRC and not the NHMRC, the Australian body has declined to become involved, notwithstanding the fact that the Australian component of the trial will involve doctors and patients in more than one Australian State. Endeavours by the Right to Life Association to involve both the NHMRC and the Commonwealth Department of Health in considering the ethical questions about this proposed trial have proved fruitless and the last communication from the Department of Health was that any involvement it had arose merely from Regulations which require importation of therapeutic substances to be authorised by the Secretary of the Department. It was suggested to the Right to Life Association that it pursue the matter with the researchers or the institutions with which they were associated. The absence of funding by the NHMRC made that organisation irrelevant. The Commonwealth Department of Health would examine the drugs to be used in the trial but would not involve itself in an overall evaluation of the ethical aspects of the trial. Now, it is obvious that not all the research being undertaken in the IVF area in Australia is funded by grants from the NHMRC and so, the guidelines which they apply to their recipients will not reach into those areas which utilise other sources of funding. Furthermore, before the Council had established its guidelines regarding IVF, it was a grant from the NHMRC which was used for a research project which involved some of the earliest IVF experimentation in Australia. I refer to a grant of $100,000 to Dr Ian Johnston at Melbourne University which was reported in the media on 19 November 1981. His research involved the slicing up of embryos for study under an electron microscope. Dr Johnston's overall view was, and I quote: 'In our opinion life does not start with fertilisation of the egg'. Public revelations about this research led to an outcry by both Roman Catholic and Anglican spokesmen. This was in November 1981. The researchers said very little at the time and their reticence is an appropriate lesson for those who would place complete trust in the researchers to 'do the right thing'. Three months later, in February 1982, the Director of Medical Services at the hospital where the research was being undertaken, the Melbourne Royal Women's Hospital, calmly stated that the research had stopped early in October which was a month before the public had first learnt about the nature of the project. I quote from the Melbourne Age report of this revelation: 'Dr Flower was asked why, in the light of the controversy, the hospital had not announced earlier that the experiments had been discontinued. ''I think at the time the hospital felt it could add nothing to the issue. Its actions had already been condemned by people in the public forum and rightly or wrongly it was decided not to comment'' '. Further evidence of this very secretive approach is contained in the response of hospitals involved in IVF research to a call by Melbourne church leaders in February 1982 that the hospitals make public their ethical guidelines. Defending their non-release, the manager of the Queen Victoria Hospital said: 'Our worry was that the community could misinterpret them. It is a very emotional subject and we were concerned that people who are against the programme could nit-pick the guidelines' (Melbourne Age, 8 February 1982). So much for public consultation and bringing the public into the picture so that informed decisions can be made. Later that same year, on 4 September 1982, a report was released by the NHMRC, being the findings of an NHMRC working party on the subject of IVF. In supplementary Note 4, at paragraph 5 on page 27, approval is given for research on sperm, ova and fertilised ova. The point that should be made about this report is that the existence of the working party was not widely known and the community generally was unaware of its terms of reference. There is no evidence that the working party called on submissions from the community or from specific interest groups, although once this so-called working party report had appeared in print, an effort was made for some form of public consultation. That report by the NHMRC for research on human embryos has remained in place right until the present time and if today you ask for a copy of the NHMRC Statement on Human Experimentation-which the Council is eager to claim has been distributed far and wide-you will receive a copy of a basic document revised in 1983 which reproduces the 1982 Supplementary Note. It is true that in a press release dated 6 July 1983, the Council sought public comment on these guidelines but obviously they have not departed from what was evolved by the working party in 1982. In a major document containing these guidelines, a footnote on the first page states: 'An application to the NHMRC for a research grant involving human experimentation is required to be certified by the ethics committee of the applicant's institution as complying with the NHMRC statement on Human Experimentation and the Supplementary Notes before the application will be considered for funding.' I have already quoted several statements from spokesmen for hospital ethics committees and, quite frankly, what they had to say about the community does not instill me with much confidence about this approach. There are further examples. In the Melbourne Age of 28 June 1984, Mr Peter Wilson, general manager of Epworth Hospital, which carries out one of the IVF programs, and a member of the hospital's ethics committee, said he regarded any categorical controls on scientific research as a total disaster . . . Rather than shackle science, the public and the law had to catch up with and keep abreast of scientific developments . . . This sounds to me analogous to putting a national secretary of a political party on the Australian Electoral Commission to oversee and conduct elections in Australia. But there have been other revelations which can only bring into question this whole question of Caesar judging Caesar. In 1984 Dr Robyn Rowland resigned as head of the Research Co-ordination Committee to co-ordinate Social and Psychological Research on Donor Programs in Professor Wood's IVF project. She resigned principally because Professor Wood and others had started to talk about 'embryo flushing'. But in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 May 1984 she claimed that another reason for her resignation was that she was pressured not to be critical of the IVF programs and there appeared to be total disregard for community attitudes. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Rowland said people outside the team have no idea what is going on there. It is within this context that we should examine the announcement by the NHMRC on 30 May 1984 that it would review ethics committees concerned with research in hospitals and institutions. The review was to take the form of a series of workshops around Australia. The press release said nothing about who could attend these workshops or who might not attend. A further statement on 11 February 1985 referred to the series of workshops 'attended by members of the ethics committees from hospitals and research institutions and of the the Council's own Medical Research Ethics Committee'. But it did not say that they were the only people who could attend. It so happens that a doctor in Brisbane noticed that the Brisbane workshop was to be held on 8 March 1985 and made endeavours to attend. Last week, at my request, he wrote to me to explain what happened: 'As I am a medical practitioner with a special interest in the ethics of medical research, I made several inquiries through official channels, hoping to attend the workshop. Incidentally, neither the location nor the time of the workshop was mentioned in the press release. The only information I could eventually obtain was that the invitation to attend the workshop was not an open one, but was in fact restricted to members of institutional ethics committees . . .' So what it boils down to is a very incestuous arrangement: The NHMRC requires grantees to have the approval of their institutional ethics committee; the NHMRC decides to review these committees and the review and the workshops are announced in the media; but when a medical practitioner who is not actually a member of one of these committees attempts to attend the workshop in his city he discovers that the only people allowed to attend are the people who are members of an institutional ethics committee. No, it is inappropriate to leave it to the NHMRC and it is doubly inappropriate to give some of the hospital or institutional ethics committees a completely free hand. A background article about ethics committees which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 28 June 1984 stated: 'From interviews with members of ethics committees it was clear that they were not always able to come to an agreement and the decisions were then left to the hospital boards. The alternative was a wearing down where the decisions were deferred repeatedly until the weaker debaters eventually caved in to more aggressive colleagues'. In the absence of an advocate who can speak on behalf of the interests of unborn human life within these ethics committees where it appears who can shout loudest wins, a clear statement in law prohibiting experimentation will help to redress the imbalance. It sometimes appears to me that Australian scientists, scientific institutions, statutory authorities and even the Parliament have spent more time getting their act together about animal vivisection than dealing with human vivisection. Indeed, does the Parliament, by its omission, endorse human vivisection? In the document referred to earlier, the NHMRC Statement on Human Experimentation and Supplementary Notes, which endorses research on embryos, there is another section dealing with the 'separated previable foetus'. The wording of that section permits, among other things, the dissection of an aborted baby but only if the heart has stopped beating and there are no other obvious signs of life. Has that kind of thing ever been endorsed by the Australian Parliament? Not at all. It again comes in under this umbrella of 'Guidelines' for the recipients of NHMRC grants. That is why we have never seen this kind of subject in legislation or had the opportunity to debate it. Only last week we all received a copy of the 'Code of Practice and the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes'. It was put together by the NHMRC, the CSIRO and the Australian Agricultural Council. It is more comprehensive than the equivalent document from the NHMRC on 'Human Experimentation'. Under this code, members of animal welfare groups will be offered positions on ethics committees. The Guidelines deal with everything, including primary and secondary schools who are said to have a responsibility 'to ensure that students appreciate the importance of the care and welfare of animals'-something which I am sure all of us would agree with. But where is there a document which enjoins schools to ensure that students appreciate the importance of the care and welfare of unborn humans? It is not adult humans, or born humans, who are most at risk from the researchers and the experimenters in today's laboratories. It is preborn humans. I am sure that if one had the time and energy to search the legislative data bases, we would come up with boxes of regulations and legislation which prohibit cruelty to animals, protect endangered species, prohibit the exportation of certain species and so on. Have we got our priorities wrong? My Bill will enable the Federal Parliament to pass judgment on whether or not experimentation should be permitted on human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. I am quite aware of the legislation debated in the Victorian Parliament but we should not regard that as having pre-empted discussion of the subject. I find it significant that in the UK, which does not now appear to be in the forefront of this technique, the House of Commons as recently as two months ago debated this subject and overwhelmingly endorsed a Bill to prohibit experimentation. Only recently there were large advertisements in the newspapers announcing the 'National Research Fellowships Scheme' involving priority areas of national interest, one of which was 'bio-medical technology' which is another reason for immediate action. Also, the IVF scientists in Victoria have recently established a company called IVF Australia (IVFA) which is to facilitate the export of Australian IVF techniques to overseas countries. Although the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University has denied that his company will be involved in experimentation, he declined-in the course of a three way radio debate in which I participated-to give the same assurance in regard to one of the scientists who will be closely associated with the company. Would that company be prepared to write into its Memorandum and Articles an absolute prohibition of experimentation or the export of techniques involving experimentation? In the absence of an overall Commonwealth legislative prohibition, I doubt it. I am also aware of the existence of the Select Committee of the South Australian Legislative Council which is examining the question of experimentation as one of a number of its terms of reference. I would hope that it might come to the same conclusion as contained in my Bill but we are looking at some time in the future and rather than burying our heads in the sand and meekly duplicating what has been arrived at in State Parliaments, I believe that the Commonwealth Parliament has a pre-eminent role and an obligation to give some leadership. My Bill makes use of various powers available to the Commonwealth, including the Territories power, the corporations power, the patents power, etc. Quite simply, the Bill seeks to prohibit experimentation on embryos created as a result of in vitro fertilisation and to prohibit the creating of human embryos for experimentation. When enacted it will affect corporations, authorities of the Commonwealth, grants to the States, the Territories and so on. I would hope that it will apply to organisations such as the National Health and Medical Research Council and to universities in receipt of federal funding. It provides for any person to apply to the Federal Court for an injunction to stop prohibited experimentations and in Section 10 I have included an obligation for Commonwealth authorities to state in their annual financial statements if they have been involved in grants for medical research and the names of the recipient individuals or organisations. I am prepared, of course, to receive reasoned suggestions; which are designed to improve this Bill and to better implement its objectives. In the course of this Parliament, I have not trespassed unduly on General Business time. I believe it is reasonable for me to ask for time to be found to bring this matter on for debate and to a resolution where, if it is adopted by the Senate, it can then be forwarded to the House of Representatives for its consideration and, hopefully, its passage into law. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill on (motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.31) —I move: That the Bill now be read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, this Bill implements the Government's decisions on the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) and amends certain elements of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 so as to conform with complementary State legislation or to correct minor irregularities. The Wheat Marketing Act 1984 gave effect to wheat marketing arrangements to apply for the five year period from 1 October 1984. Under that Act, the terms of office of all Board members expire on 1 October 1985. No provision was made for the process by which grower members of the Board of the AWB were to be nominated for appointment after that date. Since 25 October 1984 the AWB Board has comprised 15 members including two grower members from each mainland State. Following a recent review by the Minister of the Board's operations, the Government has decided on an 11 member Board comprising a full time grower Chairperson, 1 grower member from each mainland State, a Government member and four members with a high level of expertise in at least one of finance, marketing or industrial relations. Also, an alternate grower member is to be appointed from each mainland State. As under the previous arrangements it will be the Minister's responsibility to select the Chairperson and the Government member. The remaining members will be nominated by a body to be named the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee comprising an independent Presiding Member selected by the Minister, five members nominated by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation (AWF), the AWB Chairperson and two nominees of the National Farmers Federation, including the President. The Government's decision on the AWB restructuring reflects the broader policy objectives which have been set down to apply to all primary industry statutory marketing authorities (SMA's). That is, SMA's should have independence and flexibility, consistent with safeguarding the Minister's responsibility to Parliament, to allow them to respond effectively to the demands imposed by operating in a competitive commercial environment. This involves substantially relinquishing Ministerial controls. Very significant changes have taken place in the scope and extent of the AWB's major functions during the currency of the five year marketing plan just ended. The Board has had to compete on oversupplied world markets to sell a wheat crop of up to 22 million tonnes compared with the previously prevailing 10 year average of 15 million tonnes. Predatory marketing and credit practices of some competitors have increased the difficulty of the marketing task faced by the Board. That task will become even more difficult should elements of the US Farm Bill become effective. Whereas in the early years of the recent plan, the Board raised around $1 billion through the Reserve Bank to finance advance payments to growers, the Board now raises in excess of $3 billion annually, solely on domestic and international commercial money markets. The Board has become involved in extensive negotiations with the domestic and international banking community in relation to the raising of the very large sums of money involved, currency risk management on a major scale as well as commodity and interest rate hedging. The outcome of these operations has significant implications for grower returns and Government underwriting commitment. In order to protect Government and grower interests, the Board needs to comprise the best available members with the experience and the skill to control and direct the Board's operations. It is not sufficient to have these skills only at management level. The Board must be in a position to direct management and this will only be possible in the increasingly complex and changing environment in which it operates, if it has a balance of the appropriate skills. The legislation currently before Senators provides for the appointment of four specialist members with a high level of expertise in the areas of finance, marketing or industrial relations. As previously, it recognises the necessity of having grower members to safeguard the interests of producers in each mainland State. The Minister regards the Selection Committee as a vital element in efforts to ensure that the most effective Board is appointed. The Committee will have an independent Presiding Member and the power to engage staff and consultants to assist it in its task. The Minister will determine selection criteria against which the Committee can objectively assess the suitability of prospective appointees and which must be addressed by the Committee before it puts forward its nominations. The Committee will operate in a similar manner to the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee. Costs, estimated at $100,000 to select a full Board, would be met by the AWB. These additional costs could be expected to amount to less than 1 percent per tonne when spread over an average season's pool. In comparison to the potential costs of errors of judgment in the financing and marketing areas, the amount is inconsequential. There has been some grower resistance to a reduction in grower representation on the Board from 2 to 1 from each mainland State. The Government has acted to ensure that the legitimate interests of growers in a State are protected by the appointment of alternates for the grower member from each State, allowing for full participation in Board decision making in the absence of the State member. It was not possible in the Government's view, to reconcile a representational Board with safeguarding the fundamental interests of growers and Government. The Government considers that the structural imbalance which ten grower members would impart would militate against the Board acting in a corporate manner and reduce the effectiveness of decision making. Claims by growers that they have lost control of the Board cannot be sustained. The Bill provides for a grower majority on the Board which is preserved at all times by the appointment of alternates. Growers also have a majority on the Selection Committee. There is a formal link between the AWB and the AWF through the consultative mechanism provided for in the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 giving growers the opportunity to be fully informed on Board policies. It is open to the AWF as the representative of growers to make representations to the Minister on any matter affecting Board membership and policy. The formal consultation between the AWB and the AWF to which I have referred strengthens the liaison between the AWB and the representative body of growers, that is, the AWF. To avoid conflicts of interest which could arise, the Government does not intend to appoint a serving President of the AWF to the Board of the AWB. In summary Mr President, in view of the increasingly complex and diverse marketing and financing responsibilities for the Board, the Government continues to believe that growers and Government can only be confident that the Board is achieving the best results if it includes a significant proportion of members with financial and marketing experience. It also considers that in appointing people to Board positions, full advantage should be taken of commercial practices to ensure that the best available people serve on the Board. Mr President the Bill amends the current Commonwealth legislation so that it conforms with complementary State legislation with respect to provisions governing the delivery of wheat and the operation of the permit system for stockfeed wheat. The delivery provisions in the Bill are similar to those contained in the now repealed 1979 legislation to be consistent with State decisions after the passage of the current Commonwealth legislation. This will facilitate the AWB's administration of delivery provisions of the national wheat marketing arrangements. Consistency is also required in relation to the eligibility of applicants for stockfeed wheat permits. Mr President, I believe that the provisions of the Bill relating to the AWB structure will assist the AWB to effectively meet the challenges it faces in carrying out its functions in respect of the financing and marketing of the Australian wheat crop. The Bill also ensures consistency of approach with the States on matters affecting wheat receival and domestic marketing. I commend the Bill to Honourable Senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave- agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Customs Service, and for purposes connected therewith. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions and make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Customs Administration Act 1985. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.33) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION BILL 1985 This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision, announced on 12 March 1985, to establish the Australian Customs Service (The ACS) as a separate identity within the industry, technology and commerce portfolio. Before I detail the matters covered by the Bill I will take a few moments to mention some important background points relating to the Customs' functions. The Australian constitution gives this Parliament the exclusive power to impose duties on customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods. Administration of the Parliament's powers in this regard has traditionally been performed by the Customs. In addition to its role in administering these industry assistance measures the Customs is charged with enforcing measures to control the import and export of goods and on behalf of other agencies the movement of people and ships and aircraft into and out of Australia. In this regard it has a significant role in the Government's overall strategy against illicit drug trafficking and illegal drug importation. More than 5,000 members of the Australian Public Service are engaged in Customs and Customs related functions. The majority of the Customs staff are located in custom offices in the States and the Northern Territory. There are in excess of 100 airports, seaports and inland sub-offices, staffed on a full or part time basis. Representatives of the Customs are also stationed in Auckland, Brussels, Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo. Responsibility for the Customs function has, until now, been transferred six times amongst various Australian Public Service Departments in different guises. For 55 years it was located in a department called Trade and Customs. It was for another 19 years in the Department of Customs and Excise and has been with the Industry portfolio since 1982. The Government believes that the Customs should now be established on a permanent basis with a permanent identity. An important role of the Customs is to implement industry assistance measures. The close co-operation between the customs and industry policy areas of the Department arises from its present location within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce which has considerably enhanced its performance in this role. The Government does not wish to disturb this arrangement and it is for this reason that the proposed independent ACS will continue to be responsible to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I now turn to the main features of this Bill. Clause 4 establishes an Australian customs service and the office of the Comptroller-General of customs. The appointee to that office will, under the minister, control and direct persons employed in the ACS. The companion to this Bill, which I will introduce shortly, proposes to invest the general administration of the legislation to be administered by the ACS in the Comptroller-General. That legislation includes the various bounty and subsidy schemes and of course the Customs Act and the Excise Act. By the provisions of clause 15 the Comptroller-General is to be invested with all of the powers of a secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service so that he may have direct control over the staffing and other resources required by the Australian Customs Service. Similar to other statutory appointments it is proposed that the Comptroller-General of Customs be appointed for a period of seven years with salary and allowances being determined by the remuneration tribunal and the usual provisions relating to leave of absence, resignation, outside employment, portability and acting appointments being applied. To provide maximum flexibility for the recruitment of appropriate staff at all levels within the ACS clause 15 of the Bill also provides for the staff of that body to be appointed and employed under the Public Service Act. Two other important provisions in this Bill are clauses 16 and 17. Clause 16 will permit the Comptroller-General or an authorized member of the ACS to, in very limited circumstances, pass on certain information received by the ACS in confidence. This will be particularly relevant in connection with the Government's efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking. It will facilitate exchanges of information between the ACS and other law enforcement agencies in Australia and overseas. Under the provisions of clause 17 the Comptroller-General is required to furnish an annual report of the operations of the ACS to the Minister. The report will be tabled in accordance with normal procedure. It is appropriate that I mention it is proposed that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the ACS will have separate management services and other support services. The sharing of such areas might initially seem attractive but experience has shown that generally speaking such arrangements are of limited effectiveness and practicability over any extended period. I mentioned earlier the importance of close co-operation between the industry policy areas of the department and the customs. It is essential that this be maintained. The government considers that such co-operation should be placed on a firm basis by the preparation of a document detailing the working relationship between the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Customs Service. Such a document is currently being prepared and when appropriate I will arrange to have it tabled for the information of honourable senators. The creation of the office of Comptroller-General of Customs and the establishment of the Australian Customs Service will provide a number of benefits including relieving the minister and secretary of the department of the routine of customs administration with greater opportunity, in consequence, for both to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. The division of the support services between the department and the ACS may however involve the creation of new positions within each body. Details in this regard have not yet been finalized. I commend the Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 This Bill is the companion of the Customs Administration Bill 1985 which proposes to establish an independent Australian Customs Service (ACS) and create the office of Comptroller-General of Customs for the purpose of that service. The main purpose of this Bill is to invest the general administration of the legislation to be administered by the ACS in the Comptroller-General of Customs. That legislation which is listed in the Schedule to the Bill includes all of the legislation traditionally administered by the Customs. The legislation includes the Customs Act and Excise Act and a number of bounty and subsidy Acts. Australia's Customs laws contain a wide range of powers conferred upon the Minister the majority of which have been delegated to Departmental officers for the efficient administration of the Customs. The Government believes that these delegated powers should now be transferred to the Comptroller-General of Customs. The provisions of the Schedule to the Bill propose to effect this transfer. I might mention that the Comptroller-General will in turn, by virtue of the provisions of Clause 14 of the Customs Administration Bill 1985, be able to delegate the transferred powers under a general power of delegation. In relation to the transfer of other powers of the Minister that have not at this time been delegated, a review is currently under way to determine whether there are any of these powers which ought to be transferred to the Comptroller-General of Customs. I expect this review to be finalised prior to the Budget Sittings this year. Consistent with the general power of delegation by the Comptroller-General the opportunity has been taken to transfer, where appropriate from the Minister to the Comptroller-General the power to appoint person to perform particular powers or functions. Finally, I draw to honourable Senators attention the proposed amendment in the Schedule to Section 8 of the Customs Act. The purpose of this amendment is to remove from that Act the statutory requirement that there be a Collector of Customs for a State or Territory. This will give the Comptroller-General flexibility to designate such Collectors of Customs as are required for the efficient management of the Customs similar to the provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 7 May 1985, at 2 p.m. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.35) —On behalf of Senator Peter Rae, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an answer by Senator Button to a question from Senator Rae on the Economic Planning Advisory Council's annual report. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Senator Button-On 28 February 1985 Senator Peter Rae asked Senator Walsh a question without notice concerning the Economic Planning Advisory Council's Annual Report for 1983-84 (Hansard p. 327). The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The draft Annual Report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council was approved by the Council at its meeting of 7 December 1984. The final Report was tabled by me in the House of Representatives on 20 March 1985. Delays in tabling the 1983-84 Annual Report were brought about by the embryonic nature of EPAC, Office recruitment difficulties, the early rising of Parliament and printing delays. Senator KILGARIFF —This evening I wish to make a brief comment concerning the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and its Division of Building Research. That Organisation does not normally receive a lot of coverage in this Parliament. One of the reasons for that is that scientists and researchers tend not to organise themselves, in a political sense, to lobby government. More and more, though, there is a realisation by scientists of the need for lobbying to maintain funds for present projects and the development of new projects. Late last year, CSIRO's Division of Building Research learnt only too well how easily its programs could be cut back and wound down. The Division outlined in its newsletter the cuts which have been made. It stated that the latest Budget cuts of 3.2 per cent had spelt the end of several research projects, with many other projects being suspended or delayed. The cuts also mean that there will be a significant reduction in free technical advice to industry and the general public. Over the past decade research on the durability of building materials has been cut by over 50 per cent, particularly in cement, concrete, adhesives and corrosion of metals. The result of this has been substantially increased costs in the maintenance, repair and replacement of defective and non-durable materials in buildings and structures. The sort of research which is being cut back is research into the capacity of building materials to withstand natural disasters such as fire and cyclones. Of course, Australia has seen many fires and cyclones in the past few years. The people of Darwin are well aware of the need for building materials and structural designs which are capable of withstanding cyclonic winds. When Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin on Christmas Eve 1974, with winds in excess of 200 kilometres per hour-I think up to 280 kilometres per hour-it left hundreds of buildings, houses and offices flattened in its wake. Some of the loss of life which occurred as a result of that cyclone might have been prevented had the buildings been constructed to withstand the strong winds. Fortunately, since then regulations and other precautions have meant that other cyclones, although not of the intensity of Cyclone Tracy, have caused much less damage. Nevertheless, it is a fact of life that cyclones and fires are part of Australian life and we should be ever vigilant. One would have thought that the incentive exists for the Commonwealth to fund research into the durability of building materials, when one considers the costs involved in cleaning up and rebuilding after a natural disaster has occurred. The research of the Buildings Research Division has application not only in the area of cyclones but also in bushfire-prone areas. The research carried out by the Division has the potential to save lives. It can identify materials which are more fire resistant than others for use in the construction of buildings. It seems to be a false economy for the Federal Government to save money on vital research only to have to spend it clearing away damage that might have been prevented had the research been proceeded with and its findings applied in a practical way, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance that has to be paid out. The CSIRO's Division of Building Research is performing a particularly valuable role in the area of technical advice to industry and the public. It advises people on the suitability of building materials to their proposed environments and on building and maintenance techniques. Other research is undertaken into building safety; for example, there is presently a study on developing methods for assessing a range of coatings and encapsulants for asbestos insulation. With the Division of Building Research of the CSIRO providing such valuable services, I hope that the next Commonwealth Budget will provide a far more generous allocation than the Division currently receives. It would be helpful to the building industry and the Australian community if CSIRO could continue its most valuable work. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.38) —I draw to the attention of the Senate, and more particularly to your attention, Mr President, as one of the two Presiding Officers of this Parliament, that there is not a Queensland wine represented on the parliamentary wine list. All other States have at least one wine on the wine list. At recent functions I have attended in Queensland, Queensland wines have been served and applauded by wine experts as the equal of any in Australia. The Queensland wine industry is small, but it is developing and needs encouragement. The industry would like to see a Queensland wine on the parliamentary wine list as recognition of the industry and would regard the inclusion of such a wine as a matter of prestige. As a Queensland representative who regularly has guests in the parliamentary dining room, it would be appropriate if I could offer them a bottle of the home-grown brew. The main growing area for Queensland wines is around the Stanthorpe region, which has a climate very similar to the Bordeaux area in France and the Margaret River area in Western Australia, and this leads to very good variety and flavours. Wine is also made in the Roma region and there are even vineyards producing table wines on the Atherton Tableland in north Queensland-surely the most tropical wine-growing region in the world. Although the Queensland industry is relatively small compared to other States, it is expanding rapidly. Queensland has eight commercial wineries producing around 450,000 litres a year. About 70 per cent of this is red wine, 25 per cent is white wine and the remaining 5 per cent is fortified. The industry employs some 200 people. The two main types of grapes planted are chardonnay and semillion with shiraz, merlot and cabernet also being grown. If one had to name the pick of Queensland wines, it would have to be the cabernet sauvignon. I might add that the Stanthorpe winegrowing area was the only one in Australia to receive snowfalls last year, so despite Queensland's well deserved reputation as the sunshine State, the cool conditions needed for wine growing clearly exist. As someone who has sampled these excellent wines, I believe that not only the 36 Queensland members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but all members of parliament will give tangible support by purchasing the Queensland grown wines from the wine list when they discover their quality. I would be pleased to arrange for you, Mr President, and any other interested honourable senator or member a wine tasting session to introduce you to the delights of the Queensland wines. Senator Kilgariff —We will all come. Senator BOSWELL —Everyone is invited. I ask you, Mr President, to give this matter your support as this would give a small but growing primary industry a great boost. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.41) —in reply-I note Senator Kilgariff's remarks and I will pass them on to the appropriate Minister. I also note Senator Boswell's remarks and I feel speechless. The PRESIDENT —I have listened to the remarks made by Senator Boswell and I am delighted to take up his invitation for me to engage in a wine tasting. It will probably be the first that I have ever had. I will discuss the matter that Senator Boswell has raised with the parliamentary officers who are responsible for ordering wines for the parliamentary dining room and bar and I will be in touch with him. Before the Senate adjourns, I remind honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet at 8 p.m. in committee rooms 1 and 2. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.42 p.m. until Tuesday, 7 May at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were tabled: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Release of lists-Proposal No. 3 of 1985-Provision of Classification Codes of the Queensland Industry and Commerce Training Commission. Public Service Act-Determination 1985 No. 26. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4) Senator Walters asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 21 February 1985: (1) What planning is there for day-care facilities for the aged in Hobart. (2) Is funding available for day-care if applied for by voluntary agencies. (3) What planning is there for transporting elderly patients to and from day centres. (4) Has the Government considered the need for an emergency housekeeper service which can be called upon in the event of illness by aged couples living at home and without relatives. (5) Is funding available for a home-carer (home-help) service providing 1 or 2 hours a week domestic help to incapacitated elderly persons living alone; if not, why not. (6) Why does Tasmania require a nursing assessment officer when it already has three geriatric assessment teams in the State, one for each region, comprising a sister, an occupational therapist and a social worker. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth may provide funding for day centres which operate in conjunction with nursing home accommodation approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act as well as capital funding for day centres incorporated within facilities approved under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes and Hostels Acts. However, since the transfer of the Community Health Program to State Governments, recurrent assistance for day centres other than those associated with deficit financed nursing homes, is a matter for the States to determine. Capital grants by the Commonwealth for the establishment of day centres must now be provided on the understanding that the recurrent costs are met by either the organisation receiving the grant or the State Government. All applications for funding of day care facilities submitted by voluntary agencies are assessed and given a priority on the basis of demonstrated need and within the funding available under the programs administered by the Commonwealth. There are no special arrangements for planning for day centres in Hobart. Further, there are at present no applications for capital funding in respect of the establishment of day centre facilities for the aged in Hobart held by my department. (3) Many voluntary organisations provide transport facilities for elderly people to attend, among other activities, day centres. Under the new Home and Community Care (HACC) Program, a comprehensive range of integrated home and community care services is proposed. In addition to the expansion of existing services in new areas, consideration will be given to the funding of such services as personal care, community based respite care, linen/laundry services and transport services. (4) The possibility of assisting emergency housekeeper services is also under consideration as a possible service type within the HACC Program. However, Commonwealth consideration of this type of service is not designed to duplicate the Tasmanian Domiciliary Assistance Service Act administered by the State Government which, though not specifically geared to the elderly or the disabled does provide a homemaker service for families in crisis. (5) Under the States Grants (Home Care) Act, the Commonwealth funds jointly with the State Government the Tasmanian Home Care Service which operates branches throughout Tasmania. This service provides domestic help and other assistance as required to elderly people living in their own homes. At present any guidelines on hours of service et cetera are fixed by State Governments. Commonwealth expenditure on this service in Tasmania in 1983-84 was $630,000. (6) The functions of geriatric assessment teams are to assess the needs of individuals and to assist in matching those needs with the services available. They therefore have an important role in assessing people for nursing home admission. The use of assessment teams is relatively new in Australia however, and their role is still evolving. Consequently admissions continue to be subject to approval by a Commonwealth Medical Officer who uses the nurse assessment officer to assist him in considering applications from people not seen by the assessment teams. The nursing assessment officer also assists in the assessment of applications for Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefits and reviews the condition of people in respect of whom the benefit is paid. The nurse liaises with assessment teams and district nursing services. (Question No. 49) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: Did the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently send a team of Examiners to Australia to examine Australia's science and technology policies and arrangements; if so: (a) did the OECD Examiners strongly recommend that the two topics of science and technology should be 'treated within a single portfolio', and further, that 'it would be perverse to divide the two within central government', if so, why has the Government rejected the views of so expert a group (which came to Australia at its own invitation), and now split the functions of science and technology between two separate federal departments; and (b) did the OECD Examiners also recommend that the Australian Science and Technology Council should make its reports direct to the Minister for Science; if so, does the Government intend to reject this recommendation as well. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The final Report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Examiners studying science and technology matters in Australia has yet to be received by the Government. When the Report is received consideration will be given to its recommendations. However, the draft Report notes that science and technology should be 'treated within a single portfolio' and 'it would be perverse to divide the two within central government'. The technology function was placed with the Industry and Commerce portfolio in December 1984 in recognition of the fact that greater emphasis must be given in the restructuring of Australian manufacturing industry to the upgrading of its technological base. It also recognises the need to focus increased attention on the co-ordination of industry and technology policy development activities. (b) The draft OECD Report also notes that the advice of the Australian Science and Technology Council should be directed to the Minister for Science. The Government will give consideration to this aspect when the final OECD Report is received. (Question No. 71) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Science noted the outstanding success of Project Blizzard which has just returned from Antarctica. (2) Has the Minister noted the call by the expedition leader for the Commonwealth Government to support work on the restoration of Sir Douglas Mawson's hut in the Antarctic. (3) Does the Minister agree that Sir Douglas Mawson's hut is in fact a most significant historical and scientific memorial commemorating Australia's long and distinguished role in the Antarctic; if so, is the Minister prepared to give consideration to the call for support for this project which has otherwise been financed almost entirely by private enterprise and the individual initiative of the expedition's members. Senator Button —The Acting Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Minister for Science met with the Project Blizzard organisers soon after their return from Antarctica. The main purpose of the Project Blizzard 1984-85 expedition was to assess the condition of the buildings and the artefacts at the site of the base for Mawson's 1911-14 expedition. The preliminary report which Project Blizzard gave to the Minister indicated that the expedition had achieved its objectives. (2) and (3) The importance of Mawson's Hut has been recognised by its listing on the register of the National Estate and by its declaration as an Historical Monument under the Antarctic Treaty system. The Minister for Science expects to receive Project Blizzard's detailed report on its assessment of the building's condition in mid 1985. Any ensuing request for Commonwealth Government support for the project will be given careful consideration in the context of Australia's overall Antarctic program, and in the light of Project Blizzard's detailed proposals for conservation work. Senator Button —On 28 February 1985 (Hansard, page 327) Senator Peter Rae asked Senator Walsh a question without notice concerning the Economic Planning Advisory Council's Annual Report for 1983-84. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The draft Annual Report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council was approved by the Council at its meeting of 7 December 1984. The final Report was tabled by me in the House of Representatives on 20 March 1985. Delays in tabling the 1983-84 Annual Report were brought about by the embryonic nature of EPAC, Office recruitment difficulties, the early rising of Parliament and printing delays.