Tuesday, 7 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 3 May 1985 of the Hon. Sir Percy Spender, former Minister of the Crown and member of the House of Representatives. I seek leave to move a motion of condolence. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 3 May 1985, of the Hon. Sir Percy Claude Spender, KCVO, KBE, QC, a former Minister of the Crown and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Warringah, New South Wales, from 1937 to 1951, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. The Hon. Sir Percy Spender died on Friday, 3 May 1985. He had a long and distinguished record in Australian public life. He was born above his father's locksmith shop in Darlinghurst in 1897 and spent his boyhood in Sydney. He had a very distinguished academic career as a young man, winning a university medal and first honours in law at Sydney University. After his graduation, having spent 11 years at the Bar, he became a King's Counsel at the age of 37. In 1937 he was elected for the seat of Warringah and served in the House of Representatives for 14 years. He rose quickly to the Ministry and served in the War Cabinet between 1939 and 1941. He was at different times Treasurer, Minister for the Army and Minister for External Affairs and External Territories. It was perhaps in his role as Minister for External Affairs, as it was then called, that Sir Percy made his greatest contribution to Australian public life. As Australia's Foreign Minister he appreciated the importance to Australia of Asia and the Pacific and understood the fundamental necessity of the Australian-American alliance. Honourable senators who recall that period will remember the growing attempts by Australia to re-orientate itself as a predominantly Anglo-Saxon country in the South Pacific region and the role Sir Percy Spender played in that process. It was also through his belief in and commitment to the alliance that he played a central role in the conclusion of the ANZUS Treaty. That, of course, has been the subject of some Press discussion since his death. Sir Percy Spender's service to his country did not end with his retirement from the House of Representatives in 1951 because in that year he was appointed Ambassador to the United States of America where he continued for seven years to build on the ties established in the course of his relationship with the United States as Australian Foreign Minister. In 1958 he was appointed to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and in 1964 was elected its President. As I have indicated, Sir Percy Spender's life was marked by achievement at the Bar, in Parliament and on the world stage in the International Court. It was a life dedicated to the service of Australia and to the wider international community. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his widow and family our sincerest sympathy and our regret at the passing of a very distinguished Australian. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). He has sketched out the very distinguished career which Sir Percy Spender contributed to Australia and the world. He had a distinguished career as a lawyer, as a Minister of the Crown, as a diplomat and, finally, as a jurist. I do not wish to repeat the description of his career which has been given so adequately by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As is so often the case, it is only when a man dies that one reads of some of the more interesting aspects of his career. I have certainly been fascinated to read of Sir Percy's role in the pre-War and War-time Cabinets. It is clear that he placed the highest possible priority on service to his country. It was not known to me that at one stage he had been expelled from the United Australia Party. I welcome the fact that subsequently he was welcomed to the Liberal Party of Australia when it was formed by Sir Robert Menzies. He went on to serve Australia and South East Asia very greatly as Minister for Foreign Affairs. One of the features of Sir Percy Spender was that he inspired one of his two surviving sons to follow him into politics. That says something for the frequent complaints that those of us in politics make about the nature of the life. There are many examples in the short period since Australia's Federation of sons following their fathers into the national Parliament. In the previous Government Mr Anthony, Mr Street, Mr Adermann, I and perhaps some others, had fathers who had served in the national Parliament and, of course, Sir Percy Spender's son, John, is currently a member of the House of Representatives. That makes it particularly apt on this occasion that we should extend our sympathy to the surviving family of Sir Percy Spender. He did make a very great contribution to Australia and his family, no doubt, is very proud of that fact. The occasion of his death must be a time of great sorrow for them and we extend our sympathy at this time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of senators of the National Party of Australia I endorse the sentiments that have been made clear by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I express my Party's sympathy to the family of the late Sir Percy Spender. His life began somewhat tragically in that he lost his mother when he was only five. He had a somewhat indifferent career at school. I have read that he seemed to have a priority for rugby over Latin. I am not entirely sure that that is not an intelligent priority. Eventually he continued on to university. As it has been said, he had a brilliant career in law after graduating with first class honours and a university medal. His entry into politics followed some years in law. He entered the diplomatic world and later went back into the legal world. His time there spanned a lot of years and also showed his remarkable flexibility. His was a remarkable achievement for one who is generally regarded as a great Australian. Amongst his chief achievements was the fact that he was in a very real sense the architect of ANZUS. Its contribution to security in this part of the world has been, and I hope will continue to be, very significant indeed. On behalf of the National Party I express my sympathy to Lady Spender and the Spender family. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I want to associate my Party with the motion of condolence for this distinguished Australian and the expressions of sympathy to his loved ones. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I should like to pay my personal tribute to the widow and two sons of Sir Percy Spender. I was privileged to know him for just on 40 years. Incredibly now, it appears that he was 47 years of age in 1945, when I came to know him. By then he had already written a large chapter in Australian history. By then he had achieved the dignity of a King's Counsel and also had been a member of Parliament since 1937. He was a member of the War Cabinet from 1939 to 1940. He was a member of the Advisory War Council throughout the war years from 1940 to 1945. He was a member of the Sydney University Senate from 1939 to 1944. Not a bad record of achievement up to that point. When I came to know him I found him to be a man of a very articulate turn of phrase, a man with a great knowledge not only of the law but also of Australia and Australian politics, and a very keen observer of the world scene. Following the election of the Menzies Government he was a member of the Menzies Cabinet and served in a number of portfolios. Sir Percy Spender was Ambassador to the United States of America, and I recall very well just how respected he was in that function. It has been said by previous speakers that he is perhaps best remembered as the main architect of the ANZUS Treaty. I remember those years very well indeed. In 1951 he was the Australian representative at the ANZUS negotiations, and indeed at the signing of the Treaty in San Francisco. He attended the inaugural meeting of ANZUS in Honolulu in 1952. He was a member of the International Court of Justice at The Hague for something like nine years-from 1958 to 1967. For almost four of those years-from 1964 to 1967-he was the President of the International Court of Justice. That in itself was a great tribute not only to him but also to Australia because he wore that presidency with merit. He discharged his job with great dignity and with great legal ability. Sir Percy Spender's life spanned a great part of Australia's history-almost 50 years in public life, from the late Depression years, in an active way in the war years, through the post-war years, to the peace treaty with Japan, the making of the ANZUS Treaty, and the setting up of a concept of an international court of justice. To all of those areas he brought an attitude of mind, a skill, a great knowledge, which helped to write the pages of history for Australia. He was supported in those earlier years by his wife Jean, who made a great contribution to his work. She also was distinguished as a writer. Sir Percy Spender is succeeded here by his son John, who is a lawyer and a Queen's Counsel. I simply rise to say that the man I knew was certainly, in all that he did, a great Australian, a man recognised overseas as a great ambassador for Australia. We are the richer for his journey, and we pay tribute to his family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pensions: Assets Test To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 322 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator Bolkus (from 35 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 A$5 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 A$15,000. 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 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 Sentor Macklin (from 237 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace support: 1. a move towards unity, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to an immediate bilateral freeze of the development and deployment of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace-keeping force. 2. the establishment of a Ministry for Peace to focus our energies towards non-violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any one polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide. 3. the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry for Peace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all mankind. by Senator Macklin (from 150 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian delegation to the 1984 session of the conference on disarmament held in Geneva-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the report. 2. Security of wharves and containers-report by the joint Commonwealth and New South Wales task force. 3. Apples and pears-Industries Assistance Commission interim report. 4. Appointments to the Parliament House Construction Authority-text of a statement by the Minister for Territories made in the House of Representatives on 23 April 1984. 5. Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-financial statements 1983-84-pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, left Australia yesterday for an official visit to the Indian sub-continent. He will return on 26 May. In his absence the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, will represent Senator Evans in the House of Representatives. Senator CHANEY —I can only express disappointment that I do not have a question for the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Will next week's economic statement, which the Prime Minister has described as one covering major expenditure savings, be confined to decisions resulting in reduced outlays or will it also include increased or new taxing measures as part of the claimed $1 billion savings? Senator WALSH —The final details of the statement have not yet been decided but in excess of $1 billion will be taken off outlays. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. He will be aware of continuing controversy surrounding the release of the Forward Estimates of expenditure by the Government. Will the Minister clearly indicate whether the Government intends to release those Forward Estimates and, if so, when? Senator WALSH —I thought that Senator Chaney might have asked this question but since he did not ask it I did not answer it. The Forward Estimates will be published tomorrow afternoon. The $1 billion to which I referred in my earlier answer will be a reduction in outlays as against the Forward Estimates. The statement will go into considerable detail. Senator Walters —It will not be much use to anyone. Senator WALSH —I doubt whether it will be much use to Senator Walters, because I doubt whether she is conceptually capable of understanding what $1 billion is, but it is important to be precise with these terms. Forward Estimates, in this context, is a very precise term. It refers to a document which was printed and bound in the Department of Finance four or five months ago. The announcements which will be made next week will specify a total sum in excess of $1 billion in reductions from the Forward Estimates published at that time, using the same parameters as were used in compiling the Forward Estimates. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Does the Minister for Finance accept the view put in Melbourne on Sunday by his colleague the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, who quoted Melbourne University research which purports to show that a broad sales tax of 5 per cent would produce a decline in real gross domestic product of 3 per cent and a reduction in employment of 4 per cent? Does the Government's economic forecasting support such a prediction and, if not, what effect does the Minister believe such a tax would have on employment and productivity? Senator WALSH —I have seen Press reports along the lines which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle indicated. I think there was an earlier paper presented by Professor John Neville which suggested a similar possible outcome. I think it is a matter of quite considerable academic debate as to whether that sort of thing is likely to happen-whether it would happen to a lesser degree or whether it would happen at all. I have not seriously considered that matter at this stage because there has been more urgent business to consider, namely, the statement to be made next week. I do not know what forecasts have been derived from within the Treasury. I will approach the Treasurer to see whether there are such forecasts and whether he cares to release details of them. I doubt whether the Treasurer will be willing to do so prior to the tax summit in July. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate of the latest position regarding the Lebanese Embassy in Canberra, which I believe has been occupied by a Lebanese protest group? What assistance can the Government provide so that the Lebanese Embassy can resume its normal functions? Senator GARETH EVANS —As honourable senators will know, on 3 May the Lebanese Embassy in Canberra was occupied by members of the Lebanese community in Australia. The Lebanese Consulates-General in Sydney and Melbourne have also been occupied. Similar actions have taken place at the same time in other countries, including Belgium, France and Canada. The people involved have declared that their actions are intended to bring attention to the current situation in Lebanon, in particular the recent fighting between Moslem and Christian militia and their concern with the position of the Christian community in the south. Officers of the Australian Federal Police have been present at the Embassy since the occupation and the Department of Foreign Affairs has discussed the situation with the Lebanese Ambassador. The Ambassador has been offered any assistance which might be practicable, but to date he has not sought assistance. I say finally that, while the Government understands very well the concerns which have motivated members of the Lebanese community, it simply cannot condone the occupation of an embassy. The Ambassador has been informed of our wish that the occupation should cease quickly and peacefully to allow the Embassy and the Consulates-General to resume their normal functions. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is aware of the report in the National Times of 26 April that the repositioning of the satellite at Pine Gap was essentially not to spy on Greece but to spy on Israel. Is there technical evidence available which indicates that Pine Gap could be used to spy on Israel? Is the Government aware that the National Times has described its source as impeccable? Does the Government believe that, given the fact that Israel is a close ally of the United States and close friend of this country, any such move to spy on Israel would be immoral and outrageous? Senator Jessop —What about the Russians spying on it? Senator CHIPP —If Senator Jessop wants us to help spy on Israel, let him say so. I further ask: In the light of the Prime Minister's much self-professed support for the state of Israel, can his Government categorically and unequivocally deny that it assists or has assisted the United States of America in spying on Israel? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chipp has been around long enough to know perfectly well that it is the Government's policy not to confirm or deny reports of this kind. I do not propose to vary that practice today. I add in more general terms only that the general purposes and functions of the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar in Australia were described by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 6 June last year. Those facilities are seen by us as contributing to the security of all our allies in the Western strategic community by providing timely knowledge of developments of military significance. The facilities provide information relevant to maintaining stability in the super-power relationship, including through contributing to early warning of missile launches, to the verification of arms limitation and to nuclear non-proliferation measures. All activities-I repeat, again, what has been put so often on the public record-at the facilities take place with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. Decisions on these matters are taken by Ministers, not by officials, and are made on the basis of government policies for foreign affairs, defence and intelligence. The facilities operate in accordance with the principles laid down in the Australian Labor Party platform, which require that the facilities do not derogate from Australian authority and sovereignty, or involve Australia in hostilities without our consent. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns the Commonwealth Schools Commission funding guidelines for 1985-88. I refer the Minister to comments made by the Executive Director of the National Council of Independent Schools, Mr Berry Durston, in the Weekend Australian of 4 May 1985, when he said that the Government's new funding formula for non-government schools showed that the Government had a 'tall poppy' attitude to the welfare of private schools. Will the Minister comment on Mr Durston's statement that the Government's attitude is to cut the tall poppies down and that the new formula for recurrent funding is a disincentive to independent efforts to maintain standards of education? Senator RYAN —My attention was drawn to Mr Durston's comments. I must say I was surprised to read them. He is apparently out of step not only with the whole of the private sector but also with his own organisation. I remind honourable senators that when the guidelines for the recurrent funding of government and non-government schools and the new formula on which the recurrent funding for non-government schools was to be based were announced last year, they were generally endorsed by all major organisations in the non-government sector. In fact, they were welcomed extremely warmly. I remind the Senate that the Chairman of the national Catholic Education Commission welcomed the clear statement of responsibility for all children which was contained in the guidelines and the practical implementation of this policy. The Australian Parents Council applauded the decision. I especially draw the Senate's attention to comments made by Mr Durston's Chairman, who said that the Government's guidelines had given the education of Australian youth a clear priority. The National Council of Independent Schools, Mr Durston's organisation, was also reported as having welcomed the Government's move to bring about financial justice for all Australian students. All those comments and many more in the same tenor were made in respect of the very formula which has now been applied, and the results of its application have been made public. So it is quite surprising that Mr Durston seems now to have turned tail on the non-government sector and on his own organisation in making these critical comments. Nothing has been changed and there is nothing new. The formula that was so warmly welcomed across the non-government sector has now been applied. Schools have been notified. The vast majority of schools, of course, will receive increased grants. Even those which will eventually end up in a lower funding category will have time to adjust to this by receiving the same money in dollar terms until they reach their appropriate funding level. I point out to honourable senators that the formula and the guidelines were extremely well received last year. The results have now been well received widely throughout the non-government sector. Remarks such as those made by Mr Durston are quite incomprehensible. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask the Minister whether he recalls having said on 20 March that a move towards greater emphasis on indirect taxation ought not to be contemplated unless there was agreement that any effects on the consumer price index would not be passed on to wages through indexation. I refer him to the published comments of Mr Joe Thompson which were made either in his capacity as President of the Labor Council of New South Wales or as a representative of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, or in both capacities. When referring to the prospect of a new consumption tax, he stated: It should be made perfectly clear that in no circumstances will the trade union movement accept any discounting of the consumer price index. Does the Minister believe that it is possible to achieve the movement which seems to be favoured by most senior Ministers when such a senior union official totally rejects the pre-condition which the Minister has required? Senator WALSH —I do recall saying on 20 March or thereabouts something at least very similar to that which Senator Rae has attributed to me. I think that anybody who seriously thinks about this question would come to a very similar, if not identical, conclusion. As for Mr Thompson, I was vaguely aware of his statements but frankly I did not bother to read them because I doubted whether it was worth the time it would take to do so. Mr Thompson and I have had differences of opinion. They have not been public differences of opinion. I have disagreed with many of the statements and assertions that Mr Thompson has made in the past. For example, he has made some extremely wild statements about the likely level of employment in the car industry which have now been shown to be wildly wrong. Indeed, in total, about the only people I can think of off the top of my head whose economic forecasts have been as erroneous as Mr Thompson's are the discredited former Treasurer and possibly, one might even say, the former Treasury Secretary. Obviously, Senator Rae has drawn attention to a very serious question, and that is that it would be quite catastrophic-I do not think this is overstating the case-if a cosmetic change in the consumer price index caused by a change in the taxation system were to feed back into wages, thereby sustaining a very much higher level of inflation. What significant people in the trade union movement say about that is, I think, terribly important. However, given Mr Thompson's record, and I think the general perceptions about him, I do not think anybody in the Government would be unduly worried about what he has said. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the Queensland Cabinet has apparently decided to proceed immediately with the financing of the weir on the Mackenzie River? This decision goes against the advice of the Queensland Water Resources Commission which has pointed out that this project is not on Queensland's water resources priority list. Will the Minister consider rejecting the funding of Queensland's water resources projects until the Queensland Government abides by its own departmental advice instead of directing funds to this low priority project purely because of its proximity to the property of John Bjelke-Petersen? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not aware of the specific matter to which Senator Reynolds adverts until she rose to her feet. I am, of course, well aware of the long history of political misbehaviour by the Queensland Government involving dam and water projects, as much as anything else, within its jurisdiction. I will, of course, look very closely at what Senator Reynolds now draws to my attention. I will consider very carefully, on behalf of the Government, the implications of that course of action for the future Commonwealth funding of Queensland water projects. Senator COLLARD —My question, which I address to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows closely on the one asked by Senator Peter Rae and answered by the Minister for Finance. This time the question does not involve a minor union official. I draw the Minister's attention to an interview with Mr Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the current issue of the National Times in which Mr Kelty says: We're not going to accept devaluation as a basis for discounting the CPI. We won't do it. In view of this and other similar comments by Mr Kelty and Mr Simon Crean and in light of the provisions of the accord, does the Government still maintain that discounting of the CPI remains an option at future national wage cases? Does the Government accept the union view that if it ever supported discounting it would mean the end of the prices and income accord? Senator BUTTON —The discounting of the devaluation and the proposed productivity case which the Australian Council of Trade Unions foreshadowed it would bring later this year are the subject of continuing discussion between the Government and the ACTU and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the economic statement to be brought down next Tuesday evening which is aimed at reducing Government expenditure by around $1,000m annually. Compared with the proposed $1,000m reduction in expenditures, how effective was the previous Government in reducing government expenditure? Senator WALSH —I do not know how effective the previous Government was in taking expenditure off the Forward Estimates of expenditure because, to my knowledge, the former Government never published those Forward Estimates. It certainly did not publish them in advance of the Budget. However, I do know the degree to which the former Government failed to estimate accurately its expenditure in a current financial year, that is, with the presentation of the Budget. Indeed, in all of the years that the discredited former Treasurer was the Treasurer of Australia, it was not just a question of error, it was a question that in every one of those years the actual outlays were in excess of the forward estimate of outlays. In 1978-79, Mr Howard's first Budget, the outlays were $175m over the Budget estimates, as distinct from the Forward Estimates. The next year he almost got it right; they were only $2m over. In the following year actual expenditure was $244m higher than the Budget estimates of expenditure. In the following year, 1981-82, it almost doubled to $463m. Then there was the spectacular blow out in the discredited former Treasurer's final Budget, when actual expenditure was $1,915m above the estimates he produced in his Budget. The former Treasurer was almost equally inaccurate in estimating unemployment benefit payments in all of his Budgets. Unemployment benefit payments are a fairly reliable indicator of the level of economic activity. In the last Budget produced by Mr Lynch-the Budget that had the notorious rubbery figures in it, to use Mr Lynch's own terms-actual unemployment benefit outlays were 20 per cent higher than the Budget estimate. Everybody knew that there were rubbery figures in that Budget. In other words, that Budget was concocted for presentation purposes prior to an election and the estimates were not honest estimates. Everybody knows that. What is not so well known is that in the first Howard Budget unemployment benefit payments were 14 per cent above estimates. In 1979-80 they were 7 per cent lower, and that was the zenith, I suppose one could say, of the estimating accuracy of the former Treasurer. In 1980-81 unemployment benefit payments had grown to 4 per cent above his estimates. In 1981-82 they were 12 per cent above his estimates. In his final spectacular year, payments in unemployment benefits were 44 per cent higher than had been estimated in his Budget. It is also worth noting that in addition to the former Treasurer's failure to control outlays or to present accurate estimates of outlays in a financial year, throughout his period in government there was a consistent reduction in the percentage of Budget payments for capital outlays. Indeed, throughout the years 1976-77 to 1982-83-for five of those seven years Mr Howard was the Treasurer-there was a real decline in capital expenditure each year of 8.4 per cent. So, although the former Treasurer was sending a bill for the future by reducing the capital outlays component of Budget expenditure, he still failed quite miserably to control overall outlays. I can understand the frustration, or perhaps pique, of some members of the Opposition that this Government has actually done and is continuing to do the things that the former Treasurer talked about doing, but on which he never delivered. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and follows the answer he has just given. As he has taken the trouble to bring out the figures showing the difference between the Forward Estimates under Liberal governments and the Budget outlays, does he have the same figures for the first two years of the Hawke Government? If he does not have those figures, would he agree that in the first year of the Hawke Government-in the first Budget-Forward Estimates were reduced by over $1 billion but outlays were increased by approximately $2.5 billion? That would suggest that there was a discrepancy, not of a few hundred million dollars, which is the figure he described for Mr Howard, but of something like $1,200m. In other words, can he give us the equivalent figures and demonstrate that, in fact, this Labor Government has shown a far looser attitude towards expenditure which has in fact resulted in far greater increases in expenditure in the Forward Estimates than was the case with the previous Government? Further, I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the average increase in expenditure in real terms under the Fraser Government was approximately 2 per cent and under the Hawke Government it is approximately 7 per cent? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney's question is misconceived in that he refers to changes from forward estimates of expenditure, whereas the figures I was citing about the discredited former Treasurer were variations not from the forward estimates of expenditure but from the estimates of expenditure for the current financial year which were presented with the Budget. After all the policy decisions had ostensibly been made, six months later, when much more up to date and obviously much more relevant economic data was available, on supposedly honest estimates by the previous Government of outlays presented with its Budget, in every year Mr Howard was Treasurer the actual expenditure varied between $2 million and almost $2 billion above that estimate. That is a quite different thing to reductions off forward estimates of expenditure. Senator Chaney also referred to the $2.5 billion-I think that was the figure he cited-which was a gross figure, he claimed, added to outlays in 1983-84. I do not recall precisely what that figure was. Certainly significant new programs were introduced. One of the reasons for that was that the tax expenditures of the discredited former Government were converted into outlays by this Government. The discredited former Government, when producing its last and desperate Budget, had no economic strategy. It had simply a political strategy the purpose of which was to buy off and bribe a sufficient number of pressure groups to patch together a shaky coalition until the premature election which it planned to call and which it eventually did, to its cost. The bill for those massive increases in tax expenditures contained in that Budget was sent to this Government and paid for by this Government because there is a year lag in paying for tax expenditures. This Government, in the one Budget year, the one full financial year in which it has been in government, achieved an actual outcome-a deficit-which was significantly below that which had been forecast at Budget time, in marked contrast again, if I may say so, to the record of the discredited former Treasurer. In his first Budget the deficit was $665m higher than he estimated it would be when he brought the Budget down. In his second last Budget, in 1981-82, it was $452m higher than he estimated or said it would be at the time he brought the Budget down. In his final Budget, despite having pushed the bill for the tax expenditures off into the next financial year-that was a bill this Government had to pay and not the previous Government-there was a massive blowout in the deficit, of $2,799m. That is the sorry record of the discredited former Government and the discredited former Treasurer. In every year actual outlays were in excess of his projections. Throughout the period he was Treasurer capital expenditure in real terms declined; in other words, capital expenditure was neglected, there was a large blowout in the deficit in three of the five Budgets he presented, culminating in an almost $3 billion blowout, and of course in most of the Budgets he presented there was also a gross under-estimate of payments for unemployment benefits and therefore of the numbers of people unemployed. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister omitted mention of the last part of my question, which related to asking him whether he agrees that the expenditure increases under the Fraser Government averaged about 2 per cent in real terms, and under his Government have averaged around 7 per cent in real terms. Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney should have listened more carefully. I do not remember what the average of the Fraser Government was, but the figure presented was lower than the real figure because, as I said, of the propensity of the Fraser Government to hide the true level of expenditure by going down the tax expenditure route instead of the outlays route, and in the first year we were in government we were lumbered with the bill-the deferred bill-for the tax expenditures of the Fraser Government in its last year. So in that year we had to pay in terms of the deficit for the bill that was sent to us by the former discredited Treasurer and discredited former Government, and we also increased outlays because those tax expenditure programs to a significant extent were converted to outlays. It follows, of course, that, our having inherited the worst economic recession which Australia has seen for 50 years from the discredited former Treasurer and the discredited former Government, it was inevitable that some quite significant Commonwealth outlays would grow unless there were massive policy changes. If the Liberal Party of Australia had still been in government, perhaps it would have been quite happy to withdraw unemployment benefits for the 600,000-odd people who had become unemployed because of its economic mismanagement. This Government was not happy to do that, and therefore there was a very significant increase in outlays attributable solely to unemployment benefits. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. The delegation is led by the Hon. Kharis Suhud, Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian Parliament. He is accompanied by delegates from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Members of the delegation have so far visited Perth, Melbourne and Albury, and tomorrow they will visit Sydney for the final two days of their program. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to all members of the delegation a warm welcome to Canberra, and particularly to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Age, referring to a walk-out of workers in the Health Insurance Commission in Strathfield, Sydney? The article reported that the walk-out is due to the actions of management towards employees suffering from repetition strain injury who are being referred to psychiatrists, and also to changes in work structures in their office not being adhered to. Can the Minister comment on the increase in the number of repetition strain injury cases in this office, and the practice of referring such people to a psychiatrist as part of their assessment, especially in the light of a quite different outcome reported by Repco, Launceston, in dealing with similar problems? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article in this morning's Press concerning the problem at Strathfield, and I made some inquiries as to what had happened there. My understanding is that 47 staff stopped work for half a day on 6 May. As it was reported in the Press, the union, which is the Association of Professional Scientists of Australia, was concerned mainly at the lack of agreed rest breaks, the failure of the Commission to take responsibility for work-related repetition strain injury and the referral of RSI sufferers to a psychiatrist, they alleged, on the instructions of the Commission. The Commission and the union have agreed to the granting of 10-minute rest breaks within the hour when the staff is engaged on continuous keying. Since November 1984 the need for Commission staff at Strathfield to do continuous keying has in fact been substantially reduced. This has been achieved by interspersing clerical work with the keyboard function. As a consequence, it is claimed that there has been no need in many cases for a 10-minute rest break. The Commission certainly denies that there has been any breach of the agreement to that effect. The Commission's track record on repetition strain injury compared with those of other areas of the Public Service and statutory authorities seems to be pretty good, and is certainly superior to those of other large public sector employers. The Commission absolutely refutes any suggestion that it has instructed RSI cases to be referred to a psychiatrist. Obviously as a result of this dispute that allegation will have to be investigated, but the Commission absolutely refutes it. The problem is being discussed today at the State level between management and union representatives, and the only issue now of apparent concern relates to rest breaks. Since this issue has national implications, it is also being discussed today between the Commission's central office and the union's Federal representatives. The Minister for Health informs me that no difficulty is expected in achieving a satisfactory resolution. There has been no significant delay in Medicare claims processing as a result of this dispute. In fact processing has been operating for some time within the five-day turnaround which the Commission set as its operational objective, and it is expected that that five-day turnaround will continue. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the discredited Minister for Finance. I ask the Minister whether he agrees with his Centre Left Western Australian colleague Senator Cook, who told the Melbourne University Labor Club last week: The Labor Party is a high taxing party. It needs to be to carry out its reforms. Senator WALSH —It is a matter of record, for reasons that I have given already, that at the equivalent level of real expenditure a Labor government will be a higher taxing government than a Liberal government. Liberal governments have a propensity, which got completely out of control in the final years of the discredited last Liberal Government, to hide their expenditures as tax expenditures. Negative growth, of course, also shrunk the income tax base. The important difference-and it is important that this be understood-is that under the policies followed by the previous Liberal Government, at the same level of real delivery of services, capital expenditure or whatever, what is recorded as taxes and outlays would be lower. This Government has a general policy of minimising taxation expenditure and providing services by way of payments instead of tax deductions or tax concessions. For that reason, at the same real level of delivery of service, a Labor government does not try to hide what it is doing compared with a Liberal government which does try to hide what it is doing-a devious subterfuge which reached almost art form in the final years of the Fraser Government. When governments are inclined to do what Labor governments are inclined to do or what Liberal governments are inclined to do at precisely the same real level of service delivery, both receipts, that is, taxation, and outlays which are recorded will be higher under a Labor government than under a Liberal government. When one adds what is not recorded, that cancels the difference. Senator JESSOP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am somewhat confused by the latter part of the Minister's answer to my question. Am I correct in understanding that in the initial part of the Minister's answer he said that he agreed that the Labor Party was a high taxing party and, secondly, that in order to carry out its progressive reform program, the Labor Party will have to continue a policy of high taxation? Senator WALSH —I did not say what Senator Jessop claims to believe I said. What I said is that the same level of real expenditures, real delivery of services-what is recorded as both outlays and taxation-would be higher under one government than the other because Liberal governments try to hide it and Labor governments do not. If Senator Jessop, along with the rest of his paranoia, believes that this Government is going to become a reckless taxing government, or something like that, I refer him to the pre-election commitments which have become known, perhaps unfortunately, as the trilogy. I say 'unfortunately' because I think that if the word were to be selected again we might select one which more accurately describes the actual policy. However, under the policy there is a firm commitment that throughout the life of this Parliament taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, will not exceed the levels applying this year. That is a commitment which no Liberal government ever gave. Maybe the Liberal Party will never again get an opportunity to give such a commitment, even if it should have a predisposition to do so. The sort of carping that we generally hear from the Liberal Party, the attempts to denigrate the very credible, commendable, economic record of this Government, will not help the Liberal Party to get into a position in which it might be able to give some more undertakings which it could break. I remember what happened when the Liberal Party was in government. Mr Fraser, just before an election of course, produced tax cuts to be applicable from 1 February. I remember very clearly the full page newspaper advertisements in which people had handfuls of $5 notes which they were throwing around like confetti at a wedding. The advertisements stated: 'Liberals will give you tax cuts'. We found out how long that lasted. In the next Budget the then Prime Minister and the discredited former Treasurer jointly announced that that tax cut was gone and that there would be a tax increase. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport say whether there is any truth in media reports in South Australia in recent days which suggest that Australian National Railways Commission intends to phase out gradually all country passenger services in that State, with the exception of the Mount Gambier service? Further, is the Minister aware of other far sweeping changes planned by Australian National, including the abolition of country freight services in South Australia by 1987-88? Can the Minister say what the Government's response is to these reported changes? Senator RYAN —I will have to refer that matter to the Department of Transport for a speedy answer. I will inform Senator Bolkus of it as soon as possible. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Prime Minister's specific and unequivocal 1984 election policy promise to introduce a 150 per cent tax concession for private industry expenditure on research and development. I refer also to a speech made by the Minister on 16 April, when he estimated that this concession would cost the Government $80m in 1985-86, and to another speech earlier in April, when he said he was hopeful that the concession would operate from 1 July. My question to the Minister is in two parts. Firstly, given the reasonable expectation of industry that the concession would take effect from the start of the next financial year, does the Minister still expect this to happen? Secondly, will business taxation reform be considered in the Government's White Paper on taxation and at the taxation summit, as called for by the joint statement on tax reform released by five of Australia's peak business organisations on 28 April? Senator BUTTON —There are several questions there and, if I might be so bold as to comment, a couple of them are pretty good ones. The essence of the honourable senator's question related to the unequivocal announcement by the Prime Minister in the course of the election campaign that a 150 per cent tax deduction would be offered for research and development done in the private sector. I agree that it was an unequivocal commitment. I do have a difference with Senator Short. Unless I made a very bad speech, I do not think I ever said that the research and development incentive, if introduced on 1 July this year, would cost $80m in 1985-86. If I did, it was a mistake because, clearly, if the incentive was introduced on 1 July 1985 there would be no cost to revenue in that financial year. In fact, the cost to revenue in the subsequent year would be limited. Senator Durack —Senator Walsh wouldn't agree with that. Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, I do not mind thoughtful interjections but that one was just ill informed. Senator Short referred to the reasonable expectations of industry that the concession could be introduced on 1 July this year. I agree that there are reasonable expectations in wide-ranging sections of industry that it will be introduced on that date. However, I make the point that the preparation of such a scheme, of which the Government does not, in general terms, approve-that is to say, tax concessions, tax havens, things of this kind-would be regarded very much as an exception to the Government's overall strategy in relation to taxation policy. It would be regarded very much as an exception because of the peculiarly bad performance, as honourable senators will be well aware, of the private sector in relation to research and development in Australia in the last 10 years, and the need to provide some sort of incentive to improve that performance if the competitiveness of Australian industry is to be improved and enhanced, at a time when that competitiveness will depend immensely on the research and development capacity of industry and a number of matters which have not normally been considered in the past as such great contributors to competitiveness. I was also asked whether business tax reform would be addressed in the White Paper on taxation policy. I am unable to answer that question with any degree of conclusiveness because I have not seen the White Paper on tax reform. We will all have an opportunity, including Senator Short, to see it in the not too distant future. The most important aspect of Senator Short's question was when the research and development tax incentive arrangements would be announced. All I can say on that issue is that the Government will make an announcement at an appropriate time. Senator DEVLIN —I refer the Minister for Education to an article in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 7 May 1985 entitled 'Baume Claims Money Misused'. In that article the Opposition education spokesman, Senator Baume, accused the Government of misusing $18,500 in public money to promote its education policies during the Federal election campaign. Can the Minister advise whether this is the case? Senator RYAN —No, it is not the case. Yet again, if Senator Baume's Press statement was properly reported in the Sun, we have an example of Senator Baume deliberately misleading people in the education community about expenditures within my Department. This misleading activity on the part of Senator Baume is all the more irritating and tedious since he makes free use of the Freedom of Information Act and other methods of obtaining accurate information. I am not the only one who thinks that his activities in this respect are frivolous and time wasting. Senator Baume was supplied by the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, with documents concerning a schools brochure entitled 'Improving Government Schools-1985 and beyond'. The brochure concerned the Commonwealth's decisions on schools funding and was released by the Department to a commercial mailing house on 3 October last year. Senator Peter Baume —During the election period. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume seems to have forgotten when the election was held. Due to delays in dispatch of the brochure by the commercial mailing house it was not distributed until mid-October, after the announcement of the December 1984 Federal election. The Department was not advised of the delay by the mailing house. Senator Baume knows all this to be the case since he has had the information supplied to him under the Freedom of Information Act. I think it is extraordinarily mischievous of him to go to the trouble of using public resources in getting information and then persist in inaccurate and misleading statements. Senator Baume claims that the two brochures cost $18,500 whereas, in fact, as the documents which were supplied to him show, the one brochure about which he was concerned cost approximately $9,000. The other brochure, with which he was not concerned, was distributed in August 1984. Obviously, the sum of $18,500 was not spent by the Government in promoting its education policies during the election campaign. Senator Baume said that he now intends to write to the Electoral Commissioner about the status of the brochure. Senator Peter Baume —I have done so. Senator RYAN —It is very interesting to see the sorts of things that consume the time of the Opposition's spokesperson on education and women's affairs. It is very interesting to see the pedantic, frivolous and absolutely useless activities he chooses to spend his time on. It is no wonder that the Opposition's standing in the education community is at rock bottom when its spokesperson, Senator Baume, chooses to waste his time on such frivolous activities. Senator Baume has just told us that he has written to the Electoral Commissioner to inquire about the status of the brochure. The documents supplied to him by my Department clearly show that the Electoral Commissioner indicated to the Secretary of my Department on 15 March of this year that a return under section 309 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is not required in respect of the brochure. The brochure was produced as part of a long term program aimed at ensuring that the community has access to accurate information on the Commission's decision on school funds. I would have thought that Senator Baume, after the antics he engaged in at the Estimates Committee hearing recently about information, would have heartily endorsed the fact that the Department had provided this accurate and useful information to the wider community. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the Department of Defence is about to announce the siting of an Army infantry training course and artillery range in the Orange-Bathurst area, as reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning? Can the Minister advise the House when the announcement of an area will be made? Does the Government intend to adhere to the promises of the Prime Minister that no productive land will be taken for Defence Department proposals and that it has no intention of forcibly dispossessing people? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister that no decision has yet been announced but that a decision will be announced soon. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the recent deaths in Chile of the two Mino-Logan brothers who had been accepted as eligible for assisted immigration to Australia under the special humanitarian program? Is the Acting Minister further aware of reports that names of applicants for such assistance have been passed on by embassy officials to Chilean police without due regard to the possible consequences? Is he able to give details of measures which are now taken to ensure the safety of applicants for such assistance in countries where investigations for security clearances may place lives in danger? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Zakharov for giving me sufficient advance notice of this question to be able to give her a reasonably detailed answer. The situation is that David and Marcello Mino-Logan were killed in Quillota, Chile, on 19 January 1985 as the result of an exchange of fire with security forces. A third brother who is resident in Sydney, Mr Waldo Mino-Logan, had made representations to Mr Hayden and the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in 1984, seeking his brothers' entry into Australia. Allegations have been made over the handling of the matter by the Australian Embassy in Santiago. As soon as it received instructions from Australia, the Embassy sought actively to arrange an interview with the brothers in connection with their possible entry into Australia. At no time before their deaths was the Embassy able to ascertain the whereabouts of the brothers. The family of the brothers was also unaware of their whereabouts. In the circumstances it was not possible for the Embassy to make any assessment of the brothers' eligibility for re-settlement in Australia. Nor is there a basis for the allegation that information from the Embassy aided the Chilean authorities in locating the brothers. There has been considerable publicity generated in this case. Much of it is characterised by misrepresentation of the role played by Australian officials and the true circumstances of the brothers prior to their deaths. Once full investigations into the matter have been completed, my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be issuing a comprehensive statement detailing the history of the case. The general question of the procedures for establishing that individuals satisfy the requirements for entry to Australia is a matter for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Honourable senators will be aware that his predecessor visited South America last August to inspect Australia's resettlement operations in the region at first hand. Following that visit, he expressed his satisfaction that the processing and checking arrangements are as effective as possible without endangering the safety of applicants. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, my question is addressed to you. I refer to the concern expressed by me and by a number of honourable senators in debate in the Senate on 23 April 1985 concerning the refusal of the Senate to accede to a petition lodged on behalf of Judge Foord for the use in court of certain evidence given before a Senate committee and to the intervention by the Senate's representatives in preliminary legal proceedings against Judge Foord and Mr Justice Murphy. I ask, firstly, whether you, Mr President, have received and considered a letter to you dated 26 April 1985-a copy of which I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard-in which I complain of the misleading use of legal materials made by Senator Gareth Evans on behalf of the Attorney-General during that debate and in which I also suggest that the whole matter be referred forthwith to the Privileges Committee of the Senate for urgent consideration in order to avoid any miscarriage of justice which may thereby arise and, secondly, whether you have taken any action and, if so, what action, as a result of the further consideration of these matters. The PRESIDENT —In response to the honourable senator's question I advise the Senate that I received a letter from the honourable senator dated 26 April and I responded to it in a letter which I signed yesterday. With the approval of the Senate I shall have my reply incorporated in Hansard. I have no other comment to make on the arguments contained in Senator Missen's letter to me. All I can say is that any further action that might be taken by the Senate in respect of any previous resolution of the Senate is a matter for determination by the Senate itself. Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of Senator Missen's letter and my reply dated yesterday? Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 26th April 1985 Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland President of the Senate Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr President, Re: Matters of Privilege Concerned with the Requests by Mr Justice Murphy and Judge Foord for Release of Committee Documents I remain very concerned with the decision which the Senate made last Tuesday week, and repeated this week, in connection with the refusal to release the documents as requested. I note you are taking the matter further. I am further concerned at the use made by former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, during the debate of the case of the Church of Scientology of California v. Johnson-Smith, 1972, 1 QB page 522. As I suspected, and as Senator Cooney was unable to check at the time because of the absence of further copies of this volume, it was not really relevant to the matter in issue, which was primarily a question of whether the Senate has any power to waive its privilege and allow the documents to be used by the defendants in the respective trials. The case in question related to an action for defamation against a Member of the House of Commons in which a claim of malice was alleged against the plaintiff arising out of his statements in the Parliament. It was an action directly against an MP and not related to any question of the credit of a witness before a Parliamentary committee. Leaving aside the whole question of the applications of the ancient language of the Bill of Rights, Article 9, to our current situation and the contention I made that the language of Article 9 is not directly part of the domestic law in Australia, it must be pointed out that in event, our privileges are defined as at 1901 by reference to the House of Commons privileges as at that time, and not to some interpretation made by a single judge in 1972. If one looks at May's Parliamentary Practice, 20th edition, page 89, one sees it argued that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is only declaratory of the law of Parliament in any event. The principal matters involved in that Article, as stated by May (20th edition p. 89) are: (1) the right of each House to be sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings; (2) secondly the right implied to punish its members for their conduct in Parliament, and (3) another question, what is the precise meaning of the term ''proceedings in Parliament''. None of these issues are under challenge in any way. Leaving aside these preliminary matters, there are, I think, three issues that arise in the Scientology case that have no real relevance to the present action. In the first place, it is a case of defamation against a Member of Parliament in which an allegation of malice was specifically relied on the defendant's statement in Parliament and it is not surprising therefore that it was found to be well within the compass of the terms of Article 9. Secondly, it must be pointed out that no petition had been lodged in that case which would have made it possible for the House of Commons to waive the privilege. There was no suggestion that the House of Commons could not do so, which is the main point in issue in our situation. Thirdly, there were other allegations that were made in that case, concerning statements by the Minister for Health, made in Parliament and widely reported in the media, which, as the court pointed out, were not ''involved in the danger of encroachment upon parliamentary privilege''. This is a significant acknowledgement of the limits to ''impeachment or questioning'' matters said in Parliament. It is further of interest that the Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, appeared in that case as ''amicus curiae'' and made specific reference to Dingle v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 1962 QB 405. That was a case more appropriate to the present circumstances where the attack was on the invalidity of a committee report due to an alleged procedural defect in the proceedings of the committee, which, as the Judge points out in the Scientology case, ''is quite a different set of facts from the present case''. What the Judge was finding in the Scientology case was that it was ''not open to either party to go directly or indirectly into any question of the motives or intention of the defendant or Mr Horden, or by the then Minister of Health or any other Member of Parliament in anything they did or said in the House.'' It is clear that this is not the case in the present circumstances and it is a more far reaching proposition to say it forbids any attack on the credit of a witness who may used different documents or different emphasis (depending on which of the Murphy or Foord cases we are talking about) and where a defendant may desire, in defence of his own liberty, to raise such matters in a criminal trial. In summary my case is as follows. The Bill of Rights with its reference to matters ''impeached or questioned'' in any place out of Parliament is not directly part of our domestic law but at best is merely explanatory of the law of Parliament. Be that as it may, to interpret the Parliament or either House as unable to waive any particular privilege is a mistaken view, especially since the change in our Standing Order 308 in 1970. Furthermore, on the merits as distinct from power, it would be absurd for the Senate to make a judgment denying the right to use inconsistent statements, allegedly made by a witness before a committee, during a criminal trial where the defendant's liberty is at stake. To do this would turn the freedom of speech exercised in a parliamentary chamber into a direct denial of freedom of speech to a defendant and his counsel during a trial. This, the Senate, by inter meddling in a criminal trial, should not do. It is worth reminding ourselves that Article 9 states: 'that the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'. (my emphasis) To ignore the fundamental nature of ''freedom of speech'' and to interpret Article 9 in any way as to defeat freedom of speech turns the concept on its head. I know that you are proposing to look into this matter further and I presume that you will get the Privileges Committee to consider the whole matter. I am not at present a member of that Committee, due to the fact that while I was overseas in 1984, along with Senator Jessop and some other members, we were replaced to enable the existing proceedings against the National Times to be pursued. I hope that, when I am back on the Committee shortly, I will have the opportunity of raising this whole question. The question is, whether we should put into modern language the rights which individuals have consistent with our parliamentary privilege and particularly where the Senate involves itself in semi criminal proceedings where the bona fides of a witness are of particular materiality when it comes to a trial. It is extraordinary that the Joint Committee on Privileges in its 1984 Exposure Report ignores this dangerous area of obscurity in our claims for privilege. It is more extraordinary that Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack refuse to take up the questions I raised about it in debate last week. I trust, therefore, you will not regard the former Attorney-General's statements as in any way conclusive on the subject and that you will see that there is ample discussion of this matter at an early date so that justice can not only be seen to be done but also be done. It would be a tragic mistake if the Senate by its actions, however well-intentioned, caused a miscarriage of justice as Mr Temby apparently has in mind by his comments to the Senate. Yours sincerely, Alan Missen Senator for Victoria P.S. If I am wrong in my view as expressed above, then this letter would seem to constitute ''an impeachment or questioning'' of the Senate action. Senator A. J. Missen Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Missen, Thank you for your letter dated 26 April expressing your concern at the proceedings in the Senate on 16 April, when the matter of a petition lodged with me by the solicitors for Judge Foord was before the Senate. I am sure you will appreciate that I, as President, am bound to accept the decisions of the Senate. Equally you will also appreciate that any further action with respect to the Senate's resolutions is a matter for the Senate itself, within the normal procedures available to it and to Senators. I note, for instance, that you refer twice in your letter to my taking the matter further and that you presume that this would be done by me involving the Privileges Committee. I must state, in response to those remarks, that I have not indicated any such intention to pursue the matter of the Senate's decision. What I did indicate, in response to the comments of Senator Georges in the later debate on 23 April, was that I would give consideration to the particular matter raised by Senator Georges, namely the further representation by counsel in court proceedings, and in fact I am currently considering that question. I reaffirm quite strongly that the action taken by me, as I made clear to the Senate in my statements on 25 March and 16 April, was for the sole purpose of ensuring that the limitations imposed by the law upon the use of parliamentary evidence were, and are, observed. With respect to the comments in your letter on the views expressed during debate in the Senate I have no comment to make, except in relation to your reference to Standing Order 308. It may, however, be of interest to you to give consideration to certain background documents on the questions raised in debate, and I enclose copies for your information. With regard to the 1970 amendment to Standing Order 308, an examination of the record of the time, particularly the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, dated 3 March 1970, reveals the simple purpose of the amendment. As you will see from that report, the purpose was to remove any possible conflict between the Standing Order as it previously read and Section 2 (2) of the Parliamentary Papers Act. It was a tidying up exercise, arising from the increase in Select Committee work in the late 1960's and the practices of those Committees. Because this matter is one of obvious importance to the Senate, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of your letter and this reply to the Leaders of the parties in the Senate and to Senator Harradine for their information. Yours sincerely, Douglas McClelland Senator BOLKUS —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Can the Minister say whether it is still the Government's intention that the Special Broadcasting Service begin broadcasting in South Australia this year? If so, can he give the Senate the date of commencement of broadcasting? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Minister that the answer is yes, the extension of multicultural television to Adelaide is on schedule for transmission to commence on or about 30 June this year. Senator Messner —Thirtieth of June? Senator WALSH —Yes, 30 June. It is scheduled to commence then and it is on schedule. I suppose it cannot be absolutely guaranteed that the schedule will continue to be met over the next 7 or 8 weeks. However, I understand that there is some possible technical problem in regard to the supplementary translator for the Adelaide Hills area which, as I understand it, was to have been installed soon afterwards. Senator VIGOR —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to the front page story in today's Adelaide Advertiser which is headed 'SA rail services threatened'. I ask: Is it the case that a decision on the future of South Australia's country rail services will be made tomorrow- Senator Messner —We have already had that question. Senator VIGOR —It is a different question. Is there to be a decision by the Australian National Railways Commission before there has been any consultation with either the unions or major customers such as the United Farmers and Stockowners of South Australia? If so, why is Australian National management making such a major decision without consulting all interested groups, which cuts completely across the stated policy of Australian National and of this Government? Senator RYAN —As I advised Senator Bolkus when he asked a similar question arising from media reports regarding a proposed change of policy in regard to Australian National, the matter has been referred to the Department of Transport. As soon as an explanation and information are available, I will make them available to both Senator Bolkus and Senator Vigor. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prevent an assets test applying to the rates at which certain pensions, benefits and allowances under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 are payable. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Australian Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1984 is a rather gloomy document and reports the comparative lack of progress during the calendar year 1984. I quote from the conclusions of the report: As the outcome of the 1984 Session showed, however, the scope for the Conference to make substantive progress on the important matters on its agenda is determined by the general state of the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. A little later it is stated: The prospects for making progress in 1985 may not be any brighter than they have been this year. The Conference will, once again, be subject to the state of the superpower relationship. It is, of course, disturbing for all people who are concerned with the issue of disarmament to read this report and to note some of the facts of life which face Australia in the international field when it pursues the goal of disarmament. In order to illustrate the comments which I will make later, I particularly draw the attention of the Senate to a paragraph on page 5 of the report which talks about the attitude adopted by the Soviet Union and its allies during the negotiations. The report states: The inflexibility of the Socialist countries on the mandate questions contributed to the inability of the Conference to embark on substantive work on some of the important nuclear items. Despite their protestations of wanting to see progress made, the Socialist countries appeared to attach primary importance to engaging in polemics and in blaming the West for the state of the Conference. There is some comfort in the accompanying statement which has been tabled and which was laid down in the House of Representatives when last we sat. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) reported in that statement that there is some cause for hope in 1985 that there will be some movement in the multilateral disarmament process. In his statement, Mr Hayden again emphasises the fact, and I quote his words: Despite the evolution of the multilateral disarmament process, the influence and attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union remain of crucial importance. A little later in the statement there are some other words of Mr Hayden which I think are important. He said: We believe the conference can, without prejudice to any country's position, take substantive steps towards a comprehensive test ban treaty by giving detailed consideration to the key issues of scope, verification and compliance and to the establishment and operation of a global seismic monitoring network to verify a comprehensive test ban treaty once it comes into being. It is important to note the concern about the key issues such as verification and compliance which are, I think, too easily forgotten in some of the debate which takes place on disarmament. In the few minutes which I have available to me I wanted to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that there is a temptation in this debate to fudge over the fundamental differences which separate those who engage in the debate on disarmament. The fundamental difference does not lie in the desire for peace or the desire for disarmament. The fundamental difference lies in the attitude of some who would pursue that course by supporting unilateral disarmament and those who believe that we must in fact pursue peace and disarmament by maintaining the Western alliance to balance the Soviet Union and its allies and, within that balancing arrangement, pursue multilateral staged mutual and verified disarmament. If we could get an honest appreciation of that difference into the debate, I believe that the cause of peace would be well served and certainly we would get a better quality of debate in Australia. I notice that there have been recent Press reports of statements by Senator-elect Jo Vallentine and Senator Colin Mason of the Australian Democrats which suggest that both of them are anxious to distance themselves from the allegation that they might be unilateralist. Senator Mason was quoted in the Western Australian paper, the Sunday Times, as saying that he is definitely not a unilateralist and has no sympathy for such a political dogma. He might, when he contributes to the debate, tell us whether that is an accurate quote. He also said that he believed Senator-elect Jo Vallentine was a multilateralist and that he and his colleagues hoped that she would emulate the example of other members of the Nuclear Disarmament Party by joining the Australian Democrats. Senator-elect Vallentine is also quoted as saying that 'being a unilateralist does not make sense because we don't just want one side disarming'. The important thing, I think, in the debate which we will no doubt be having during this session and at later times is for the Australian Democrats and ultimately Senator-elect Jo Vallentine when she becomes Senator Vallentine, to spell out just how they propose to convert themselves into being the proponents of multilateral disarmament. The reality is that Senator-elect Vallentine campaigned on the policy of the closure of United States bases and the stopping of visits by United States ships. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.24) —I would like to take this opportunity to say something about the comments of our Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) on the report of the Australian delegation to the 1984 Session of the Conference on Disarmament. It is true, as Senator Chaney highlighted, that this is a somewhat depressing report. I take particular heart from the first part of Minister Hayden's paper where he addresses the issue of optimism in the face of all that gloom and lack of progress. He asks the question why the Government would set store in a process which has borne so very little in terms of results in recent years. He takes us through the history of the establishment of fora for multinational disarmament talks, getting under way in 1945 and 1946, and then increasing over the next 10 to 20 years to become a much more multinational representation. The discussions about disarmament were no longer the province of those countries possessing nuclear weapons but were also the concern of countries without nuclear weapons. The emergence of the expansion in the United Nations membership and the rise of the non-aligned movement in those discussions is to the Foreign Minister cause for optimism. He urges us in his report to take heart from the same perception as he has. He says that this reflects that in the United Nations not only are there more seats on chairs which are concerned about disarmament but also that there is a growing perception that disarmament and arms control have to be matters of concern. This is so not only for the nuclear weapons states but also for the non-nuclear weapons states, precisely because nuclear war threatens the existence of life on this planet. It is not as though those with the bombs can throw them at each other and not harm the rest of us. Nuclear war has the potential of wiping out this world. Secondly, he takes heart from the fact that those discussions continue, albeit in a very non-productive way to this point. Topics have been raised and are simmering on a back boiler agenda. Importantly, over the last couple of years we have seen the importance Australia sets by these talks, the importance it sets by its representation and presence at the talks and by its increasing participation and contribution to those talks. It is no longer the situation that Australia is interested only in seeing what others do. Australia is a very important part of those non-nuclear weapons states which are trying to push the discussion about such things as biological weapons control, environmental modification control, the whole chemical warfare consideration, onto the agenda so that they have to be addressed. One point of gloom is that no matter what the non-nuclear weapons states might agree-there are a number of countries, including Australia, the Netherlands, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Poland which are particularly interested in looking at negotiations for a chemical weapons convention-no matter what they might be able to prepare, ultimately the approval or support of the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is critical for the ongoing discussions and also for the implementation and establishment of any treaty agreements that emerge. Perhaps it is a burden for our Foreign Minister to remain optimistic in the face of a fair amount of reason for being gloomy. However, his report leaves me with a sense of optimism, or at least with the sense that things are happening. Even in the 1984 report, where very little concrete resolution emerged from the discussions, at least there are agenda items that will be taken up in 1985. Our Foreign Minister urges us to acknowledge that those things are occuring to maintain our awareness of them, to acknowledge their importance, and to acknowledge discussion at this international level and Australia's participation in such discussion is cause for optimism. To pick up a point Senator Chaney made, it acknowledges the importance of Australia in the world; that is, the importance of nuclear deterrents and the controlling of nuclear wars in that way, not unilaterally. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.28) —I was privileged in August last year to spend a few days as an observer in Geneva at the 1984 Session of the Conference on Disarmament. Having talked to many of the ambassadors for disarmament and having since read many of the papers and much of the discussion, my impression is that the mood of pessimism about the work of the conference is quite wrong. One must not measure progress in terms of treaties made and signed. What happens at that conference cannot happen any faster than the speed at which the super-powers or the nations outside the conference reach agreement between themselves. The conference is a debate, honing down the essential points. It has done a great deal of work, particularly in preparing documents for treaties on chemical weapons and similar matters, the only missing step being not that the conference has not decided but that the nations have not decided to instruct their ambassadors. So it is not a reflection on the conference. I wanted, firstly, to point out that. Secondly, I want to say that Geneva is a good study place for members of parliament to go because they can, in a very small cosmos, meet and talk to the ambassadors of some 40 nations, including both sides of the Iron Curtain, and get more quickly a picture of both sides and what the argument is all about. I cannot refrain from mentioning a speech made by Mr Hayden in early August, which I think was greatly unfortunate for Australia and a great misrepresentation of fact. In that speech Mr Hayden, being impatient as we all are with the slow progress of nuclear disarmament, issued what amounted to a threat to the Americans. That is the only way to construe it. He said that if they did not do something about reducing arms and get on with the job, Australia may take action with regard to the joint facilities in Australia. I want to point out what a gross misrepresentation of fact that was. The fact was that when Mr Hayden was speaking he knew and the whole of the Hawke Government knew that for two solid years the American Government had put before the Russians the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks proposals which were an offer of drastic reductions. It was the Americans who where pushing to cut in half the number of missiles and by one-third the number of nuclear warheads and to wipe out one whole class of intermediate nuclear weapons. This was grossly misrepresented by our Foreign Minister. That was quite inexcusable and I think it ought to be roundly condemned as such because it was only the Russians' refusal to come to the conference table that in fact stopped those discussions going on and stopped some fulfilment of Article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. To threaten the joint facilities is to fail to understand one thing. It is a suggestion that we are doing some special favour to the Americans at a cost to us by having these joint facilities in Australia. The simple fact is that, however one looks at the communication installations at Exmouth Gulf, Pine Gap and Nurrungar, they are the peacekeepers. Nurrungar and Pine Gap are the surveillance and verification peacekeepers for Australia. They are not a second prize for Australia at all; they are a first prize. If the verification succeeds, if the monitoring succeeds and if the deterrent holds up, Australia's peacekeeping is the prize as well as the peacekeeping of the world. It is a disastrously perverted view indeed to threaten to take that away. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Mr Hayden knew then, because he said in his speech that it was important to have a treaty protecting not only satellites but also the installations of the satellites, that an anti-satellite treaty was important for peacekeeping. He recognised in his speech that Nurrungar and Pine Gap were important for peacekeeping, but he threatened in a form of words to withdraw our support, as though that would hurt America. Any withdrawal of support for those facilities would hurt Australia. I simply say that I know of nothing that more perverted the truth. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.34) —The Australian Democrats are concerned at the failure of the Australian Government to address itself to the real issues of disarmament. We as a nation are playing about with this whole issue on the fringes rather than trying to tackle it centrally. Whilst many of the diplomatic initiatives we are taking in this area are unexceptionable, and some may even be applauded, that does not excuse us from turning a blind eye to the major issues. I think I ought to reply to Senator Chaney's point. I ask him only whether Sir William McMahon and President Nixon, when they agreed in 1972 that in no circumstances should United States nuclear-armed warships come to Australian ports, were unilateralists or multilateralists. I think that distinguished Liberal Prime Minister and that by no means left wing American President took a sensible and sane view. The regular arrival of American warships at an Australian port, especially in a city such as Sydney or Perth, places that port at risk and the risk cannot be justified in terms of any perceived advantage. To quote from the Australian Democrats' international relations policy, policy item no. 6 states: Australia will ratify all existing multi-lateral arms control and disarmament treaties. Polity item no. 7 states: Australia will work for new multi-lateral arms control and disarmament agreements. A number of times the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has said that our relationship with the United States of America enables us to put pressure on that country to further the cause of disarmament. Of course, it is both fitting and proper that our Government should exercise independent judgments on such matters as a comprehensive test ban treaty, the strategic defence initiative, an Indian Ocean zone of peace and chemical weapons, and that we should try to use whatever channels are available to us to persuade the United States to alter its course on these issues. I look at just one of them-chemical weapons. Page 14 of the report before us states: A chemical weapons convention is a high priority objective for the Australian Government. Yet less than two months ago the Pentagon stated its intention to end the 16-year moratorium on the production of chemical weapons. Never could there have been a more apt or suitable time for the Hawke Government to declare its objection to such a move and to pressure the United States, but to our knowledge not one word was said publicly by our Government. There is a significant difference between what we say as a nation and what we do. Nor can it be said that we are not in a position to pressure the Soviet Union. I get back to the matter of multilateralism. I say to Senator Chaney that if we want a multilateral approach to disarmament we have to look probably to the four nuclear powers other than the Soviet Union-that is, the USA, France, Great Britain and China. If they could agree on a basis for disarmament the means would exist for an enormous amount of economic pressure to be exerted on the Soviet Union. That would involve, of course, the fact that the Soviet grain harvests have fallen heavily in recent years. This year the Soviets will have to import as much as 52 million tonnes of grain-20 million tonnes of it from the USA and much of the rest from other Western nations. I feel that the last thing Mr Gorbachev wants is longer food queues in the Soviet Union. The only issue to be decided is whether the Western nations, including ourselves, regard a serious approach to disarmament as being more important than money in the bank for grain growers, not that our grain growers would suffer in any case. The fact is that a united threat of a trade embargo of that sort should be sufficient and it is unlikely that it would ever have to be implemented. I suggest that if we are seriously going to look at this subject we should look at it along those lines. The Democrats are unhappy about the Pine Gap situation. I see no reason why the Pine Gap base should be seen as sacrosanct and completely beyond question in this place. After all, it is Australian territory and a part of Australia. Any suggestion that we should totally surrender our sovereignty to it is, of course, outrageous. The Weekend Australian on Saturday quoted a book entitled the 'US Intelligence Community' written by an assistant professor of government at the American University in Washington, Dr Jeffrey Richelson. The book stated: Pine Gap is strictly under US Central Intelligence Agency control . . . Very few Australians are permitted in the top secret sector of Pine Gap. That has been suspected and stated many times before. But later in the report the book is quoted as describing collaboration between our own security service, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the CIA and says that ASIS had received many hundreds of 'human intelligence' reports from the CIA. Later this week I will be asking some questions designed to elucidate this statement and to establish what seems to be its meaning-that Pine Gap has been used to spy on Australians, probably in large numbers, and that the proceeds of that spying have been passed back to ASIS. It is self-evident that if this is true the same information is also in the hands of the CIA, an agency of a foreign government which is notorious for its record of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, often through illegal and violent means. It has been claimed many times that Pine Gap has the capability to tap virtually all telephone traffic within and into and out of Australia. One presumes that it was in this way that the many hundreds of human intelligence reports were obtained. Is this still going on? What association does it have with Pine Gap's role in world nuclear deterrence? Who is being spied on and for what reasons? It is time the Government levelled with Australians on all these issues and the Australian Democrats intend to remind it of this at every possible opportunity. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.40) —I wish first of all to put in a defence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. It has been said that he in some way made remarks to and about the Americans which he should not have done. I think that may well be an over-reaction to statements which he has made. He has on the record a very good history of trying to obtain peace among nations, and that is what we are all about. It is clear that everybody, from the time Senator Chaney opened this discussion until now, has had that important aim in mind. But the means used to reach that point is, as the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, said, very much in issue. Senator Sir John Carrick said that one approach should be taken, and Mr Hayden has taken a somewhat different view and a different approach. It is a matter of who is right. But so far as Mr Hayden goes, it should be accepted that what he does and what he has done in the past is done in good faith and in the interests of this country. No doubt the same can be said about Senator Sir John Carrick's proposals-that he, too, is proposing what is best for this country, as he sees it. I want to make a couple of remarks in this area. What is needed, it seems to me, when talking about this matter not only of nuclear disarmament but of disarmament generally and in the attempt to obtain peace, is an accurate assessment of the prevailing situation. I think that is what Senator Mason was talking about. He said that we should look realistically at the position of the United States of America and the position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and that America may not always be right and the USSR may not always be right. The Australian Government has recently said that America may have acted differently in regard to Nicaragua. That should not be looked on as anti-American so much as a proper realisation of what is going on. That is the first point I want to make-that in all the discussions that take place about peace one needs an accurate assessment of the prevailing situation. Secondly, there ought to be monitoring of the rhetoric used. Oftentimes we all get up and talk about the need for peace and about the trouble the world is in because of the nuclear situation, because of the arming of various countries with non-nuclear weapons, however we do not do that in a monitored tone but rather in high rhetoric, which is likely to exacerbate the condition rather than to alleviate it. I think that is a shame. I think we must look very carefully at the sort of language we use when we are talking about peace, and when we are talking of what one country or another may be doing. We are not likely to get the co-operation of a country if we continually abuse it either in quite specific terms or in terms which, although not specific, clearly contain the message we want to put across, namely, that it is the evil party to the whole thing. That should not be done. Thirdly-and I think Senator Sir John Carrick brought this out well-what is needed is faith. The great theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are very much needed in this debate about how peace and freedom can be brought to the world. What we want is peace. We do not want armed non-peace in the sense that we have it now where, although arms are not used, nevertheless real peace does not exist. The only other comment I wish to make is this. One of the means people put forward for maintaining peace is the balance of terror argument: One feeds the tinder box with more and more tinder hoping that people will not be game enough, if I may use that expression, to ignite the tinder. The whole difficulty with that argument is that if, for whatever reason, somebody does ultimately ignite the tinder, the explosion is dreadful. The argument which says that one should reduce the tinder in the tinder box as much as possible is the one that should find favour. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.45) —The Parliament is growing increasingly concerned and impatient at the slow rate of progress in disarmament and adequate arms control in the world. This is reflected in the report of the Australian Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament that is presented to the Senate and in the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The Minister began his assessment he made two weeks ago on the last sitting day of the Parliament with this statement: The overall lack of progress during 1984 by the Conference on Disarmament is of considerable concern . . . The feature of that lack of progress was the dislocation, the discontinuing of the direct bilateral talks between the two super-powers. I want to make some remarks more explicit than those contained in the report as to why that dislocation occurred. As is known, the United States of America put forward a fresh or major third initiative for bilateral talks after the SALT I and SALT II treaties, discussions of the 1970s, by proposing the so-called START-strategic arms reduction talks-between the Soviet Union and the United States in which the United States was seeking significant arms reductions. Why, then, when the START talks were in the process of beginning did the Soviet Union pack up its bags, walk out and cut off discussions? It was because the European nations had reacted so directly to the threat which had been placed upon them by the Soviet Union's deployment of the SS20 missile. It is not widely known in Australia that from 1978 the Soviet Union deployed on the borders of the Western European countries more than 500 nuclear missiles directly aimed at targets throughout the whole of Western Europe. Each one of those 500 missiles had the capacity, and still does have the capacity, of some 400 Hiroshimas. So with a six-minute fuse Europe felt more threatened than ever before in the entire history of Europe. As a reaction to that, there was an imploring by the European nations that the United States directly deploy a retaliatory or deterrent force of nuclear weapons in Europe that would be a European deterrent against this threatened holocaust that would rip apart all the cities of Europe should the trigger be pulled in the Soviet Union. The enormous imbalance in these tactical nuclear forces in Europe was recognised by Europe, and it was not a so-called aggressive United States that then deployed the Pershing and cruise missiles. It was at the direct, repeated imploring of the European nations that the United States agreed that there would be some deployment of the Pershing and cruise missiles in response-and they are only in numbers a little over 100-and in competition with the already prior deployed SS30s of the Soviet Union. When that act of will by Europe and the United States was evident, the Soviets picked up their bags and walked out of these negotiations. I agree that it has been only in recent months that those discussions have begun again. The United States, through its three-point proposals, especially in regard to the strategic defence initiative, has won back, with some degree of promise and threat, the Soviet Union's attention to attend those conferences again. That is recognised in the Minister's statement as some degree of progress. But let us not forget that it was the strategic defence initiative of President Reagan-this more moral concept of concentrating on defence rather than offence, and the prospect of sharing the outcome of the SDI research on both sides so that there is not destabilisation-which has led the Soviet Union back to these discussions. I believe that Australia has a significant role to play in 1985 in the Geneva conference and we should take heart from the realistic approach of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, through Dr Adelman, who recently visited this country, so that we may continue constructively to gain solutions in this area. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The time allotted for discussion has expired. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-It occurs to me that the Government ought to give consideration to an extension of time for debate of these important statements, particularly when no matter of public importance is foreshadowed on the business paper. Quite often honourable senators from both sides of this Senate wish to make contributions to matters which we regard as quite significant. This is one of them, but there have been many occasions in the past when honourable senators have been unable to make contributions, albeit for only five minutes, because of the restriction of 30 minutes that is imposed upon the discussion of these papers. I am not quite sure what mechanism ought to be used, but I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to give that some consideration. Whether it is necessary to take it to the Standing Orders Committee or not I do not know, but the Government ought to be able to provide honourable senators with a little more time on occasions, particularly when no MPI is envisaged. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I understand Senator Jessop's problem in not being able to leap to his feet quickly enough today in preference to Senator Teague, but I suppose the same point could have been made by Senator Teague had Senator Jessop got in first. As I recall, this matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee at some stage. In a sense it was a bilateral matter and there was agreement on the time limits. Senator Jessop —There ought to be some flexibility, surely. Senator BUTTON —I always agree with the notion of flexibility. It is very difficult to arrive at, but I am not hostile to the suggestion. We will look at what Senator Jessop said. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —The only thing I would say from the chair is that, had Senator Teague sought leave to continue his remarks, that would have been a matter for the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate 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)(3.55) —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- Mr President, the first home owners scheme has been an overwhelming success. However, after 18 months operation a number of shortcomings in the legislation, mainly of a minor nature, have become apparent. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for amendments which overcome these shortcomings. The amendments proposed in the Bill, other than the change to funding arrangements and the procedural and evidentiary changes, will apply in relation to applications with the 'prescribed dates' after 16 April 1985. The proposed funding changes will apply from the date of royal assent but will have the effect of applying controls on aggregate expenditure as from the announcement. The other changes will apply from royal assent. The overall level of assistance to first home buyers will not be affected by the changes in the Bill. Since its introduction in October 1983, the first home owners scheme has been the most successful housing assistance scheme this country has known. Already it has helped some 122,000 people into homes of their own. Its effect on the housing industry has been marked. 55,000 new jobs have been created in the industry. Dwelling commencements are predicted to be around 147,000 this financial year, an increase of nearly 40 per cent since the Government came to office. For 1985-86 the Government will appropriate $290m for the first home owners scheme. This will enable a further 82,500 applicants to be assisted into home ownership. In accordance with the Government's resolve to maintain proper controls over expenditure one of the amendments included in this Bill will ensure that the first home owners scheme expenditure will in future remain within a specific Budget appropriation. To achieve this, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act to provide for an annual appropriation and appropriates funds for the balance of this financial year. Clause 6 amends section 16 to make it possible to administer the scheme in accordance with the appropriation made by Parliament. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill will amend the Act to close loopholes identified by a recent decision of the Federal Court. The decision has raised the possibility that contrary to the intention of the Government when it introduced the first home owners scheme, an applicant or applicants acquiring only a small interest in a dwelling could qualify for the maximum benefit. The clauses also make similar provision in relation to applicants who have shares in a body corporate for amounts less than the value of the dwelling. As already advised, the remaining amendments are of a minor machinery nature and are explained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to senators with the Bill. However to briefly summarise, they are as follows. Clause 3 amends the definition of rural property in section 4 to that originally intended. This will ensure that it only applies to genuine farming properties on which the applicant has secure tenure. Clauses 5 (d) and 8 (b) correct two anomalies relating to previous home ownership and year of income for migrants. The amendment to clause 5 (d) makes clear that the Department may disregard previous home ownership in cases in which it is clear that the applicant lived briefly in the residence but for reasons such as break-up of marriage it was not the principal place of residence. The amendment in clause 8 is designed to bring the treatment of migrants fully into line with that of other applicants for the purposes of determining their income year. That is they may be tested on the basis of their current year of income where this is lower than the previous full year of income in Australia. Clause 5 (e) clarifies the Secretary's discretion to determine the 'prescribed date' of an application. This amendment follows a recent Federal Court judgment and is necessary to give effect to the original intention of the legislation. It will also make sure that applicants who experience a long delay with their contract are not disadvantaged. Clause 9 amends section 23 to permit applicants who have received assistance in respect of contracts which have fallen through, to offset that assistance against a subsequent entitlement rather than to have to repay the earlier benefit as is now the case. Clause 7 amends section 21 to enable the Secretary to determine an applicant's taxable income for the purposes of the Act when the applicant is not required to lodged a taxation return. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the removal of all sexist language from the principal Act. The remaining clauses are strictly of a procedural and evidentiary nature. Mr President, I again emphasise that these changes will not affect the overall level of assistance to be made available to the 82,500 households which will be assisted under the scheme in 1985-86. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) 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)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Representation Act 1983, which increased the number of senators for each state from 10 to 12, provides for the additional two senators for each State elected to the Parliament in December 1984 to receive remuneration from the date of the first meeting of this Parliament, i.e. 21 February 1985. However, the additional new members of the House of Representatives elected on 1 December 1984 were paid from that date. This difference between the additional newly elected members of both Houses was drawn to the attention of the Government following a question asked in the Senate in February in the context of the nexus requirement between the two Houses. Honourable senators will be aware that the major redistribution effected last year and the increase in the size of the Parliament arose from a recommendation by the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the number of senators representing each original State be increased from 10 to 12, with a corresponding increase in the size of the House of Representatives of 23. Given the circumstances of the increase in the size of the Parliament, the Government has considered the question of the date of commencement of remuneration and believes that there should be no difference between the additional newly elected members of both Houses. I wish to make it clear that this measure relates only to the additional two new senators for each State elected in December 1984. It will not alter in any way the existing provisions in respect of senators whose terms will commence on 1 July next. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.58) —I had the opportunity to start my remarks in support of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, I notice, on 22 April. At that time I made comment on three particular areas covered under this piece of legislation: The general supported accommodation sub-program, the women's emergency service sub-program, and the youth supported accommodation sub-program. All three programs are incorporated under the supported accommodation assistance program in this Bill. I addressed some of my remarks to the women's emergency services program now incorporated under the new legislation, in particular because of the very personal experience I had of significant lobbying by the women's emergency services program women in South Australia, especially those associated with the women's shelter movement. I made the comment that, although I felt I could appreciate their concern that the special needs of women under the emergency services program might have been watered down or modified or even lost under the change to the incorporation under this piece of legislation, the Government was at pains on any number of occasions to consult with the women. The advertisements and the campaign waged by the women late last year in opposition to the change in legislation covering the shelter movement in particular was, I think, unfounded but understandable. I understand that that fear of the women is no longer a matter of substance, but it is certainly important that the provision of services by the women's shelter movement be continued. It is of the gravest importance that that provision of services continue. At the time of interruption of this debate I was describing in some detail the pattern of what happens to women who come into the shelters. On the evidence given to me from South Australia about 80 per cent of the women coming into the shelters come because of domestic violence. The shelter women have observed a particular pattern applying to women suffering from domestic violence when they arrive at the shelter. It is as follows: When the women first arrive in the shelter they are, of course, very distressed because of the violence they have suffered and also because they have reached the stage when they have decided to make a break from home. Any of us who have been around people when they have gone through a marriage break-up will know that even when there is no domestic violence it is a very stressful and unhappy time for all involved. However, when one adds to the marriage breakdown the very real pain resulting from the violence which has been dealt out to women and often to their children too, it can be seen that the women arriving in the shelter under those conditions are particularly stressed. What happens is that they are accepted and settle in to the peacefulness of the shelters where they are not under threat of physical violence and where they are treated as people deserving respect and dignity. As I have said, women working in the shelters report that simple greetings such as: 'Good morning. It's a nice day', are quite a shock to many of the women who have been victims of domestic violence. They have not been regarded as humans worthy of that sort of greeting and it is sometimes a matter of relearning to be regarded as a human. The women usually settle down and recover to some extent despite the difficulties they have to contend with. Then begins enormous pressure from the husband for the woman to return home. Usually the man arrives with all sorts of apologies and promises of how things will be better-what he will not do in the way of violence and so on. It is the shelter's evidence that very often the women succumb to that kind of pressure from their husbands. With the promises of no violence and that things will be better they return home. What then happens, almost invariably, is that violence is re-established. Of course, the man's violence is much worse than it was because it has been publicly acknowledged at least to those people in the shelter. The physical ill-treatment of the women continues. The violence is usually much worse than it was before because of all the humiliations the man judges he has suffered. After a period, usually not too long the second time around, these women return to the shelter and this time they do not need to be persuaded about the pattern that will follow should they return home. At that stage the work that has to be undertaken in respect of any woman arriving in the shelter can begin. First of all there must be the necessary support for her, both physically and psychologically, and provision made for her children. Most of the women arriving in the shelters have children. If those children have been victims of domestic violence there must be the same provision of special care. Then follows the problem of finding accommodation. Very often accommodation has to be found at an address that will not be known to the husband. It must be kept secret. The necessary legal assistance, legal advice and the establishment of provisions to appear before the Family Court of Australia to set in train divorce, custody, property settlements, access rights, and so on, then follow. The shelter movement provides an invaluable service to women and, very often as a consequence of the care of women, to the men in our society. The service comes very cheap and the women work, even to this point, for very moderate and modest incomes. One of the first priorities under the supported accommodation assistance program legislation is to get on with the very complex business of negotiating and establishing an adequate award for the staff working in shelters as well as in other areas covered by this legislation. But even so, the care provided by women in shelters for those people who arrive there in need is excellent and comprehensive. In South Australia the shelter movement provides considerable support for migrant women. It provides a comprehensive translator service for those women particularly when they first arrive at the shelter. I was advised the other day by Frederika Steen from the Women's Desk in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that migrant people under stress, even when they have mastered English, will often revert to their language of origin. I was amazed to discover that this also happens when they become elderly. So it has been very important for women under stress when they arrive at the shelters to be able to speak to somebody who understands their original language. The women discover that they are not useless and that they are reasonable humans who can contribute to our society. The shelter movement provides the opportunity for them to make that discovery about themselves and it also provides the physical assistance and information they need to establish themselves independently in homes, providing schooling for their children, and so on. I refer to an initiative associated with the domestic violence problem in South Australia that does deserve some comment. That is the support for violent men program which has been established in South Australia. Some of the work was being done in association with Clovelly Park Community Health Centre where I once worked. To this point the men attending that course make the choice themselves-that is, they attend voluntarily. At this stage there is no indication that men should be required to attend the course. Although I do not have the figures from the final report which I believe has just been produced, the outcome of the group support for those men and the training and teaching given to them to manage their violence in other ways besides lashing out, usually at their wife or children, has been quite remarkable. The men have discovered that there are skills and alternative ways of behaving that they can learn. Most of them are enormously encouraged, heartened in themselves and to this point responsive to the support and care that they have been given. The move to focus on violent men highlights a curious way we have thought in the past. When women are the victims of domestic violence they have been seen as the problem. They have had to leave their marital home; they have had to go to a women's shelter program which has been established by the initiative of women and in more recent times with the support of the government. That way of addressing the problem is enormously expensive and, of course, it is treating the victims, or the symptoms, and not the cause. Quite clearly, the cause is the violent man and it is only now that our thinking is shifting to focus on the problem and the cause of the whole disaster. I hope that as a consequence of the investigation of the management of alternative care for violent men, particularly, domestically violent men, over the next few years we will see a different solution to the problem. I turn briefly to another area covered under the supported accommodation assistance program and that is the provision of funding to cover the non-clinical community based rape crisis centres and incest centres. I raise this matter again because of evidence with quite a history that has been brought to my attention from South Australia. The Adelaide Rape Crisis Centre was established as a result of a meeting of interested women in Adelaide in June 1976. Over the last few years the number of women and children presenting to that rape crisis centre has dramatically increased but, unfortunately, it has not to this point been matched by an increase in the number of staff. I take this opportunity to put on record some of the figures from the Adelaide Rape Crisis Centre and hope that under this supported accommodation assistance program further support, particularly staff support, will be forthcoming to that centre because it is quite clear that it is providing a remarkable and very necessary service. In 1984 the centre helped 532 raped women, children and their families and friends which was an increase of 161 per cent on the figure for 1982. The centre spoke to over 2,800 people in student groups, community organisations and parent groups. On its assessment, its volunteers-volunteers are necessary because there are insufficient paid staff-contributed over 26,000 hours of service to the community. As well as information and immediate support and counselling for people attending in crisis situations, the centre provides research projects on training self-defence teachers for differentially abled women. It has provided research on the reporting and non-reporting of rape, the developing of sexual abuse programs for children, and rape prevention and avoidance strategies. The centre hopes to continue all of those things, and more besides. I think the most important comment about the Rape Crisis Centre stands in the evidence of the 532 women and children who went to the Rape Crisis Centre in 1984, an increase of 161 per cent on the figure of 204 in 1982. The centre has absolutely no reason to think that those figures will not continue to grow, that there will be any less need for its service. In particular, it stresses the importance of being able to provide a haven or a report place for children or women who have had incest experiences or been sexually abused. It is probably true to say that the numbers have increased all around Australia, but certainly they have in South Australia, as more and more people feel comforted by the knowledge that there is a place where they can make a report, where they can talk the matter out and seek some support if they should need it. The Bill addresses another very important question raised by those two groups in particular but by all the areas concerned under the supported accommodation assistance program legislation; that is, the sense of security of funding for the future. The program establishes that funding for the next 4 1/2 years through Commonwealth-State agreements. That will be a matter of considerable comfort to the people involved in all those areas. We are looking at the enshrining in Federal legislation, and comprehensive legislation, of the value of those services, the necessity of those services, and the guarantee of continued Federal Government funding so as to ensure that they continue. I think it is a matter of real history to remark that change and how that change is signified by this piece of legislation. I will spend my last minute or two commenting on the support part of the program that is provided for the increasing number of homeless young people in our community who are emerging as being very much in need of assistance, and accommodation assistance in particular. The reasons for young people leaving home and not finding adequate accommodation are many. I do not believe our society yet understands what are the many things that contribute to young people living in a homeless state for some years at least. The recent Senate committee inquiry established that the age range of young people who are homeless is no longer 16, 17, 18 or 19 years but, in fact, extends to much younger children, some as young as 11 but many more likely to be 13, 14 and 15. This matter deserves very serious consideration. The Government acknowledges that and addresses it as part of this supported accommodation assistance program legislation. The other important matter on which I should like to finish concerns the word 'supported' in the title of the legislation. That support is to be understood, as it is now by the women in the women's emergency services sub-program, as a necessary and essential part of the financial assistance. That sort of interpretation of the word 'support' is also understood to apply to the other areas of the legislation, particularly as it affects young people. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.14) —As has been indicated already by previous speakers, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill is relatively non-controversial and has in principle support at least from all political parties. It aims essentially to put into effect agreements and arrangements between the Federal, State and Northern Territory governments for the provision of supported accommodation and related support services. As Senator Crowley has just pointed out, it consists of three major sub-programs-a general supported accommodation sub-program, a women's emergency services sub-program, and a youth supported accommodation sub-program. Through these programs, non-government organisations or local governments will be assisted to provide a range of supported accommodation and related services for people who are either permanently or temporarily, because of some form of crisis, deprived of accommodation, rendered homeless, often with dependent children. The idea of bringing some sense to the confusion of different funding programs was indeed a good one and was long overdue. I understand that the concept behind the SAA Bill has been in the Department's pipeline for a number of years. It is certainly welcomed, at least in principle, by most people who are involved in this area. What existed previously was a mishmash of programs for accommodation and accommodation-related problems. Different funding criteria, different guidelines, different allocation levels, different administrative procedures, and some quite restrictive client eligibility criteria applied to those matters. The original proposal for change that was contained in the joint ministerial statement put out by Senator Grimes, Senator Ryan and Mr Hurford in December 1983 acknowledged that the then existing system was confusing and that wage and staffing levels were inconsistent across the different programs. Women's shelters were best funded-I say that in a relative sense; I do not think they were particularly well funded but of the groups that were funded they were probably best funded-and youth groups, youth shelters, were badly funded. I suspect the worst funded of all were the homeless persons services because funding was provided mostly on a submission-based process. The number and spread of services did not necessarily relate to the level and areas of need that existed. Indeed, all the evidence points to a critical and rapidly increasing demand compared with the number of available services. The situation varied, of course, from State to State, with some States being more committed to the appropriate use of Federal funding and some States more prepared to add their own funding in these areas. Among other things, the new program aims to improve wage levels to a minimum $18,000 per annum per full time worker, with 17 per cent on-costs, and it aims to do this across the services. The program aims also to improve staffing levels, to ensure, through the program, that funds needed for upgrading existing services are available, and also that funds for establishing new services are available. Administratively, the program is to be accountable to joint government and non-government policy and priority-setting bodies. Apparently the approach is to be one of needs identification, co-ordination, development and evaluation. As I think I have indicated in my opening remarks, I applaud the Government's concern for people who are homeless, whether permanently homeless or temporarily homeless. As Senator Crowley has already indicated, women and children in crisis are the group which makes up the majority of people who are temporarily homeless, while it seems to be men who form a majority of those who are permanently homeless. We also support the Government's commitment to relieve that problem. I understand the Government's belief that needs in these areas must be met in a cost effective way. We all believe in cost effectiveness in these and in other areas, but I am concerned that cost efficiency in crisis care areas can lead to governments at State and Federal levels placing too much emphasis on cost efficiency and too little on care efficiency. In areas where people need to be emotionally cared for, where they need psychological and emotional assistance as well as accommodation assistance, I think it is very important that we do not place undue emphasis on cost efficiency and, in doing so, allow care efficiency to take second place. Senator Crowley has already pointed out the vulnerable nature of the women and children who seek accommodation in shelters, and there is no question that there are not sufficient staff to meet the needs of these women already. To make that situation any worse would be counterproductive to what is at least the stated aim of the Government in this SAA program. It is concern about this which caused representatives of women's shelters in a number of States last year to react particularly angrily to their inclusion in the program. To them the provision of counselling and support to women and their children in crisis as a result of domestic violence was the primary objective of their existence. The provision of shelter and a bed for the night, the next week, the next month or whatever the time period, while it was certainly an integral part of providing assistance to these women and their children, was not to workers in women's shelters the main element of the assistance that they were providing. They believed, with some reason, that being funded under the SAA program would reverse their priorities, or would indicate that the Government was reversing their priorities. Worse, they believed that they would be kept so busy being cost effective that they would be prevented from being care effective. The unfortunate reality is that governments rarely supply sufficient funding to community groups so that they can take on enough staff to do the book work as well as the counselling and the caring in providing the emotional support that is so necessary, as Senator Crowley pointed out, to make these people aware of their own integrity and worth as people. For some reason it seems that only workers in shelters or crisis care accommodation areas and other recipients of government welfare funds are expected to be multi-skilled. They are expected to be skilled at counselling and accountancy, form filling-in, bookkeeping or whatever. They are expected, on miserable salaries, either to spend vast amounts of extra time-their own involuntary time-on paperwork, over and above their caring responsibilities, or to cut back the time spent on caring for people in order to take care of the paperwork. Anybody who has laid eyes on the client record form and the SAA program new service record will know that I am not throwing up some kind of red herring. The client record form is five pages long and contains 19 questions. The supported accommodation assistance program new service form consists of four pages with six questions. Although it has only six questions, many of them are multi-part. The extra time taken to fill in those forms on a regular basis will inevitably detract from the time that the carers can spend on the women and children in shelters and on the homeless youth and the men in some of the other shelters. No one will argue that changes needed to be made to a system which contained, as I have already indicated, different funding criteria, different guidelines, different allocation levels and some rather restrictive client eligibility criteria. One could, however, argue with the Government's lavish claim that full consultation with non-government organisations has taken place. Despite the rhetoric of consultation and active non-government input, the operation resembled to many representatives in the organisations concerned nothing more than a lecture tour by departmental people and some members of government. Rightly or wrongly, many of the organisations that will come under the provisions of this legislation believe that State and Federal politicians and bureaucrats decided with very little consultation what would happen, who was in and who was out of the scheme and what the timetable would be. These people spent more time wrangling with each other than consulting the non-government organisations that were to be participants in the scheme. It was drawn to my attention that on at least one occasion in Victoria a group received discussion papers at 11 o'clock in the morning with a consultative committee meeting scheduled for 12.30 p.m. That did not exactly give the group a great deal of time to be consulted or to participate in any meaningful way. As a result many of the organisations are far from happy with the process which the Government has undertaken. They feel that they have not been consulted adequately, that they have been treated like idiots and as irrelevant and incidental elements of the scheme. They are, and have been, irritated and inconvenienced by the delayed start of the program. They believe that the delay was due almost entirely to inter-governmental arguing. I am informed that the administrative and joint committee processes have nearly all started working, but I have also been told that as at the middle of last month-I have not updated this information, so the situation may now have improved- the South Australian non-government workers had still not received pay increases to $18,000, nor had they received their allocation for upgrading existing services. My strong impression is that the same delays apply in other States. The delays are intolerable for the services which are inconvenienced. They are intolerable, in particular, for their clients who are suffering as a result of inadequate funding and staffing levels. Let me repeat, despite what I have just said, that I believe the program is a positive move forward. Just about anything would have been, given the rather chaotic state of play that has existed to date. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the fact that housing problems in general and crisis housing problems in particular are enormous in this country. For example, about 30,000 families in New South Wales alone are residing involuntarily in caravans. Vast numbers of young people are homeless, and the numbers are increasing, as Senator Crowley pointed out. Large numbers of women and their children are rendered, often temporarily, but sometimes permanently, homeless because of domestic violence. Very few of these women are in a position to acquire very readily permanent housing of their own, whether through the public or private rental market or through ownership. It would be tragic indeed if budgetary considerations or interstate wranglings meant that questions of need, appropriate planning, co-ordination and so on became secondary to getting bodies into beds, come what may, where statistics took precedence over humane considerations. Any government's razor gang exercises do not bode too well for increases in funding commensurate with the extent of need for supported accommodation, or for what I believe are the generally worthy objectives of the program. I would like to raise a number of issues now rather than in the Committee stage of the debate because I think it will save time if those matters are raised now. I am not the only senator who is puzzled at the funding divisions listed on page 8 of the Bill in Part V of the Schedule. For example, in column 1 New South Wales is listed as receiving $4,191,000. Victoria is listed as receiving $1,857,000. At the bottom of the list is the Northern Territory, which is to receive $384,000. I would be interested to know, as would some of the groups involved, the cause for the huge funding differential. Obviously New South Wales should receive more than the Northern Territory, but there does seem to be a rather disproportionate allocation to New South Wales. There may well be a very good reason for this and I would like to know what it is. I would like to know whether the allocation is made on a population basis or whether it is because New South Wales has more shelters or needs more shelters and other forms of supported accommodation than does any other State. A matter raised with me by the Youth Accommodation Coalition in Victoria relates to its concern that the scope and eligibility of funding should include information provision and co-ordination services. These are particularly well developed in Victoria. Victorians and people in some other States consider that these are essential for the efficient use of resources. That concern appears to me to be covered by the phrase 'related supported services' in clauses 7 (a), 7 (b) and 7 (c) of Part IV of the Schedule to the Bill. Nevertheless, there is a concern that the Government will in practice be inclined to give preference to projects improving the statistics regarding the number of beds available and that it would therefore give second priority to co-ordination. I make the point, as indeed the Coalition has made the point, that this would be false economy and presumably against the spirit of the legislation. Women's shelters are concerned about access which is to be provided to Commonwealth, State and Territory officers under one of the conditions of grant. They are worried that this may be enforced regardless of the need for secrecy. Certainly there is a comment in the guidelines that requests would not include confidential information which may identify clients or residents Nevertheless, it states that access is to be provided to these officers. People running the shelters have raised this question because secrecy is an integral part in protecting the women and children in the shelters. Concern has been raised by a number of groups about the part that the NGOs play in the decision-making process or funding. While they have certainly been upset about what they see as a lack of consultation to date, by the same token they do not want to play the sort of part in round table discussions concerning how funding is allocated that would get them into the sort of wrangling that would set one disadvantaged group against another disadvantaged group. Understandably they would quite prefer to leave that to the bureaucrats so that blame can be allocated in an area in which the groups themselves do not feel particularly vulnerable. In conclusion I simply say, as appears to be the case with other parties which have already addressed the issue, that the Australian Democrats support in principle what the Government is trying to do. We hope that this will improve the efficiency of the provision of supported accommodation and related matters. We hope that at some time in the future funding restraints will not get us back into the currently unsatisfactory situation of too few accommodation areas and too few staff to assist the people who need either permanent or temporary accommodation. However, in the main I wish the perpetrators of this legislation well and hope that in the long run the sorts of services provided will suit the needs of the community better than in the past. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.35) —This afternoon we are debating the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, which is related to the 4 1/2-year agreement to enable non-government agencies and local government to provide supported accommodation and related services to the homeless-either permanently or temporarily homeless-and those who need assistance to move to independent living. The scheme started on 1 January 1985. Funding is undertaken by way of grants to the States and Territories. The contribution from the States and Territories is based on an agreed formula. That agreed formula cannot provide less than was spent by the States and Territories in 1983-84. The assistance is co-ordinated by Commonwealth and State committees with non-government and local government representatives on those committees. The aim of the Bill has been clearly set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I am delighted to commend the Minister for doing that so effectively. Indeed, I will read the aims because I think it is tremendously important that governments express clearly the aims of legislation. I think this is one of the very few occasions on which any government has expressed such aims so clearly. I believe that if we are to spend a considerable amount of money in areas such as this, or indeed any other areas, we need to express the aims of the legislation clearly. If we do not state these aims clearly there is no way we can conduct evaluations of the programs or, indeed, see whether the programs in the long run are carrying out the original intention of the Government. As the Minister said, the aims of the program are: To provide improved and more equitable funding of approved services, to fund new services in areas of high need, and to move towards improved wages and conditions for workers; To move progressively during the program to improve the assessment of the need for services, and to distribute funds on the basis of improved assessment within each State and Territory; and To facilitate the involvement of service providers in advising on program needs and priorities. As I said, I am really delighted that the Minister has set out the aims so clearly. I am sure that the shadow Minister, Senator Messner, would also agree with me in that regard. I note that Senator Peter Baume is in the chamber. He was chairman of a committee that brought down the report entitled 'Through a Glass, Darkly: Evaluation in Australian Health and Welfare Services'. Senator Grimes was also a member of that committee, as I was too. One of our recommendations in the report was that governments should clearly state the aims of their programs so that evaluation can take place. Therefore, I am delighted to see it so clearly set out by the Government on this occasion. As I have already said, the program is designed to assist the homeless-those permanently or temporarily homeless. The program has three branches: Firstly, the youth supported accommodation sub-program; secondly, the women's emergency services sub-program; and, thirdly, the general supported accommodation sub-program. I will take those sub-programs one by one. We have heard a lot about the women's services sub-program, but I believe that there are other areas which are particularly important. Some $830,000 is to be spent on youth services to meet new youth needs and for services to teach skills for independent living. I was chairman of a Senate committee that looked into the problems of homeless youth. We found that their main problem was a lack of knowledge of how to look after themselves on moving to independent living. So many of these young people leave home without the vaguest idea of how to budget for their necessities or how to even look after their health. The money available will be used to teach them these independent living skills. Another area of need that we found to be one of the highest priorities, of course, was accommodation for youth who wanted to live independently. The accommodation was just not available, either in the form of individual living accommodation or hostels or whatever. I believe that this was one of the areas of need that the Committee highlighted. But this Bill does not take into consideration the homes that are needed for youth. This sort of accommodation comes under housing and community care, but there are very small amounts of money given to it. We do not know just how much money is given, and this is an area that I feel should still be of great concern to the Government. There is very little need for me to elaborate on the second branch, which concerns the women's emergency services program, because Senator Crowley's speech dealt mainly with that area. It covers all types of services for women, including refuges, which have been extended to cover the rape crisis centres, as Senator Crowley very clearly outlined. It also deals with the wages paid to child care workers in the refuges. These wages were previously funded under the children's services programs. They now come under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. The third branch is the general supported accommodation program which provides assistance for both men and women and their dependants. It will not fund services which provide emergency housing; it will provide funding only for supported accommodation services. There have been concerns expressed-and Senator Haines talked of those concerns that have been put to us and to me-about the lack of consultation by the Government. Indeed, I believe that it was a lack of consultation that created these concerns, because I was able to answer some of the questions which people were concerned about. I was not able to answer others, and I will refer later to why I was not able to answer those questions. We have been asked to pass legislation without knowing the detail, and this is the main problem. We have been given the amounts that are to be spent, but we have been given very little detail. It is as a result of the lack of detail that there has been so much concern expressed. At the moment a review is going on regarding the organisations and the sorts of services which would be eligible to receive the funds. Beliefs are held in the community-and I believe this is illustrated very clearly even in minutes-that many organisations will be excluded from receiving the grants. Some of these organisations are the most senior organisations and the most experienced in providing accommodation for the disadvantaged members of our community. They are very experienced in this area, and I believe they should be members of those State and Commonwealth co-ordinating committees. The Minister has said that while those organisations are not members of the committees at the moment, they will not necessarily be permanently excluded. He said they could be included later. It seems to me that that is a bit too wishy-washy. We need to know just what is happening and who is going to get the grants. As I said, we know little detail of the agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. I believe that parliaments must know what the Commonwealth will agree to and not just how much has been spent. They have been given that detail, but they need to know how it is to be spent and who is to get the funding. That is the area in which this piece of legislation is found lacking. As has been said earlier by Senator Messner, the Opposition does agree in principle with the Bill that is before us at the moment. But we do need to know the detail. It is not good enough for us to pass legislation without that detail. Therefore, the Opposition will move an amendment to make sure that the detail of the guidelines is brought back to the Senate so that the Parliament can at least know what is to happen in this regard. It would be a tremendous pity, I believe, if, after going to the trouble of stating so clearly the aims-the Minister obviously went to a lot of trouble to express clearly the aims of the legislation-the Government were to keep the Parliament in ignorance of that detail. As I said earlier, the Bill is a result of the review of crisis and youth accommodation. The original decision was announced in November 1983. The 4.5-year agreement started on 1 January, just five months ago, yet the co-ordinating committees have not yet been set up. After speaking with the various States, I found that some of the States are very well organised and some of the States are very far from being well organised. Many of the large private welfare organisations are not included. Most of the States have a co-ordinating committee and most of the States have the three branches-a youth branch, a women's branch and a general branch. Some are completely structured and others have absolutely no structure at all. I know that in my home State there is no fixed committee on any of the three branches-youth, women and general-and it allows up to two people from any interested organisation to attend the meetings. It is completely unstructured and there is no umbrella group to co-ordinate the three committees. Other States have the three categories very clearly separated. They have appointed people to them and they have a co-ordinating committee. But none of them seems to have been completed. The structure is at the moment far from complete, even though, as I say, the agreement started on 1 January and it is now May. It seems to me that the State committees need to be organised and structured. I am in full agreement with the shadow Minister that our proposed amendment would bring the detail of the legislation back to the Parliament so that we can have a look at it and verify it. It is with that in mind that I support the amendment that will be moved by the Opposition at the Committee stage. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.48) —I, like some of my colleagues, was drawn into this debate by representations which were made by certain women's groups and by conversations which I had with those groups which led me to conclude that at least some of their concerns had some substance. I wish to place those concerns before the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his consideration. As Senator Messner, who led the debate for the Opposition, said, we certainly are not opposing this legislation. We welcome an interest in the need for this kind of accommodation. But I support the amendment which Senator Messner foreshadowed, for reasons which I will set out a little later. I have two concerns about the areas which have been mentioned. I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate in setting out again how great is the problem of homeless youth or of the need for refuges for women for emergency accommodation. But I will spend one moment on the question of youth homelessness and draw to the attention of the Senate the experience and work of organisations such as the St Vincent de Paul Society in the western suburbs of Sydney. I have had the occasion to work with Mr Theo van Gestel, who works at the Parramatta office of the St Vincent de Paul Society. You will know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this Society is very active in the area of homelessness. The Matthew Talbot Hostel in Sydney, of course, is its most famous refuge. Out in the western suburbs at Merrylands near Parramatta it has a facility known as Sienna which, whenever I visit it, is always full. When I ask the people in the St Vincent de Paul Society how great is the unmet need in this part of the western suburbs of Sydney, the estimate that they give me is that on any night of the year probably 100 young people are sleeping rough under bridges or in the parks in that area of Sydney. Some of these people are very young and many have been thrown out by their families. It is not my intention to try to give a comprehensive picture. However, I just want to say that the human misery is acute and very distressing. If this program can help those kinds of people we will support what is being done. If people like those in the St Vincent de Paul Society who are actually in there helping where need is the greatest can be assisted in what they are doing, I will be well pleased. As I said, I have been approached by some members of the women's refuge movement who have asked me to consider some of their concerns. I want to place those concerns before the Minister. It seems to me that to some extent this legislation is a machinery of government measure. It seeks to rearrange certain programs. Government always has the right to introduce machinery measures. Such legislation represents the judgment of government as to what is the right way to go. I do not question the fact that Senator Grimes has decided that this kind of structure is the most appropriate and that it will confer the kind of benefits that he set out in his second reading speech. However, I ask the Minister to accept that whenever one makes a rearrangement like this, one has at least to consider the possibility that that new arrangement will have costs as well as benefits and that those costs may in fact leave some participants in the program worse off under the new arrangements than they were under the old arrangements. That is the problem that is being put to us by some of the groups. It is true that the people concerned can argue about inadequate consultation and this problem was referred to by several previous speakers in the debate. I think the Minister, to do him justice, has acknowledged in certain letters that there was inadequate consultation at a certain stage. But that is water under the bridge at this point. I am asking whether it is possible that certain groups which are offering emergency accommodation for women are going to be worse off under the new arrangements than they were under the old. If that is not the intention of the Government, I ask that Senator Messner's proposed amendment be examined because this may be one way of reassuring some of these groups that in fact their interests would be looked after. When the development of a women's refuge was proposed for the lower north shore of Sydney where I live, I was able to recruit and enlist my colleagues in the Rotary Club at St Leonards to lend professional support. There was no way in which we could build, pay for or financially sustain the new women's refuge. But we were able to provide all the legal and banking support and give real estate advice. By drawing upon the skills of our Rotary Club members we were able to play a very significant role in helping that refuge to get going. As a result we developed an interest in that facility in terms of what it was trying to do and some of the difficulties it faced. It became clear to us just how great are some of the difficulties under which refuges operate. One example is the need for secrecy in respect of the address and location of a refuge for reasons which honourable senators understand. Some of the women's refuges are concerned that when they move from individual operations, from operating as single autonomous units, and become part of a system they will lose many things. The first thing they are concerned about losing is the confidentiality and secrecy of their addresses. They believe, for example, that a Senate Estimates committee could properly say: 'Give us the addresses of all the supported institutions'. That information would then be published in the Hansard and as a result that confidentiality would be lost. Some of the refuges have said to me that they regard that as a grave disability to their operation. One of the problems which they face continually is the threat of assault or forcible removal by husbands who are anxious to find where they are. Senator Crowley in her contribution referred to some of the concerns and dissatisfaction which women's groups had expressed with the legislation. It was Senator Crowley's view that all the problems had been overcome. Maybe some of them have been overcome but I suggest to the Minister that quite recently some of the women's refuges expressed genuine concern. I accept that some of the concerns are about whether they are going to get more or less money; whether the formula is going to be as good; and if they are from a State which has low funding, such as Victoria which makes a fairly low contribution, whether under a matching funds formula they would be worse off than they would be if they were from another State such as New South Wales which has a fairly high contribution of funds. But it is not all just a matter of cash. There are genuine concerns about autonomous operation, particularly in respect of some of the refuges which have operated as collectives and absolutely autonomous units and which believe that part of their success derives from that form of operation. Some of them find it very difficult to undertake interaction of the kind which they have had in the last few months even where that interaction has been with well intentioned Public Service officers who often talk a different language and look at the operation from a different point of view. Having said that, some of the refuges still have some significant funding concerns. Some of the refuges have expressed a concern to me that they may in fact be worse off under the new arrangements or become progressively worse off as time passes than they are under existing arrangements or than they have been in the past. I just wanted to place those concerns before the Senate. I believe that the women to whom I spoke were very genuine in terms of the task they were trying to carry out. They were very concerned about the community they were trying to serve. They are very worried that the arrangements that have been developed with what they thought was inadequate consultation would leave them in a disadvantaged position. As I understand the position, Senator Messner's proposed amendment will in no way lessen the capacity of the Minister or the Department to make decisions as to how the program should operate. It only asks that certain decisions be put before the Parliament where they can, if the Parliament so wishes, be disallowed. I take it that that is the purpose of the amendment. All the amendment proposes to do is to give us the capacity to say to the particular groups that feel that things are not right at present: 'As an earnest of the good faith of the Government, there is this disallowance power in existence and if anything does happen your matter could be brought back before the Parliament for review upon its merits'. I merely endorse the arguments which Senator Messner put in his opening contribution when he led for the Opposition. I add my comments which have resulted from representations which were made directly to me. I hope that the Minister will accept our amendment. Otherwise, I wish the legislation well. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.59) —I believe that there are few people in the Australian community who are in greater need than those who are homeless. Imagine what it must be like to face a night, perhaps in the sub-zero temperatures of Canberra or Hobart, with nowhere to sleep, nowhere to secure one's belongings and no family or friends to call on for help. Everyone was shocked when, I think last year, a man was crushed to death in a garbage hopper in Melbourne after he fell asleep, having been unable to gain a bed in a refuge. Most people do not realise how many people are in that sort of situation-people who every night sleep, if they can sleep, in places such as abandoned cars and condemned buildings or on benches. In some cases children sleep even in collecting bins for donated clothing. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, which legislates for the establishment of a supported accommodation assistance program. The program will be administered by the Department of Community Services at the Federal level and by equivalent departments at the State level. It is needed to provide continuity of funding for projects which were previously assisted under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act, which was repealed at the end of last year. It is also needed to broaden the range of services which can be subsidised to provide for the needs of the homeless. The main aim of the new supported accommodation assistance program is as stated in the guidelines: The provision of a range of supported accommodation and related support services to assist men, women and young people and their dependants, who are either permanently homeless or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need such assistance to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. Recurrent funds will be provided for items such as furniture, equipment and wages, and capital funds for housing are available within the program under the recently renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Bill aims to provide improved and more equitable funding of services, to fund new services in areas of high need, and to fund improved wages and conditions for workers in those services. Several speakers have referred to the great need for those people to be paid reasonable wages. Another major objective of the program is to enable the involvement of the service providers on program needs and priorities. For example, those who work with homeless young people will have the opportunity to advise on their particular needs which obviously will be different from those of older groups in the population. In many ways this program is an innovative program. It is one that embodies many important aspects of a whole changed philosophy of government administration in the social welfare field. The old homeless persons assistance program, which was replaced by the supported accommodation assistance program, reflected the outmoded attitude of the previous Government and many previous governments towards assistance to welfare organisations, clearly perceived by many of those people as charity. Its function was to allow subsidies to be paid to what were, and in many cases still are, charitable organisations, in the worst sense of that word, with connotations of dependency and philanthropy, connotations of giving something to the 'deserving poor'. Subsidies were paid to ensure that those welfare organisations could continue to carry out on the Government's behalf activities that the Government could not fully fund. The reasons for this were partly that in the past church and charity groups had been primarily concerned with these tasks. Also, it was apparent that if a government tried to meet the full cost of running what in many cases were large institutional types of homeless people's accommodation at an acceptable standard and to pay full award wages, the costs would be astronomical. Even under this new program the Government will be providing only a partial subsidy towards the costs of running these centres. Senator Peter Baume referred to some of the ways in which the community has an input here. The Government will probably continue to be able to do no more than this in the foreseeable future. The contribution of voluntary labour which maintains and allows such places to exist is very difficult to calculate. In addition, many hours of work of a most unpleasant and difficult kind are carried out by very dedicated staff for little or no financial reward. This new program will allow award wages to be paid to staff, in many cases for the first time ever. Assistance to the homeless had not been seen as one of significant importance in the list of government priorities until 1974, when Mr Hayden introduced the Homeless Persons Assistance Bill. However, services to the homeless have been carried out for at least a century or two, originally by the parish or the church. In Australia the only agencies I know of which performed those services were the churches. The Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society and other churches have had long-established centres for the homeless in every capital city and in many country towns as well. One unfortunate aspect of this continuity of service is that attitudes of staff towards residents as recipients of charity, as I said before, tend to remain in many cases and the effect of these attitudes is to reinforce dependency, with associated lack of self-esteem or the incentive to be able to live independently. Under the previous program there was no requirement and little scope for agencies to consider altering the services they provided. There was no attempt to fit the services to the changed needs of the clients, whose characteristics have also changed markedly over time, especially in the last two decades. For example, at a time of high unemployment, the average age of the homeless has dropped dramatically. The previous program's stated aim was as follows: . . . provide a reasonable standard of support and increased opportunities for homeless people enabling them to obtain a place of dignity in the fabric of Australian society. The new Bill has moved on from this idea of providing simply a reasonable standard of support. The supported accommodation assistance program provides assistance for homeless people to enable them 'to move towards independent living wherever possible and appropriate'. I think that is a very big step forward. Studies have found that only about one-third of the present residents of homeless persons hostels would be incapable of living independently. The reasons why the other two-thirds remain in hostels are a reflection of wider social and economic conditions. For example, in Victoria half-way houses for patients discharged from psychiatric centres were closed by the previous Liberal State Government. These people are now forced to use night shelters intended for short term homeless while alternatives are developed. Obviously this creates problems for the other residents of the centres and for staff, who are not trained to cope with people with psychiatric problems. Overall, the number of people using shelters and hostels has been increased by the lack of low cost accommodation. High levels of unemployment have meant that many people are unable to afford even the cheapest type of rental accommodation. The process referred to as gentrification of the inner city areas, whereby homes built for workers are now bought for renovation by the affluent, has had the effect of forcing low income earners out of those areas. Traditionally the inner city areas have provided the majority of boarding house accommodation for single, itinerant people. There is a range of reasons why people become homeless. These include long term illness, accident, crisis situations and sometimes unsuccessful travel in search of employment. When an isolated person does not have his or her own dwelling, some savings, or a family to provide assistance, particularly when he or she goes on to a pension or benefit, it is probable that that person will become one of the chronically homeless in a very short time. It is likely to be impossible even to rent a room without assistance for bond money and rent. The problem consists of a need for accommodation, lack of the usual networks for social support, and lack of social skills. Part of the solution is to teach those social skills or provide the supervision necessary to enable independent living. Not only are the homeless financially poor, they are usually also 'information poor'. They lack the information and resources the majority of the community takes for granted. Many of them have never really been a part of the society they may appear to have rejected. Often they have started fairly young in an institution and have continued to be outside the mainstream of society. Society has rejected them as being inadequate and unable to meet common standards of social behaviour. The new Bill allows for full consultation with those involved in the provision of crisis and supported accommodation, and I believe the Department will encourage this process. The advice of agencies will be sought on the program and its priorities. When the Ministerial Homeless Persons Advisory Committee was dismissed by the Fraser Government in a misguided cost-cutting exercise in 1981, a valuable source of expertise was lost to the Department of Social Security. That Committee was made up of people with knowledge and years of practical experience in the homeless persons field. The contribution they made to the functioning of the program before it was abolished was in part responsible for the changes and improvements that are incorporated in this Bill. Provision has been made throughout the development of this program for a great deal of consultation with non-government organisations-I will come back later to the question of women's organisations-and also with other levels of government throughout Australia. Here again, the program is innovative in that the Commonwealth is passing on functions to the State level of government, and allowance has been made also for the involvement of local government in the provision of emergency housing for the homeless. I urge local councils to look at their present range of services to the community and see whether housing is one which might be added or further developed, at least in some areas of Australia. This legislation allows financial assistance to local government for emergency accommodation and for low cost housing schemes which can then be developed with State and Commonwealth co-operation. The inner Melbourne municipality of Fitzroy is one I know about which has commendably involved itself in the provision of lodging house accommodation and rental assistance for residents on low incomes. Other municipalities may wish to follow its example. Fitzroy is one of those areas which have become gentrified, a trend to which I referred before. Responsible government must be concerned with accountability and it is to be hoped that this will not be overlooked in this new program. In the history of government programs it has been the practice for subsidies to be allocated to community groups with little consideration of the need for those groups to be accountable for the way in which the public moneys were spent. I do not mean just financial accountability. This is in part due to the increased administrative work load that is incurred if government departments involve themselves any further, but it also owes something to the tendencies of governments to trust charitable agencies to carry out their role to the best of their ability in ways they see fit. There has been little requirement for any detailed statements of how money has been spent or even of the types of programs being carried out or the standards of services provided. Government today is more accountable to the public than it has been in the past, as is witnessed by the freedom of information provisions. In turn it should be a duty of governments to ensure that public money is spent responsibly on the project for which it was granted. There is a need for departments such as the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services to become more involved in the accountability and service delivery aspects of all the programs they administer. This will ensure that the philosophy behind the new supported accommodation assistance program is advanced by the projects funded under it. The principles behind programs must be spelt out clearly in program guidelines so that there is not a hidden agenda of which agencies may be unaware. Unless agencies and organisations are aware of the aims of the program it is unlikely that they will attempt to redirect their activities to accord with government policies. Priority will be given to community groups providing accommodation services in a community setting; that is, providing the least restrictive alternative, which is in accordance with this Government's priorities. The old Dickensian style of homeless men's shelters with their huge dormitories and lack of privacy will in time be phased out, as has happened already in most States in accommodation for children in care. In their place it is intended to ensure that the majority of occupants will be accommodated within houses in the community which are indistinguishable from others in the street. Research studies of the long term residents of homeless persons centres have shown that in most ways they are little different from the rest of the population in their aspirations for a home of their own. Most of them began with nothing and as a result of lack of opportunity, ill health or accident have never had a chance of achieving better living conditions. Technological change too has meant a massive drop in the number of unskilled labouring jobs and in seasonal work. Such seemingly progressive changes as the containerisation of cargo and the mechanisation of crop harvesting have left many unskilled people without hope of employment. Retraining schemes have often been inappropriate for the needs of some of these people. The itinerant lifestyles led by many in the past have been made more difficult or impossible and low cost, independent accommodation, which was once available, has disappeared. The question of whether the homeless make a deliberate choice to pursue that lifestyle or whether it has been forced upon them by circumstances beyond their control was one which was being studied by a Melbourne University lecturer, Dr Alan Hughes, who unfortunately died last year before completing his findings. He had interviewed many homeless people in this study and was remarkable for his compassion and understanding of their problems. The study of homelessness is diminished by the curtailment of his work and it is to be hoped that someone else will be able to complete it. In Victoria the facilities provided for the homeless by the Hanover Welfare Services at Gordon House in Melbourne are at the forefront of developments in homeless persons' services. They encourage independent living and autonomy for those who use their services, without the paternalistic and religious pressures sometimes brought to bear in other centres. They provide self-contained accommodation within the building and encourage residents to maintain their own financial arrangements. This does not always apply in some of the other large centres. The new SAAP program has three separate sub-programs for youth, women and the general category of homeless people. Each has been allocated specific and separate amounts of funds which can be spent according to the guidelines of each sub-program. Until now I have been speaking about the area which will come under the general program of SAAP. I come now to the other two sub-programs and, firstly, to the women's emergency services sub-program. This sub-program arose out of a recognition that the needs of women for emergency accommodation were in danger of being overlooked if they remained as an unspecified group competing for funds within the homeless persons accommodation program. Over the years homeless men seem to have made themselves more obvious in society than homeless women. Shelters catering exclusively for men have been in existence for almost a century in Australia, but only one or two in each capital city-less in some cases-have provided for the comparatively small number of women who are in need of emergency or long term shelter. So the early women's refuges were set up with little government support. Women have had a long battle for recognition of the needs of women and children, particularly those who are the victims of domestic violence. The funding which has been approved for the women's emergency services sub-program is available over the next 4 1/2 years. The obvious advantage of this is that funding allocation has been removed from the annual budgetary context. As we are well aware, in most government programs battle has to be done between departments and programs before Budget time each year, with a consequent lack of continuity. In the case of the women's emergency services program matching amounts will be paid by the Commonwealth equal to the contribution of each State. No State will receive less than it did in 1984 and is guaranteed to receive more progressively in each year of the program. Some of the women who have spoken to me on this issue would like to see a department set up specifically to deal with women's affairs. The reality is that the Office of the Status of Women-this is one of the ideas that have been put to me-cannot become a funding department. It exists to act in an advisory capacity only. Not all Federal departments are empowered to allocate finance. SAAP is the only available avenue through which women's services can be funded at present. All government allocations can be made only within a program which has been devised to function within the terms of an Act of Parliament. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill, in replacing the Homeless Persons Assistance Act, provides the only legislative means by which the Government can provide funds for women's refuges. The Department of Social Security, from which the Department of Community Services has developed, is the largest funding department on the Federal level. It has had more experience of making payments of subsidies to service providers than has any other department. I believe it is the appropriate department, if not the only one, to administer this sub-program. The women's emergency services program is possibly unique in the history of public service in this country, if not the world, as it has been devised and staffed entirely by women. They are women who have been extremely sympathetic to the cause of improving women's services in all areas, not just accommodation. This is reflected in the wide-ranging nature of the program and the projects it can fund. I am sure that once the guidelines of the new SAAP and the women's program within it have been read carefully most women's groups will agree that it allows for a very broad range of services to be provided. These guidelines have not been devised by a distant government department in isolation from the community, as has been the case with many other government programs in history. Instead, in accordance with this Government's wish to assist each group and to reflect the recognition of the differing needs of each group, a program of extensive consultation has been conducted over the last 18 months. Every effort, I believe, has been made to reach those providing and those using the services, even in remote country districts all over Australia where funding was provided for people to come in to centres to consult. I think it can be said that everyone who wished to be consulted was consulted. I would disagree with Senator Haines on that point, after talking to those involved, both from the consulting team on behalf of the Department and from the women in the community. Some groups refused to take part in consultations for ideological reasons, believing the WESSP should not be any part of a general accommodation program. That is their right and their choice. I think that it was a wrong decision, but I do not think that the Government can be held responsible for that. It seems to me and to other Labor women parliamentarians who have been watching the progress of this sub-program with great interest and who have talked to large numbers of women's groups out in the States that the Department of Community Services is prepared to accommodate most of the refuges' wishes on the major areas of disagreement. Another advantage of the new sub-program is that under it, as with the other two sub-programs, award wages will be paid to refuge workers-in many cases for the first time. As I stated previously about the program in general, it must of course take into consideration the need to be accountable for the expenditure of public money. It must be sure that the money it gives out is being spent for the purpose for which it was intended. That is why statistics are required from refuges-simply to show that there are in fact people using the services. Some refuges have been reluctant to provide any information at all on their services, but they must realise that those statistics can also be used by the agencies themselves to support their claims for increased funding by showing demonstrated need. Another aspect which worries women's refuges-this matter has been referred to by other speakers in this debate-is that of confidentiality. Some refuges say that they intend to refuse to accept funding, despite the need for it, as they remain unconvinced that addresses of refuges will not be divulged to men. Indeed, if, as was stated by a male in another place, it should be the right of 'every member of parliament' to visit a refuge whenever he wishes, the whole point of refuges is lost. They are places of escape for women and children from intolerable situations of domestic violence. We have heard quite a lot of detail given on that this afternoon. Many instances exist of subterfuge on the part of irate husbands in attempts to find their wives, and many instances exist of centres being located and violent attempts made to remove women, often with disastrous results. Refuges must be considered as safe houses, where women can be free from attack and even attempts on their lives. More funds will be available under this sub-program than have ever been available in the past for women's services, contrary to what many of the women still seem to believe. Commonwealth funds for these programs will increase by more than 100 per cent in the next 12 months. I come now to the third and very important sub-program dealing with young people. The needs of young people tend to be neglected for several reasons. Young people, by definition, lack experience in making their needs known, and the groups which purport to represent youth sometimes reflect adult views of what they think young people need rather than the reality. Homelessness of young people is often blamed on the young people themselves. There is little recognition of the fact that many young people who leave home are leaving an intolerable family situation. Parents may have a legal as well as a moral responsibility to look after their children to the age of 18, but many do not meet that responsibility. Homeless young people usually have a lower income, if any, than older people seeking accommodation; they also lack information and in many cases any support network, apart from their peers, who have the same lack of experience as themselves. Even if they can afford rent or board, they are often discriminated against, perhaps understandably, on the basis of their age. So I am particularly pleased that the third sub-program is concerned with youth. The youth supported accommodation program grew out of an increasing awareness of numbers of young people being forced to use the existing homeless persons shelters, which in the past catered for a somewhat older generation. It was feared by the service providers that once the young homeless became entrenched in the lifestyle of the older homeless, it would be impossible for them ever to escape from it. Young people, too, probably show a greater sense of self-worth and a refusal to submit to the regimes which exist in the traditional night shelters. The groups working with young people who have left home know that the overriding problem is one of a lack of accommodation and of low cost permanent or emergency housing. The increasing demands on existing accommodation services for youth in recent years provide evidence of the need for an expansion of those services. The youth supported accommodation sub-program will provide funds for significant increases in the number of facilities available. Some 15,000 young people requested help from existing youth services scheme refuges in 1980-81, but more than half those requests could not be met. So 7,500 young people were turned away from refuges in that year. The rate of unemployment among young people, together with the lack of low cost accommodation, has led to this increased demand. Young people are often the unfortunate victims of problems which have arisen in other areas, such as the break-up of the family. Even where low cost public housing is available, young people are often ranked very low on lists for priority housing. On the other hand, I point to the Victorian example where the Ministry of Housing makes available a percentage of its accommodation specifically for young people. The year 1985 is International Youth Year and it is appropriate that this new program, designed with the needs of youth in mind, has been established this year. A sum of $830,000 for new services for youth has been allocated in the current financial year, and $1.66m for 1985-86. Under the previous arrangements, youth refuges were funded under at least two different programs. Needs were not being met due to this lack of planning and due to restrictions on the assistance which could be provided under those programs. Groups providing such services will now, under SAAP, make their applications to one department under one program, instead of to a number of funding agencies under a whole range of programs. The legislation that is before us cannot solve the problem of homelessness or the problems of the homeless themselves, but it will give additional help and some additional dignity and self-esteem to a number of those who need somewhere to sleep and some human companionship. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.27) —in reply-I thank honourable senators from both sides of the House for their support for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. I shall try to cover all the points raised in the debate. As has been said, the Bill arose out of a committee of inquiry into homelessness and homelessness legislation in Australia. We were confronted with a situation where the responsibility for the various forms of assistance and services provided to the homeless was a function partly of Federal and State government, and in some cases local government, and also with a large input from non-government organisations. There was very little co-ordination of policies, and in fact there was considerable confusion and overlap in the funding and the administration of these various services. As a result of that we decided as a government to introduce a new supported accommodation program so that we could try to get some order into what was a little bit chaotic, and so that we could try to get some certainty into the program-certainty not only for governments, but for the non-government organisations which contribute so much in these areas. It has not been easy, but what we have attempted and are attempting to do is to produce a program which will be evolutionary so that all those involved can learn from experience, so that we can modify the guidelines and fine-tune legislation, I suppose, if necessary in future to cope with the various problems and differing situations that we find. To achieve this required agreements between the States and the Commonwealth-agreements which were arrived at after consultation with those two groups, plus the non-government organisations. In achieving agreements and in arranging the consultative processes in this area, things were not made easier by the very genuine and real suspicion of some groups, particularly the groups providing services for homeless women and emergency services for women, that what governments were trying to do was interfere too much in their affairs, to reduce their funding perhaps, and to affect their autonomy, which they found to be so important. I will deal with a couple of the general issues raised by Senator Haines and, I think, all other speakers about the consultations and about the difficulties of overcoming the problems as the groups saw them. We set out with our group of public servants, for whom I must express the greatest admiration, to consult with the States and the non-government organisations. The negotiating team in fact attended about 70 meetings with various service providers. There were separate meetings with each of the groups in each of the States on at least three occasions to discuss the issues generally. The team wrote to some 850 organisations. A total of about 2,500 letters was sent to various service providers concerning the consultations phase and about 1,000 letters from service providers were responded to during that phase. Some groups, to judge from Senator Haines's remarks, obviously had some concerns about what they saw as the quality of the consultations. I do not think anybody can complain about the quantity of the consultations. As Senator Zakharov said, some groups, particularly amongst the women's groups, decided not to take part in the consultations. They did that because they had decided that they did not want the women's emergency services program to be in the supported accommodation assistance program. I think they did that for very wrong reasons. The basic reason put to me when they came to see me was that they did not wish to compete in one program with other groups providing services in this area. I could not see how they were going to be any worse off by competing with those groups in a co-ordinated approach than they were separately. There will always be competition between like groups-all groups, I suppose-for government funds in this area. I think that has largely been overcome. One of the problems was that they saw it purely as a matter of bricks and mortar, of putting a roof over people's heads in an emergency situation. No matter how often I and my colleagues pointed out to them that in fact this was about supported services, about providing the services as well as the accommodation, we did not seem to get too far, and at election time some very rude advertisements about me were put in the Age. I understand that that has now largely been overcome. As I have mentioned before, I suppose the group that was particularly concerned and has the highest level of concern still in this area consists of the women involved in the conduct of women's refuges, particularly those, as Senator Baume said, who form collectives to run those refuges. I understand, and I believe anyone should understand, that concern. I was involved many years before I got into parliament-in fact years before I ever thought of getting into parliament-in the town where I lived in trying to establish with another local medical practitioner what would now be called a women's refuge. We saw, in our practices, many women who were the subject of domestic violence. We believed that what was needed was a refuge where these people could go, at least for a short term, to escape the difficult situations they were in. When the women's refuges were established under a Commonwealth program no one realised the unfulfilled need and demand for such services in the community. The women who established them worked, and continue to work, in very difficult emotional, physical and social conditions. They worked for very inadequate salaries. In fact many of them worked for no salary. They worked extraordinary hours and were kicked from pillar to post. They were attacked by some groups in the community who saw them as a cause of marriage breakdowns. Senator Peter Baume —The Goths and the Vandals are upon us. Senator GRIMES —Yes. They were attacked by some people in the community who saw them as the vanguard of the feminist movement, and who feared the feminist movement for some reason or other. Many of them developed a system of collective operation. They realised quickly that they needed a degree of autonomy, perhaps greater than some other organisations of this type. Many of them learned early that they frequently needed confidentiality, which Senator Zakharov talked about. Unfortunately when government funds are involved-I suppose when any funds are involved-the balance between autonomy and accountability is a difficult one. For this reason I have had some hard times as a shadow Minister in this area and as Minister in this area-and I am sure previous Ministers have-with the reluctance of organisations to provide, for instance, the statistics that Senator Zakharov points out are absolutely necessary if we are to have accountability and if we are to know what we are doing and know where we are going. They had this reluctance-and still have this reluctance in some cases-to provide statistics because they were frightened that the statistics would be used against them or would be misinterpreted. I must say that in the past some people have done that. There are two sides to this. We need to know what is happening, we need to know the numbers, and we need to know frequently the types of people who are being looked after if we are going to have any hope of getting long term planning in this area to improve the conditions of both workers and people in the refuges. It is for this reason that I believe most women's organisations which run refuges are now accepting the fact that on both sides of Parliament there is a general acceptance of the work they are doing and of the need for the work they are doing, and that in fact there is goodwill on both sides of the Parliament, I think with regard to the contained sensible development of women's refuges. I hope that by the establishment of this program and by the demonstration of goodwill and good faith by the Federal and State governments-and it is up to us to demonstrate that what we are about is improving conditions, improving funding and improving the sorts of guidelines available for these women to work under-we can achieve the confidence of these women's groups. Senator Haines, in her contribution today, mentioned a couple of specific points that I think I had better answer in summing up the second reading debate. She talked about the delays in the delivery of salary subsidies to South Australian workers under the youth and the general accommodation areas. There were also complaints in New South Wales about the same matter. As Minister I approved in April increases to salary subsidies in New South Wales under the youth and general accommodation areas. We expect to receive in the very near future, if I have not already received, submissions from South Australia regarding the salary subsidies for WES-women's emergency services-workers. Until I received those submissions and until they could be approved they could not be paid. I would have hoped that the delay apparent in South Australia in the first two areas would have been overcome by now and those people would have been paid. I will certainly follow up that matter. Senator Haines was also concerned, I think reasonably so, that the Federal Government does not place undue emphasis on cost effectiveness under the SAAP program. Of course, we must have regard to cost effectiveness. But I agree with her, and I assure her of our desire not to put the emphasis on cost effectiveness at the expense of the outcomes for the individual clients that we are talking about, the people who need help, or at the expense of care effectiveness, if you like. We will increase this care effectiveness, if that is an understood term, through the provision of increased rates of salary subsidy, through additional salary subsidies, through provision of staff training, and through improved equipment, and we will involve refuge workers in the evaluation of their programs. The whole aim of the exercise is to involve both Government and non-government organisations in improving the services and I believe that the Government, through its increased funding, is demonstrating that it has the political will to do this. We have to evolve a continuing program so that we can get everyone who is concerned involved. Senator Haines also talked about the complexity of the statistical SAAP forms that the services have had to fill out and about the time that it took to do this. The forms that Senator Haines referred to were draft forms. They were distributed about six months ago and we accept that there were shortcomings in them. It is always a problem to get forms which are simple but at the same time provide the information that is needed. As a result of talking to the States and the non-government organisations the forms have now been redesigned and are now being reconsidered by the States and the non-government organisations because the last thing we want is people spending endless hours filling out statistical data. Senator Haines sought an explanation for the distribution of funds in columns 1 and 2 of paragraph 10 (2) (b) of the Schedule. The allocation of funds in that table reflects two things. First of all it reflects the funds that have been approved under the programs included in SAAP at 1 January this year and this is the bulk of allocations. Secondly, the new money which will be provided later will be distributed between the States on a per capita basis. The reason for that apparent inequality in the distribution of funds is due to the distribution of services as they exist at the moment. Senator Peter Baume also raised concerns particularly about the confidentiality of women's collectives and whether they will be worse off or better off under SAAP. The first thing worth pointing out is that it is just not true to assert that women's refuges will be worse off under SAAP. They will not get any less funding than they do now and they will have access to a considerable amount of new funds which the Commonwealth has allocated this year. In 1985-86 Commonwealth funding will increase from $14.19m to $27.242m. There is a considerable increase in funding under this program and that funding will also go to all divisions but, in particular, obviously, to the WES divisions. There is no question that organisations will be worse off. Similarly, the SAAP legislation and the program present absolutely no threat to the confidentiality of the addresses of women's refuges as did the previous arrangements. State departments which administer the programs hold those addresses and respect their confidentiality. As Senator Zakharov has said, people have tried to get around this confidentiality and use all sorts of subterfuges but the confidentiality is guaranteed and the addresses which the Commonwealth holds are kept confidential as well. The only requests I have had for the addresses of refuges-I am being non-political about this-have come from Opposition members. In fact, one made an impassioned speech in the House of Representatives that all members of Parliament should have the names of refuges and should be able to visit them at will. I have had the odd person request addresses of me, as Minister. I think that one occasion I was in an Estimates Committee hearing. Once people have had explained to them why refuges in these circumstances want to have confidential addresses, I think they understand. Sometimes as members of Parliament we all tend to assert our rights when we see that we are being refused access to something but I think on this occasion all members of Parliament whom I know will recognise the need for confidentiality in this area once the position is explained to them. In general, people have had it explained to them in recent times and recently I have not had any request for addresses. There is nothing in this legislation or in SAAP which will break down the confidentiality provisions which now exist. Senator Walters, in her contribution, remarked that this Bill does not take into consideration the houses that are needed for homeless youth after they have been in refuges, and that is true. The Government is providing a special program within the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, called the crisis accommodation program, which in 1984-85 received $12.8m. It is CAP which provides housing stock for refuges and houses for those who have moved beyond the refuges. CAP and SAAP are two arms of the Government's policy in this area. The reason there is nothing about houses as such in this program is that they are provided under a program administered by my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Stewart West. Senator Messner in leading for the Opposition raised several questions and foreshadowed an amendment which I note he has now circulated. The implications of Senator Messner's speech can be summed up around three key areas. The first one was an implication that the Bill should not be introduced now as the full details of the operation of SAAP have not been finalised. The second area which he raised was that the future of the 67 projects remaining in the homeless persons assistance program is in doubt as States specific sub-program guidelines have not been finalised. The third area which he raised was the foreshadowed amendment which will provide Parliament with the authority to scrutinise and disallow the guidelines for the administration of SAAP required under paragraph 8 (2) of the Schedule to the Bill. I will take these issues one by one. It is necessary to introduce the Bill now. It is only by the passage of this legislation that both States and non-government organisations will have a guarantee of ongoing Commonwealth assistance. The legislation provides both a guarantee to the States and the Northern Territory that the Commonwealth will continue its involvement in this area and an assurance to non-government organisations that the unstable and insecure funding arrangements supporting previous funding programs will be removed. One of the aims of the exercise was to get some certainty into this area. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill provides the authority for the Commonwealth to enter into the SAAP agreement and a guarantee to the States and service providers of a minimum level of Commonwealth funds for SAAP which the States and service providers have sought and which has been agreed to in the consultations. Legislation is necessary for the Commonwealth to enter into legally binding terms and conditions on grants. Details of the operation of the program have been finalised to the extent that has been required by the Commonwealth. The national guidelines have been finalised for operational purposes and are awaiting only the passage of this legislation and the signing of the Commonwealth-State agreement to be formally undertaken between the Commonwealth and the States. The guidelines have been public documents since 1 January 1985. Copies of these documents have been available since January for those people who have been interested. I point out that the guidelines were formulated only after long consultations with service providers and the States. They are not holy writ; they are not going to be fixed in concrete forever. Copies have been sent to every service provider, including the 67 service providers which the States have chosen to exclude, at least initially, from SAAP. I think Senator Messner also suggested that State sub-program guidelines should have been finalised prior to the introduction of this legislation. The States' specific sub-program guidelines are not required by the Commonwealth. Where the States and the service providers wish, sub-program guidelines may be developed to take into account circumstances which may properly differ from State to State, such as application procedures, Commonwealth-State committee mechanisms, and so on. State sub-program guidelines must be consistent with the national guidelines. They cannot be finalised until the national guidelines are agreed on, following the signing of the agreements which are to be authorised by this Bill. Any sub-program guideline developed in a State must be agreed to by the relevant State Minister and the Commonwealth. We cannot have the sub-program guidelines until we have the national guidelines in place. The assertion that the future of the 67 homeless persons assistance program projects currently excluded from SAAP is in doubt and that their inclusion in SAAP depends on the finalisation of the States' specific guidelines was also made by Senator Messner. I believe that assertion represents a misunderstanding by him. The 67 homeless persons assistance program projects which have been excluded are eligible for assistance under the national guidelines, as they are now. It is the States that have elected to exclude the services. They have excluded them for a variety of reasons, including their large size, their institutional type, their low staff to client ratio, their viability, their level of funding, et cetera. They are, in general, the large traditional institutions for homeless men. Under SAAP, both the State and Commonwealth Ministers have to approve the inclusion of a service in SAAP. The guidelines themselves provide no automatic guarantee that a service will be included in SAAP. The Commonwealth's objective in relation to these services is known to the States and the service providers. Its objective is to have these services incorporated in SAAP. The five States which are involved and the Commonwealth have agreed that they will review these services to determine whether the reasons put up by the States for excluding the services are valid and to identify appropriate action by the Commonwealth and the States. Clearly, by agreeing to participate in this review, the States have not dismissed the prospect of the progressive inclusion of these projects in SAAP. In the meantime, the homeless persons assistance program continues to operate. The 67 services excluded from SAAP continue to be funded under it. The homeless persons assistance program provides a legislative guarantee of funding for these excluded services. In 1984-85 the Commonwealth provided new recurrent and capital funds for the upgrading of the 67 services remaining in the homeless persons assistance program. An additional $1.541m in recurrent funds in a full year has been allocated to upgrade these services this year. This represents an increase in funding of something like 36 per cent. Approximately $1.7m in capital funds has also been identified this year for upgrading these services. I think those figures demonstrate a commitment to the upgrading of the 67 services remaining in the homeless persons assistance program. There is, in fact, as much guarantee now as there ever was that these services will continue to be funded. There is no hope in the world, in the foreseeable future, of any government suddenly deciding to defund these organisations and put all the people who need them out on to the street. SAAP does not put them at threat at all. At the Committee stage Senator Messner is to move an amendment to this legislation, which I am afraid the Government cannot accept. As I have only about 2 1/2 minutes remaining, I had better leave my reasons for non-acceptance of that amendment to the Committee stage. I again thank honourable senators for their support of the legislation. It has been a long, hard row and I think that we have learnt a lot. I think we should have other State-Commonwealth agreements of this type to incorporate some of the many programs where there is great overlap between State and Federal governments and non-government organisations in the provision of services. In general, it is a philosophical approach in the provision of services such as this that the Federal Government should provide the environment, funding and advice to enable local government, community and non-government organisations to provide services in their own communities, largely using their own priorities and leaving the day to day administration to them. We will continue to take that approach. What we have learnt from the negotiations involved in the development of SAAP and what we will undoubtedly learn from the operations of SAAP not only will lead to improvement of SAAP in an evolutionary way but also, I believe, will enable us to proceed in a much less traumatic way in the future. It will certainly save a few nervous breakdowns for a few public servants who have to get involved in the negotiations. I believe it has all been worth it. I just hope that by our goodwill, both at the State and Federal levels, we can gain even more confidence from the non-government organisations and see that these programs provide the services so much needed in the community by the groups who are so disadvantaged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.57) —I move: Page 3, after clause 4, insert the following clause: '4A. (1) In this section, ''agreement'' means an agreement or a further agreement of the kind referred to in section 4 between the Commonwealth and any State or States entered into after the commencement of this Act. '(2) An agreement shall be such that guidelines of the kind referred to in sub-clause 8 (2) of the form of agreement contained in the Schedule shall be required under the agreement. '(3) Section 48 (except paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)) and section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to guidelines approved under an agreement as if the references in those sections to regulations were references to guidelines and the references to the making of regulations were references to the approval of guidelines.'. I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his comments at the end of the second reading debate because I think he put into context some of the real concerns that exist in the community and highlighted some of the deficiencies of his approach. The very point he made right at the outset that the program was evolutionary highlights the particular concerns out in the community and amongst those organisations providing the variety of services that are covered under the principle of the legislation. As I indicated during the second reading debate, the Opposition supports the objective of setting up various rationalised programs, if that is the correct word, under one general heading such as this represents in order to achieve far better services-I think Senator Haines referred to it as 'levels of care available to those in the community'-rather than talking about costs and community commitment in terms of taxpayers' money in this regard. I believe that that is a very significant issue in the outcome that will result from the introduction of these programs. The point has been made consistently that there is a need for flexibility not only between the States but also within the States as to which way the various sub-programs will be administered. Those are important issues which we believe should be taken into account by all care givers and those who will be providing services under the various sub-programs. During the second reading debate some concern was expressed about the 67 so-called traditional agencies which may be excluded from funding as a result of the legislation, or as a result of agreement by the States. Without going into that matter too deeply, I acknowledge that it is not only what might be termed traditional care givers who have been involved in the provision of services for the homeless over a long period, but also individual sub-programs within those overall organisational programs which may be the subject of change as a result of the new sub-program guidelines that may be introduced. The Minister, in the course of his remarks, referred to the national guidelines and those which were established by agreement with the States and which set out the general framework of the administration of the programs as a whole. He made the point that they were brought to account before 1 January this year at the commencement of the program. I had not seen a copy of those guidelines until the Minister presented them to us halfway through the second reading debate the other night. I believe that it would have been useful for them to have been provided at an earlier time, especially during the Senate Estimates Committee inquiry into this matter. Nevertheless, it is not so much the guidelines that are at issue. What I drew attention to during the second reading debate-it is quite clear from the remarks that I made at that time-is that the issues that will be exposed as a result of the introduction of the sub-program guidelines are of real concern to the community. It is those which will form the basis of the agreements between the States and the Commonwealth. When the Minister says that the Commonwealth will not have control over those guidelines I believe credibility leaves him. It is certainly not within the ambit of the legislation that that be so. Let me quote to him the Schedule to the Bill which sets out the agreements with the States. Clause 8 (2) of Part IV reads as follows: A program shall be administered in accordance with guidelines from time to time jointly approved by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Ministers and published in the Commonwealth Gazette. Firstly, the guidelines have to be agreed between the Ministers. Certainly I understood the Minister to say in the Estimates Committee hearing on this matter that he had a very real role and that there would be some final acknowledgment of his determination and his ideas on the distribution of funds and the guidelines under which that would happen. I am surprised now to hear from him that that is apparently not so and that the decisions will be in the hands of the States entirely. Secondly, the wording of the Schedule says that the guidelines that apply from time to time are relevant. That being so, it indicates that there must be capacity for change. Indeed, change may be contemplated. In the light of the Minister's more general remark that it is an evolutionary program it seems that that is so. The point needs to be made that there is considerable room for movement over which there is concern on the part of the individual non-government organisations that are involved in and concerned about this matter. There is room for change to the programs. Individual operators may find themselves disadvantaged or inequitably treated by the State governments, or perhaps by the Federal Government by acquiescence to State government demands in certain circumstances. That surely applies across the whole range of services that this Bill will authorise. It is a very real concern to the many people in the community who selflessly give their time and energy, many for little or no remuneration, as has been pointed out in the debate by Senator Zakharov. As a result we can expect real concern about the direction of those services. I pointed out during the second reading debate that I believe that with such a fundamental change to the program as has been evidenced in this legislation the Government should handle the issue like eggs and endeavour as much as possible to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Consultation must occur in such a way that people understand fully what has been going on. The Minister acknowledged that to some degree by saying how difficult a job it was. I agree with him; I believe it must have been. But there were some deficiencies in the ways in which the guidelines were established and sold to various community organisations. The Minister's proposition that it is necessary to have the passage of this legislation in order to authorise agreement with the States heightens my personal concern and moves me with even more conviction to the amendment that I have now moved. It sets down the need for the Government to provide for the guidelines under which the sub-programs are to be drawn up to be tabled in the Parliament and made subject to disallowance under section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act. Those guidelines, I believe, are vital to an understanding of the way in which the Government will determine priorities and how funds are to be distributed amongst the various operators in the non-government sphere, other operators, perhaps from local government, or in other directions. My attention has been drawn to a problem in the understanding of some groups within the community. It seems that some groups representing homeless youth and women's groups within Victoria have been misinformed as to the effect of the amendment which I am proposing. In fact, it has been reported to me that people in Victoria who are concerned with this matter have suggested that my amendment will stop funding and any progress with the program and that the Opposition is opposed to the legislation. I make it clear that that is not so. We support the general objectives. By moving this amendment and with its carriage by the Senate and, it is hoped, by the House of Representatives we are merely trying to ensure the means by which non-government organisations can make their presence felt in negotiating with the Government and discussing their funding entitlements. They will be able in flexible situations, if they see it as necessary in individual cases, to make their presence felt through the parliamentary process. The Schedule to the Bill, as I pointed out earlier, envisages the possibility of change from time to time in those guidelines. Those changes could occur rapidly, and could be in duration for short periods or longer periods. Who knows? That is in the hands of the Government. All we are doing by moving this amendment is trying to ensure that the people in the community who are affected will have an opportunity to express their views clearly and to get the Parliament to act on their behalf, if need be, through approaching the Parliament and asking that the guidelines be disallowed. The sub-programs basically cover the needs of the community as far as we can establish from the sketchy information that is available at the moment. We on this side of the chamber acknowledge the very real concern of the women's movement in relation to the funding arrangements that the Government has entered into. We are concerned ourselves that those organisations which are providing appropriate services in this area should continue to receive funding and to provide those services adequately. We do not seek in any way to undermine their capacity to do so. What we seek is proper accountability of the States and the Commonwealth Government itself in administering these various arrangements. Surely it is not too much to ask that the guidelines by which these programs are administered and which are, as the Minister acknowledged, capable of change, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and made the subject of disallowance if need be. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(6.10) — As a member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills I have a tendency to get as outraged as my colleagues on that Committee with what we see as an inappropriate delegation of power in legislation. That relates to decisions made by Ministers or by other people without the Parliament having any sort of oversight at all. However, when Senator Messner spoke to me last month about the amendment to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill which he was circulating at the time I seem to recall indicating to him that we would not support an amendment which subjected the current guidelines to parliamentary scrutiny on the simple, if somewhat pragmatic, ground that, first of all, the States, the Federal Government and non-government organisations in the main were satisfied with the guidelines as they stood and, secondly, that to subject them to a potential additional delay of some months over which the disallowance can occur-as it does if there is a break in the parliamentary sittings in between-would only add to the concern and uncertainty in these organisations in the community and to the delay which has already occurred over the last year or so. As I said, I had some sympathy with the idea of making changes to the current guidelines subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Basically I am a suspicious person and I do not like to leave areas related to funding-for example, who will receive the funding and how much funding they will receive-subject to ad hoc decisions and the whims of government. I can foresee occasions when budgetary cuts may make it necessary-or allow governments to think it necessary-to change the guidelines in some way. I can foresee a time when there is a different government operating here which may have a different ideological attitude to certain recipients of funding. Therefore, I can foresee occasions when perhaps the guidelines could be changed because a government wanted to put that particular ideology into effect. Without parliamentary scrutiny of the guidelines there would be no way of preventing this from occurring. However, having been given indications last year that the groups in the community that will fall under the jurisdiction of this legislation were concerned at the fact that the Government had not consulted them-as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, that may be a correct or an incorrect interpretation; nevertheless, these groups felt they had not been-it seemed important that I take some notice of how the groups themselves felt about the idea of even having changes to the guidelines, that is, subsequent guidelines, made subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Most of those groups became almost hysterical with fright at the very idea. Discussions that took place with these groups culminated in a telex which reads: Re: Proposed SAAP amendments. Having read the debates reported in the daily Hansard regarding SAAP, and having engaged in a national discussion within our sector, the National Youth Coalition for Housing wishes to register its unequivocal opposition to any amendment seeking to treat SAAP program or sub-program guidelines as regulations. At this stage I comment that unless my memory is extremely faulty, the debates that were reported in the daily Hansard would have consisted of the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), Senator Messner's speech and half of Senator Crowley's speech. Certainly I had not spoken. They had no idea at that stage of any concerns I may or may not have had. With the greatest of respect, I suggest that making a judgment on the basis of 2 1/2 speeches is going off slightly half-cocked. However, the telex continued: This Coalition represents the youth housing sector in every State and Territory, including services designated as 'traditional'. We do not believe that the mechanism of disallowance can in any way answer the concern expressed by honourable members in the debate, nor resolve the concerns we ourselves have. I presume that their reference to members means that they also read the House of Representatives debates. However, my earlier comment still stands. I think it is fairly important when we look at something such as this to take the attitudes, concerns and comments of all parties into account. The telex concludes: Further, this view is also supported by the Victorian Council to the Homeless, and some Victorian womens refuges. Further information contact National Youth Coalition for Housing-- a name and phone number is then given-- . . . . Council to Homeless-- again a name and phone number is given-- . . . Womens Refuge referral-- A name and phone number is given for that. Similar concerns were expressed to me by groups in South Australia. As I said, I think the concerns of those groups are misplaced. Certainly the guidelines as they stand at the moment have the general support of all parliamentary parties. They have the general support of the States which have been involved and have the general support of the non-government organisations which have been consulted and which fall under the program. I repeat, however, that it is quite possible, for one reason or another, whether by some sleight of hand with budgetary cuts or a deliberate pursuing of an ideological witch hunt or vendetta, that in future the guidelines may not be as happily accepted in a spirit of consensus as these are. If that ever happens the fact that they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny means that nothing can be done to change them or to disallow them. If there is a concern by people out there that disallowing a future guideline or perhaps two or three guidelines would somehow prevent the system from continuing to operate, perhaps these people ought to be told that if we disallow a regulation which changes another regulation or if we disallow a set of guidelines which changes a previously established set of guidelines, the status quo is maintained. Since I had some fairly strong things to say in the second reading debate about the importance of consultation and since the groups that added their names to this telex were fairly definite about their attitude to the amendment, I inform the Senate that the Australian Democrats will not support the Opposition's amendment to the legislation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.19) —I cannot on behalf of the Government accept the amendment moved to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill. First of all I say that I believe Senator Messner misheard what I said concerning the sub-program guidelines in my reply to the second reading debate. I said that, where the States and service providers wish, sub-program guidelines may be developed to take into account special circumstances in those States. There may be differences from State to State. For historical reasons there may be differences in application procedures because of administrative procedures in a State, and there may be different Commonwealth-State committee mechanisms as well as all sorts of other reasons. The State sub-program guidelines certainly must be consistent with the national guidelines. However, they cannot be finalised before the national guidelines are agreed to following the signing of the agreements which are to be authorised by the Bill. Any sub-program guidelines developed in a State must have the agreement of the relevant State Minister and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not excluded from the consideration of these State sub-program guidelines. I think that that is an important point to make. I also make the point that the State sub-program guidelines are not considered in clause 8 (2) of the Schedule to the Bill. I do not believe the amendment would require the sub-program guidelines to be tabled or disallowed in this Parliament, if that is one of Senator Messner's main concerns. I have said that we will certainly table the national guidelines. I cannot see any objection to tabling any State sub-program guidelines. My concern is the power of the Parliament to disallow. The amendment seeks to provide the Parliament with the authority to scrutinise and then disallow those guidelines which are required under clause 8 (2) of the Schedule to the Bill, as Senator Messner's amendment points out. As I said, we will table the guidelines in the Parliament. What Senator Messner argues is that the amendment will be a sort of audit check, that it will act as a brake on the Government if it is decided to take action that is not in the best interests of the community. That, I think, is the gist of what Senator Haines was talking about, too. Senator Messner also said that it would be used only in the most extreme circumstances. I think certain things have been overlooked by the Opposition in putting forward this amendment. Under this program the Commonwealth cannot introduce and cannot amend guidelines for the program without the agreement of all of the State and Territory Ministers. The guidelines are the result of an agreement between the States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth Government. Senator Messner's amendment will not necessarily act as a brake on the Commonwealth Government. It will give the Parliament the power to veto over the Commonwealth Government, acting in concert with the six State governments and the Northern Territory Government. We believe it is inappropriate that the Parliament should exercise or even seek a power of veto in this situation. We believe that the Commonwealth does not act in this way in any other similar situation. Senator Messner argued that the amendment will act as a brake so that the Government will be able to think carefully about the distribution of funds. Senator Haines talked about her concern about budgetary cuts, et cetera. But the guidelines do not stipulate how the funds should be distributed. The Schedule to the Bill sets down the method for allocating Commonwealth funds to States. The distribution of funds to the services will be a matter for joint Commonwealth and State ministerial decision. The amendment will not achieve what it is said it will achieve in this area. Those funding and budgetary decisions and the decisions as to the distribution of the funds are decisions to be made by the State and Commonwealth governments. Senator Messner made reference in his speech on the second reading of the Bill to the fact that accountability of the type proposed in this amendment is present in many different pieces of legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel has made a pretty detailed search of relevant Commonwealth-State agreements which are authorised by legislation. He has been unable to find a disallowance provision of this type, along the lines suggested by Senator Messner, where there was an instrument not created under the Act and, in particular, where there was a State government involved. The guidelines are established under the agreement; they are not established under the Bill. They have to be flexible and subject to change to keep pace with changes in the community. I think the amendment would have the effect of reducing this flexibility and making the process of approving and amending the guidelines cumbersome and potentially unworkable. Should the guidelines be disallowed by parliament, the Commonwealth would then have to re-open negotiation with service providers and each of the State governments. The status of services approved under the disallowed guidelines would then be in doubt and then we would really have uncertainty. But an interesting situation would arise if the State parliaments adopted an approach similar to the one proposed by this amendment. The guidelines, having been allowed by the Commonwealth Parliament, would then be subject to disallowance by six State parliaments and the Northern Territory Parliament. So we would have a very interesting time in that regard. The potential for confusion caused by this sort of disallowance provision, which, I repeat, is not contained in any other form of legislation, would be quite extraordinary. I can understand the concerns of people like Senator Haines and Senator Messner. This is a new program which is conducted under a Commonwealth-State agreement and Commonwealth-State guidelines. There are other programs like this one. I dare say there will be plenty of others in the future. I agree with the honourable senators that those guidelines should be made available. These were available publicly from January. In future, changes to those guidelines should be provided to members of this Parliament. In fact, I declare that I will put such changes before the Parliament. But there is a very real difference between allowing parliamentary discussion and allowing disallowance and the confusion that that disallowance might provide. These are agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments. The situation that Senator Haines was concerned about, whereby some ideological maniac in the Federal Government could come along and change those guidelines willy-nilly, does not exist. There must be agreement between the States and the Commonwealth. Added to that, there are many vigilant non-government organisations which will be keeping a hawk-like eye-if that is not an unfortunate phrase-on these agreements. It is for all of those reasons that I think we should oppose this amendment. I make the final point, as I said before, that I do not think the amendment achieves exactly what Senator Messner thought it would achieve. The Parliamentary Counsel has some doubts about its legality, but I do not take very much notice of lawyers. I think that what Senator Messner was trying to introduce into this legislation is an unnecessary restriction and therefore I am afraid that I must oppose it. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.27) -I do not wish to delay the Committee. I will just make one or two points which arise from the remarks of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I accept his admonition about the number of other guidelines of this type which are subject to disallowance. I, of course, was referring to the general principle of disallowance of regulations when I spoke about that point in my speech on the second reading of the Bill. But one point that he raised seems to me to be totally inconsistent. I think that it is in this regard that the Government fails to acknowledge the concerns of the community. He made the point that the guidelines do not establish the distribution of funds and that the Schedule to the Bill sets out the way in which the funds will be distributed by the States. Surely, if the guidelines are present and they are part of the legislation, they must set down the criteria by which a determination will be established between various organisations, otherwise why have the guidelines and what are they attempting to do if they are not drawing lines of difference between individual operators? Surely, that gets to the core of what we are talking about. The Minister, I am afraid, has not been able to explain to our satisfaction why it is that he cannot provide the guidelines and make them subject to disallowance in that form. The other point was that Senator Haines referred to the fact that she indicated to me earlier that she would not support the amendment. Frankly, I do recall that, but she made one other point about moving an amendment of her own. It was that amendment which was subsequently taken care of by virtue of our further amendment which has now been moved; in other words, the amendment that has now been moved is the one which incorporated the objection which Senator Haines had at that time. Therefore, I would have expected that in the normal circumstances she would have supported this further amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.29) —Very briefly, what I said was that the Schedule sets down the method for allocating funds among the States. The distribution of funds within the States to services is a matter for agreement by way of a Commonwealth and State ministerial decision under the basis of those guidelines, and I do not think that that process is assisted by this amendment. Question put: That proposed new clause 4A (Senator Messner's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Missen, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Lajovic, M. E. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Evans, Jack Vigor, D. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Knowles, S. C. Coleman, R. N. Kilgariff, B. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Chaney, F. M. Georges, G. Durack, P. D. Jones, G. N. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.36 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.00) —The Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985 effectively implements an important element of the Government's car industry plan. That element is the proposal that the Government should make available $150m for encouraging the design and tooling of Australian industry. In the statement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) at the time he announced the Government's plan he referred to the Government's desire to encourage the best aspects of Australian industry and to enhance its skill and technology. He undertook that the Government would give positive assistance to the design of components for all vehicles and indicated that the Government had decided to allocate up to $150m over five years aimed at developing automotive products competitive in the domestic and international markets. That is a very significant commitment, and its significance can be very easily seen when one compares it with the sort of assistance that is provided generally for research and development in Australia. The figures for 1984-85, which are set out in the Budget Papers, show a range of programs in which research assistance is provided by the Commonwealth. The largest single item is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which this year is estimated to receive $322m. However, the general research grants paid out by the Government total only $30.2m. I think that indicates the scope of this assistance, because here we have $150m proposed over three years. Apart from the CSIRO, we have a quite massive proportion of the Government's total research and development funding being made available to this particular industry. The Government has also indicated that it will provide additional assistance by way of tax relief. That matter was addressed in Question Time in this chamber today in the context of speculation about the possible postponement of that assistance. The simple point I make is that we are dealing with a piece of legislation which provides industry-specific assistance at a quite substantial rate and which represents a quite major commitment by this Government. I do not intend to spend time on that aspect as I understand my colleagues Senator Puplick and Senator Jessop will be addressing it in more detail. That part of the plan with which we are dealing has been pronounced by the Minister as being non-negotiable. One might ask why any particular Government measure should be non-negotiable. One might get some guidance on that from page 3 of the original statement issued by Senator Button, where he set out a number of principles that had guided the Government in considering its strategy. He said: There must be a process of adjustment over a period of years. In an industry with long lead times, predictability and stability of policy are essential. This is even more important during a period in which significant structural change is expected to occur. That is a general observation with which I concur. It is interesting to see how supportive the industry is at the moment about that element of the car plan. Only in the last few days I received a copy of the report of the President of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries which was presented to the annual general meeting on Monday, 15 April-less than a month ago. There are a couple of passages which go to the point made by Senator Button when he introduced the car plan. Those statements amount to very substantial support for the proposition the Minister advanced that the plan should be not negotiable. In reference to the passenger car plan, on the first page of that report the President said: Whilst across the industry there are differing views on the contents of the new plan, in general, all sectors of the industry would agree that it does provide a basic framework to develop long term strategies for the future. He went on to say: It is imperative that the plans now in shape remain unchanged in the run up to 1992 by Governments of whatever political persuasion. If I may interpolate this little message for the Opposition in that particular passage, they are suggesting that, even given a change of government, it is important that there should be stability and that the plan which has been put forward should remain unchanged. The next paragraph is also important, not in the context of the argument for stability but rather in reminding us that the benign view of the car plan that is abroad in 1985 is a view that needs to be measured in light of the general circumstances in which the industry is presently operating. The report goes on to point out that 1984 was a record year for new motor vehicle sales, and I will refer to that matter a little later. At page 9 of the report the President further stated: No matter what our differences-- that is the differences within the industry-- we must seek assurance from governments and oppositions that their policies have stability and long term duration Again, I simply acknowledge the importance of the point being made by the industry that, if there is to be a basis for investment, there does need to be predictability and stability. If the rules are to be changed in the middle of the game obviously one can invalidate investment decisions already made. It has always seemed to me that there is a rank element of injustice, quite apart from anything else, in that readiness to change the rules when they have been laid down clearly. As far as this piece of legislation is concerned, the Opposition made an early commitment to support it. I refer the Senate to the Policy on Industry and Commerce issued by the then shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Peter Rae, well prior to the election last year. At page 9 of that policy it specifically provided in a sub-paragraph, under the heading 'Industry and Taxation': provide increased research and development incentives including the retention of that currently promised to the Automobile industry which will be particularly directed towards sections of the component parts industry; There was an early commitment of support by the Opposition for this particular element of the car plan, and that was in line with the broad support offered by the Opposition to the plan at the time it was brought down. We are dealing with an industry which is going through what has been described as a boom year. I have an extract from the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 30 April, which is headlined 'Car Sales Take Off in March' and which refers to March being the best month in the history of the Australian car industry, with registrations at 65,160, almost 10,000 more than February. I will not quote the article at length as I am sure the Minister is very familiar with the figures. The article goes on to say that there has been a significant upgrading of the estimates of vehicle sales for the current year. Quite apart from the good year in 1984, dealt with in the Chamber of Automotive Industries' report to which I have referred, we have the prospect of an extremely good year in 1985. Given the views the industry is putting forward in these rather halcyon days, I make the observation that it might be quite important for the industry to consider its advice to governments and to oppositions and to be prepared perhaps to give the same assurance to politicians as it is seeking from politicians. I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that the plan that has been put forward is one that envisages substantial restructuring of the industry. That process of restructuring is not one which is ever without difficulty. When in a few years the pips start to squeak we might find that the industry will need to remember some of the advice which is currently being proffered to the Minister and to the Opposition. I say that because although a good deal has been made of the fact that this plan is predicated on there being a tougher competitive situation, the reality is that the plan is not all that tough in 1985. The tough years are yet to come. I think that is evident from the perusal of the plan and from the fact that when the plan was brought down last year some elements of it effectively involved some temporary further assistance to the industry. For example, the short term measures which were announced at that time included changes to the way certain passenger cars, which are currently classified as light commercial four-wheel drive vehicles and which therefore attract a lower rate of duty were dealt with. Those vehicles were brought under the passenger motor vehicle plan and attracted the same rate of duty as that which applied to passenger motor vehicles generally. It is important to note that we are at a stage where there has been a very substantial lift in sales, where there have been some short term changes which are quite beneficial to the industry in the short term and where the reductions in duty, which are a very significant feature of the plan and, in my view, a very appropriate feature of the plan, have yet really to make life difficult. The fact is that from the industry's point of view the tough times are not now. The $150m which is to be distributed under the provisions of the legislation before us now is effectively a sweetener to the car industry plan which is really being proffered at a time of record sales and continuing high protection. The 100 per cent penalty tariff which is part of this plan, which is less than the penalty tariff which had applied and which phases down on an annual basis to 57 1/2 per cent, does constitute a high level of protection now. We face the prospect of a very significant diminution in that level of protection. Of course, that means that the position of the Australian industry will become more open to competition. One can look at that in two different ways. One can say that the maintenance of a 57 1/2 per cent tariff as late as 1992 would still represent a very high level of protection for the industry. Certainly in terms of the general protection afforded to manufacturing industry it is high. But I would freely concede that that is significantly better in terms of there being more open access than the levels of penalty tariff which were in the car plan which this plan replaced and in which there would still have been a significantly higher rate of penalty tariff in 1991. I would be interested if the Minister in his response to the second reading debate could indicate to us whether he sees those fundamental arrangements which he laid down last year as being under any threat from the developments which are proceeding in the car industry. It seems to me that one of the realities that Australian car manufacturers face is that they are not simply in the business of improving themselves to some fixed standard. The reality is that the competition is improving and the target they are pursuing is not a fixed target, but a moving target. No doubt the Minister has been considering the questions which arise over the entry of, for example, Korea into the field and the potential Korea has for very low cost production and for putting extremely competitive products on the market in a way which, as at least one writer I have seen has suggested, invalidates some of the fundamental assumptions of the car plan. I think that needs to be considered. The Minister has said that the plan is not negotiable. It will be interesting to see whether he sees any threat to that position in the emergence of possible competition from Korea at a level which might put the figuring which underlies the plan in some doubt. I do not wish to deal at any great length with the position provided for by this Bill. The Bill generally is designed to rectify the low level of research and development which has occurred in Australia. The Minister made some comments about that in a broader sense in Question Time today. This Bill invests the Automotive Industry Authority, which was established last year, with the power to select projects for assistance, to determine the amount of assistance-although there are some guidelines with respect to the proportion of assistance which is to be provided-and to make decisions with respect to the duration of that assistance. In addition, there are provisions that grant payment is to be made by way of formal agreement, that limitations on funding are to be subject to ministerial discretion, that penalties can be imposed and moneys recovered, that ministerial direction can be provided for public interest projects and so on. Aspects of this legislation do cause me some concern and I will raise them in more particular terms now. I also ask the Minister to give some indication of the extent to which he sees in the operation of the car plan a little further down the track the need for the Government to take a more directive approach than that which was adopted in the original laying out of the plan. I raise that because I think I need to stress that there could be some limits to the extent to which the Opposition would continue to support the plan if it came to the point where manufacturers in Australia formed their own judgment that they could compete within the tariff parameters which have been established by the Government and yet the Government was determined to drive out manufacturers purely to conform with the numerical elements of the plan which were laid down by the Minister last year. In other words, whilst the Opposition can see the value of opening the industry to a more competitive environment, the Opposition can also see the value of the industry, in that more competitive environment, looking to the rationalisation of its production and the Opposition can see virtue in the industry deciding to produce fewer models and generally behaving in a way which would make the Australian industry more competitive. It seems that, with the extent to which the present Government is prepared to act in a directive way, if the market forces to which it is exposing the industry do not achieve the results which it seeks, it would be helpful to us to know just how far the Government is prepared to go in that direction. It may be, of course, that the Government simply wishes to hold its views in its hand on all that until facts become clearer. I think it would be worth canvassing some of those issues in the interests of ensuring that as far as possible there is some common understanding of the way this plan should proceed in the interests of the stability which the Minister and the industry seek. Before I foreshadow the specific amendments I wish to move in Committee, I raise with the Minister the general concern I had when I looked at the provisions of the Bill with respect to the very considerable powers which it seems to me are vested in the Authority in respect of, for example, the registration of new entrants into the field. It seems to me that the Bill clearly provides a place for those who are actually involved in the production of the requisite components and so on now, but there is room within the Bill for new manufacturers to enter the industry. Fairly broad powers seem to be vested in the Authority with respect to the admission or non-admission of new companies to the arrangements which are provided in the provisions of this Bill. I must say that the Opposition gave consideration to whether we should provide some sort of appeal mechanism to cover the rights of any manufacturer who thought he was being wrongly excluded from the potential benefits of the Bill. The Opposition determined, after consideration of the eighth annual report of the Administrative Review Council and the explanation of that Council, what sort of decisions are not appropriate for review, and it particularly defined issues of protection policy it thought involved high government policy as issues which should not be made subject to judicial review. For that reason I shall not be seeking an amendment, but I would like some assurance at least from the Minister that any decisions by the Authority to exclude future entrants into manufacturing in these areas would be a matter which would at least be considered at a parliamentary level, and that we would get some understanding that there would not be an attempt to use the Authority to prevent new and potentially good entrepreneurs from getting into this important industrial field. I go on to the areas where the Opposition has concerns that will give rise to some amendments. The Bill is interesting in that it provides a broad general framework and then allows for a good deal of more detailed provision to be made by way of ministerial guidelines. It is proposed in proposed new section 26M that these guidelines should have a major influence, in my view, on the shape of this legislation and the operations of this Authority. I do not have the Act before me and I shall refer to it in Committee, but the point I wish to make at the second reading stage is that the guidelines given to the Minister would effectively enable substantial parts of the Act to be rewritten. It would be my view that the Minister could, by the issuing of guidelines, for example, limit the availability of grants to, say, component manufacturers or, alternatively, to car manufacturers. The extent to which the Minister could change the shape of this legislation by the use of guidelines seems to me considerable. For that reason it will be the Opposition's intention to move to make the guidelines subject to a disallowance by the Parliament. I stress that in moving that amendment the Opposition would not be seeking in any way to disrupt the administration of the Authority, because we do not think that would be helpful at this stage. The Opposition has not taken the view that the temporary or initial guidelines put down by the Minister are inappropriate, but we understand that further guidelines are to be produced by him. Whilst these guidelines will be published, I would point out that they are beyond the reach of parliament. We think that is unfortunate and we would seek amendments to bring them within the reach of parliament. In that respect we simply say that the calling of what are effectively regulations guidelines should not in our view remove the issues from parliamentary scrutiny. The other matter I wish to deal with is what is to be done with public interest projects where the Government, under the provisions of the legislation, arranges for research to be conducted by the Government itself through some agent. We propose to move amendments which would simply require the results of that research to be made available to Australian manufacturers after some process of tender. I understand that the Government is sympathetic to that approach being adopted. I regard this, like any other aspect of the car industry plan, as a matter of great significance for Australia. I have tried to explain why the Opposition supports the legislation. We see force in the general direction of the car plan and the general move which it provides to expose the Australian industry to a more competitive environment. We note that even by 1992 the extent of that competitive environment is still to provide the Australian industry with protection at the level of a 57 1/2 per cent tariff. We see that as a target which the Australian industry should be prepared to accept as it appears to accept during the halcyon days of 1985. I express the hope that there will be the same determination as is evident in 1985 in later years when perhaps car sales are not necessarily as high and when the lower tariff protection is applicable. Senator Button —It depends on the Government's view of the general economic situation. Senator CHANEY —I am sure that if we are in government there will be many fewer problems, but I am trying to deal with this matter in a reasonably bipartisan way. We can have a stoush in the Committee stage later perhaps, if Senator Button would like that. I acknowledge the evident enthusiasm and energy which is being shown by the plan manufacturers. I have not yet had a chance to visit all of them, but it appears to me that they regard the plan as a challenge they are able to meet. That is encouraging for Australia and I certainly hope that the optimism that is currently being expressed by those of them I have talked with is transferred into results. I think anything else I want to say on this Bill can be said in Committee. I commend the broad direction of the car plan. I hope that it will be successful and I also hope that it will not involve the undue direction of the industry by government by administrative or other fait. I seek some assurance from the Minister on that and the other points I have raised. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(8.26) -I speak in support of the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985. This Bill contains amendments to the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, which will provide for financial assistance to projects concerned with the development of motor vehicles and components of Australian design. I am pleased to be able to support this Bill, which is another step in the Government's program to revitalise the motor industry. The motor vehicle building industry is one of the most important manufacturing industries in Australia. It is the largest component of our nation's engineering sector, employing some 6.8 per cent of all employees in the total manufacturing trade. Throughout Australia some 71,704 people are employed directly in the industry, and many more jobs than this are generated in a wide range of associated industries such as rubber, plastics, paint and glass. In my home State of South Australia nearly 15,000 people are directly involved in motor vehicle assembly and component manufacture. This represents some 15.6 per cent of South Australia's work force. So in South Australia and in Australia as a whole the motor vehicle industry is an important part of the nation's industrial composition. Unfortunately, over the last 20 years the motor vehicle industry in Australia has declined in both efficiency and output. It has become very highly protected, while at the same time its performance has become increasingly less satisfactory. Our export trade has decreased, our vehicle manufactures have proliferated, as has the number of model lines they produce and, because of a lack of rationalisation, component manufacturers are either producing small numbers of a wide range of items or competing with each other for a share of the market. Australian car manufacturers have been reluctant to make changes. Rather than embark on research and development programs, they have tended to bury their heads in the sand and rely on government protection. What Australia had was a badly organised motor industry which had suffered from piecemeal attempts to bolster it up over the years, so that it has become no longer a viable industry but has needed massive financial protection from the Government in order to survive. The establishment of the Automotive Industry Authority late last year set in motion a long term plan to put the industry back on its feet, to make it more responsible for itself, to give it more status and to make it economically more viable. The motor industry itself had recognised the need for some sort of central authority to help it out of the quagmire it had slipped into, and so the Car Industry Council, composed of representatives from all sectors of the motor industry, approached the Government with the request that it set up such a body. Thus the Automotive Industry Authority came into being to assist the motor industry to build on its strengths, emphasise its positive aspects and streamline its operations. The Bill before us now seeks to put into operation one of the fundamental objectives of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy-to place the industry in a better competitive position against imports. Its purpose is to encourage the development of an identifiably Australian design in the motor vehicle. As a person who has been involved in the vehicle building industry, both as an employee and as a union representative, I am keenly aware of the importance to Australia of a viable and self-generating motor industry. I would be happy to see the proposals contained in this Bill come to fruition. If we continue to export from this country cars which have been designed overseas and so are recognised as the product of another country, how can we hope to establish a demand for a purely Australian motor vehicle? How can we hope to compete seriously and effectively on the overseas market? We need to feel proud of the vehicles which we produce in this country. From a purely national point of view, Australians will identify with Australian-designed products. There has been a great and long overdue surge in national pride in the last few years, culminating in the elation every Australian felt when Australia II captured the America's Cup. Our country has at last come of age, and takes a rightful pride in exporting its own product, whether that product be human or material. Australia no longer regards itself as a poor relation of Europe and America, and Australians would be happy to identify with locally designed and manufactured motor vehicles as in the past they used to identify with the Holden. We need to see Australian cars achieve the same world fame and reputation as, say, the German Volkswagen or the English Morris. From the point of view of the Australian economy, excellent and stylish Australian designs will enable the Australian motor vehicle manufacturers to compete successfully on world markets. New markets can be created, competition can be met and challenged, and there is the possibility that Australian-designed cars could become leaders in years to come. We must remember that during the 1960s a significant volume of Australian cars were exported overseas. General Motors-Holden's Ltd, for example, exported over 30 per cent of its product. We were a major vehicle exporting country. But since then we have fallen into the sorry state of what Senator Button terms an 'industrial colony'. However, it is always possible for us to again build up our export trade to equal, if not exceed, that of the 1960s. An increase in exports, together with the proposed reduction in the number of models, but longer production runs, are logical measures to increase the cost competitiveness of the industry. The export of built-up vehicles would employ the whole range of skill in the Australian automotive industry, and establish an international reputation for Australia's excellence in these skills. There is no reason why Australia should not aim for such goals as product quality and international reputation. Our workers are as skilled as any in the world, and we should not let ourselves be discouraged by the size of our population. The recent intensive advertising campaign by the Swedish Volvo company was aimed at illustrating the very point of a country with a small domestic market being able to establish a glowing international reputation by producing a car which has become a by-word for excellence. As in recent years the decline of the motor industry has unfortunately been responsible for bringing about an increase in unemployment, it is good to see the new Automotive Industry Authority being established, under whose guidance the industry can gain new strengths and hopefully provide new opportunities for employment. At last we can see the possibility of the automotive industry becoming competitive and efficient, so that the strength of Australia's manufacturing industry can be maintained. It is with much pleasure that I commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.37) -Tonight the Senate is debating the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill which seeks to incorporate into the original 1984 legislation a new Part IVA which will deal with the research grants payable in the motor vehicle industry as an integral part of the Government's overall automobile industry package. I think it is fair to look at the package as it was originally put down in May 1984 and to draw attention to circumstances and developments which have occurred since that date and which call into question not so much the plan itself but whether the plan needs any fine tuning and how the Government is going to respond to some of the developments which have taken place in the industry since the original package was announced. Senator Chaney has addressed a couple of remarks to this issue already, but I want to make a few additional observations. In its report of 24 June 1981 entitled 'Passenger Motor Vehicles and Components-Post-1984 Assistance Arrangements' the Industries Assistance Commission said: Of course, a basic thrust of the Commission's approach is that some existing producers must cease operations. Indeed, it sees withdrawal of some producers and higher scales of operation by those remaining as the only sure way of achieving significant improvements in the international competitiveness of the automotive manufacturing industry. The IAC's attitude was reflected in statements made subsequently by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. In addressing the Trade Union Training Authority Vehicle Industry Seminar on 18 July 1984 Senator Button among his remarks-to which I will be returning later-said: We have made it clear that we will be seeking to consolidate the industry into two or three manufacturing groups. There is no doubt that rationalisation of the industry along the lines that the IAC and Senator Button were talking about is a major long term goal of the plan which the Government has put into effect, and undoubtedly has been a factor in the stand taken by the Opposition, expressed by Senator Chaney this evening, in overall support of what the Government is seeking to do. But there are some difficulties on the horizon and I think one of these is the potential entry into the market of manufactured vehicles from Korea. The plan which has associated with Alan Bond and Bond Motor Sales Pty Ltd in its agreement with the Hyundai Motor Corporation of Korea, I think, is a warning sign that the comfortable, cosy in-house arrangements which appear to have developed as a result of the motor vehicle industry package agreed among existing operators and the Government's response to it are not necessarily going to be able to persist as a central element of that plan. I do not want to go into the detail of the entry of Hyundai into the market through the Bond operation into Australia, but I simply say this. The sort of economic impact that those Korean vehicles could have has been indicated by one of the significant motor vehicle industry analysts in an article published earlier this month. I quote an article by John Mellor in the Bulletin of 7 May. In relation to Japanese, Australian and Korean built vehicles, he states: After import duty, importer and dealer margins and sales tax are added, the Japanese car-- he is talking about something which is the equivalent of the Hyundai Stellar-- will sell for about $9,300. The Australian car will retail for about $9,100 and the Korean car, after the 100 per cent duty has been levied, will retail for $5,900. After looking at the situation in Canada, John Mellor is able to indicate the successful penetration of the Canadian market by Korean motor vehicles in a short period of time. Undoubtedly this is an issue which will have to commend itself to the Government for attention in the course of the refinement and fine tuning of any plans-such as the motor vehicle plan-which require a number of years to put in place and to see through to completion. It is undoubtedly true that one would have expected the introduction of a plan by the Government along these lines to have been welcomed by just about all sections of the industry. It disappoints me to a certain extent to see the attitude that is taken by Mr Thompson, New South Wales Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Federation of Australia, whom Senator Walsh was at pains to criticise during Question Time this afternoon. Immediately after the car plan was announced on 30 May 1984 Mr Thompson was quoted as saying that it: . . . sounds the death knell for almost the whole of the component part industry. It destroys the concept of having an Australian motor industry but its a major victory for GMH. It is not as though Mr Thompson's opinion has changed very much in the period since 30 May 1984 because in a newspaper report of an address he gave on 6 May 1985 it is stated: He continued his criticism of the plan to restructure the motor vehicle industry which he claimed would make it impossible for any Australian manufacturer to survive when the tariff on imported motor vehicles dropped to 57.5 per cent by 1992. Clearly, one hopes that Minister Button's view of the development of the industry is correct and that Mr Thompson's view is not correct. However it is significant to note that this is not a plan which has necessarily been regarded as the saviour of the industry by everybody who is intimately connected with it. I turn to the central point of this legislation which is the research funds which have been made available for the industry. I seek to elicit some response from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce or whoever is now present in the chamber to represent him in the debate this evening, on the way in which and the reasons for which certain changes have taken place between the time of the original announcement of this research program for the industry and the way in which we are now presented with the legislation in the Parliament. If one looks at the 'Information Kit on Motor Vehicle Policy' which was published by the Department of Industry and Commerce in May 1984, which sets out the details of the motor vehicle industry plan, one sees that the research component is clearly identified. Page 18 of the information kit, which in particular relates to design activities, states: This assistance will operate through the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, in consultation with the Automotive Industry Authority. We know that between the announcement of the plan in May 1984 and the introduction of this legislation that something has changed. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in his second reading speech, stated: The Government also announced-- he is talking about an announcement last October-- that the Automotive Industry Authority would be responsible for the administration of the scheme. The decision made between May 1984 and October 1984 to move the administration of this research plan from the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board to the Automotive Industry Authority has not been adequately or thoroughly explained by the Government. It is certainly not explained in the Minister's second reading speech and I do not think it has been explained in any of the comments which have been made on this legislation. On 20 October 1984, commenting on this change between the IRDIB scheme and the administration by the Automotive Industry Authority, Jane Ford-I do not need to remind honourable senators that Jane Ford is probably the most thoroughly informed and articulate writer on science policy in Australia-was prompted to write an article in the Australian as follows: The Federal Government's plan to pour $150 million into new car industry research and design over the next five years underwent a major turnaround this week raising questions over the real purpose of the scheme. No longer is it the responsibility of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. Instead, it has been handed over to the new Automotive Industry Authority within the Department of Industry and Commerce and renamed the Motor Vehicles and Components Development Grant Scheme. To many, the move, which involves unnecessary bureaucratic duplication of staff and resources and removes funding from the stringent scrutiny of the IRDIB, clearly shows that the scheme has much more to do with car industry politics than any real concern about research for the industry. She went on: Some see the funds as merely a disguise subsidy to the five major car companies to soften them up so that they go along with the Government's car rationalisation plan. I do not believe that the Minister has sufficiently explained why it is that between May and October of last year this significant change took place in the way in which the research grants scheme is to be administered. The Bill allows for research to be undertaken on questions of both design and style. Clause 5 (b) (iii) of the Bill before us states that an approved project may be one which involves 'design work that is primarily related to the style of an eligible product rather than to the functional characteristics of the product'. I am not altogether sure of the extent to which the expenditure of public money, alleged to be research expenditure, is properly comprehended by being spent on techniques of style change. This contributes nothing to fundamental engineering; it contributes nothing to fundamental research into safety or improved performance, economy or whatever it happens to be. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of capacity within legislation so framed for money to be used for purposes which one would not think as proper expenditure of scarce research funds for matters of mere style. I suspect that that is one of the reasons for the change away from IRDIB with its strict criteria for grants, in favour of the scheme which is now put forward for the administration of this legislation. I worry about that to a certain extent and my fears on that matter are reinforced by a number of other comments. In the report of the Car Industry Council of 14 December 1983 the question of design was clearly addressed. The Council, in its report, stated: The Council recognises that the downwards trend-- that is in technological progress and the retention of design skills-- results from the increasing costs associated with the development of new models, and that the relatively limited size of the Australian market would certainly not, other things being equal, encourage world manufacturers to maintain unique Australian design activities. Rather, Australian producers would increasingly purchase designs from overseas. I think it has to be something slightly better than that as a justification for the expenditure of research money in that area. I am not heartened in this matter when I look once again at Senator Button's speech to the Trade Union Training Authority, which I quoted previously and in which he said, in relation to the report of the Car Industry Council: The Government did not implement one of the recommendations of the Car Industry Council report which sought to place specific requirements on the vehicle manufacturers' expenditures on Australian sourced design and tooling. I worry that not enough of this money will go to the important engineering and design aspects of local research which clearly need to be undertaken. I turn to the next area of concern about this expenditure; that is, the whole issue of computer usage and computer assistance in the manufacturing industry. We saw the publication in June 1984 of the so-called Cashman report entitled 'Establishment of an Advisory Service on Computer Assistance in the Manufacturing Industry'. The report had as a major recommendation, indeed, recommendation No. 1, that: The Committee strongly recommends that there is an urgent need for the Government to establish a nationwide advisory service on computer assisted manufacturing. That is something one would have thought was of enormous importance in the motor vehicle industry. Yet the Cashman report appears to have disappeared without comment or trace. The Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, told us what a significant report it was going to be, in exactly the same way as he told us what a significant report the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners report on science and technology in Australia was going to be. The Cashman report came down and, like the OECD report, the Government threw it in the waste paper basket. It is simply no good to continue this attitude towards the role of computer assistance in the manufacturing industry, particularly when we have before us major opportunities in terms of motor vehicles on which this impacts directly. Lest it be thought that that is the only area of its kind, I draw the attention of the Senate to an excellent speech made by my colleague Senator Jessop in the Senate on 28 February this year on a matter of public importance. He dealt with the matter of the computer assisted disaster management scheme called CADMAS. He indicated that the scheme was refused funding under the provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the Act to which I have referred previously, whose administrative and advisory body originally was to be charged with the responsibility of dealing with the $150m that was to be provided under this scheme. The point Senator Jessop made in his speech, and which I wish to make in the balance of my remarks this evening, is that with $150m available for research in the motor vehicle industry, one of the things that have happened at exactly the same time is that the rest of Australian science and technology is being absolutely starved of necessary assistance, absolutely starved of additional funding, and absolutely crippled by the attitude of this Government, which is fundamentally being exposed as being opposed to the development of excellence in the Australian research and scientific community. Today in Question Time we saw the most extraordinary performance by Senator Button, wriggling on the hook, about whether the 150 per cent taxation deduction for contributions towards research was, in fact, going to take place. We were warned by the Australian Science and Technology Council in its report on computer-related technologies in the metal trades industry in January 1985 that a taxation incentive scheme ought to be introduced as a matter of urgency. Senator Button ran round the country promising largess all over the place. At the National Meeting of Concern on Science and Technology held in Canberra on 16 April this year, he said that one thing that was in the pipeline, that was projected for 1985-86, was that there would be a forgoing of revenue of $80m as a result of the 150 per cent taxation concession. He was not prepared to allow it to stand at that because on 2 May he told the Australian Academy of Science: Similarly, a substantial amount of funding will go to the 150% tax concession for R &D which is intended to be the principal stimulant to research in the private sector. We know that Mr Jones and his Department have always been opposed to this 150 per cent deduction. We read in the Australian of yesterday's date that a punch-up is occurring between Mr Keating and Senator Button as to whether this will be in place on 1 July 1985, or 1 July 1986, or indeed whether it will ever see the light of day. It is and has always been opposed by the Treasury. All Senator Button's wiggling and squirming in Question Time today leaves one with the impression only that this incentive so grandly promised in the Government's policy speech, out of thin air, having been opposed by Mr Jones's Department, is now once again up for grabs as part of the cost-cutting exercise, despite the fact that in April and May this year it was touted around to the Academy of Science and the National Meeting of Concern on Science and Technology by Senator Button as a centrepiece of the whole operation. Let me turn to just how miserly the Government has been in terms of its assistance to research in Australia in comparison with the money that it can find for this undertaking. Page 1425 of Hansard records that in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) in the House of Representatives, Mr MacKellar, the Opposition shadow Minister for Science, had this to say about the Australian research grants scheme: In fact, as a result of that talking up-- that is, the talking up of science and technology by the Australian Labor Party and Mr Jones in particular-- a record number of applications, some 2,355, under the Australian research grants scheme were received for 1985. Significantly, there was a 40 per cent increase in applications from researchers in the fields of engineering and applied sciences. In all, requests were made for research funding amounting to $65.8m. That is a pretty small amount compared with the $150m which is to be thrown around for all sorts of purposes in the motor vehicle industry. Mr MacKellar continued: So when we look at the appropriation for 1984-85 we find that it met only 36 per cent of the demand-much less than half. In fact, only 26 per cent-just over a quarter-of the requests for new projects were accepted. That is the lowest proportion on record. This Government prides itself on its record in a number of areas. I do not think it would pride itself on the record of having granted the lowest proportion ever of requests for new projects. Later he continued: The figures bear some examination. Sixty per cent of Government support for industrial technology is not in the form of outlay on research and development but in the form of tax concessions, with the effect not being felt until 1987. The support for commercial outlay in high technology will remain frozen in money terms at the 1983-84 figure. The obligation to the car industry of $30m a year for five years, which is a political offset for the industry's acceptance of the car plan, has been introduced as a justification for freezing or cutting back the level of the national scientific effort. I remind the House and the people of Australia that the support for the car industry of $30m a year is greater than the total amount supporting the Australian research grants system. The Government has a great deal of explaining to do, if it can possibly find any way of explaining away how the money can be so readily available for this largely political arrangement. The Opposition gives its support to anything that is prepared to provide at least some money for research and development in Australia. That is why we will give this Bill our full support. There is a great deal of explaining to be done as to why that sort of money can be found for a one-off industry arrangement to buy political peace in a particular industry at the cost of screwing down and, in fact, crippling the national research, development and scientific effort which is required in the rest of the country. Lest it be thought that this process is not an ongoing and continuing project, one can see in last weekend's National Times, the issue dated 3 to 9 May, an article by Robin Williams, one of the country's leading broadcasters and commentators on science, in which he said: In this country science has suffered its greatest financial setback in modern times. He was talking about this Government's science policy. One looks at the Australian of 1 May, just this month, and at the heading 'Our medical researchers get knocked back on extra cash'. Dr Blewett had a meeting with the leading medical researchers. The report says: But Dr Blewett just looked at them glumly. Warnings about cuts in government spending have been well publicised. Apart from these, he explained that any extra money he had to play around with went towards resolving the doctors dispute. Even in the area of medical research where we are world leaders there are cutbacks, restrictions and the crippling of the national effort. What is the result of this? Why, heavens above, Mr Jones leaps into the fray again and on 17 April writes to all university vice-chancellors pledging to continue to fight for more money for the Australian research grants scheme. On Mr Jones's track record they should not expect too much success when they come to this year's Budget. There are two things on which the Government could have taken far more positive action, but about which it has done virtually nothing. In December 1984 the report of the Committee of Review on Offsets, the Inglis report, was published. It made major recommendations about what the Government ought to do about offsets arrangements. Yet in September 1984 we were being told that of $2,000m worth of offsets only $495m had so far been completed by local industry. The Government is simply not doing anything significant in this area. We have had two major reports from the Australian Science and Technology Council, one entitled 'Government Purchasing and Offsets Policies in Industrial Innovation', and the other entitled 'Computer-related Technologies in the Metal Trades Industry'. Both said that one of the most important things for the Government to do was to rid Australia of the ridiculous system of State preferences. I know that Senator Button has been active in seeking to achieve this, and I give him full credit for having said on a number of occasions that he wants to end the system. Everybody has co-operated in getting rid of the system except New South Wales, which has as its Premier the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. For all the rhetoric we get from the Labor Party about offsets, nothing is done. For all the rhetoric we get from the Labor Party about State preferences purchasing arrangements and the difficulties they pose for Australian industrial development, any action is stymied by a government led by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. Finally, one can say in terms of science and technology that the assault upon the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation continues unabated. Mr Jones is engaged in a personal war against Dr Wild, the Chairman of CSIRO, and has a general view about CSIRO and what ought to be done to cripple it and bring it to heel and into accord with the ideological way in which he hopes to see these things developing. That statement is reinforced even today by a report in the Melbourne Age headed 'Review threat to CSIRO. Hawke, Jones clash over probe on Government funded studies'. We see once again that a war is going on between members of the Labor Party Government over the role of and financing to be provided for CSIRO. Once again, the long term sufferers will be the Australian economy, the Australian community and, in particular, the Australian scientific community. This debate has allowed us simply to explore the extent to which this Government can find the money for specific industrial research and development and research and development in general when it feels minded to do so. It allows us to identify clearly that the test for the provision of money for research is no longer a test of national requirement or a test of excellence but a test of political requirement, favouritism and expediency. Members of the Opposition are not opposed to the scheme which this amending legislation seeks to put in place. We simply highlight the fact that the money is available to assist research in Australia. What is lacking is the political will on the part of the Government to employ that money in the sectors which will most benefit from it in Australia's long term interests. The shabby treatment given to science and technology in Australia by this Government is again highlighted in the demonstration that money is there but the political will is not behind it. Until the Government is prepared to come to grips with this, of all the records which it will put down in the history books the one which will stand out in the long term as the most significant is that this is the Government which did more to cripple Australia's scientific community and research effort than any other in this nation's history. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.05) —I have listened with great interest to the speech made by Senator Puplick who has highlighted the deficiency of the Government in its regard for the need to finance research in industry and many other areas in Australia. In speaking on this Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill he highlighted the importance of research into automotive design. I sympathise with what he said and totally endorse the comments that he has made. Senator Button —That might be an error. Senator JESSOP —I will come to the attitude of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce later. He is culpable in the area of research because he has ignored totally some areas of public interest grants that I believe he ought to have recognised as a matter of urgency. I will come to that later. What Senator Puplick said was highlighted by the fact that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) was not even given a guernsey at the National Economic Summit Conference. Representatives of all the people of Australia were supposed to have been called together to give the Government future direction on the economic progress of this country. Mr Jones, with due respect to some of the deficiencies that Senator Puplick adverted to, was unable to put a view in this important forum on the need to provide some stimulus to science and technology in Australia. At present the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment is conducting an inquiry into technological development and its possible effects on employment. Some public hearings have already been held. I am not frightened of technological development. Technological development-I am sure the Minister appreciates this because he has a knowing smile on his face-does not mean unemployment. In fact, if it is wisely approached in Australia it can mean employment opportunities for people requiring jobs. I think it is a very important question with which the Government should come to grips. We had a public hearing the other day in Canberra. A Professor Ford illustrated how tardy we are in Australia. He is a professor from New South Wales interested in human resources. He has been to Japan, West Germany, Sweden and Norway in pursuit of knowledge of industrial development in those countries. He has just returned from Japan where he examined the Toyota motor plant in company with a colleague of his from the United States of America. To illustrate how far we are behind Japan, West Germany and other countries, for example, he told us at the public hearing that the company was going to change the run on the production line. I forget the exact detail. It may have been to change it from left-hand drive vehicles to right-hand drive vehicles. The company put a lot of thought into this. Professor Ford asked his United States counterpart how long that particular change in the production line would take in America. The American expert said that it would take about eight hours or one shift. Four workers were involved in this operation. Professor Ford put the stop watch on and five minutes and 44 seconds later that production line had been changed. If such a change takes eight hours in America, how long would it take in Australia? I imagine it would take two weeks or a month in view of the attitude of some of the trade unions in this country. Senator McIntosh —What are you talking about? Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator from Western Australia, the import from the Scottish Isles, ought to know that one of the main reasons why Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in respect of industrial development and technology simply is that there are too many trade unions in this country. Why are there too many trade unions in this country? There are too many trade unions because they have built up empires and bureaucracies within the trade union movement which they do not wish to relinquish. Restricting the number of unions is one of the success stories of places such as West Germany and Japan. I did not think I would be saying such things 10 or 15 years ago. I believe that having too many unions is one of the problems we have in Australia. The Toyota factory has to deal with only one trade union and it does so very effectively. When a change in technology is contemplated it consults with the trade union concerned and explains the problem. With the co-operation of the union, the factory then puts that action into effect. For example, last year in the Toyota factory no fewer than three million suggestions came from the employees on the factory floor as to how they could increase production. How many suggestions would come from the factory floor in Australia? Senator McIntosh —One, sack you. Senator JESSOP —Senator McIntosh said one suggestion. That would be about right. I think he is being unkind to the trade union movement in Australia because I believe there are some trade unionists in Australia who are genuinely interested in overcoming the problems that we face. I have listened to my friend from Western Australia talk about matters relating to the trade union movement over a long period. However, I believe that we have to come to grips with the problems if Australian technology is to be introduced for the benefit of Australians and with the purpose of providing jobs in Australia at present. It is quite evident to me that the example of Japan and its system of technological development is one we could profit by in Australia. Motor vehicle production in Japan is in the order of 11 million units a year. If we look back a few years to when Japan was pressured by competition from South Korea, Taiwan and other low wage structured countries we see that Japan made decisions to change its technology. It decided to computerise production lines. That meant a reduction in the factory floor staff of 50 per cent. In respect of the motor car industry, the factories concerned consulted with the one trade union associated with that industry. The factories pointed out the need for this technological change and showed that there was a need to reduce the factory floor staff by 50 per cent. They then carefully made the point that it would not be a question of retrenchment. It was a matter of going about the problem in a rational way and explaining to the workers on the factory floor who would no longer be needed in that part of the industry that they would be retrained and fitted into other parts of the industry that would expand because of the particular technological development. That is exactly what happened. The process took three years. During that time people were retrained and their productivity increased by 30 per cent. The factories increased employment by 3 per cent. I think that is a lesson that Australia can learn. The Minister gave one of his knowing, but I hope sympathetic, smiles when I started my speech. I know he is genuinely interested in industrial development in Australia. I pay him that dubious compliment. I believe he recognises that for years under successive governments industry in Australia has been propped up by tariff protection which, in my view, has meant that in Australia we have lost that entrepreneurial drive and spirit. This is simply because successive governments have chosen the easy way out and provided tariff protection rather than an equivalent amount of money to provide incentives for industry in Australia to become innovative, entrepreneurial and more effective and efficient as far as the world scene is concerned. Senator Puplick kindly referred to a speech which I made in respect of the computer assisted disaster management project, CADMAS, which is devised to deal with natural disaster situations, such as the Ash Wednesday bushfires, floods and so on. I notice that in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill it is stated: Clause 9 introduces a new section 27A, similar to Section 39 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, which empowers the Authority, subject to Ministerial directions, to make arrangements for the carrying out of public interest projects. At a recent Estimates committee meeting I asked why CADMAS was not funded under the public interest grant section of the Act. The departmental officers said that it was because CADMAS did not comply. I believe that the department concerned attempted to answer the question. However, I ask: What could be of more public interest than a centralised computer system dealing with natural disasters, such as the Ash Wednesday bushfires? I think the Minister has been culpable in this matter because it is clearly within his power to say to those bureaucrats: 'CADMAS is in the public interest and ought to be funded'. However, because of his indecision and, I suggest, his incompetence, this project has been delayed for around two or three years. Of course, what will happen is that the company involved in the development of this very important public interest project will have to derive financial assistance from the United States of America. Already a company has provided in the order of $2m for this project. Unless the Government recognises the need to give these sorts of projects some support, that company will move to the United States of America, to the detriment of industrial development in this country. I could go on for a long period reminding the Minister of such situations. He still has that knowing smirk on his face and is still chewing the end of his spectacles, contemplating what we will say and how he will reply to my charges of total negligence and lack of interest with respect to matters of public interest. Senator Button —I would wait and see, if I were you, how I am going to reply. Senator JESSOP —I hope that the Minister will respond. I really believe that the Minister does have some smattering of interest in developing technology in this country. I do believe-he is scratching his head, again thinking about what he will say-that he will respond positively to my charge that he has been negligent. I hope he will say that he has made a decision about the question of a public interest grant to this company. I could mention innumerable cases in relation to negligence on the part of previous governments. I accuse the previous Government of which I was a member of the same negligence. I think Australians are rather complacent about what was our comfortable situation until the present Government took office. Now we are not feeling very comfortable. I talked to some people today who are contemplating a visit to London and it will cost them dearly because of the Australian dollar's abysmal rate of exchange. Clearly, one of the matters that probably contribute to that exchange rate is the subject we are discussing at present-the neglect of technological research support in Australia. Another project that comes to mind is an oxygen probe that was developed in South Australia at the Flinders University. This particular probe would enable, for example, the aluminium industry to save about 20 per cent or 30 per cent in electricity charges because of the injection of oxygen into the furnaces required in that industry. We have failed to come to grips with that particular technology. I am glad that the Minister wisely nods, because unless he takes some action in this area that particular technology will go overseas. Australians are very good at initial research, but regrettably we are very slow to provide the government incentive to develop those initiatives. Quite frequently we find that the initiatives are taken up by overseas companies and the export income that could be derived from those initiatives is lost to Australia. Surely the Minister, who now has a slightly different look on his face because he is obviously interested in this area, must be concerned about the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves in Australia at present. We noted when the last Budget was brought down that $5.9 billion of taxpayers' money was being spent in servicing public loans. Therefore, what we are talking about tonight is not necessarily totally applicable to the motor car industry. It also applies to other industries in Australia which desperately need the encouragement of the Minister and his sympathy with respect to public interest grants. I suggest that the Minister may have been snowed by his Department in relation to the matters to which I have referred. I have some faith in the Minister's interest in technological progress in Australia and the need to stimulate and encourage Australian industry to take not only the necessary developmental steps but also the entrepreneurial drive that is needed to sell our products on the international market. I know that the Minister wants me to wind up. Senator Button —I suggested a new gesture to be included in Hansard. Senator JESSOP —The Minister is encouraging me to give the Government a little more of the medicine that it needs. When we consider the Japanese example, the West German example, which is not quite as efficient as the Japanese example, the Swedish example and the Norwegian example of technology encouragement, I think Australia can learn a lot and profit from the lessons that have been learned or the examples of the effective management overseas. Too often Australia follows blindly and copies the mistakes that have been made overseas. I think that the matter we are dealing with tonight and the encouragement that flows from the suggestions that have come from this side of the chamber, give the Minister the opportunity to do something about the encouragement of technological development by providing public interest grants, research grants, that will create jobs for Australians and export markets for Australia. In doing so, I believe that the Government will profit in the long term by reducing our disastrous balance of payments situation and doing something to reduce the interest that we in Australia are paying on public borrowings. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.27) —I thank those honourable senators who have made thoughtful contributions to the debate on the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985 which is before the Senate. I exclude Senator Puplick and Senator Jessop from the category. In the course of their remarks they provoked me to say something about some of the issues that they raised. I do not mind being described as incompetent by Senator Jessop along with a variety of other adjectives which he used to describe me. I am quite used to that. In a way, I object to being described as culpable, and I want to tell him why. The first point I make to Senator Jessop is that he keeps asking the rhetorical question: Why have these miracles which happened in Japan, West Germany, Sweden and Norway, not happened in Australia? One of the reasons why they have not happened in Australia is that in countries like Sweden, as I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, in the debate a few days ago- Senator Chaney —Here we go; a cracked gramophone record. Senator BUTTON —A cracked record, but I will play it again. If the honourable senator does not like it, that is bad luck. One of the reasons why a lot of these things have not happened is that we have had 30 years of Liberal Government in the last 35 years, and in Sweden-- Senator Chaney —The way we are going, we will have another 30 coming up. Senator BUTTON —It would be disastrous for the country if the next 30 years were anything like the last 30 years, if a Liberal government were elected again- Senator Chaney —You cannot have a sensible debate on anything. You are incapable of sensible debate on any subject. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should stop behaving like the prefect manque again. I am dealing with Senator Jessop, not him. I will come to his contribution in a minute. That is one of the reasons why these things have not happened in Australia. Senator Jessop conjured up all sorts of expressions, such as 'entrepreneurial skills'. He said: 'Why has not the Government done something about entrepreneurial skills?' I invite Senator Jessop to make an intelligent speech in this Parliament-if he is capable of doing so-about what any government can do in regard to entrepreneurial skills. (Quorum formed) Mr Acting Deputy President, I point out that the quorum was called because I was inviting Senator Jessop to make an intelligent speech in the Senate. The pain of that thought was altogether too much for him and he declined to listen to that suggestion. Senator Jessop ranged over a wide number of countries and asked why things that were done in those countries could not be done here. There are a number of reasons for this. I would just make a point in respect of the motor vehicle industry that we are discussing. Quite favourable comparisons can be made between our motor car industry and overseas motor car industries. For example, it takes about the same time to assemble a car in Australia as it does to assemble the same car in West Germany. It takes something like 22 hours to assemble a car in those two countries which can be assembled in 10 hours in Japan and 43 hours in the United Kingdom. So there are comparisons which are valid and favourable to this industry in the international context. These are comparisons which I thought Senator Jessop might have made if he had wanted to talk about the car industry at all, which he clearly did not want to do. However, the thrust of Senator Jessop's speech was, of course, directed to CADMAS and other projects which have been considered by the Australian Industries Research and Development Incentives Advisory Council and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. An oxygen probe for the aluminium industry would save that industry 20 per cent in fuel costs. Senator Jessop —And the motor industry. Senator BUTTON —And the motor industry. It was in this area that I was described as culpable because I had not directed bureaucrats to say that the CADMAS scheme should be funded. Of course, I point out to Senator Jessop that it was the thrust of previous governments in setting up the AIRDIB scheme generally that these decisions should be made at arm's length from government. It is a policy with which I generally agree that decisions about research funding should be made at arm's length from government. One of the important points about that proposition is simply that people such as Senator Jessop and me should not be able to interfere with those decisions and should not be seen to interfere with those decisions. Senator Puplick —Tell that to Mr Jones and the CSIRO. Senator BUTTON —I think that is a quite proper principle. Senator Puplick's interjection is quite irrelevant and silly in the context of what I am talking about. Decisions in regard to granting money to companies should be made at arms length from government. That is the important point in the whole AIRDIB scheme. It is to stop people like Senator Jessop and me picking out our favourite scientist or our favourite inventions and seeing that they are funded by government. There should be an independent assessment. That is the function of the scheme. The CADMAS scheme to which the honourable senator referred was dealt with by both AIRDIAC and AIRDIB. In both cases they said that the development of this project should be taken up by the private sector. All I can say in regard to the second matter to which Senator Jessop referred is that I do not know whether that has been the subject of an application for a grant by AIRDIB, but if the aluminium industry in Australia which, after all, is not exactly broke, thought that it could save 20 per cent of its fuel costs, I think it might be interested in shelling out a couple of hundred thousand dollars for that development to be progressed. Apparently it is not. I would have thought that that is what the honourable senator was talking about in terms of entrepreneurial skills and awareness. If that invention or whatever it is had that benefit, I am sure the industry would have taken it up. So I do not regard what Senator Jessop has had to say as right. I believe that his views quite clearly stem from a misunderstanding of the AIRDIB scheme and the work of AIRDIAC. I think the honourable senator ought to go back and have a look at the legislation because if he does he will understand it better. The honourable member also gave us a little lecture about the virtues of Toyota in Japan. I, like Senator Jessop, have been around the Toyota assembly line and have had the benefit of being told about the number of suggestions that that company gets from members of the work force and so on every year. I do not regard that as a helpful contribution to the debate. However, it might help Senator Jessop, if he wanted a better understanding of the Japanese car industry, to read a book called Japan in the Passing Lane which is about the Toyota Corporation's operations in Japan. He could then tell us something about the applicability of Japanese organisational structures and working conditions to the Australian industry scene. I think he would then realise that they are not easily translatable into Australia as most other countries, including the United States of America, have recognised for a long time. Some other contributions were made to the debate by Senators Foreman and Jack Evans to which I do not wish to refer in detail because they were positive. Senator Chaney —Senator Jack Evans did not speak, so that shows the close attention you have paid. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry. I did not mean by way of speech. My recollection is that Senator Evans interjected earlier in the debate. I thought it was a thoughtful interjection and a better contribution to the debate than any of the speeches made by honourable senators opposite. I wanted to refer also to the remarks made by Senator Puplick which I think are largely misconceived in the context of the present debate. It was one of those well rehearsed speeches, before a mirror I suspect, which dealt with a number of issues relating to research and development and-- Senator Chaney —You are an objectionable man, objectionable and pompous. Senator BUTTON —I have taken a note of that. I will put that in my black book. Senator Chaney —That is typical, too. Senator BUTTON —I suppose the honourable senator means that it is offensive to him. Senator Chaney —Why don't you deal with the points instead of being abusive? Senator BUTTON —I am dealing with points which were made by other honourable senators when the honourable senator was not in the chamber. Senator Chaney —I was in the chamber. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps the honourable senator's interjections will have more validity when I deal with him. A number of questions were raised. Senator Puplick referred to a number of areas of what he regards as Government inaction. He referred to the Inglis report on offsets. He made the point that a large area of offset entitlement or opportunity was not being taken up by Australian companies. I do not wish to digress to refer him to the particular passages of the Inglis report which deal with this issue. They do make the point, however, that the estimates of opportunities not taken up were vastly overstated. It is not that they are not being dealt with but, of course, there are a number of companies which, for reasons of quality or price that are not the subject of this debate, cannot match the requirements of the principal contractors. Senator Puplick asked why the motor vehicle scheme was not dealt with by AIRDIB under the AIRDIAC scheme as was originally considered. I make it quite clear that that possibility was considered in great detail and at some length. However, I think it is quite clear to most people that the design and research incentives provided under this legislation are part of a total package directed towards the promotion of the restructuring and reorientation of the motor vehicle industry. In the Government's view it is appropriate that judgments on this matter cannot be made on general criteria but have to take into account what is actually happening in the industry and how the project would relate to the activities of other firms in the industry and the process of restructuring. It was our view, finally, that the Authority would be in the best position to make such judgments because it is in day to day contact with the industry and has a detailed knowledge of developments in the industry and their implications for Government policy. Senator Puplick also made some good rhetorical points about the general levels of funding of research and development, the directions of research and development funding, and so on. I do not propose to deal in detail with those matters in the course of this debate. I suspect that we will have plenty of opportunity to debate those issues at some future time. They are not strictly relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. I thank Senator Chaney for his general support of the legislation before the Senate. By implication, or even directly, he asked a number of questions about the future of the industry. Some of those questions are susceptible to answers, others cannot be answered because this industry, as an international industry, is in a sense a movable feast. Many of the projections for the future have to be considered in that context. Senator Chaney asked whether the plan was negotiable in the future. From the day of announcement of the plan my answer has been no, that the broad parameters of the plan are not negotiable. As I have said, on recommendations from the Authority, if necessary the Government will make adjustments to minor aspects of the plan, but that is all. Senator Chaney also asked about the future of the industry in the light of the development of a motor vehicle industry in Korea. That is a question that has to be asked in every country of the world. It is quite extraordinary that it was not being asked in Australia a year ago. I find it very strange that the industry was not addressing the problem of the development of the Korean motor industry. Obviously the fixation with the Japanese industry was too strong. If I were to hazard a guess about the Korean motor vehicle industry, I think it will be very competitive in international terms. I suspect that the Japanese industry may become marginally less competitive in world terms than it has been in recent years. All sorts of changes will occur in the competitive relationships of various motor vehicle industries around the world. One result of that undoubtedly will be that throughout the world there will be considerable moves towards more joint ventures between motor manufacturing companies, as is already happening an Italy and the United States, and we believe and hope will happen in Australia, for the benefit of the industry as a whole. It is impossible to say at this stage what the level of competitiveness and the impact of the Korean motor industry on the Australian market is likely to be in 1989 or 1990, for example. The fact remains that, whatever its level of competitiveness, it will be considerable. The Australian industry has to make enormous adjustments to meet that degree of competitiveness, and that is essentially what the motor vehicle plan is about. When Senator Chaney asks whether any of the plan's parameters are under threat, in a sense my answer is yes, in a number of respects, because it depends on the degree of technological development in this industry as against other industries and it depends on the general level of economic activity in Australia. Senator Chaney made the obvious point that the industry has had an enormously successful 18 months. The projections for the immediate future are very bullish. When the plan was being developed we made a number of assumptions about the future of the plan on the basis that there would be a 2 per cent increase per year in the passenger motor vehicle market in Australia over the seven years of the plan. In the last 1 1/2 years there has been a growth rate of 10 per cent or more in each of those years. That illustrates that assumptions of this kind-assumptions which I think were very conservative, and properly conservative-can be considerably astray. Of course, as Senator Chaney properly points out that affects the response to the plan and the level of enthusiasm for it. Senator Chaney asked-I may not have the form of the question quite right-whether the Government will take a more directive approach to this industry further down the track. The answer is that right from the beginning the Government has taken the position that it reserves the right to take a more directive approach if in the light of advice from the Automotive Industry Authority it decides that the objectives of the plan are not being met. We have no wish or intention to do that. This is precisely why the Automotive Industry Authority, contrary to a lot of advice the Government was given, was established as a body without teeth, in a sense. The Automotive Industry Authority was established as a body that was to exert a persuasive role on the industry and a negotiating role in a whole range of matters rather than being an interventionist body which would tell companies what to do. We wish to avoid that if we possibly can. If the survival of a motor vehicle industry in this country is dependent on a more interventionist approach in some matters, particularly in relation to the behaviour of importers and the behaviour of companies in terms of their capacity to co-operate with each other and in terms of the various component sectors co-operating with the manufacturers, then if those things are absent the answer is that the Government may have to be slightly more directive than it has been in the past. The question of shutting out new entrants was also raised. In the Government's view there is no reason for new entrants to be cut out of this market. I say that particularly in relation to component manufacturers. In fact, in the last 12 months a number of restructuring moves have taken place within the component manufacturing industry which have resulted in new entrants into the market. New entrants, who brought with them better technology and perhaps better management, have been encouraged by the Government. Certainly that will be so throughout the life of the plan as far as this Government is concerned. At this stage I would shudder to think of a new entrant to the plan manufacturers. I would need to be persuaded that that was in any sense in the best interests of this country or of the industry as a whole. I take it that the question was basically directed to the component sector. Those are the major questions Senator Chaney addressed in his speech. In terms of the development of the car industry I believe that he has publicly made the point that it is important that there be continuity. I have made that point on numerous occasions and I will not retreat from it. I think it would be very bad for the motor vehicle industry if the Opposition were to retreat from the sorts of things Senator Chaney has said publicly. Senator Chaney pointed out in his remarks that the question of continuity is of great importance in an industry of this kind with very long lead times. It takes something like four or five years to gear up for the production of a new model car, perhaps three to four years in certain circumstances. The car industry is in a situation in which models for 1988 and so on are now being planned. If there are changes in the environment in which the industry operates all those plans can be upset. I have said on a number of occasions in respect of the manufacturing sector as a whole, particularly the motor vehicle industry, that we have suffered from policy disasters of the past and we are still suffering. The fact of the matter is that we have a predominantly foreign owned industry which said quite explicitly to this Government: 'For goodness sake, give us a sense of direction in respect of this industry and tell us that we have to follow it'. In a sense there are those elements in this plan. I think they are very necessary in the circumstances we face with an industry of this kind in a country such as Australia. I commend the motion for the second reading of the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.53) -I do not intend to allow the Bill to pass without making one observation at least on the comments Senator Button made about the general approach in terms of funding and of directing the matter of picking winners, as it were. Senator Button has sought to make a virtue of science funding being done on the basis of arm's length decisions, as if that were the consistent and coherent policy put in place by this Government. It is quite clear in terms of policy which the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has been pursuing in regard to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and in terms of the Government's direction about picking sunrise industries and identifying them specifically as areas for funding and it is apparent from this Bill that the argument the Government puts forward that it is not in the process of directly deciding where research and investment money goes is not a tenable argument. To say that it is proposed to keep all these things at arm's length is an argument which Senator Button cannot sustain in relation to either this Bill or any other science or research and development Bill. To that extent his failure to answer the points raised by members of the Opposition in the course of the second reading debate exposes just the amount of interest he has taken in constructive comments that have been made about this Bill. He has displayed about the same amount of interest in that as he has actually had in who spoke on the Bill and what sorts of speeches they made. Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to. Clause 8. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.55) —Before dealing with those parts of clause 8 to which I wish to move amendments I would like to refer to some broader concerns that I expressed in the second reading debate about the extent of power which is vested in the Automative Industry Authority and the rather limited rights of any manufacturer which is dissatisfied with the administration of the Authority. I am hampered and no doubt the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is hampered by the standing order which prevents him from proffering me a legal opinion, so I will try not to raise these matters in the context of seeking a legal opinion from the Minister. I draw his attention to the definition of 'Eligible company', which is significant only for those companies which are potential entrants into the field. As the Minister has correctly indicated in his response, I am referring basically to possible entrants which might be wishing to become component manufacturers. There is always the possibility, given that the Authority is wrought by Parliament and staffed by human beings, that it may in fact make mistakes. I have had some discussion with departmental officers about the possible rights of any company which was refused declaration as an eligible company. It is a fairly narrow point but I think it is important. We have had some assurance from the Minister in the second reading debate that he would not see the way of new entrants being barred, but I would appreciate any comment he has about the entitlement any injured company which was denied eligibility might have. I turn to proposed new section 26F. It again appears to me that there is room for differences of opinion and for error by the Authority. I do not suggest any more than that this Authority, like any other, can make mistakes, as is the case with any department, Minister or body. In proposed new section 26F the Authority is given considerable powers to seek information from applicants for funds. The Authority is entitled to ask for any information, books or records that the Authority requires for the performance of its functions under this Part. It seems to me that, given the sorts of concerns which we expressed at the time this original legislation was passed about the potential for organisations such as this to become unduly intrusive, what would be the rights of an applicant which was faced with a demand from the Authority for information which it thought went well beyond the actual requirements of the Authority- Senator Button —What clause are you referring to? Senator CHANEY —I am referring now to proposed new section 26F under the heading 'Applications' which is in clause 8 of the Bill. I say to the Minister that I had some discussions with officers on that matter and they proffered the view that that sort of action in excess of the Authority's authority would probably be subject to court challenge. Again I hesitate to ask the Minister for a legal opinion. It is these sorts of areas where the Authority is operating, where it will have a great deal of influence and power and where the applicant companies really will have very little ability to challenge what they see as any wrongful exercise of power by the Authority, that are the causes of some concern to me and the Opposition. I move now to proposed new section 26K, which is part of clause 8 also. I must say that I was a bit concerned again by proposed new section 26K (b). This proposed new section, which deals with abuse of the Act, gives the Authority power to disregard expenditure by a company or effectively to penalise a company which might be due to have grants. It involves the Authority forming an opinion that: the act or thing is of such a nature that, having regard to the object of the scheme established by this Part it constitutes an attempt to abuse this Act. I wonder what sort of test one can really apply. One must always try to put oneself in the position of there being an innocent applicant company which is being judged by the Authority. Obviously one may have a non-innocent applicant company, but the words 'constitutes an attempt to abuse this Act' seem to me to be vague. I would appreciate some explanation from the Minister as to why it could not have been provided that the Authority could form an opinion on something which constituted a breach of the Act or of the guidelines. It has the nature of being a judgment which is potentially far too broad and therefore incapable of sensible assessment if a dispute arises about whether or not the Authority has made a reasonable decision. They are matters on which on behalf of the Opposition I have not devised amendments to put forward. I simply put them forward as examples of the sort of difficulty one has when establishing an Authority of this sort with rather broad powers. I ask the Minister whether he has any comment on why in particular proposed new section 26K is not differently worded to make the role of the Authority a little clearer and any comments to offer about the remedies that will be available to any company which considers itself to have been ill-used by the Authority under proposed new sections 26B or 26F. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.02) —Senator Chaney has raised a number of issues regarding the operation of proposed new sections 26F and 26K. I think they were the two main points he used to illustrate a general point. In a sense this legislation is conferring benefits. It is saying that sums of money will be available to a company and that the benefits are conferred on the basis that the company complies with a number or requirements. To be eligible for the benefits the company is being asked as a company to comply with the requirements. That point is important to remember in the general context of the legislation. I do not think the provisions of this legislation can be viewed in quite such a strict legal context as is perhaps sometimes given to them. In regard to proposed new section 26K, Senator Chaney referred to the expression that an action by an applicant 'constitutes an attempt to abuse the Act', and asked properly what is an abuse of the Act. I understand that this legislation is very much based on the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme legislation which was introduced by the previous Government. I am told by the draftsman that the expression 'abuse' as is used here is a term of art. It has been used in a number of pieces of legislation, including not only the AIRDIS legislation but also the National Health Act 1953 and the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974. Senator Chaney suggested in a sense what I, if I might say so with respect, thought was probably a more elegant phrase, but that was how the phrase got into the legislation. I think his objection was to the tone of the expression rather than to the content. I really cannot take the matter any further than that at this stage. I come back to the points which are being made generally. The scheme embodied in this amendment to the Automotive Industry Authority Act is a scheme which is basically part of a total package designed to confer benefits. One is dealing with a very difficult, fragmented industry. The essential point is that if those benefits are to be available, there must be compliance about a number of things. Need I remind Senator Chaney of the history of this industry and the non-compliance with requirements of previous governments about imported componentry, transfer pricing and a whole range of issues historically in which there has been non-compliance by sections of this industry? I think it is important to look at the matter in that context. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.05) —I thank the Minister for his explanation, particularly with respect to the general approach that is being adopted because the Act is governing the dispersal of benefits. I would, however, like to clarify my concern about proposed new section 26K. I assure the Minister that I am not concerned about elegance of expression. I am concerned about the use of expressions which really do not permit any clear judgment to be made as to whether or not one has a problem. In other words, the Authority takes the view that something had been done which constitutes an attempt to abuse the Act. It is not a straightforward decision about whether or not there has been a breach of the Act, but something which is presumably less than a breach of the Act and something which, in the opinion of the Authority, constitutes something which is called an abuse. I am not consoled by the draftsman's suggestion that it is a term of art, or by the fact that it has been put into legislation by the previous Government. The virtue of having been here through a number of governments is that we find that we repeat each other's mistakes. It reminds me that it is unfortunate that this Bill is being dealt with before the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has had a chance to consider the civil liberties aspects, which is the standard procedure. I mention that because this is the sort of point on which it would be useful to have the objective and bipartisan advice of that Committee. My personal view is that it is incapable of any form of really objective judgment as to whether or not somebody has abused an Act. I think that one is making value judgments, and at this stage I simply give notice to the Government that I see difficulties in it. I will be interested to see whether the Scrutiny of Bills Committee reflects that difficulty at all in its report. I suggest to the Government that it ask its departments to consider the desirability of having rather more precise requirements which go to actual breaches of the law rather than judgments that the spirit and intent of the law have in some way not been honoured. I guess that that is what the expression 'abuse' means. I do not, however, propose to move any amendment with respect to that. I suggest that, since the Minister has given notice of an amendment which precedes the amendment I wish to shift, I should allow him to move his first amendment at this stage. I will resume my seat to enable him to do that. Having now had a chance to read the Government amendment, I indicate that I would appreciate some explanation of it. It is not immediately apparent to me why that revocation power is necessary or desirable in the Act. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.08) —Before I go to the amendment to clause 8, I wish to say one further thing about Senator Chaney's last remark about whether an abuse of the legislation or a breach of the legislation would be the more appropriate terminology. He referred to value judgments and objective judgments. The fact is that the Authority will be making subjective judgments about these things because this legislation is legislation about implementation of a policy. The Automotive Industry Authority Act and this amending Bill are designed to implement a policy on a wide range of issues. It might be said that any legislation is designed to implement a policy, but in some ways it is in a different sense in this legislation. One can look at some pieces of legislation and say that they confer rights and obligations which are capable of objective determination. It is quite clear that some things in the development of the motor vehicle plan involve value judgments about the directions in which this industry has to go, about the state of technology in the industry, and about the desirable levels of competition and of co-operation-a whole range of issues. I think there is a different character in a sense about these provisions from those which one would normally find in legislation dealing with other matters. I turn to the Government's amendments to clause 8. The first proposes to add at the end of proposed new section 26B a new sub-clause (2) which reads: Where, within the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which a declaration under this section in respect of an Australian company came into force, that company did not enter into a grant agreement, the Authority may, by resolution, revoke that declaration. There is a further amendment to which I will refer conjointly with the amendment I have just read. The amendments propose to rectify two anomalies discovered in clause 8 of the Bill after its introduction in this place. The first amendment proposes to place a time limit on eligible company declarations that may be made by the Automotive Industry Authority under proposed new section 26B. The Government believes that such declarations should not be allowed to run on for an unlimited period. Companies which wish to be declared an eligible company should, in the Government's view, be bona fide in their intention to enter into an agreement for a project grant under this scheme at an early date. The amendment therefore proposes to permit the Authority to revoke an eligible company declaration if the company does not enter into a project grant agreement within 12 months from the date of the declaration. The second amendment is designed to ensure that only financial assistance provided by governments will be taken into account by the Authority in determining the level of support provided to a project. It has been brought to my attention that the provisions of proposed new section 26J, as currently drafted, may have the effect of including equity funding as financial assistance. They may also, for example, include loans obtained by companies from financial institutions for the purpose of carrying out an automotive development project. It is not the Government's intention that the Automotive Industry Authority should reduce the amount of any grant provided to a company where such funding practices are involved. In other words, it is designed to ensure that it can make its own efforts in addition to the provision of assistance by the Government in respect of a particular project. The amendment therefore deletes any reference to other than government financial assistance. I apologise to honourable senators for not having had those amendments circulated, but I think they are probably fairly clear in the context. The CHAIRMAN —Do you wish to move those two amendments together? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: (1) Page 5, clause 8, at the end of proposed new section 26B, add the following sub-section: '' '(2) Where, within the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which a declaration under this section in respect of an Australian company came into force, that company did not enter into a grant agreement, the Authority may, by resolution, revoke that declaration'.'' (2) Page 8, clause 8, lines 34 and 35, leave out ''another person or body'', insert ''a Territory''. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —I immediately indicate the support of the Opposition for the second amendment. If I recall correctly, the point was raised by Senator Jack Evans in some discussions we shared with departmental officials. It seemed a very sensible point and I am pleased that the Government has brought it forward. I have no doubt that Senator Jack Evans is also. Senator Button —It could be known as the Senator Jack Evans amendment. Senator CHANEY —I just wished to acknowledge that he raised it and I thought at the time that it was worth support. I am pleased that the Government has picked it up. I would appreciate some slight further explanation before committing the Opposition to supporting the amendment to proposed new section 26B. My concern about 26B has been the ability to exclude from eligibility people who ought to be eligible. This is the point on which I seek further advice from the Minister. As I understand the definition of 'eligible company', once a company is actually engaged in the manufacturing in Australia of eligible products, proposed new section 26B is irrelevant. In other words, if a company is actually engaged in manufacturing any of the things described as 'eligible products', it simply is eligible and it becomes a matter of its coming forward and seeking grants and an agreement from the Authority. The relevance of 26B is only for those companies which are not in fact manufacturing eligible products currently and which are potential new entrants. But if a company, for example, was declared under proposed new section 26B to be eligible and subsequently entered into the manufacture of eligible products, the proposed new addition would in fact be irrelevant because the company would retain its eligible status once it had entered into the process of manufacture. Whether or not it got a grant is an entirely separate matter. If that is the situation-in other words, if the amendment applies only in the case of a company which says it intends to enter into manufacture but fails to do so, quite apart from its failure to enter into an agreement-I think the Opposition should support the amendment. If it is otherwise, I am less sure because I cannot see why there is any need to revoke the declaration, given that the question of whether or not there is going to be any grant is a quite separate matter for application, agreement and so on. I just want to be satisfied that, in the circumstances covered by 26B, if a company is declared eligible and subsequently actually becomes a manufacturer of eligible products but has not entered into an agreement, it will not be touched by the proposed addition. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.17) —Senator Chaney's understanding of that is quite correct. It would not be touched. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —(10.17)-I thank the Minister. In those circumstances the Opposition will also support the first amendment moved by Senator Button. Amendments agreed to. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.18) —That brings me to the amendments which I wish to move on behalf of the Opposition. I make some comments arising from those of Senator Button a few minutes ago when he referred to the necessity for the Authority to make subjective judgments. I acknowledge that the Authority is going to have to make judgments and that they are necessarily subjective, but I also ask the Minister to consider the amendment that I wish to put forward in light of the fact that the Authority is also disbursing $150m of taxpayers' funds and, with the best will in the world, genuine cases of misunderstanding and injustice can arise and errors can be made. In that spirit I raise the amendments that I am bringing forward, one of them in particular. I have had no indication from either the Government or the Australian Democrats as to their attitude to the first amendment. Therefore, I would like to deal with that separately and deal with the second one after that has been disposed of. The first amendment which has been circulated proposes to insert a new sub-section after proposed new section 26M, which is an important section because it deals with guidelines for policies and practices of the Authority. We have here a piece of legislation which says that grants may be made to eligible companies for the development of eligible products, and there are extensive definitions and so on. If one looks at proposed new section 26M, one finds that the shape of the framework which is provided by the Act is capable of very substantial variation by ministerial direction. I think it is necessary to read proposed new section 26M (1). It states: The Minister may, from time to time, by notice in writing . . . give directions to the Authority with respect to the policies and practices to be followed by the Authority in the performance of its functions, and the exercise of its powers, under this Part (including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the policies and practices to be followed by the Authority with respect to the entering into by the Authority of grant agreements and provisions to be included in such agreements), and the Authority shall comply with any such directions that are in force. It is important to note that the Government, very properly, in proposed sub-section (2) proposes that those notices should be available to the public and will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette along with any revocations, additions and subtractions. Senator Button —And sub-section (3). Senator CHANEY —I agree that proposed sub-section (3) prevents the Minister from giving a direction to the Authority in relation to a particular company. It seems to me from my reading of proposed new section 26M (1) that the Minister will be given very wide powers indeed with respect to these directions. He is empowered to 'give directions to the Authority with respect to . . . the performance of its functions, and the exercise of its powers'. Those words are used in proposed new section 26M. Whilst the Minister may say that this is no more than a question of the policy which is being followed and therefore it is not a matter which needs any parliamentary supervision, I think that it goes a little beyond that. What we really have in the existing provisions of proposed sub-section (1) is a power to direct the Authority generally in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. I turn back to the definition section. We have a wide definition of 'automotive development project'. Senator Puplick was quite critical of the breadth of that definition which permits, for example, design work that is primarily related to style. However, the legal framework which this Act provides is very broad and the Opposition is not seeking to limit it. Under proposed section 26M, as it is presently worded, it seems to me that it would be possible for the Minister to issue guidelines which would excise substantial sections of the definition of 'automotive development project'. The Minister could simply exclude plant manufacturers from grants. He could exclude component manufacturers from grants. There is no limit to the extent to which the framework which is provided by the Act could be written down by the Minister issuing guidelines. For that reason I move: (1) Page 10, clause 8, proposed new section 26M, after sub-section (3), add the following sub-section: ''(4) Section 48 (except paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)) and section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to directions given under sub-section (1) as if the references in those sections to regulations were references to directions and the references to the making of regulations were references to the giving of directions.''. All that the amendment proposes is to make the directions which are issued by the Minister and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette subject to parliamentary disallowance. I say to the Minister that in considering whether the Opposition should put forward that amendment it gave consideration to the possibility that it might disrupt the administration of the Act. It is not the wish of the Opposition to do that. At the same time, it is the wish of the Opposition that there should be some parliamentary discipline, not just on this Minister-I in no way personalise it to Senator Button-but on any Minister who might wish to change the basic scope of the Act by the issuance of directions. That is a matter which may be justified; it may be a matter with which Parliament would agree, but to put it totally beyond the power of Parliament to control effectively what I regard as an amendment to this Act is wrong. On that basis I ask the Government-I certainly ask the Australian Democrats-to support the proposition that parliamentary disallowance is appropriate because effectively the Minister has regulation-type powers. The powers which are given to issue guidelines could just as easily and just as naturally have been put in the form of regulations which would have been subject to disallowance. I believe it is reasonable that where the effect of ministerial directions, regulations, guidelines or whatever they may be called, is potentially to alter the substance of the legislation as against what the Minister may like to describe as policy, that is properly subject to parliamentary disallowance. I have said that the Opposition is concerned not to put forward amendments which could disrupt the administration of the Act. As I understand it, the 15 sitting days during which the directions would be subject to disallowance if this amendment were adopted would not be a period in which the Government or the Authority would be unable to act. The actions of the Authority, pursuant to any guidelines prior to dissolution, would be valid. The Authority would have the ability to go on doing its job. It is unlikely that the power would be called upon but there would be no question, for example, of the Authority's being unable to get on with the job in the current period. It would, as I understand the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act, be open to the Authority simply to carry out in accordance with the directions laid down by the Minister. Only subsequent actions subject to disallowance would be barred. I ask the Government to consider this amendment. It is in accordance with the principles which have often been supported in this place. I hope that the Government will be flexible with respect to this amendment. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.27) —I share the same two concerns expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. Those concerns are, firstly, the potential for the original clause to be abused and the possibility that the Government may go haywire and run counter to the wishes of this Parliament in the directions that are issued under the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985. As Senator Chaney has indicated, it is a very vital Bill, not just because it involves the expenditure of $150m, almost at ministerial discretion, but also because it will be, in effect, the key to the redirection and restructuring of the automotive industry. The other concern expressed by Senator Chaney-he may have overcome it to his satisfaction but he has not to mine-is the potential for disruption if his amendment were passed. The potential for disruption is not just to the Automotive Industry Authority but to the industry at large and to those potential beneficiaries who may be in a position where, for some months they are waiting to discover whether a regulation has been disallowed. At this stage of the automotive industry that has the potential for disaster because the one thing this industry now seems to have is a degree of certainty in the direction and structuring that the Government is designing for it. To inject now a degree of uncertainty, whereby the industry would be in a position to lobby and apply pressure to the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, either directly or through the community at large, to have regulations and directions by the Minister disallowed would not only be disruptive but also could lead to that feeling of uncertainty from which the industry has suffered for many years. I indicate before we adjourn consideration of the debate tonight that the Democrats will oppose the Opposition's amendment. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Scott) —Order! Pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(10.30) — This evening I want to place on the public record yet another example of the Queensland Government's malpractice in favouring a privileged few foreign investors at the expense of ordinary Queenslanders. It has been well known, since the days of the handover of land to Iwasaki at Yeppoon, that the Queensland Government has absolutely no scruples in regard to giving away, or virtually giving away, considerable parcels of valuable real estate to foreigners. While the National Party of Australia opposes genuine land rights for Aborigines and Islanders, it openly endorses a fairly open season when it comes to land deals for an assortment of foreigners. The latest land deal scandal that I wish to raise tonight concerns an American investor, Richard Rand, who has manoeuvred his way into controlling a sizable slice of north Queensland on Cape York Peninsula-a property known as Silver Plains, which is a 700,000-acre property with a 50-mile beach front along the Great Barrier Reef. This property is also adjacent to the McIlwraith Range National Park, which has prompted concern from Dr Mosley of the Australian Conservation Foundation. It is, in fact, the largest slice of north Queensland ever proposed for freeholding and it has been the subject of some significant and contradictory actions by State Government departments, which suggests that senior Government figures have dictated that this prize should be awarded to some unknown American in return, we can only presume, for his support of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Serious questions surrounding the management and financial affairs of the Silver Plains pastoral station on Cape York Peninsula have been raised by former employees, senior Government officers and company public records. Since the station was taken over by American property developers, the Rand family, in 1971, there have been claims for non-payment of wages and bills and persistent specific allegations that cattle operations have effectively collapsed due to lack of interest and adequate financial input. Despite this, the State Government has recently offered the Honolulu-based Richard Russell Rand and Californian interests a package deal on pastoral and Crown lands 200 kilometres north-west of Cooktown at an annual rent of 30c per square kilometre for the leasehold and a maximum of $5 a hectare for the freehold at two choice coastal locations. The Government says that the package is to assist pastoral development, which sounds plausible enough, and has imposed development conditions, which it values at $900,000, mainly relating to cattle yards, fencing, water, improved pastures and employee accommodation. Four former employees have made claims indicating that at least one major condition relating to the maintenance of improvements on the existing 30-year pastoral lease, due to expire in 1993, has been flouted for almost the entire period of the Rand interests. The employees claim that over the past 12 to 13 years a number of anomalies have been allowed to exist. For example, they claim that Aboriginal stockmen were once asked to work for fancy clothing instead of wages. Furthermore, two truck loads of cattle had to be specially mustered to raise money for a month's wages owing when the first manager and his wife resigned. A windmill which broke down and yards and fencing built by the previous lessee, the Tipperary Land Corporation and its Australian agent, Sir William Gunn, fell into disrepair. Richard Rand Jnr and his Californian partner, John Parten, were much more interested in fishing and swimming on their trips from America than in the actual maintenance of the property or building up the cattle pastoral property as such. It has been claimed that a substantial works program in 1983 was, in fact, a dress-up operation to fool the Queensland Lands Department that development of the property as a cattle station was proceeding satisfactorily. One former employee said that when he arrived on Silver Plains it appeared that absolutely nothing had been done to maintain the property. Improved pasture cleared and sown during the Tipperary days had regenerated into tea-tree growth, and fences and yards had 'just been let go'. While he was there the windmill fell to bits and he had to organise a pump to get water to the house. It appears that every time the employees went out to muster they had to repair the outstation and the homestead yards. While this employee was on Silver Plains no pasture improvement work was done. He estimated that a maximum of $10,000 worth of repairs was actually undertaken. Stock could get through other paddocks and boundary fencing. Another employee reported that an estimated 15 to 20 prospective buyers visited Silver Plains during his period of employment. One guy, he claimed, wanted to buy the property for a bunch of jewels. He had the idea of harvesting the kelp from the ocean to make fertiliser. The financial management of Silver Plains appears to have been no more efficient that the half-hearted attempts to run a cattle property. A significant bill was run up in the name of the Silver Plains station at a north Queensland supermarket and hardware store and was settled out of court for $US5,000 in early 1981. Wages owed to a former stockman on the property, accumulated during a three-year period from 1976 to 1978, were not paid until three years later, after intervention by an industrial inspector based in Cairns. Records at the Corporate Affairs Office in Townsville show that the Princess Charlotte Pastoral Company Pty Ltd, which controls the Silver Plains lease as a tenant in common with Richard Russell Rand, had accumulated losses of in excess of $80,000. Furthermore, there had been no company returns lodged for the last two years. State Government department correspondence covering several departments reflects ongoing dissatisfaction with the 10-year experiment to build up and manage Silver Plains as a viable cattle station enterprise. Three senior sources within the Department of Lands and the Department of Primary Industries have expressed disappointment with development and management of the station. A Lands Department source said that when the Rand family took over it seemed to get worse and worse, to the stage where it seemed to be not working at all. In 1983 the Land Administration Commission refused an application for the leases to be changed on the grounds of poor management. Yet apparently this recommendation was overturned at Cabinet level. One source in the Department of Primary Industries has said that so little branding and general cattle work had been done on the station that he believed cleanskin beasts were running wild on Silver Plains and were being rustled. Another Department of Primary Industries source said that major cattle improvement works initiated in late 1982 and which stopped just a year later, had not reached the first phase of a proposed long term three-phase development program. If experience is any indication it appears that there is little justification for assuming that the Queensland Government's recent generosity will result in Richard Rand suddenly acquiring expertise to manage successfully and develop Silver Plains as a cattle station. He and his family have not managed to establish a viable enterprise over the last 10 years, so why should the Government imagine that these new and very generous conditions will bring results? Why is there such an interest in assisting Richard Rand? Could it be the prospect of lucrative future benefits if the area is promoted in the future as a tourist development? The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, Mr Glasson, has publicly denied that there is any tourist proposal for Silver Plains. Yet the text of his speech to the Queensland Parliament on 27 February this year merely reads: I point out that although there has been talk about the possibility of establishing some type of tourist development on part of the aggregate no such firm proposal has been put to the Department. One may excuse the Minister's naivete as he obviously does not know the background to any such tourism proposal. In the early 1970s, on the first occasion that Richard Rand Snr, an architect and property developer, arrived on Silver Plains, he had with him plans already drawn up for a tourist time share resort. A Women's Weekly article of 14 June 1972 headlined Rand as 'The Man with a Fifty-Two-Mile Beach'. It reported him as saying that he planned to turn it into a high class resort for those who want to get away from it all. He said: I don't see Silver Plains opening up in my life time. This is very much a long range program, maybe another 25 years. For at least the last three years tourists arriving by plane and four-wheel drive vehicles have been accommodated either at the homestead or in bush camping areas by the streams on the property. A large power boat has been available for hire for fishing and diving trips to the nearby Great Barrier Reef. The Minister and the Lands Department may not have a firm proposal about future tourist planning at Silver Plains. However, I have a copy of a brochure in Richard Rand's name proclaiming the potential of Silver Plains. He does not call it a mere cattle station; he calls it a cattle station and resort. He describes the cattle station in rather odd terms for a cattle property. He says, for instance, that Silver Plains is a concept for better living. Does he mean better living for the cattle? We might wonder. He says that it has 52 miles of ocean frontage backed by fertile land. I suppose the cattle would enjoy the fertile land, but I wonder why they would be interested in the fact that they are 200 miles north of Cairns where a $30m international airport has just opened. How many cattle and stockmen will be attracted by those unique facilities? The Queensland Government must be aware that there is more to Mr Rand's cattle venture than he cares to detail. Is the Lands Minister, Mr Glasson, really so naive when he claims-he has done so in Parliament-that it is ridiculous to suggest that the land will be used for tourism? Yet his colleague the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, Mr McKechnie, is a little more honest. He admitted on another day in the Queensland Parliament that his Department had corresponded with Mr Rand about conditions for tourist developments on and adjacent to national parks. Is the Queensland Government genuinely convinced that the advertisement placed by Rand in the Australian Financial Review on 20 February 1985 valuing Silver Plains at $4,500,000 is really just an attempt to seek equity in a cattle property? Mr Rand has strange notions about advertising his intentions with respect to cattle. As in his brochure about his apparent cattle property and resort, so too in his advertisement in the Australian Financial Review he emphasises the sandy beach front on the Great Barrier Reef, the freshwater rivers and lake and, finally, the great location north of Cairns with development potential. Those Silver Plains cattle certainly must be extremely classy creatures to be so interested in such a lavish description of their environment! It appears that their owner is a pretty slick operator, too. According to the 1982 annual report of the Princess Charlotte Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd, the value of the property under the existing leases, before the recent generosity of the Queensland Government, was in the vicinity of $136,000, yet in 1985 Mr Rand can seek $4,500,000 as the value of this remarkably flexible property. Many north Queenslanders are extremely angry about the preferential treatment given by the Queensland Government to Mr Rand. Numerous petitions have been lodged and letters have been written to the Minister and to the newspapers, all to no effect. The Queensland Government is obviously out of step with the Returned Services League, which has a policy in relation to foreign control of rural land of which, apparently, the Queensland Government is not aware. I trust that the Foreign Investment Review Board will closely scrutinise any proposal relating to Silver Plains. Obviously, Queenslanders cannot rely on their minority State Government to protect their interests in this regard. It is apparent that a special agreement on Silver Plains has been reached at Cabinet level, despite the reservations of several government departments. Once again, ordinary Queenslanders will be denied special privileges, and even access, because of Cabinet's ruling. We can only assume that this is because Mr Rand may be generous to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.46) —On 16 April I asked a question of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) representing the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in relation to a medal for Australian servicemen serving in the Sinai. He indicated at the time that it was not a hot issue and that he would provide me with an answer, which he did on 18 April. The answer is in writing and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard for the sake of completeness. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIAN PEACEKEEPING FORCE IN THE SINAI On 16 April 1985 (Hansard, P.1036) Senator Reid asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question without notice concerning the award of medals to Australian Servicemen who have served or are serving in the Sinai with the Australian peacekeeping force. In reply I undertook to seek an answer from the Minister for Defence. The Minister has provided the following response: 'Last year, in accordance with a Government decision, an Interdepartmental Committee was established to review honour and awards for Defence Force personnel. A specific task of the Committee was to consider the need for any new awards for Defence Force personnel in the Australian system. The need for an Australian award for the recognition of service in peacekeeping and other military but non-warlike operations such as the MFO in the Sinai was considered by the Committee and its views on the matter have yet to be considered by the Government.' Senator REID —The issue I raised, as I said, was the question of a medal for Australian servicemen who have been and who are in the Sinai in a peacekeeping force. It is the one place in the world where at present we are showing some realistic interest in peace. It is a pity that that will not continue. The Minister in his answer indicates that there has been a report to the Government and it awaits government decision. I hope that it will receive a favourable answer quite soon. The matter came to my attention from a letter from a constituent who says that her husband is a leading aircraftsman in the Royal Australian Air Force in the Sinai, where he has been since January of this year. She says: After they have been there 3 months they are all given (every country) a medal for the time so far spent there. Every country allows their service members to wear their medals with their uniforms. But for some strange reason the Australians are not permitted to wear their medals with their uniforms when they return home. Perhaps this is not a hot issue, as Senator Evans indicated, but it is important to those who have been in the Sinai, and especially to their families. I urge the Government to make a decision on the medals so that Australian servicemen can wear them with pride. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.48) —I rise very briefly to discuss an international youth conference which is being hosted in China to which an Australian delegation will be sent next week. The aims of the conference are to celebrate the International Year of Youth, provide a framework and role for youth in issues relating to peace and development, and develop peace and understanding amongst countries of the region. I emphasise that the emphasis within those three aims is to be given to issues relating to peace and development. Therefore, it is something of a surprise to learn that of the 10 Australian delegates two are from the Office of Youth Affairs, one is from the Youth Affairs Council-I think it is the Chairman, and that is fair enough-one is from the Orange City Council and six are from Circus Oz. As I understand it, the delegates from Circus Oz, the Office of Youth Affairs and the Orange City Council are going to organise a visit to Australia by Chinese kite makers and puppeteers. The visit of these Chinese primarily will be to the Orange City Council region in order to provide a program of assistance in skill generation amongst people in that region in making kites and puppets. The fact is that we know that Circus Oz has already established good links with Chinese performing groups. I recall seeing on television a Chinese troupe which was out here in association with Circus Oz. I am sure that those links should be fostered. But the question is whether they should be further nurtured at the expense of others who could well have found a place in this delegation to the youth conference in China. One has to ask whether that delegation of 10, given that composition, is truly representative of the wide range of young people who could have been sent to this conference representing the aspirations, hopes, plans, schemes and experience of young people right across the board. That seven of the 10 current delegates should be from such a narrow base within the Australian community and those interested in youth affairs seems to me to be a very wasteful use of government funds. It seems to me that the structure of the Youth Affairs Council itself recognises the utility of consulting with a very wide range of groups of people who are actively involved in youth affairs in Australia. They include looking to workers with youth, youth organisation representatives, State youth representatives because the States are where a lot of this activity occurs, and youth itself. It is unbelievable to me that an event of such significance should not have looked over the whole span of those four categories of people involved with young people and sent to the People's Republic of China such a narrowly based group of people for this important conference. In fact, I believe that the delegation should not be sent next Monday but that it should be reconstituted so that it is much more representative of young people across Australia, particularly as the emphasis is to be on peace and development issues. It is very difficult to see how the troupers of Circus Oz, given the many hours of training they have to undertake to make their bodies supple in order to perform the gymnastic and other activities which they undertake for the delight and delectation of those who see their performances, could have found time to concentrate on peace and development issues and make a really distinctively Australian contribution to that international forum. I beseech the Government to reconsider whether in fact, knowing that in China a sense of shame and face is very important, there may not be some embarrassment in sending such a delegation so composed to China and whether we should not save face now by preventing that delegation from going next Monday and reconstituting it in a way in which we can all share in the pride of young people making a contribution in this important international forum. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.54) —On Monday, 22 April, Senator Peter Rae, as shadow Minister for Finance, asked a question of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) relating to the superannuitants of the Northern Territory. Around that time it was announced, almost completely out of the blue, that the Federal Government would no longer assist in the financing of the superannuation scheme of the public servants who, before self-government for the Northern Territory, were Commonwealth public servants. Of course, the situation has now been put in jeopardy. It is my understanding that if the Federal Government does not respond to its responsibilities $43m will have to be found somewhere along the track to rescue the scheme. I was rather surprised, as were most other people, by the vehement attack made by Senator Walsh in response to the question by Senator Peter Rae. Indeed, there has been a considerable number of queries as to why a Minister of the Crown should take that action. At this stage I take the opportunity of seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from Ian Tuxworth, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister. It has been cleared by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is on duty in the chamber tonight. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 2 May 1985 The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke AC MP, Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. My dear Prime Minister, I write in response to the assault made by the Minister for Finance on the financial arrangements between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments, in relation to the superannuation arrangements for Northern Territory public servants. I wrote to you on this matter on 18th April, 1985, and although I sought discussions with you as a matter of urgency, I have received no response to my request. Since that time I have had the opportunity to investigate the matter further and have received advice on a range of relevant issues. The information which I have received is of great concern to me and should be of considerable concern to yourself and your Cabinet when you are made fully aware of the implications of Senator Walsh's actions. The information which I have received has done nothing to quell the anger which I feel and which is felt by Territorians, at the manner in which the Territory has been treated by Senator Walsh. Such an action is made so much more odious in the light of the spirit of disclosure, discussion, consultation, conciliation and consensus which has been the hallmark of your Government since it came to power in 1983. It would appear that the pursuit of some of the options available as a result of Senator Walsh's letter of 4th April, 1985 have wide ranging consequences. Some of these issues are summarised below. The issues of a legal nature require prime consideration. It is questionable as to whether the Commonwealth has the power to make regulations to preclude the Northern Territory public servants from being ''eligible employees'' under the Superannuation Act. Considerable doubt exists over this power, having regard to the fact that the Northern Territory Public Service is an ''approved authority'' under the Act, the powers of the Act that deal with the consequences of the proposed action, and the arrangement reached in October 1984 between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth on employer superannuation benefits. It brings into question the proper use of the Commonwealth's powers in respect of such a matter. The issues of natural justice and discrimination are also disturbing. Northern Territory public servants are compulsory members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Their right to entry, and continued participation in the scheme was agreed at the time of Self Government and detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding. To act unilaterally in the manner proposed by Senator Walsh which will detrimentally affect existing rights and legitimate expectations of these public servants is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, and is contrary to all principles of natural justice. The proposed action also discriminates against a group of employees who had hitherto been regarded as 'eligible employees', but who for no valid reason, and as a result of no change in their circumstances, could now be excluded from the scheme and would incur serious financial penalty. The matter of employee relations is of extreme concern to my Government, and indeed it has been my understanding that it was also of concern to the Federal Government. However, Senator Walsh's action has not been discussed with the A.C.T.U., the Northern Territory Trades and Labour Council nor any of the individual unions concerned. This is clearly inconsistent with the principles of consultation and consensus. Many complex issues which affect employee rights and conditions of service are involved. There is also a number of categories of Northern Territory Public Service employees who may be affected in different ways by this proposal. Preservation provisions for example are not designed for members who become ''ineligible'' through no action of their own. There appears to be no provision to allow for a transfer value to be paid to another scheme should that be so desired when there is no change to public employment. In the case of those employees with less than 5 years contributory service, no preservation provisions apply at all. Nor is it clear that they apply where service exceeds 5 years duration. The situation in respect of compulsory transferees from the Australian Public Service to the Northern Territory Public Service provides further complications. Implicit in the transfer of this group of employees is the continuation of all conditions of service and superannuation. If the Commonwealth, by its actions, eliminates any of these rights, such employees may have the right of action against the Commonwealth. Certainly the Commonwealth has a continuing obligation to ensure that the terms and conditions of service of compulsory transferees are satisfactory, given that they retain rights in respect of the Commonwealth Public Service. I find it unthinkable that such complex issues should not have been discussed with employee organisations as well as the Northern Territory Government before such precipitous action was considered. The action of the Minister for Finance has struck at the very basis of the principle of inter-governmental relations. It has disregarded a carefully negotiated financial arrangement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth which was ratified only 6 months ago. It has also struck at the Memorandum of Understanding which establishes the financial arrangements which serve as the cornerstone of Northern Territory Self Government. The actions of the Minister for Finance have placed the relationship between our Governments in an intolerable situation. The issues have not been adequately considered and when the ramifications are realised, I have no doubt that it will be necessary to modify the approach contained in the Minister's letter. I would suggest to you as strongly as I can that our Governments enter into serious and constructive negotiation to resolve this issue. So that this may occur, I ask you to set aside the proposal contained in Senator Walsh's letter of 4th April, 1985. I seek your urgent concurrence to this proposal and offer to meet with you at any time to discuss these matters. Yours sincerely, IAN TUXWORTH Senator KILGARIFF —I ask those interested in the matter to peruse the letter incorporated in Hansard because many issues of a legal nature requiring prime consideration are brought to light in it. I refer principally to whether the Federal Government really has the power to do so. The issues of natural justice and discrimination are also points to be considered as the Northern Territory public servants were compulsory members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Indeed, at the time of self-government the Commonwealth public servants had to be encouraged to become Northern Territory public servants. I believe that in order to achieve this an iron-clad scheme of superannuation was made available to those public servants. It appears, at least at the moment, that at the whim of a Minister this has been brought undone. I also understand that those former Commonwealth public servants who are now Northern Territory public servants are members of various unions. It is my understanding that the Minister has not had discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Northern Territory Trades and Labour Council and the individual unions concerned. It is rather amazing that a Minister who speaks of the principles of consultation and consensus could be inconsistent. I believe that many Australians, particularly those in the more remote areas, are not aware of the attacks which have been made on Northern Territory funding by Canberra over the past month. Certainly the recent Four Corners program entitled 'Northern Territory High Rollers' should have dispelled any doubts that the Federal Government means to cut the Northern Territory's funding, and cut it severely. We know there will be cuts in funding for the States and the Territories. However, it seems at the moment that there will be a much more severe cut imposed in the North. At the forefront of the Commonwealth's attack is Senator Peter Walsh, the Federal Minister for Finance, who seems to believe that the Territory is living off the sweat of the rest of Australia and is making no contribution of its own to the national economy. Senator Walsh ignores the fact that since self-government the Territory's growth rate has far exceeded those of the States. He also fails to address the fact that Aboriginal land rights legislation has tied up vast tracts of the Northern Territory and virtually ensured that mineral exploration has ground to a complete standstill. This, combined with the Federal Government's attitude to the development of Northern Territory uranium, is depriving the Territory and the nation of thousands of millions of dollars in mineral revenue. The other aspect of Senator Walsh's attack on Territory funding which does not stand up to scrutiny relates to his assertion that per head of population we receive much more than our neighbours in the States. While this statement is true in itself, the fact remains that the Territory has about 10,500 square kilometres per 1,000 people compared with about 150 square kilometres per 1,000 people in New South Wales and about 57 square kilometres per 1,000 people in Victoria. Services such as the provision of sewerage systems, roads, electricity, hospitals and educational facilities must be provided in this remote area in the North to a sparse population spread across a vast and often inhospitable area. Of course, it will be a more expensive business to provide these services under those circumstances but hopefully every honourable senator, except perhaps Senator Walsh, would agree that Australian citizens living in these areas are entitled to a reasonable standard of living not too far below that of the more populous States. Unfortunately, his recent approach to the issue of superannuation arrangements for Commonwealth public servants-that is, Northern Territory public servants-does not give much hope of encouragement. We have seen Senator Walsh, with the apparent approval of the Federal Labor Government, renege on the agreement which had been reached between the Territory Government and the former Federal Minister for Finance, the Hon. John Dawkins, only last October. It is my understanding, of course, that it was the Hon. John Dawkins, as the Minister for Finance, who pursued this arrangement for the continuation of superannuation, with the result that the Northern Territory public servants have been left wondering where they stand in relation to their superannuation scheme. I can tell you, Mr President, that there are some very worried people. Senator Walsh has set a very poor example of the operation of a government of consensus and conciliation in his handling of this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is fond of speaking of consensus at election time and when he is convening an economic or taxation summit. Yet now he refuses to show any interest in solving the present problem in relation to superannuation. Indeed, I, along with the Territory's Chief Minister, Mr Tuxworth, and Paul Everingham, who was the previous Chief Minister, have written to the Prime Minister to seek discussions on the superannuation issue. Our requests to meet and discuss the matter were dismissed because the Prime Minister did not have time. I know that Mr Tuxworth has written again to seek to have talks with the Prime Minister. I hope that his second request will be treated with the seriousness and urgency which it deserves. I say that it is time that the Territory bashing within the Federal Government in Canberra was brought to a halt. If the Prime Minister were really concerned about national reconciliation he would meet his responsibilities and act to prevent the continuing attacks on the Territory by people like Senator Walsh, before serious damage is done to the development of the North and, perhaps more importantly, to the confidence shown by both national and international investors in pouring vast sums of money into industry in the Territory, particularly over the last seven years. Senator Walsh's irresponsible attitude not only has the potential to affect the Territory's economy and development, but also in the process may deprive the Commonwealth of some of the revenue which Senator Walsh so desperately wants. It is a matter of concern that the vast industries being developed in the remote areas of the Northern Territory, which have the potential to put a considerable amount of money into the coffers of the Federal Government, can be destroyed by, as I say, this shortsighted treatment of the Territory by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. In closing, I ask a question of the Prime Minister, as I have not had the opportunity to do so previously. In light of the letter that has been written to him by the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, which has been incorporated in Hansard, I ask: Is the Prime Minister concerned that his failure to discuss with the Northern Territory Government the matter of superannuation arrangements with the Northern Territory public servants, despite a request from the Northern Territory's Chief Minister for a meeting, has set an undesirable precedent for the conduct of intergovernmental relations? Is it the policy of a government of consensus and conciliation to renege on agreements entered into as a result of lengthy and considered consultation-such as the agreement reached between the Northern Territory and the previous Minister for Finance, the Hon. John Dawkins, in October last year on the matter of superannuation-and to replace those arrangements with decisions taken unilaterally by a Federal Minister for Finance who, far from approaching any matter relating to the Northern Territory in the spirit of consensus, has consistently attacked the Northern Territory and its Government, and has even gone so far as to suggest that the memorandum of understanding which has governed the Territory's financial relationship with the Commonwealth since the Territory was granted self-government in 1978 is no longer operative? I refer to Senator Walsh's reference to the previous memorandum of understanding in reply to a question asked of him on 22 April by Senator Peter Rae. Finally, I ask: Firstly, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that his Government and his Ministers, including Senator Walsh, acknowledge that the memorandum of understanding, as agreed upon by the Commonwealth and Territory governments in 1978, is the agreement which governs the Territory's financial relationship with the Commonwealth, and is still operative? Secondly, will the Government undertake to meet with the representatives of the Northern Territory authority and, in the spirit of consensus, come to a realistic arrangement on Northern Territory superannuation? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.05) —I have heard the contributions made by honourable senators. Senator Kilgariff has asked a number of questions on somebody's behalf and Senator Tate has uttered a prayer and has beseeched the Government to do something. I will see that both the questions and the prayer are directed to the right quarter. The PRESIDENT —On 28 March I informed the Senate that I was concerned at the inaccuracy of some media reports on certain proceedings in the New South Wales Local Court in which I, as President, had arranged for legal counsel to appear. I wrote to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on this matter and I advise the Senate that I have now received a reply from the Chairman, a copy of which I table for the information of honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 40. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 42 Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 52. Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 21-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 22-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 23-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 53. Export Control Act-Orders 1985- No. 1-Prescribed Goods (General). No. 2-Export Meat. No. 3-Game, Poultry and Rabbit Meat. No. 4-Dairy Produce. No. 5-Egg. No. 6-Grain, Plants and Plant Products. No. 7-Fish. Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 62. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64. Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 54. Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 51. Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 50. Health Insurance Commission Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 41. Interim Forces Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 48. Life Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 44. Public Service Act- Appointments- Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-W. L. Glenbar. Department of Territories-P. A. R. Barker, A. D. Wallace. Department of Veterans' Affairs-H. L. Ryan. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1985-No. 2-Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices-Managing Director, Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and others, dated 15 February, 1985 Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 45. Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 46. Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 47. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 43. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 49. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions under sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (2)-Approval of Additional Building Projects and Subsequent Directions, dated 22 April 1985.