Monday, 13 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Capital Territory: Self-Government To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium businesses in Australia, destroying incentives and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ''windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1 To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2 To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commmonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 33 citizens) and Messner (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisement Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 255 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes: (i) that it is 40 years since the liberation of the prisoners of Nazi concentration and death camps, (ii) that from those camps and other evidence there emerged knowledge of the full horror of the holocaust against the Jewish people; and (iii) that some have sought in recent times to deny that the holocaust and the awful events that surrounded it occurred, and (b) declares: (i) that historical evidence has determined beyond doubt that the holocaust occurred, and (ii) that a major task for any civilised people is to prevent such events happening again. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 14 and made under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief statement of explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —One provision of these regulations of concern to the Committee does not match the virtually standard provision in those cases, unlike this one, where a treaty exists. The provision concerns the minimum penalty that would apply to a crime for which extradition is sought by South Africa. The Committee is concerned to check whether the provision infringes its principles. We are writing to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Today and tomorrow are the last days on which notice of motion for disallowance can be given on this matter. However, I am giving notice in such a way as to allow time for full examination of the matter before the notice is dealt with. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to certain matters concerning Commonwealth employees. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting the fifth report of 1985 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, relating to the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985- (a) directs that Committee, when dealing with a private senator's Bill, to take all appropriate measures to enable that senator to participate, without voting, in its deliberations on the Bill, to make available to that senator any submissions which the Committee has received on the Bill and any comments on the Bill which the Committee is considering reporting to the Senate, to provide that senator with an opportunity to be heard orally or in writing in relation to such submissions or proposed comments before the Committee makes any report to the Senate on the Bill, and to ensure that the senator is advised of the approximate time of presentation of the report and is provided with a copy thereof at the same time as it is received by members of the Committee; and (b) directs that Committee to confine itself strictly to the criteria for reporting on Bills contained in the resolution appointing the Committee, and not to comment upon matters relating to the policy of Bills. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that the Queensland Government has legislated to increase the number of seats in its Legislative Assembly from 82 to 87, to be divided into four zones, condemns that Government for- (a) blatantly rigging the Queensland electoral system in such a manner as to ensure the National Party remains in office; and (b) depriving the electors of Queensland of their last vestiges of democratic voting rights, and going against the principle of 'one vote, one value'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators and I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. CSIRO-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 57 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science relating to the report made in the House of Representatives on 9 May 1985. 2. Pacific Patrol Boat Project-Text of a statement by the Minister for Defence made in the House of Representatives on 9 May 1985. 3. Memorandum of Understanding on Logistic Support between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America-Document. 4. Special Purpose Flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1984-Schedule. 5. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement on Expenditure for March 1985. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the fact that employees of Australia Post are taking industrial action to support the union blockade of Queensland, what action is the Government taking to ensure that mail services to and from Queensland are restored to normal? Further, will the Government reconsider its refusal to accept the Opposition's offer of a swift passage for the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act to enable it to deal promptly with the action of Australia Post employees and the less formal but apparently operating bans on repairs by Telecom Australia technicians in Queensland? Senator BUTTON —The alleged ban by postal employees is a specific matter within the overall context of the serious industrial situation in Queensland. The Government has always taken the view that the problem in Queensland will not be resolved in the way the parties are currently proceeding. The Government has indicated that it does not agree with the stance taken by the Premier of Queensland. We have also indicated that we do not agree with the position adopted by some of the unions. I am now in a position, however, to say that this morning the Government put certain proposals to the Australian Council of Trade Unions in relation to the whole dispute, and on the basis of these proposals sought the agreement of the ACTU to lift all industrial action against Queensland. I am unable to reveal the details of these proposals other than to say that a full statement will be made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations later this week. The proposals have been put to the ACTU only on the basis that the ACTU will ensure the following: Firstly, that all industrial action against Queensland is lifted; secondly, that Queensland electricity unions give a commitment to a defined dispute settling procedure which will guarantee a continued stable supply of electricity to Queensland consumers; and, thirdly, that there will be no victimisation of current employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has agreed to accept these conditions. The Minister has been advised that all industrial action will be lifted as soon as possible. Senator PRIMMER —Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister seen the results of a recent Australian Chamber of Commerce-National Australia Bank survey? Do the results of the survey indicate the continuing strength of the recovery? Senator BUTTON —The results of the recent Australian Chamber of Commerce-National Australia Bank survey of the tertiary sector indicate that the economic recovery is still very much on course. The figures which are revealed in this survey will be encouraging to all honourable senators who are concerned about the well-being of the Australian economy. The survey shows that 49 per cent of businesses expect to increase their investment over the next 12 months, that 30 per cent of respondents indicate that they will increase their level of employment over the next 12 months and that 12 per cent expect strong increases in investment. Only 15 per cent of firms now expect a decline in capital expenditure over the next 12 months, compared with 17 per cent in the December quarter last year and 18 per cent in the September quarter last year. Some 74 per cent of those surveyed expect trading conditions to be good or satisfactory. The overall results of the survey are very heartening despite the fact that the survey shows that business expects some cost pressures arising from the depreciation and the national wage rise, although 21 per cent of businesses expect a large or very large effect while 79 per cent expect moderate, little or no effect from the wage rise. The major point which I sadly make in relation to the survey, which was conducted in all States, is the relatively poor performance of the State of Queensland. Alone amongst all the States, in Queensland firms recorded very poor prospects; 71 per cent of Queensland firms predict poor profitability in the June quarter. That figure contrasts with 74 per cent of firms nationally which expect good profitability prospects. Senator Peter Rae —They were anticipating a continuation of the blockade, I suppose. Senator BUTTON —No. That is more than double the national result. This survey has been conducted over a period. Only 48 per cent of Queensland businesses expect trading conditions to be good or satisfactory, compared with a figure of 74 per cent nationally. Once again it is a fact that Queensland is lagging behind the rest of Australia. This steadily declining economic performance is no surprise. It has not been related to the last three months; it has been going on for the last twelve. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his interview on the PM program last Friday when he was asked about Mr Cliff Dolan's comments which had led to the outburst last Thursday by Senator Walsh against Mr Dolan. Senator Button said: Mr Dolan was not necessarily representing the view of the trade union movement and in that sense his comments were perhaps unfortunate. Those were Senator Button's words. Is the Minister aware that on Friday Mr George Crawford said, and yesterday Mr Simon Crean said: Mr Dolan was accurately representing the views of the trade union movement. Is the Minister aware of this? If the Minister still believes that this is not so, can he explain to the Senate in what way Mr Dolan was misrepresenting the union position? Senator BUTTON —Even on the wildest colourisation of Senator Lewis's question, I did not say that Mr Dolan was misrepresenting the trade union movement's position. Senator Chaney —He quoted your words exactly. Senator BUTTON —I beg your pardon. Read the last part of your question again. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Government in the Senate will address his remarks through the Chair. Senator BUTTON —The last part of the question stated that I had said that Mr Dolan was misrepresenting the views of the trade union movement. I did not say that and if the honourable senator refers to the first part of the question he will see that that is correct. Insofar as the first part of the question is concerned, I would like to see the PM transcript if I may; no doubt the honourable senator has it. I would very much like to refer to it in context because what I am quite clear I said about this matter is that I regarded Senator Walsh's comments-and I quote with deadly accuracy-as blunt rather than circumspect. To suggest that that can be taken out of context is quite extraordinary. Of course, I see that the words were taken out of context. Senator Lewis —No, they are not. Senator BUTTON —I do not think Mr Dolan's comments, as I understood them from Press reports, necessarily represent the view of the trade union movement. That is a little different, as I understood the comments from Press reports. 'Not necessarily representing the view of the trade union movement' is different from what has been quoted by Senator Lewis. I went on to say-and I think the honourable senator might have added this, and in that sense I think the comments were perhaps unfortunate-that even within the trade unions and, as I said earlier, throughout the business community and the general community, there are differences of opinion about tax. Mr Dolan is quite entitled to his views. Senator Lewis —In what way is he not necessarily-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Has the Leader of the Government finished? Senator BUTTON —All I say is that that statement is taken out of context in the sense that, as I saw Press reports in the West Australian, which I did-- Senator Lewis —Is that where you were when the Senate was sitting? Senator BUTTON —Yes, that is right. As I understood those remarks, I did not think they necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement. I do not retreat from that at all. If Mr George Crawford says that they do necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement, that is a view which George Crawford is quite entitled to hold as well. But I am not going to take any notice of it. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister now has my copy of the transcript, but my recollection is that it said that Mr Dolan's comments, as I understood them, did not necessarily represent the view of the trade union movement. Apparently, the Minister still holds that view. Would the Minister explain to us, in the light of what Mr Crean and Mr George Crawford said, in what way they do not necessarily represent the view of the trade union movement? Senator BUTTON —In answering the question earlier I told Senator Lewis that there were reports of what Mr Dolan said in the West Australian. I said- Senator Chaney —We can get that for you. Senator BUTTON —I am sure Senator Chaney can. I said that those views do not necessarily represent the view of the trade union movement. What is required in order to make this question significant, depending as it does totally on an exercise in semantics, is a precise statement of what Mr Dolan said, which I did not hear-I did not hear what he said precisely and therefore I said they do not necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement-and a precise statement of what Mr Crean and Mr Crawford said. If Mr Crean is saying that everything Mr Dolan says necessarily represents the view of the trade union movement, it is not a view to which I would accede because plenty of presidents of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, including Mr Dolan, have said lots of things which do not necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs clarify the present international disarmament situation whereby a great deal of attention seems to be directed towards the super-powers and very little to those countries regarded as significant threats to peace? Is the Government satisfied that enough attention is being paid to the potential misuse of nuclear power by technologically less sophisticated countries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think we all acknowledge that the threat of nuclear war is a threat to the existence of humanity. International efforts to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war are directed towards two separate but related goals. The first is the reduction of existing nuclear weapons stockpiles and hopefully their ultimate elimination and the second is the halting of the spread of nuclear weapons to those countries that do not already possess them. As to the first objective, it is widely accepted by the international community and by the super-powers that, in view of the overwhelming preponderance of their nuclear arsenals, the super-powers should lead the way in nuclear disarmament, although not without, of course, a continuing multilateral role for exercises such as the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. As to the second objective, the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the most widely adhered to arms control treaty in existence, is the cornerstone of international efforts directed towards halting the spread of nuclear weapons. So many NPT partners, including Australia, have made substantial efforts over the years to bring about universal adherence to that Treaty. It is not correct to say that very little attention is paid to potential proliferators. The very visit of Mr Hayden to India and Pakistan at the moment is testimony to Australia's efforts in this respect. As to the second half of Senator Elstob's question about our being satisfied as to whether enough attention is being paid to the potential misuse of nuclear power by less technologically sophisticated countries, the answer is clearly yes. It needs to be underlined that most countries have seen it as in their interests to set their nuclear industries firmly in a non-proliferation context through adherence to the NPT. Adherence to it provides significant security benefits and facilitates nuclear trade and co-operation. It is the case, however, that some countries with significant nuclear industries, including the Indian sub-continent, remain outside the NPT, and we have been making strenuous attempts, in conjunction with many other countries, to now bring them within that umbrella. I add finally that in preparation for the September 1985 third review conference of the NPT, the Government has intensified its efforts to bring membership as close as possible to universality. Our support for the treaty and for the effectiveness of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards established under it is very evident in terms of the efforts of this Government. Once again, I refer to Mr Hayden's current discussions in India and Pakistan as evidence of our good intent and enthusiasm in this respect. Senator CHIPP —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General confirm that consideration is being given to the early release of Tizzoni and Joseph, the callous murderers of anti-drugs campaigner Donald Mackay, after less than a year in gaol, when the original sentences were eight years with a minimum of four, and seven years with a minimum of three and a half, respectively? Can the Minister explain the extraordinary situation whereby corruption in gaols apparently renders them unsafe places for the protection of potential witnesses such as these two and whereby senior police officers consider such prisoners unsafe in gaols even if they are placed in solitary confinement? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government is giving consideration to a government-funded witness protection scheme, as called for by a senior member of the National Crime Authority, and which is obviously necessary to fight crime effectively, instead of the current situation whereby the massive expense of witness protection has to come out of already inadequate police budgets? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is not aware that anyone has been convicted of the murder of Donald Mackay, the anti-drugs campaigner, and accordingly it would seem inappropriate to employ the description 'callous murderers' that was offered by Senator Chipp in relation to the two gentlemen he mentioned. In any event, the question of the law applicable to such a murder, and to those gentlemen if they were indeed involved in it, is State law rather than Federal law and as such it would seem that the question has been misdirected. I am advised that the Attorney-General's office, to the extent that it is within its competence to deal with it, is not aware of any such representation having been made to it at this stage. The question of corruption and safety in gaols again is a matter for State authorities and there is little I can add in answer to that part of Senator Chipp's question. As to the issue of a government-funded witness protection scheme, that would fall within the responsibilities of the Special Minister of State. I have already referred the honourable senator's question to that Minister for a detailed response and I will give Senator Chipp such response as I can as soon as possible. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. If I may comment, I do not think I have had a more pathetic answer from a Minister since I have been here. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his supplementary question. Senator CHIPP —Will the Minister surprise me again by telling me that the illicit importation of drugs is not a Commonwealth offence? Will he surprise me again by saying that normally persons convicted of such offences are put in State gaols, there being, to my knowledge, few Federal gaols in which to house them? Will the Minister therefore address his mind to what is a Federal matter, when people convicted of Federal matters are placed in State gaols and State police are of the opinion that even in solitary confinement such prisoners are not safe? Therefore, I repeat: Will the Government have discussions with State Attorneys-General or the appropriate officers to see whether Commonwealth-funded assistance can be given to State governments for witness protection purposes? Senator GARETH EVANS —Nobody ever lost a vote by being holier than thou on law and order, did they, Don? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do my best, Mr President, to unravel the tangle of that supplementary question. I, of course, acknowledge that, to the extent that Federal drug offences may be involved, State prisons may well be housing persons who are Federal prisoners, and, as such, it may be an appropriate matter for representation to the Attorney-General of the day as to what course their internment might take. But on the information available to me I am unable to offer any further information in response to Senator Chipp's question. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister for Community Services able to indicate whether the subject of tax deductions for child care will be discussed at the forthcoming tax summit? Does he believe that tax deductibility would be of major assistance to present users of child care services? Senator GRIMES —I would imagine that the question of tax deductions is very likely to come up at the tax summit, although I cannot anticipate it or predict it because there are organisations-particularly professional organisations, and organisations representing those who are better off in the community-who are advocating tax deductibility or, at the very least, tax rebates for child care costs in the community. I do not favour this proposal for several reasons. The problem in regard to tax deductions or tax rebates of this type is that they do nothing or very little to create new child care places in the community. They certainly do nothing for low income families and very little, or nothing at all, for single parent pensioners with children who cannot take advantage of this. They do not increase the quality of child care available in the community. Finally, and I suppose in the view of my colleague on my right, such a proposal would cost about $400m a year, which is in excess of what we spend on child care at the moment. I acknowledge that such tax deductions would provide assistance to people on high incomes and particularly to people on high incomes who at the moment do not have access to Commonwealth-funded child care facilities. However, I do not want to see in this community a situation in which there are two sets of child care services-one standard for the wealthy who can afford high quality child care and pay for it in full and a second standard for those who are not so wealthy and who have low quality child care. I do not believe that that would assist the community at all. I think that the way in which we have proceeded in the past, whereby we provide operational assistance for child care centres for all people in the community, is the best way in which to proceed. We provide fee relief on an income-tested basis for others in the community, and we develop child care facilities on a planning model rather than a submission model so that we can concentrate on both individuals and districts in greatest need. That is the way in which we intend to proceed. I dare say that deductions and tax expenditures like this will be discussed at the tax summit. I do not anticipate that their introduction will be supported by the Government. They are certainly not supported by me. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister will recall that on the PM program on Friday he said: 'I think a very simple capital gains tax is what is needed'. Does he believe that such a tax should exempt the family home, allow offsets for some capital losses and be indexed for inflation? Further, does he believe that the judicial interpretation has lessened the impact of the original legislative intention within sections 25 and 26 of the Income Tax Assessment Act? If so, do those sections now need strengthening? Senator BUTTON —I would not be so bold as to give a legal opinion on the second part of the question. Senator Withers —Make it simple. Senator BUTTON —I have very few qualifications in this matter-perhaps marginally more than Senator Watson, but not many. Insofar as the first part of the question is concerned, yes, I recall saying something to that effect. However, it would be wrong for me to speculate on the precise nature of a capital gains tax. Senator Withers —Just confiscate something. Senator BUTTON —Well, it would have to be fairly simple for Senator Withers to understand it. All I will say is what I have said all along in relation to the specifics suggested to me by Senator Watson, that in all the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries which have capital gains taxes provisions and exemptions of that kind are included they seem to me like pretty good ideas. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney-General been drawn to a statement in last week's Courier-Mail by Sir Harry Gibbs of the High Court of Australia, drawing attention to the position of middle income people facing problems in relation to legal aid? Can the Government take any steps to try to alleviate the problem that exists or is there any way in which those people can receive some legal aid in view of the problems which they have and which were outlined by Sir Harry Gibbs? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of criticisms of the level of access to the legal aid system made by the Chief Justice of the High Court recently. The Government is fully aware of the problems of the legal aid system and the need to reduce its complexity and its cost and any unfairness inherent in the way it operates. As regards Commonwealth funding of legal aid, a lengthy and detailed discussion paper was circulated last year setting out a proposed new system of and basis for Commonwealth funding, and the responses to that are now being considered. As to the delivery of legal aid, a departmental task force which has been working very busily over the last 12 months or more will soon be reporting on ways of achieving a greater degree of efficiency and uniformity. The suggestions made by Dr Jeremy Cooper in his report on legal services in Australia are also being examined in this respect. I think it ought to be noted that the Chief Justice acknowledged that legal aid cannot be the whole answer. He said that the cost of providing public funds to give legal aid to all who need it would in fact be prohibitive. That has led the Government to look very carefully over the last couple of years at alternative forms of dispute resolution. We note also in this respect that the Law Council of Australia is examining the possibility of a legal insurance system. So there are a number of moves afoot to deal with matters to which Senator Jones adverts. I can assure him that we are acutely aware of the kinds of problems to which he draws our attention. Senator PETER RAE —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to last Saturday's West Australian newspaper which reports the Minister as being not enamoured of the notion of summitry and expressing preference for wide-ranging bilateral consultations with different groups. Does the Minister agree that the coming tax summit is shaping up more and more as a charade because what will really determine changes to the tax system are the continuing bilateral discussions between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, if that body is still playing speaks after what Senator Walsh said? Will the Government call off the summit while there is still time to avoid the costs associated with this meaningless public relations exercise which is being held only to keep faith with an off-the-top-of-the-head promise made by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign? Senator Lewis —That will teach you to go wandering in Western Australia when you should be here. Senator BUTTON —I almost regret my trip to Western Australia. It has caused so much excitement amongst members of the Opposition. Normally they are a pretty gloomy lot, and I understand that, but today they are very allegro. I did say that I was not amoured of summits. I never have been, I never will be-that is in my nature. The fact is that whether I am amoured of the idea of summits or not is totally irrelevant. I must say that when I used the word 'amoured', the journalist who was asking the questions said: 'Do you mean in love with?' I had to explain myself to the West Australian. Whether I personally am attached to summitry or not is not particularly relevant. The Government has determined to hold the tax summit and it will be held. I am sure that it will be a great success. Senator Chipp —Are you going to send a telegram? Senator BUTTON —When honourable senators have had the opportunity to read the White Paper and perhaps express their views, as Senator Chipp will-he will be there, I gather-I think the benefits of the summit will be seen. The fact that I hold a preference for another means of dealing with these issues is not particularly relevant at this time. I do not mind admitting irrelevance. I sometimes think we are all a bit irrelevant up here, and I do not mind admitting it so far as my views on the summit are concerned. Senator PETER RAE —If I may ask a supplementary question, are we to take it from the Minister's answer that we should regard, along with Senator Walsh's answer in relation to Mr Dolan, both Mr Dolan and the Leader of the Government in the Senate as both irrelevant to the question of whether the tax summit continues or not? Senator BUTTON —I am afraid that Senator Walsh put that package together. Senator Walsh gave an answer about Mr Dolan, I understand, the other day in which he made the point, perhaps more bluntly than I would do, that Mr Dolan would not be President of the ACTU at the time of the summit. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —But he will. Senator BUTTON —That may be incorrect but that is what I understood Senator Walsh to have said. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle can take the matter up with Senator Walsh, if she wishes, as a matter of fact. But I intend to be a Minister in the Government at the time of the summit-I will be there. I do not think one should get excited over the use of the word 'relevant' in two entirely different contexts and put them both together on that basis. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of a no-confidence motion against the President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Lindsay Thompson, who has advocated acceptance of the Government's package designed to end the New South Wales hospitals dispute? How will the result of this motion affect the dispute and how many doctors have responded positively to the Government's package? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the meeting which was held in Canberra on Saturday at which an attempt was made to declare no confidence in Mr Lindsay Thompson, President of the Australian Medical Association. As Senator Richardson and I am sure everyone else here knows, the motion was roundly defeated. Interestingly enough, the AMA used proxy votes, as it does, in the same way as Dr Bruce Shepherd used proxy votes at the meetings he organised in New South Wales to maintain this unfortunate dispute. I think it is important that Dr Shepherd, or Mr Shepherd as he prefers to be called when working in hospitals, Mr Aroney, Dr Catts and their colleagues now realise that the general public, the Government of New South Wales, the Federal Government and the medical profession as a whole wish them to accept. Senator Walsh —They have all had a gutful. Senator GRIMES —Yes, they have all had a gutful of the behaviour of Mr Shepherd and his colleagues. Mr Bruce Shepherd and those other people should accept it. I understand Dr Catts has done that and has said: 'We have lost; we have not won our case and we should all go back to work'. But Dr Shepherd, I noticed this morning on AM, announced that this does not make any difference to him. He will be forming a new organisation of specialists to counter the Australian Medical Association. I think his only hope must be that the only supporters he and his colleagues have left in politics are Mr Peacock, Mr Porter and Mr Carlton. Dr Shepherd and his colleagues do not even have the support, as far as we know, of anyone in this chamber. We know they do not have the support of Mr Greiner or the Liberal Party in New South Wales. So we have two groups marching out of step with the rest of the community. I think it is time they realised that they have lost this debate. They have lost the war that Dr Bruce Shepherd announced he was starting some 18 months ago. As for the results in New South Wales, it is my understanding that some 600 surgeons had, in fact, withdrawn their resignations as of the weekend. It is my understanding also that this week many more than that will return. But the Federal Government will not know until we have had a report from Mr Mulock, who is the Minister for Health and the Acting Premier of New South Wales, later this week. However, I anticipate that legislation to fulfil the package we offered the Australian Medical Association will be introduced into the Parliament this week and, in anticipation that Mr Mulock will have reported, that the dispute has, in fact, ended. I think if people such as Dr Shepherd, Dr Aroney and others wish to go into private practice with no assistance they should find somewhere where they can do that. They should not even do that in private hospitals in New South Wales, which are funded considerably by the Federal Government. If they are going to stand on what they call their principles they should practise so that they do not accept any Federal money directly or indirectly through their patients. If they want to be in that situation, they can be. I know Dr Shepherd would not starve because he has other means, but some of the others would. But if they are going to try to hold this community, and particularly the sick people of this community, to ransom in the way in which they have in the past, I do not think that should be tolerated, nor do I think they should be hypocrites and talk about principle on the one hand and take the money with the other. Senator MESSNER —Does the Minister for Community Services agree that perhaps the main stumbling block to have emerged in the Government's efforts to extend the scope of indirect taxation is the question of compensation for lower and middle income earners? Does the Minister hold to his view put to a Canberra conference recently that compensatory measures can be made? If so, what sorts of measures does he favour? Can he give any estimate of the likely cost of compensating for a broadly based consumer tax of, say, 12.5 per cent? Senator GRIMES —The point I made at the conference at the Australian National University was that, quite clearly, compensation can be provided for those low income groups. The evidence I used was the fact that every social democracy in Western Europe and other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in fact have broad-based consumption taxes. In the introduction of those taxes they have compensated low income people for the effect of those taxes on them. That is the first point I made. The second point I made was that that did not mean that I necessarily advocated the introduction of such taxes into this country and I certainly would not advocate that unless I had evidence that measures had been taken to compensate those low income people. I have no idea of the figures Senator Messner requested about how much would be needed to compensate low income earners. I think it was a bit of a nonsensical question. That matter would depend on at what level the consumer tax would be introduced and on what goods such a tax would be introduced. Therefore, one would have to make the calculations after those matters were taken into consideration. I dare say that in the next few weeks leading up to the tax summit we will all be able to look at the various suggestions and figures and make our calculations. If people are as innumerate as I am they will get someone else to make those calculations. We will see what sorts of calculations are needed and then make our judgments on any program that is put forward. But the point I made was that to suggest that it is impossible to compensate low income earners is demonstrably wrong when we look at Western European countries in particular, all of which have large broad-based consumption taxes such as value-added taxes. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to the Commonwealth's annual rent bill and the increased cost of providing Commonwealth-owned office accommodation in the central business districts of major capital cities. I ask: Is the Government taking action to decentralise public sector employment away from the expensive central areas? If so, what information can the Minister provide? Senator RYAN —I am advised that the Government has been concerned for some time about the rapidly escalating rent bill. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in consultation with other government departments and authorities is examining ways in which the Commonwealth can save money on office leases in capital cities. A review is being undertaken to identify branches of departments that could be relocated outside the central business districts. The review is also examining new proposals to lease space in the central business districts in favour of construction or leasing cheaper accommodation in suburban areas. Apart from the obvious benefit of lower rental costs, other significant advantages of decentralisation which accrue are reduced urban congestion in capital cities and the location of government services and facilities nearer to the homes of its employees and the public they serve. I understand that a number of departments are evaluating the scope for centralisation of their activities. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services will be providing every assistance to departments to implement decentralisation proposals in pursuit of Labor's regional development policies. Senator BROWNHILL —I refer the Minister for Finance to the comments of Mr Simon Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the Sunday program yesterday when Mr Crean totally rejected the tax reform package put to the unions by the Government less than two weeks ago. Does the Minister believe that the union movement, given its present position, can be persuaded to accept a package which includes a broadly based consumer tax? Does the Minister see any merit in Mr Crean's suggestion that it would be possible to broaden the indirect tax base by reducing tax on manufactured goods and extending taxes on service industries? Senator WALSH —No, I did not see Mr Crean on the Sunday program yesterday. Senator Grimes —We were working. Senator WALSH —Yes, we were working. Apparently members of the Opposition have nothing better to do on Sundays than watch television. Nor am I aware of what package, if any, was put to ACTU representatives a few weeks ago. It is possible to devise an unlimited number of taxation packages involving taxes on services, goods, income and capital, with an infinite number of variations. The Government will be finalising a package within the next week or so. It will be made available to the public some time after that. I think that will be the time to judge whether the ACTU or Mr Crean, or anyone else, will accept that package. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the Minister for Education read the annual report of the Australian Children's Television Foundation? Can the Minister comment on why Queensland does not appear to contribute to the Foundation when the Federal Government gives half a million dollars to promote the development of good quality Australian programs? Are any other States participating in this important program? Will the Minister ask the Queensland Government to explain why it is not apparently interested in lifting the educational standards of children's television? Senator RYAN —I think it is true to say that in its relatively short life the Australian Children's Television Foundation has made a significant contribution to improving the kind of television available for children, particularly young children. It has been supported by the Commonwealth Government and handsomely supported by the States in this respect. For example, in addition to the half million dollars from the Commonwealth to which Senator Reynolds referred, the New South Wales Education Department has given $100,000, and the cultural affairs section of the Premier's Department another $100,000. In South Australia the Ministry for the Arts has given $27,500 and the Ministry of Education $27,500. In Tasmania the Education Department has given $17,000. The Victorian Ministry for the Arts has given $67,500, and its Education Department the same amount. The Education Department in Western Australia has given $52,000. In the Australian Capital Territory, the former Department of Territories and Local Government has given $9,400. The Northern Territory has given $4,900. Queensland has made no donation. I think that is disappointing for Queenslanders whose concern for improving children's television, no doubt, would be as great as the concern of other Australians. I will make inquiries of the Queensland Education Minister, who is my ministerial colleague, to see whether it would be possible for Queensland to support this very constructive initiative. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows his rather evasive answer to the question asked by my colleague Senator Lewis. I understood the Leader of the Government to say that he relied, in his comments on Mr Dolan, on what was reported in the West Australian of last Friday. I have given the Minister a copy of the front page of that paper. The only references to Mr Dolan's comments appeared to be as follows: Mr Dolan and other ACTU officials yesterday also strongly reiterated their organisation's policy of opposition to the Government's proposed broad-based consumption tax. A little later it is reported: Mr Dolan said the ACTU policy of opposition was quite definite. A little later it said, in direct quotes: I don't know who the 10 supporting indirect taxes would be, quite frankly. I ask the Minister: What was it in those comments, which are apparently what he saw in Perth, that led him to say that Mr Dolan's comments, as he understood them, did not necessarily represent the view of the trade union movement and, in that sense, they were perhaps unfortunate? Senator BUTTON —Last week all sorts of statements were being made, by various people purporting to represent the trade union movement, on the proposed broadly based consumer tax and other aspects of the tax package. To single out Mr Dolan's views as 'necessarily representing the view's of the trade union movement' I think, in that circumstance, would be inaccurate. As I said, according to the transcript given to me by Senator Lewis, Mr Dolan's views did not necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement. It may be that as a result of subsequent events, namely, Mr Crean's view and the views of others, they did, but at the time I said that they did not necessarily represent the views of the trade union movement and I adhere to that. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Now that the system of payment of pensions directly to the bank accounts of beneficiaries is in operation, can the Minister comment on the acceptability of this both to pensioners and to financial institutions? Senator GRIMES —I have not had any very late reports on the operation of the direct credit system for pensions, but I do know that considerable progress has been made in the last few months by the Minister for Social Security and his Department in the development of this project. There is obviously considerable advantage, in terms of both costs and quality of service, in direct deposits. If this were to become the major normal method of payment for a majority of social security payments it would allow flexibility, it would eliminate the fear of people losing their cheques and it would also be a considerable advantage to the Department in overcoming fraud. Some 600, I think, financial institutions have been in contact with the Department in the planning of details of the conversion to direct credit. As well as this, the Department has met with all the major banks, building societies and credit unions. There is a joint working party to clarify several critical operations issues which obviously come up. About half of the financial institutions have agreed to offer concessions to the Department's clients. State and Federal taxes will not be met by the four private banks. However, State governments have agreed to exempt various social security payments from the financial institutions tax that they apply. In January letters were sent to just over one million pensioners and a slightly less number of letters were sent to family allowance clients. The response has been good. About 60 per cent of the forms have been returned, which is a very high number for social security. I believe that the situation is well under control and that it is now working smoothly. Some of the fears that people had have been alleviated and further fears will be alleviated in the future. A similar situation happened years ago when the Department changed the method of social security payments from a book system to cheques. Whenever a change of this type is made there is some uneasiness. There is no doubt that, on the grounds of economy, efficiency and the avoidance of fraud, the direct deposit system is the best way to go. I will seek further information from the Minister for Social Security so I can give a more adequate report to the honourable senator and the Senate. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. On 18 August 1982 did the then Labor spokesperson on environment, Mr West, move an amendment to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Bill 1982 for the inclusion of harp seals and hooded seals on Schedule 3? Did Mr West, in moving the amendment, state that if the Government did not accept it 'it would be because it is really afraid of the trade reaction from the Canadian Government'? Will the Minister, under the power conferred on him by section 9 of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1982, now amend Schedule 3 to include harp seals and hooded seals? Finally, will the Minister also amend Part I of the Schedule by adding the words 'or a specimen that is derived from a genus, species or sub-species specified, or described in Part II', in order that products derived from whales, dolphins, porpoises, harp seals and hooded seals may also be prohibited imports? Senator RYAN —The brief provided to me by the Minister whom I am representing does not have any information on the things that Mr West said when he was the spokesperson for the environment in 1982. I will refer the detailed questions and suggestions in Senator Jack Evans's question to the Minister and seek a speedy reply for him. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the possible closure of the access handover service of Adelaide Central Mission due to this project coming to the end of its funding. Will the Minister advise whether continued funding of this service is being considered as it serves a valuable function in providing protection for women who are at serious risk of violence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that I have a brief here somewhere which I may need to spell out further later but I cannot for the moment find it. My recollection is that the handover centre in Adelaide was a pilot project only, that it had no particular expectation of a continuation of funding and that the continuation of it was requisite upon both the availability of further funding and also an evaluation of the work done by that pilot centre to date. That is as much as I can offer for the moment but I will do my best to supplement my answer later. Senator MISSEN —I question the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs about recent reports that the largest refugee camp in Ethiopia-a food, child, nutrition and medical centre run by four relief agencies at Ibnat-has been burnt and its 50,000 inhabitants forcibly evacuated by Ethiopian Government troops? Has the Government been able to assess the extent of this disaster and the veracity of the Ethiopian Government's claim that the refugees were sent home to take advantage of recent rains? Secondly, do Australian Government inquiries indicate whether the allegations of relief agencies that many of the refugees are sick and that as many as half will die as a result of the Ethiopian Government's action are correct? Thirdly, does the Australian Government have any information in relation to Australian Associated Press report of 9 May that talks between World Vision and the Ethiopian Government have resulted in the establishment of a new reception centre at Ibnat for drought victims? Is the Australian Government involved in this in any way? Fourthly, is the Australian Government aware of most recent claims that because of lack of food, shelter and basic camp facilities at Ibnat there is a great danger of an outbreak of disease in epidemic proportions? Senator GARETH EVANS —My latest brief on this is dated 6 May so I may have to supplement responses to Senator Missen's later questions with further and better particulars. However, as to the reported destruction of the feeding centre at Ibnat, I can say that the Government is aware of reports that some 58,000 people were driven out of the relief feeding centre at Ibnat in Gondar province in Ethiopia by Ethiopian Government forces and that a number subsequently died. The Government is also aware that the Ethiopian Government stated on 4 May that the evacuation of Ibnat was voluntary and that those leaving the centre were provided with food, seeds and farming equipment. The Australian Government is deeply concerned by reports of forced relocation of residents of the Ibnat camp and its reported destruction by the armed forces. Such action can have only an adverse impact on governments and public opinion in donor countries and international relief agencies. Australia understands the need for people living temporarily in relief centres to be able to return as soon as practicable to their homes. However, the Government would be seriously concerned if people were forced to leave relief centres without adequate food supply and without proper rehabilitation help. Obviously we regard it as important to avoid any actions that might worsen the plight of famine victims in Ethiopia. Australia shares the concern of other Western donor governments over this incident and will be associated with representations to be jointly made by a number of Western and other donor governments in Addis Ababa to the Ethiopian Government. I am not sure whether these representations have actually taken place-and I will supplement the answer in that respect-to inform the Ethiopian Government of the dismay and concern felt by governments and public opinion in donor countries, to seek assurances that there will be no recurrence of such an incident and that every effort will be made to ensure that relief supplies are made available to those displaced persons. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister investigate the further allegation that a further camp has been set up and that because of lack of facilities there is likely to be a further outbreak of disease? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will follow that matter up too. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the article in today's Australian Financial Review in which John Spender claims that the Government is not interested in community input into the forthcoming tax summit, as compared with what happened in the United States of America where public hearings were held to get the views of people in America? Can the Minister say how many submissions have been made to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, and from whom have they come, by way of refuting the silly claims of Mr Spender? Senator WALSH —As to the last part of the question, I cannot off the top of my head answer that. A large number of submissions have been made. I will obtain the number of submissions and report it, either by letter or possibly after Question Time tomorrow. I have not read the story in the Australian Financial Review in which apparently Mr Spender whinged about the Government's reluctance to have any community input into the tax summit. For the record I note that Mr Spender's Leader-maybe not his preferred leader, but still his Leader at this time-- Senator Ryan —Temporary Leader. Senator WALSH —Or temporary Leader, was invited to make a contribution to the tax summit and declined to do so. I do not know whether we should conclude from those facts that Mr Spender is pursuing the Sydney faction's campaign to roll Mr Peacock as leader and is choosing this way to do it and is being critical of Mr Peacock for refusing to participate or whether he is just indulging in carping criticism of the Government. That is a matter which it is not possible to resolve in a factual way at this time, but I will provide the statistics that have been requested. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is the Government having second thoughts about the assistance to inventors scheme? Does the Minister see the scheme as being extremely useful as a first incentive to foster invention? Can he assure the Senate that the Government will not abandon encouragement of this kind to Australian inventors? Senator BUTTON —The Government is having second thoughts about the assistance to inventors scheme, simply on the basis that any such scheme has to be constantly subject to review, but if the Government foreshadows or intends any change in the scheme an announcement will be made at the appropriate time. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Rae proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.06) —With a lone voice only coming from the other side of the chamber, the proposal that this is an important matter has apparently been supported. I wonder why there was only one voice. I would have thought that we could expect some general support for the concern for the urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation, but apparently at least one person on the Government side does not agree. Senator Colston —Two. Senator PETER RAE —Two, was it? I thank the honourable senator very much. Is there any advance on two? Senator Robert Ray —Two no trumps. Senator PETER RAE —Two will do. I wish to emphasise that in talking about the effective program for business deregulation we are talking about something which goes beyond having a summit, a tripartite inquiry or some other sort of a review of a review that takes a long time but does not really produce very much. We are talking about getting this economy going again. We are talking about creating wealth for distribution amongst all the citizens of the country. We are talking about making the country able to compete with other countries so that the time in which Australia developed as an island unto itself is recognised as having passed. We cannot have rules which place us at a disadvantage with our trading competitors. We cannot have practices which are not common in the parts of the world in which we have to compete. We need to remove the cost, the impediment which so much regulation which has developed over the years has caused to business and to the economy. The impediment to growth in this country is great indeed. The objections which one finds come from small business as well as large business and are loud and long. Many calls for deregulation have been coming from such organisations as the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. All of them, through the Business Council of Australia and various other bodies, are concerned about two things. One is the cost and the other is the impediment which it constitutes to our being able to develop. Yet, what do we find? The Opposition has a policy, which it has published, in relation to the regulation, deregulation and reform of the regulatory process. It has a positive deregulation policy. It has a program, which it would start on day one in government, to ensure that steps are taken to encourage self-regulation where possible, provided adequate steps are taken to protect public and consumer interests. It would require regulation impact statements with each proposal for new regulations. It would reduce the paper war and simplify forms and bureaucratic requirements. I noticed that the Department of Transport, in the recent Supplementary Estimates, wanted almost another $300,000 because it uses something like 3,000 different forms and needed to replenish the stocks. One can see how the paper war can take over. The Opposition, the Liberal and National parties, would ensure after consultation with interested parties that uniform standards apply where necessary, such as in relation to pure foods, building codes, traffic rules and the inspection of products. We would co-ordinate action with the States in reducing inefficient regulation and removing unnecessary duplication and substitute, where possible, joint operations providing one-stop regulatory requirements for inspection of goods and services. We would establish continuing deregulatory task forces within the appropriate Cabinet department. We would review regulations on a regular basis. We would prepare and issue advance notice agendas of proposed regulatory activity by government. We would prepare and issue draft regulations for comment by and prior consultation with interested parties. We would establish a regulatory review committee of the House of Representatives and increase the Parliament's scrutiny and review of regulatory activity. The coalition's commitment to deregulation and reform of the regulatory process is in marked contrast to the Australian Labor Party's commitment affirmed at its National Conference last July. This is the difference and the nub of the matter: We have a positive policy which we had started in government, and which we will continue after the next election, for deregulation and for reform of the regulatory process to reduce the cost and to increase the competitiveness and the growth in the economy, whilst this present Government, the ALP, subjected to domination by its Conference, has a policy which states: Conference affirms that interventionist policies which are closely monitored- and comprehensive in nature- are necessary to bring about the growth which is required on a sustained basis if unemployment is to fall on a continuous path. Fundamental to the interventionist policies required is a planning mechanism. That is what this Government has insisted that it requires from its policy makers. If one looks at the prices and incomes accord, one can see the basis for that policy, because the accord states: The ACTU and ALP have agreed on the importance of implementing a comprehensive industry development policy which reflects a number of key characteristics including those summarised below: . . . . fundamental to the interventionist policies required is a planning mechanism. It continues to talk about closely monitored, comprehensive interventionist policies which are necessary to bring about growth. It continues for pages to discuss the intervention which is involved in industry policy so far as this Government is concerned. That is the accord of which it is so proud. That is the accord by which it is bound and that is the interventionism by which it is bound. The difference is that, while some people talk about deregulation and do not do anything about it, others have a positive policy to do something about it and, when in government, had instituted actions which had already commenced a form of deregulation. The present Government is giving the appearance of action without taking action. The difference, I think, is exemplified by what the Tasmanian Liberal Government has done. It has actually acted and has set up a deregulatory body which is in full operation and which is operating extremely successfully. Senator Button —So has the Victorian Government; so has the New South Wales Government. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Button will make a speech in a minute. Senator Button —No, I am not. Senator PETER RAE —Well, I note your interjection. Senator Button —I am just trying to improve your speech. You can make the point that a lot of State governments have done it. Senator PETER RAE —The Tasmanian Liberal Government led the way in taking this action, and the Federal Liberal Government had a policy in relation to it. There was the formation of the razor gang and the rest of the things that were done as part of the deregulatory process. Under the present Government a tripartite inquiry is taking place over a very lengthy period which is costing those who are participating a considerable amount of money and is unlikely to get anywhere because the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not let it. Senator Cook —We have economic growth as well, something we did not have under you. Senator PETER RAE —I do give the Government credit for what it has done in implementing deregulation in the financial area. We have discussed that quite recently. The point, of course, is that we started the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. We started the inquiry which led to the deregulation of the financial sector. But at least this Government did do something. It did go ahead with the recommendations, or many of them, which were made and the action which we had already started to implement. In approaching this whole question, speakers from this side of the chamber will talk about what has happened generally as well as in the wages area-in the other business area, in the mining area-and will refer to the difference which our policy brings, as a firm, clear policy which people can understand, which they can see and which is in favour of deregulation and reform of the regulatory process. As opposed to that, we find that this Government, from which we hear some mouthings about deregulation occasionally, in fact has adopted corporatism as its basic approach. It is the new form of regulation which we find started with the summit. The Government then created the Economic Planning Advisory Council. That body arose out of the summit as another form of regulation. Then the Government found that it was necessary to have a Steel Industry Authority, an Automobile Industry Authority, the Prices Surveillance Authority and all the other bodies that have been created to intervene in the business area at a cost to those who are endeavouring to effect growth and limiting the opportunity to make choices of those who are trying to manage. We have the adherence to centralised wage fixing which is such a determined part of the accord and of this Government's corporatist approach. The Government has made proposals with regard to the Trade Practices Act which will impose a cost on industry. If all of these proposals go ahead, as if feared, the effect will be even greater regulation. This Government managed in its first nine months in office to create 25 new quangos. That is more than one a fortnight. This Government, which created one new statutory authority every fortnight during its first year of office, talks about deregulation! If one wanted to one could look through the list to see what sort of quangos were created. However, I do not think we need to take the time to do so. They are typical of what a Labor government would create. The Government has further proposals. There is one before us now for the creation of a sports commission. Why do we need to have a sports commission as such? Why does such a body have to be a statutory authority? Why does it have to have the power to regulate? Why does it have to regulate sport? We are all in favour of developing sport. The former Government did a great deal to develop the Australian Institute of Sport. But it did not say: 'We are now going to turn around and regulate everything that you do in relation to sport'. The same thing applies in respect of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Certainly there is a need to pay attention to the area of occupational health and safety. Certainly there is a need for action to be taken by government, by industry and by all of those involved to ensure that the very serious damage done to individuals in the community and industry is reduced as a result of the efforts which can be taken through an appropriate body. But what is wrong with the National Safety Council which is already in existence and which is made up of safety councils from each of the States? With some development, that body could do the job. Why does the Government have to create a new qango? Oh no, the Government wants to create another new qango-an overseas trading corporation. So far we have not heard any denial about any intention to go ahead with that. The Government's Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) often talks in this place and elsewhere about deregulation. But what do we find that he does about deregulation? What has he done about penalty rates? What has he done about the problem, which he agrees exists, about wage on-costs which have reached something like 45 per cent? What has he done about achieving the uniformity of which the Australian Labor Party has talked at great length in all of its policies and speeches? The Labor Party has said that it will concentrate on reducing the cost of non-uniform regulation in Australia. But what has it achieved in this respect? I will be very interested to hear any Labor senators list the Government's achievements in that aspect of compliance cost. The Government talks about reducing one of the great regulatory mechanisms and forces in Australia and one of the disaster areas in Australian business-that is, the huge and disproportionate power of the trade union movement in Australia and of organisers of that trade union movement. The Government talks about the amalgamation of unions. But what has it done? So far there have been only four amalgamations; that is not a very good achievement record. What are the sorts of things that also have been going on? The business area has been drawing attention to the fact that the national food legislation needs review and deregulation, because a lot of it is absolutely unnecessary and not compatible, and that State credit legislation needs to be reviewed. This Government has done little to achieve that sort of central impact, as it promised. The census and statistics Act is in urgent need of review because of the cost to industry. We have such things as the financial institutions duties which have been brought in by Labor governments. We have other problems-and I will not go through all the rest of the State legislation in respect of which the Government apparently has done nothing to honour the promises it made to ensure that State governments got together to review these matters in order to remove or reduce the impact on business. When one looks at other aspects of regulation, one finds that this Government is not only supporting but expanding the monopolies and the privileges of quangos. What does one find when one looks at Australia Post? The Prices Surveillance Authority investigated the efficiency of Australia Post and found that particularly in New South Wales it was inefficient. What happened to the price? The price charged by Australia Post went up by 10 per cent for letters and by 15 to 20 per cent for other articles-double or quadruple the rate of inflation. Yet this Government approved that. Australia Post reintroduced Australia Post Courier, one of the least competitive and least justifiable organisations one can imagine. The Government reintroduced a body which does not have to pay excise duty, sales tax or any of the costs borne by its competitors, but it does have to pay, according to the Public Service Board, award rates and conditions in relation to its employees. Its contribution to revenue is much less than if the function were carried out by the private sector, but its cost to the revenue is much higher than it would be if it were carried out by the private sector. I refer to some of the other matters in this context. I would like to know what happened to the Australia Post efficiency audit which was carried out by the Auditor-General's Office and why it has not been published. I understand that an investigation, costing some $500,000, was undertaken to try to improve the efficiency of Australia Post. But what happened? The monopoly was preserved and many of the suggestions made by the audit department have not been adopted. In fact, as I understand it, the audit report has been quietly swept under the carpet. Furthermore, the matter of Trans Australia Airlines and the two-airline agreement is another great area of regulation, but no indication has yet been given of notice to terminate that agreement. Labor promised to take action to make TAA more commercial, yet the Government repealed the legislation we introduced to commercialise TAA. The Australian Industry Development Corporation is another example of a body which is regulatory in its impact and serves no particularly useful purpose, as was demonstrated by a recent article in the Australian Financial Review by Toni Whitmont. The Australian National Line is another body supported by a web of regulation. It has managed to achieve a negative capital of $4m and a superannuation liability for employer's contributions which at 30 June 1983, nearly two years ago, was estimated at $55m; so it has more than $60m of negative capital at present. Telecom has a web of anti-competitive regulation which exists to support it. Its impact is dramatic as to what is happening to technological change and development in Australia. Because there is a monopoly, because there is restriction by regulation which supports Telecom's monopoly, this has the effect of achieving a reduction in the possibilities for competition. All this amounts to an urgent need for the Government to take steps to ensure that the amount of regulatory impact in the business area is reduced; that there is a program for business deregulation; that businesses are given urgently an opportunity to reduce their costs to become more competitive so that they are able to play their part in restoring the Australian economy to one of full growth on a proper trading basis-not one that is achieved by devaluation, with its inherent impact of pushing up interest rates to an impossibly high level, which of course will adversely affect business development. As this Government squeezes in one area, it creates a distortion. As it squeezes in another area, it creates a further distortion. Regulation is distortional. We believe that regulation must be reviewed down and out as soon as possible. We need those regulations which are the bare minimum and no more. We need effective regulation. We need regular review of regulation. We do not believe that this Government is doing what it ought to do and what the country needs to achieve that purpose. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.26) —Business deregulation has been raised by Senator Peter Rae as a matter of public importance. Contrary to Senator Rae's assertions, this Government is examining aspects of business deregulation to identify what benefits and costs are involved in so doing. I will elaborate on those in a moment. First, I think it is very important to ask just what the Opposition is seeking in this area. It is not clear what it wants. It is not clear what regulation the Opposition wants removed. Does it want deregulation for business, consumers or employees? That is just not clear from the terms of the matter which has been raised today. It is certainly not the case that both business and others together will benefit in all cases from deregulation. That is the historical reason why, in fact, we have regulation of industry and business in developed Western societies-because regulation is very important in some areas in order to protect consumers, employees and particularly those groups in the community which do not have market power. Of course, in plenty of areas in the community it is very important that regulation exist to ensure that minimum safety and health standards are met. Many of those very important standards simply cannot be left to the business mechanism. Deregulation is a sensitive subject within the Opposition parties. Of course, there are two clear groups within the Liberal Party of Australia-the so-called wets and the so-called dries. Members of the dry group, of which Mr Howard is a luminary, want to deregulate most things, including the labour market. They would like to deregulate the wage fixing mechanism-the wage setting system. I think it is very important to acknowledge that, in fact, there is some tension between those two groups in the Liberal Party-the so-called dries, the deregulators, and the wets-as to what approach should actually be adopted. Certainly it is not clear within the Opposition coalition-that is, the grouping of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia-just how the National Party lines up on this question of deregulation. If there are any speakers this afternoon who represent the National Party I will be very interested to hear just what they have to say about deregulation. Of course, traditionally-- Senator Peter Rae —Just look at the transport policy which was issued by the joint parties before the last election. Senator MAGUIRE —We will see how long that policy lasts. Traditionally the National Party and the people it represents have sought protection for rural producers from big interests and big combines. The history books tell us that. There has been much regulation in the rural sector to ensure that the many small suppliers and small sellers in rural markets are protected from those with market power. Perhaps within the Opposition coalition there is some resistance to this deregulation. I would certainly be interested to hear remarks from National Party speakers in favour of deregulation. We are now debating a matter which calls on this Government to act to deregulate industry and business. It is a matter raised by the remnants of a party which did very little, in seven or eight years of occupying the treasury bench, actually to deregulate. Very little action was taken to co-ordinate the various regulatory mechanisms of the six States and the Northern Territory. It is very hard to point to substantive areas where the Liberal Party when in government in Canberra co-ordinated States or proposed reforms in this area, particularly in the standardisation of State laws. The Liberal Party has a very poor record in this field. It has now come into this chamber and called on us to act. Of course, it is very important to note that the rhetoric of the Opposition parties about States rights to some extent hems them in in this area. To a degree it makes deregulation difficult for them. Once one examines the essence of the argument calling for deregulation it is possible on many occasions to relate difficulties in deregulating to problems of differing State laws; for example, differing State standards and differing State requirements. I think that the rhetoric that Opposition parties engage in here and in the other place on a regular basis concerning States rights really hems them in and reduces their ability to act. Of course, business makes it quite clear that it faces particular costs in particular areas as a result of differing State laws and State standards. The Liberals did very little in regard to deregulation but now in the Senate they demand not only that we act but that we lay down a timetable for deregulation of business in this country. Let us see what has happened in the last four or five months. On 1 December this Government in a referendum put to the Australian people a suggestion to allow the interchange of powers between levels of government in Australia. The referendum proposed that the Commonwealth Government or a State government may exchange powers to improve public administration in this country. If passed, that referendum proposal could have had some impact in the area of packaging, which is a real problem for business in this country. The laws differ in regard to packaging in various States. If that referendum proposal had been passed on 1 December we could have had the situation in Australia in which constitutional power in relation to packaging laws could have been rationalised and sorted out between Federal and State governments. I highlight the importance of this field of packaging law because I have been supplied with information which suggests that in the area concerning manufactured foods-just one area alone-the cost of having differing State packaging and labelling laws might be about $50m a year. I think that that is probably an accurate figure. It was a figure I was rather surprised to see. I understand that members of the Opposition have seen that information. Senator Peter Rae —Yes. It is our belief that it is accurate. Senator MAGUIRE —It is clear that food manufacturing firms in this country would like to see uniform laws for the production, marketing and labelling of food. Often a product which comes out of a particular factory has to be changed marginally to meet differing State standards, thus adding to the costs of production through various extra production runs. Senator Jack Evans —Consumers would like to see it too. Senator MAGUIRE —As the honourable senator has just interjected, the consumers of Australia would like to see that as well. What did the Opposition do in regard to the referendum on 1 December? It opposed the referendum question to allow the exchange of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. I believe that if the proposal had been passed business would have been one of the major beneficiaries of changes to Australia's law in this respect. However, the Opposition opposed that referendum question outright. Opposition members went around the country seeking a no vote in the referendum on this question of exchange of powers between the levels of government in Australia. I think there is a pressing need in this country to examine just which government should have responsibility for particular areas and to decide which government is the most appropriate to act in particular fields. I think it is particularly pressing in a country such as ours with a federal system and three levels of government that we look at this matter. I think that one of the prices we must pay is that of having more regulation than in, for example, a country with a unitary system of government such as the United Kingdom. It may be that the federal system and questions such as States rights-the rhetoric we hear from the other side-inevitably lead to a situation of more regulation in this country than in other countries. Certainly we have more regulation in this country than those countries with a unitary system of government. I think it very important that those honourable senators on the Opposition benches who parade around this country on a platform of States rights sort out their views, remove the rhetoric from them and get some consistency of approach because I suspect that their championing of States rights, so called, inevitably leads to more regulation in this country than probably is desirable. I think that in Australia we probably have more regulation than do some other countries with comparable federal systems because we have a relatively inflexible way of changing our Constitution. Every time a change is proposed some group gets up and opposes it outright, making it very difficult indeed to rationalise our system. I think it is very important to get the matter of deregulation into some perspective. I think that deregulation as an issue has been raised only within the last decade. It has been raised in the context of a depressed world economy-since the 1973 Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries oil shock and the second oil shock of 1978. Deregulation is very much a response to a depressed world economy rather than something which can be seen necessarily as having great advantages within itself. In the 1970s many industrial firms around the world experienced declining demand for their products. Arguments were then put that in order to contain costs and improve profitability the focus should be switched to examining the cost structure of industry in the belief that cost cutting would restore business profits. Undoubtedly there is some truth in the proposition that one can improve profitability by reducing cost structures. However, I think that the Liberal Party in the late 1970s and early 1980s did a great deal of harm in the Australian community because when it was in government it tried to convince business that its poor profits were to a large extent due to overregulation. That argument was put very actively in the late 1970s and early 1980s by some members of the Liberal Party whom I heard speak on this subject. They were trying to deflect attention from the fact that their economic management had resulted in depressed demand in the community, depressed output and depressed business turnover, which really caused the problem. The Liberal Party's own stop-go policy of economic management led to that depressed economic situation. I think the Liberal Party was really trying to pull the wool over the eyes of certain people in the business community by suggesting all their problems were due to the regulation of activity. I was appalled several years ago to read a major survey of business activity in South Australia- my State. Some of the respondents to the survey actually blamed their problems on overregulation by governments. However, when one looked at the other criteria in the survey it became very clear indeed that the problems of these people really related to poor turnover, poor sales and being in unprofitable areas. I think it is most unfortunate that the Liberal Party in the late 1970s and the early 1980s portrayed deregulation as a panacea. It actually portrayed deregulation as a policy approach which would solve business problems at a time of depressed business activity which in fact had resulted directly from the policies of the Liberal Party. I think one of the other great disadvantages in regard to any serious attempts to deregulate arises from the fact that in recent years the deregulation case has been greatly oversold. I refer to one survey published several years ago by a major business group in Australia and which I was forced to read in the course of my previous occupation. That survey contained an estimate of the cost to Australian business of deregulation. A vast sum of money was mentioned in that survey as purporting to measure the cost of regulation of business in Australia. When I looked at that survey I found that the major single element was in fact the cost of tariff protection. A value for tariff protection was actually put into this survey and it was said that this was the cost to business of a regulated economy. I am one of the first people to acknowledge that there are problems with tariff protection, but I can see that some businesses in Australia are the major beneficiaries of tariff protection. So there was a survey purporting to show that business was faced with enormous costs as a result of tariff protection when, in fact, the business sector as a group is one of the major beneficiaries of that policy of tariff protection. I think that the case for deregulation has been portrayed too much as a panacea. It has certainly been oversold when programs like tariff protection are built into the cost of the policy. I am not clear whether all business groups in this country are in favour of deregulation. That is one of the assumptions that have been made today by Senator Rae. I am not quite sure that all business groups would want to see deregulation in this country. I simply refer to a Press release by the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. dated 6 May. The Federation called on the Government to delay the deregulation of housing interest rates until 1986. That was one Press report on the subject. The Federation is a very specific interest group which is calling on the Government not to deregulate in a particular area-I must say that I am not aware of any commitment or proposal by the Government to deregulate in that field-and which sees itself threatened by a possible policy change in that area. I can also instance the domestic air transport industry. That industry has been subjected, justifiably, to a lot of public complaint about the high cost of air transport in this country and the crazy system which we have of parallel air schedules. There are problems in that industry. I am not sure that the major private supplier of services in that industry-I refer to Ansett Transport Industries Ltd-would be in favour of deregulation. Proposals for changes to the Australian dairy industry will come into this place shortly. A large part of that so-called Kerin plan to improve the efficiency of-rationalise, if you like-the Australian dairy industry involves a substantial degree of deregulation. I am not quite sure how members of the Liberal Party and members of the National Party will line up in this chamber on that matter. This is another proposal to come in here which has a very substantial element of deregulation in it. I must say that I have real doubts about how those on the other side of the House will respond to that policy proposal. The Hawke Government is involved in deregulation. It is looking at this question. It is looking at the costs and benefits of deregulating, including not only the costs to business but also the costs and benefits to consumers and employees. The Hawke Government is also looking at any efficiency advantages for the Australian economy as a result of any moves towards deregulation. We have taken some steps already. We have deregulated the foreign exchange markets. The Australian dollar is now a floating currency. We have substantially deregulated the financial sector. We have substantially deregulated the banking system. We have announced moves towards a partially deregulated market in crude oil, which may occur in Australia as early as 1988, when Australian producers of crude oil will be able to sell their product in a modified free market way. There are some very important initiatives in this field by the Government. In October 1984 we appointed a task force to review business regulation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has consulted with the four major industry groups in Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to identify those government regulations which are believed to impose unnecessary or substantial costs on them. We are also seeking the views of those groups on actions which could be taken to reduce the cost of deregulation. The Fraser Government did nothing. It did not appoint a task force on deregulation. Now its remnants call on us to act in this area. In conclusion, I point out that the Government will discuss any proposals with industry organisations and the ACTU which come of this task force into deregulation before the proposals are finalised. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.45) —The matter of public importance before us is: The urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation. I wonder when it became urgent. Was it 1901? About then it became obvious that it was impossible for all to make up their minds as to whether Australia should have the sort of deregulation which is being proposed even today. Was it in 1972, when we had a change of government after 23 years and when it suddenly became urgent again to have deregulation of business? Perhaps it was in 1976, when there was another change of government and it was the time for the Australian Labor Party to put the pressure on the incoming Fraser Government for business to deregulate. Perhaps it became urgent in 1983, when the Fraser Government was replaced by the Hawke Government. Or perhaps today it is suddenly urgent. It is not urgent; it is desperate for some industries, particularly some industries in the small business area. When we look at Australia's leadership in international trade and at deregulation in that area, we see that it is desperately urgent to help Third World nations or Southern Hemisphere nations. The urgency of this has to be tied in with the second part of the wording of the matter of public importance: We are looking for an 'effective' program for business deregulation. To be effective it has to be well planned, it has to have community support in the broad goals of deregulatory practice and it has to have the support, in my view, of all the political parties in those broad goals. Deregulation will not come about in the lifetime of one parliament. There are substantial benefits from deregulation. I guess the most evident of these is the efficiency which leads to wealth generation within the total community if we can deregulate and if we can get off the back of business. Therefore, I would be applauding this matter of public importance today if that was all there was to it-if we were looking at the wonderful benefits that can come from setting such broad goals. But it is in the achievement of those goals, in how we get there, that we need to be considering the matter of public importance today, because there are some bad points to deregulation. The deregulated market is not necessarily good for everybody. It has the effect of distributing wealth and income very unevenly. The epitome of a deregulated market was that in the nineteenth century English society of Charles Dickens where there was a massive gap between the rich and the poor in a beautifully deregulated market-almost a classic deregulated market. I am sure that nobody is suggesting that we go back to that. What I am suggesting is that we do not go forward to a variation of that, to a variety of that kind of unevenness, in the distribution of wealth and income. I hesitate to score a political point, but I am a little afraid for Senator Rae who may in this matter of public importance today be exposing himself as the spokesperson for the dries, because the criticisms are directed at a government which has, in fact, gone down a deregulatory path. In some areas we would admire the Government's actions in this regard and in others we would criticise it. As to this Government's actions in the finance sector, as distinct from the words of the previous Government, I think that Senator Rae would applaud them. I suspect that Senator Rae would applaud its actions in respect of the steel and motor vehicle industries. Senator Peter Rae —I said so. Senator JACK EVANS —I acknowledge the interjection that Senator Rae has applauded them. I am listing the industries to ensure that we are recognising that certain steps have been taken by this Government which were long overdue to have been taken by the previous Government. This Government has taken these steps at high political risk. The previous Government was not willing to take that political risk, and that is the crunch. We need to ask a few questions of the proposer of this matter of public importance because there are some dangerous areas. Would the proposer suggest that we deregulate health care and return to the pre-Medicare days when everybody did not have the right to health care, when costs were not shared? Is that what is being proposed? Is this matter of public importance raised by Senator Rae of the Liberal Party suggesting that Australia's rural industries, which are currently a major source of export earnings needing, if anything, more subsidies and assistance in order to compete in world markets, where prices for primary commodities are dropping and where there is ferocious competition for sales, be deregulated? Let us be honest about this. We have a foreign debt of over $40 billion. We have a widening current account deficit which we desperately need to reduce and, obviously, the one way that we are going to reduce it is to earn export income. That may mean more subsidies, not fewer, to the rural industries, not deregulation. It may mean higher and higher support for rural industries which need to be healthy to help our total economy. So we cannot sweepingly say: 'Deregulate everything'. Rural industries are the old industries but a new industry needs support-the high tech industry-just to get established because over the last decade we have lost the running to competitors in the international high tech world. It is interesting that it was a coalition government-today in Opposition it is talking about the urgent need for deregulation-which ensured that for the next decade we had one of the great monopolies in an industry. It again signed the renewal of the two-airline agreement. Senator Peter Rae —It was for eight years, not a decade. We got it reduced to eight years. Senator JACK EVANS —As a Western Australian senator, let me tell honourable senators-Senator Rae from Tasmania would be equally aware of it-that in eight or 10 years he and his electors in Tasmania will be as disadvantaged as my constituents in Western Australia by the refusal to deregulate the airline industry. We do have a problem with over-regulation in small businesses in particular, and I am the first to acknowledge that. However, it is not just Commonwealth regulation; we have to look at this right across the board-State governments, Commonwealth governments and local governments. We have licences and restraints of trade. We have to regulate for health provisions, safety provisions and consumer protection. In the Commonwealth field we have taxes, customs duties and excises and a whole range of duties, not just to collect taxes. A massive amount of work is done by small businesses just to keep a tab on behalf of Government-they are unpaid servants of the Government-on how much they have to pay it. We should also be aware that some regulations are there-I suspect that it may even be the majority of them-at industry's request. So let us not pretend that all of the regulations are there on behalf of industries. I am not pretending that they are there on behalf of industries because many of them were introduced to protect an industry. Perhaps they were introduced to protect the consumers but still at the industry's request, because it saw that consumers were being ripped off by some segments of the industry, and to protect the industry's good reputation so that it could flourish and grow in Australia. Of course there were, and still are, pressures to provide protection to keep out competitors, whether they be Australian or overseas. There is a constant demand for government assistance-that sort of regulation. The Government has moved towards deregulation in a number of areas. I refer to the steel and car industries and the dairy industry package, an interesting package on which perhaps later speakers from both sides will indicate their party's policy. The steel and car industries packages were particularly good models of deregulation because they offered supervised protection over a set number of years to be followed by a reassessment of protection if the industries did not perform. This has the advantages of long term planning, which we would propose, but leaves the difficult political decision, the crunch decision, till later when a government may have to decide to remove all assistance if the industries do not perform satisfactorily. The other area the Government has deregulated massively is finance and banking. What now remains for the Government to do if it is going to follow through on that kind of deregulation is to lift the controls on housing interest rates, and God help us all if it does. It will be done over the dead bodies of the Australian Democrats. I wonder whether the Opposition supports the lifting of these sorts of controls on housing interest rates. If the controls were lifted people currently purchasing homes would have difficulty meeting the increased mortgage repayments and people wanting to buy homes in the future would put off making that decision for fear that they could not plan to meet future unpredictable increases. That would effectively destroy the housing industry in this country and the industries that depend on it. A centralised wage fixing system has been referred to. It is one that has problems but let us recognise that complete deregulation of the wages system could easily make matters worse. Those who argue for deregulation argue on grounds of efficiency rather than equity. If deregulation produced more efficient distribution of incomes it would be so inequitable as to threaten the social fabric of Australian society. However, given that deregulation of wages would not take place in a completely free market environment-that is, the monopolies and the oligopolies would exist on both the labour side and the employer side-we would not even end up with an efficient allocation of resources. This is what people fail to recognise. Monopolies can pass on price increases. The unions would use their muscle to get their wage increases and the people who work in the industries where union conditions do not apply and where they do not have the muscle would be the ones who would be forced to accept a level of income which may not enable them to sustain even minimal living standards. At least the prices and incomes accord holds up the hope that the Government can negotiate with unions to prevent the effects of the devaluation in the value of the Australian dollar being frittered away in unjustified wage increases. On behalf of the Democrats I support the essence of this matter of public importance. I believe that we do have to deregulate; we have to plan for deregulation because we believe that it can improve our efficiency. We can generate more wealth. We can distribute our wealth more evenly so that all Australians benefit, not just the lucky few in some industries. But we can do that only if deregulation is planned; we can do it only if we have agreement between all of the political parties to plan over a long term for that kind of deregulation. We have to recognise that there will be massive job losses along the way. We must consult with employees' representatives to minimise the impact of job losses. We have to help retrain and we can do that if we plan for phasing out of the regulations. We cannot take the risk of having massive disruption through instant deregulation because, although it may benefit us all in the long term, the people who would be disrupted and affected in the short term need to eat today. They cannot live on the promise of a meal in two years time. We propose that there be a joint party program for deregulation and that it continue through several parliaments. I believe that is possible. We have had some constructive debate already today. The feeling about the community and about the Parliament is that we have no alternative but to plan for deregulation. However, it has to be all party planning because it goes through several parliaments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.00) —We are discussing today the urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation. We are not discussing whether or not previous governments, both Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Labor Party, did all they could to achieve deregulation of business. What is past is past. This Government claims to have a vision for a better Australia, to have great plans for the future of this nation. It is therefore appropriate that we remember what we are discussing and not get waylaid in pointless arguments about who did what and when in the past. Having said that, I thank Senator Maguire for his historical discourse and ask him to bear my remarks in mind. Senator Maguire said that he was not too sure what this discussion was all about-was it about deregulation of business or did it apply to consumers and employers and employees? I can tell him that this discussion is about deregulation of business and that means any area where there is unnecessary regulation. If we remove the unnecessary and excessive regulations, we will be left with the necessary ones, the ones that are needed to protect people in some way. I thank Senator Jack Evans for his contribution. I agree with him that there will be some disagreement as to which areas need deregulation as a priority and which need it at all, but what the coalition wants to highlight by this discussion today is the need for an effective plan to deregulate business-a plan or mechanism that as a matter of priority will help identify where we need to move and where we do not need to move. We simply cannot continue to put it in the too hard basket. It is generally accepted in the community, especially in the business community, that government red tape is costing this country millions of dollars a year. The Australian Chamber of Commerce estimates that it is as much as a billion dollars a year. I remind honourable senators that $1 billion is exactly the amount this Government is claiming it will save by trimming its Forward Estimates of spending. It is pleasing to see the Government is proposing to cut its extravagant spending. It is a saving if the money is not spent, but the opportunity is there for a real billion-dollar saving, not a cutback on estimated expenditure but a cutback on real and unnecessary expenditure incurred because of government red tape and restrictions that are currently emasculating the business community. There is an urgent need to implement-not to talk about and not to look at-an effective program for business deregulation. Business can then have lower costs, be more innovative and experience new found freedom. With that will come new ideas, new jobs and consequently lower unemployment. I am reliably informed that the Lord's Prayer has 65 words, the Gettysburg Address has 3,560 words and the laws relating to the distribution of cabbages in the United States have 26,793 words. I admit that is a light hearted example from the United States, but what a depressing story it tells. Fortunately for the Americans, they are well on the way to remedying some of the ills of excessive regulation and they have the political will to do that, especially in the wages area. Europe, on the other hand, is suffering under excessive regulation, and particularly excessive regulation of its labour laws. Several years ago a German economist, Herbert Giersch, coined the phrase 'Eurosclerosis' which he said was 'to describe the gradual stiffening of Europe's economic joints through rigid labour laws, welfare programs and governmental red tape'. This disease has spread to this country and it has become Aussiesclerosis. It is to industry what acquired immune deficiency syndrome is to the gay community-an infectious disease that strikes horror in the hearts of its potential victims. Aussiesclerosis and AIDS have other aspects in common. They both spread globally and they are both in a sense a function of the environment that we find them in. Both these diseases need to be recognised and eradicated to reduce the suffering in the community. Effort will be required, especially in the wages area. I acknowledge that the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry have made submissions to the Government on deregulation. The Business Council of Australia has also released a comprehensive study-I am told of some 300 or more pages-which attacks the structure of penalty rates in this country. The study was undertaken by Peter Dawkins from Flinders University in South Australia. If I may be excused for being a weeny bit parochial, that university has a reputation for imaginative and relevant research and that reputation grows daily. Its reputation for excellence is, to my knowledge, unblemished. This Mr Dawkins, not the one in the Parliament, estimates that employment would increase by 4 per cent if penalty rates were completely eliminated. The report goes on to say that it is unrealistic for industrial relations reasons to proceed along that path. I suspect that is simply a disguised way of saying that the unions and this Government would not wear it; nonetheless the report suggests some alternative options. It suggests reducing penalty rates, setting them in absolute terms rather than in percentage terms. It suggests not indexing penalty rates or paying them as time off rather than in cash. The report goes on to say just how advantageous it would be if our wage setting system were flexible enough to allow employers, unions and employees to negotiate arrangements suitable to their particular circumstances-in other words, to take account of local conditions and to take account of the capacity to pay. A Liberal government would deregulate the labour market. It is interesting to note that the Chairman of Westpac Banking Corporation, Sir Noel Foley, in New York last month at a seminar sponsored by the Westpac Bank to sell Australia said: I see the continued retention of full wage indexation as one of the greatest potential threats to Australia's longer-term economic future. What is to be done? We need an effective program for deregulation and we need it urgently. Governments need to get off the back of business. This Government must act, and act quickly. I acknowledge that there are some areas where the Government has moved but what the coalition is asking for in this debate is a plan, an organised mechanism to move forward. Senator Jack Evans is right-we cannot deregulate haphazardly; we must plan. The intent of this discussion is to highlight that fact. This Government cannot hide behind the need for consensus and the consequent delays. I use the entry of foreign banks into Australia as an example of the farce that the alleged consensus of this Government is. I quote the Managing Director of Westpac, Mr Robert White, who said: You know of course, that we in Australia are strongly united in the national interest and for the common good by consensus and consultation. You will not therefore be surprised to learn that I discovered the details of this momentous announcement- that is the deregulation of the banks and which ones were coming in- in exactly the same way as you did. In other words, he discovered it in the newspapers. So much for consensus. What the Government does not appear to realise is that there is a degree of consensus about what has to happen. When the Government finishes deliberating on the submissions of the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry it will see quite a degree of similarity in a number of areas. There are strong similarities in three areas in particular. The first is in identification of current excesses of regulation and red tape. Secondly, there is a consensus in identification of areas of potential further intrusion of governments that are regarded as excessive and must be prevented. There is also a degree of consensus on the suggested method of achieving deregulation in both the above-mentioned areas. If this Government could bring itself to look at the coalition's deregulation policy-something that it would have to do because it does not have one itself-it would see the enormous similarity between the CAI and BCA papers and the coalition's views. I accept that to identify the excesses of regulation and the potential but unwanted further areas of regulation business must be consulted, but the mechanisms by which we achieve that deregulation are much more properly the province of government alone. The coalition has laid down the mechanisms it would use. It did so before the last election. The Australian Labor Party, of course, did not release many or, dare I say, any policy documents at the last election. It was not prepared to let Australia see what it was going to do. Some say that it did not know what it was going to do and some say that it still does not know what it is going to do. For the benefit of honourable senators opposite I will detail some of the specific coalition suggestions for mechanisms to deregulate and highlight the consensus between the coalition's views and the submissions the Government has received from the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry. The coalition has identified the need for consultation and for advisory committees on page 8 of its policy document and the same thing is to be found on page 4 of the submission from the Business Council of Australia and page 91 of the submission from the Confederation of Australian Industry. The coalition, at page 9 of its policy document, identifies the need for what it refers to as advance notice agendas and one sees a similar sort of thing on page 4 of the Business Council's submissions, which recommends the publication of legislative agendas, and on page 91 of the paper from the Confederation of Australian Industry. The coalition wants to introduce-it will do so when it gets back into government-regulatory impact statements very similar to the prior assessment requirement proposed by the Business Council of Australia on page 4 of its submission and even more similar to the requirement of the Confederation of Australian Industry for regulatory impact analysis statements. The coalition would like to see regulatory guidelines specified in legislation to ensure that regulations are succinct, necessary and consistent with the legislative objectives-just the sort of thing the Business Council of Australia was seeking. The coalition in its policy document also wanted to see sunset clauses inserted, as did the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry. I could go on and on through these papers citing consensus about the way to go about deregulating in a planned and effective manner. I want to know when this Government will see the urgent need to implement an effective plan to deregulate business. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.14) —The Senate is discussing the matter of public importance introduced by Senator Peter Rae, namely: The urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation. I commence from the position that any proposal should be thoroughly evaluated so that the benefits far outweigh the costs of any such program. I believe there is agreement that petty regulations that impose unnecessary cost in both time and the physical resources of business should be eliminated. This is particularly so for small business. But I would assert that the Government is effectively doing everything that could be said to be reasonable in terms of Senator Rae's proposal. That is in contrast with the Fraser Government's performance. I well appreciate Senator Vanstone's assertion that we should not go into the past. Of course, Senator Vanstone would want to make sure that we did not examine what happened under the Fraser Government. In opposition honourable senators opposite can come out with various programs, whilst in government they were locked in continual struggle and not able to reach agreement on what they should do. Let us contrast that with what this Government is doing. The principles have been laid down. On 11 October the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asked the Australian Council of Trade Unions and four industry groups-the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the National Farmers Federation-to identify regulations considered to be imposing unnecessary substantial costs on business; give views on action to take on regulations, that is to abolish or modify them; meet Government officials to draw together the conclusion of their examination; and again meet the Prime Minister and relevant Ministers to review progress. The Prime Minister proposed, through evaluation of any new regulatory proposals, to ensure that benefits outweighed costs. On 11 October also he wrote to the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to inform them of the joint exercise and ask for their views. In other words, this Commonwealth Government, working with the State governments, sought to arrange something that would be satisfactory for the people of Australia, realising that, as my colleague Senator Maguire has pointed out it is absolutely essential that there be co-operation between the State and Federal governments. As Senator Maguire pointed out, this very Opposition rejected a proposal put to referendum at the last election which would have made that process a little easier. What is the result? An article in the Canberra Times of 21 April 1985, under the heading 'NSW to scrap outdated legislation', says: Up to 1,000 outdated Acts of Parliament could be repealed under moves to slash red tape announced by the N.S.W. Government yesterday. The Acts have been identified by a special Cabinet committee established in June last year and affect business activities as diverse as motor-vehicle trading and mining. Announcing the Government's proposals . . . the Premier, Mr Wran, said he expected most of the Acts identified for repeal to be removed from the statute books over the next few years. 'The Government is anxious to free the system of unnecessary or cumbersome impediments to the business community, industry and the public getting a fair go,' he said. The repeals would streamline government requirements, save money and improve efficiency. That article went on to say: The proposed changes will be referred to several task forces to be set up under relevant ministers and will draw members from industry groups. The article concluded by naming the whole range of businesses that could be affected. They included the areas of business licences and regulations, building regulations, regulations relating to the authority to mine, employment protection, advertising sign licences, the packaging and labelling of groceries, companies legislation, the Waste Disposal and the Poisons Acts, the registering of business names and the reporting of industrial accidents. That, of course, is one example of a Labor government acting in the spirit of careful examination and involving businesses in that process. That will become part of this national Government's assessment of the overall picture. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 16 November 1983 in which it was reported that in Victoria, another Labor State, the State Government was acting in the same spirit. Under the heading ' ''Old'' statutory regulations to be scrapped by Victorian Government', the article said: The Victorian Government is planning to abolish all statutory regulations made before 1962, a move which will significantly lighten the burden of bureaucracy on business. That is symptomatic of the fact that this Government has moved in such a way as to attempt to reduce unnecessary regulation. The Government has a history of action on these matters. I refer to the 1983 document issued by Senator Gareth Evans and Mr John Brown headed 'Business Regulation' which pointed out to the people of Australia what a Labor government would do. That document, in referring to what a Labor government would do-what I am saying is that we are doing what we said we would do before we came into government-in part refers to trade practices. That program of the Labor Party, which was announced in 1983, stated: The introduction of the Murphy Trade Practices Act in 1974 meant that for the first time in Australia, competition and market behaviour were regulated in a manner accepted long ago in the U.S.A. and Europe. The consumer and traders have come to value the protection of the Act. The Trade Practices Commission should be one of the most important influences in the regulation of the Australian market place. The Commission should function as a guardian of the small against possible oppression by stronger but less competitive rivals; bringing together business, legal and economic expertise in order to safeguard the interests of the consumer and society as a whole. That reference to the Trade Practices Act, a monument to the Whitlam Labor Government, is an indication that we have in practice sought to protect people, to be even-handed, by trying on the one hand to make reasonable regulation and on the other to make sure that people were not burdened by overregulation. Of course, we hear this cry from the Opposition that it wants less regulation. What I am concerned about is that, when pressed, it proposes to take away every regulation. In the program that was laid down before we came into government we indicated a number of principles. I would like to refer to them because they are the principles on which this Labor Government bases itself today. The principles are: In considering business regulation issues, a Labor Government will be guided by three principles: First priority will be placed on ensuring that existing authorities and legislation operate effectively and efficiently; Further regulation will only be undertaken in order to deal with clearly defined needs; and In all regulation of business, emphasis will be given to uniformity of legislation throughout Australia, this to be achieved, where the Federal government has insufficient power, through coordination with the States and the drafting of model laws based on these consultations. We are doing this with business and by trying, as we did in the last referendum, to seek additional powers so that we can have some streamlining of the vast overlapping that occurs with regulations. The document continues: Specifically, a Labor Government will regulate a particular area of activity of business only where we are satisfied that: The social or economic objective of the regulation can be clearly identified and articulated; The objective is compatible with the Government's other social and economic objectives; The regulatory process is capable of operating in a straightforward way, with clear procedures able to be understood and utilised by the business and other interests affected; The regulatory agency can balance the need for consistency on the one hand with flexibility on the other; Of course, those are the principles on which we base our policy. When I heard the matters that were referred to by Senator Peter Rae when he introduced his proposal, I felt that he let the cat out of the bag when he said that, of course, one example might be the penalty rates issue. I think in this regard we can see what is really behind the Opposition's view, because it was repeated by the previous speaker. One issue is taken out of context-the issue of penalty rates-because that is the emotive issue that is being whipped up by the Opposition. This regulation is evaluated to a very great height. What this means, of course, is that it is a highlight of how the Opposition has for some time been seeking the deregulation of the wages of all wage and salary earners. I do not know whether people realise that behind the talk about complex bureaucratic regulations, the basic thrust of the Opposition's policy is to deregulate wages, to breach the sort of principles that have been accepted in the Labor movement under the principles of the prices and incomes accord and to return to the order of the jungle. We were warned about this when a previous Minister for Industrial Relations in a Liberal government, Mr Viner, indicated to us what a Liberal government would do. He made no apology for the fact that he was going to introduce company or enterprise unions. It was clearly the policy of the Liberal Government to smash the trade union movement because the organised trade union movement realised the advantage of a disciplined and practical wage-fixing system. In regard to the people who could not agree then, in those days it was Mr Macphee and Mr Viner who were struggling; now, of course, another struggle is taking place between Mr Howard and Mr Macphee. We are not quite certain who is winning in that struggle. It would appear that Senator Peter Rae, of course, is with the hard-line Howard forces in this struggle and is now picking out under this heading of deregulation an attempt either to take penalty rates out of the whole industrial picture or, alternatively, the long term aim of trying to destroy the whole system of wage fixation as we have known it in Australia. Of course, the fact that that will bring anarchy in industrial relations when we have had a tranquil period under the Labor Government does not worry the people in the Liberal-National Party coalition who take this extreme view. At the same time Senator Rae did acknowledge that there is a problem with regard to damage in the occupational health area. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill is before the Parliament at present. That Bill acknowledges that $6 billion a year is wasted through the loss of production, 300 people are killed and 150,000 people are injured at work each year. When we have astronomical figures of waste of that nature, we cannot rely on Senator Rae saying that he acknowledges that there is a bit of a problem, because the truth is that the people in industry who would support deregulation on health and safety matters are people who would be prepared to skimp on occupational health and safety. That is the very thing that the demand means. It means that we take away the effective regulations that we have in existence. Senator Rae said that the National Safety Committee-- Senator Peter Rae —The National Safety Council. Senator CHILDS —He said that the Council is already in existence. Of course, the very nature of those figures that I have just outlined, Mr Deputy President, indicates that the problem has not been solved by the original and existing committees. The fact is that occupational health is a very complex area. This Government makes no apology for the fact that it must have specific regulation. It must have a separate system of consultation so that the real problems are identified and solutions are found. For many years we have been labouring under the system that was good enough for the Fraser Government, but certainly not good enough for our Government. The last time I did the figures-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.28) —The subject of this debate, 'The urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation', is, I believe, one of the most important subjects facing this Parliament and this nation. I congratulate Senator Peter Rae for bringing it forward. It is widely accepted that business in Australia is grossly overregulated. For many years now we have experienced a seemingly inexorable and exponential growth in the rate of government. This has taken place on two fronts. First I refer to the very size of government and the proportion of our total national activity pre-empted by government at all levels. In the mid 1950s total spending by governments in Australia was about 27 per cent of our gross domestic product. Today it is about 43 per cent. That is an increase of almost 60 per cent. This huge growth in the relative size of government has been reflected in the increasingly greedy grab by governments of taxpayers' money to finance the growth in spending. As a result, out of every additional dollar earned by the average wage earner, he pays 47c-almost half-in tax. Thirty years ago the corresponding figure was only 19c. In Australia today one does not have to be wealthy to be subject to the vicious and penal maximum marginal rate of tax. Today, if one earns only about one and a half times average earnings one pays the maximum marginal tax rate. In the mid-1950s one had to earn almost 18 times average earnings before the maximum rate applied. So government has become much more intrusive in its spending and taxation policies. The present Hawke Labor Government is in fact the highest spending and highest taxing government in Australia's history. The second area in which government at all levels has become equally intrusive is that of regulatory activity-in new Acts of Parliament, regulations and ordinances. Over the last 20 years 49,000 new regulatory Acts and regulations have been passed in the Federal Parliament alone. The situation with State and local governments is similarly staggering and alarming. For example, in my State of Victoria, the Cain Labor Government recently announced with pride that 445 Acts had been presented to the State Parliament in the Cain Government's first three year term, and that excludes all the accompanying regulations and other restrictive rules. What good has all this legislation achieved? What scrutiny has been given to it? What estimates have been made of its costs to the community relative to its benefits? I think the answer to these questions is precious little. The cost to the nation of this burden of regulation is enormous. It transcends the actual cost of compliance by the business sector, great though that cost is. As was mentioned by earlier speakers in this debate, the Confederation of Australian Industry estimated several years ago that the direct cost approached more than $1 billion annually. That figure would be substantially higher now. Another study, in 1983, indicated that there were 54,000 employees engaged in dealing with Federal and State government regulations, at a cost of $3,720m. That study also found that out of every $1 of net income received by business, an estimated 13c or 13 per cent was spent in complying only with Federal and State laws. In the 1950s Australia was, on a per capita basis, the third or fourth richest country in the world. Despite all our natural resources, despite all the skills of our people and despite all the other advantages we have, today we are about twentieth, depending on the particular value of the Australian dollar. It is no coincidence that the monumental increases in government spending, government taxation and government regulatory activity to which we have been subject over recent years, starting particularly in the Whitlam years and given an even greater dimension by the present Labor Government, have been accompanied by a progressive decline in our living standards relative to those of so many other countries. The overriding objective of government must surely be to encourage economic growth and therefore job creation and improved living standards, not to stifle growth and initiative in the way in which government has done. Important as the economic factor is, the question of regulation goes much wider. The debate over the regulation of business is really a debate over whether freedom of choice should be a fundamental human right in a pluralistic society which accepts as its basis the free market economy. Regulation should aid choice, not hinder it. A former Federal Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, put his finger on this point recently when he said: Not only are we realising that the law of regulation is costly and not returning the commensurate benefits it promised, but also that it may be undermining the very notion of freedom upon which our society is based by moving into areas of morality which are best left to the individual exercising a freedom of choice. I believe that the Hawke Government is attempting to move us down a very dangerous path through the use of its regulatory bodies. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission are two such bodies that particularly come to mind. What legitimate reason is there, for example, for the Trade Practices Commission to monitor television advertisements, as it will be doing shortly? Why should the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal be set up as an arbiter of community standards to protect the so-called public interest? What is the public interest? If there is a public interest, who better to judge it than members of the public themselves. Why should a government body such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which is not directly accountable to the public or the electorate, be permitted to engage in fishing expeditions into social issues which have enormous economic and wider impact? The answer, quite simply, is that it should not. Why should the Government have as its chief adviser on consumer issues the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, a completely undemocratic body of limited membership which, far from being representative of consumers, is funded almost entirely, to the tune of 99 per cent, by the Government? Organisations such as this have enormous sway over governments and that sway is invariably biased in favour of more and more regulation and less and less freedom of personal choice. The developments I have just described are symptomatic of the inherent bias of Labor governments towards regulation, particularly of the productive business sector of the nation. The present Labor Government is no exception. Despite its praiseworthy actions which I fully acknowledge in respect of the deregulation of the financial sector-actions which, of course, were initiated by the previous Liberal Government-and despite its actions, again admirable, in relation to the floating of the Australian dollar, the overwhelming thrust of Labor's policies is for increasing regulation. The clearest demonstration of this is contained in Labor's business regulation policy document released as part of its 1983 election campaign. Senator Childs commented on the deregulation aspect of that policy. However, to me it is a highly regulatory document. For example, the document contained not one word about the need for regulation to have regard to the requirement for economic growth. It contained not one word on possible areas of deregulation. On the contrary, the whole policy dealt with additional regulation in the areas of companies and securities law, trade practices, consumer protection, prices surveillance, petroleum industry pricing, insurance legislation, occupational health and safety and environmental policy. This 1983 policy of regulation and intervention was strongly endorsed by the supreme policy making body of the Labor Party, its national conference, in July 1984. Senator Peter Rae referred to that. In all of these areas, Labor's proposals involve more restriction on the free enterprise sector, which is the sector from which jobs, income creation and living standards flow. I will quote just a few examples from the 1983 document. In the area of companies and securities law, the document proposed additional regulations concerning public disclosure, fixing individual liability, sanctions against corporations and making the takeover code more regulatory of the market. In the area of trade practices, it proposed greater regulation of corporate mergers and an increase in enforcement provisions. In the area of consumer protection, it proposed a fuller reliance on the advice of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. I have already commented on that body. In the area of price surveillance, it proposed the establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority so that government could intrude still further into the pricing policies of business, regardless of the basic economic laws of supply and demand. In other words, the Labor Government's attitude towards the business sector is to deny it the opportunity to get on with its job, which is to produce goods and services, to enable income to be created, to give consumers increased freedom of choice, to create jobs and to increase the living standards of all Australians. The Government's anti-business approach is well reflected in the recent submission to the Government by the Business Council of Australia. The Council's submission is very important for the future of Australian business and I commend it to all honourable senators. The submission looks at both the current expansion of government regulation and existing regulation. So far as the former is concerned, the Council makes various recommendations, including the following. It recommends that the Prices Surveillance Authority has failed and that, at the very least, its proposed new guidelines should be scrapped; that the Government's proposals for trade practices reform be scrapped or completely revised to accord with commercial realities; and that the Government's regulatory proposals to bludgeon employers into a new form of so-called 'industrial democracy' will entrench confrontation. There is much more I would like to say on these and other issues, if time permitted. Today in this debate we have barely scratched the surface. For example, we have not looked at all the economic costs of the regulatory activities of bodies such as the Foreign Investment Review Board. Senator Vanstone has highlighted the horrendous regulatory problems that we face in the area of wage fixation and industrial relations-two issues which are of fundamental importance to the future of this country but which the Government obviously is unwilling to tackle because it has become the captive of the trade union movement and deregulation would involve change. We have not looked at other important areas. Senator Button —Higher wages too, Senator. Senator SHORT —Yes, at higher wages as well. We have not looked at other important areas, such as the growth in the number of government agencies involved in the regulatory process. That growth has been staggering. To give the often quoted classic example, in 1966 and 1967 Western Mining Corporation developed its Kambalda nickel ore body in the commendably short space of 18 months. The approval process to enable it to do so involved just two government departments. In 1975 it discovered the Olympic Dam ore body in South Australia, but following three government inquiries and dealings now involving more than 25 departments, both Federal and State, the first ore shipment is unlikely before 1988. It has meant 13 years of frustration, not to mention the enormous costs generated, with resultant adverse effect on jobs, profitability and the taxes ultimately payable. The example I like best of the absurdity to which our regulatory situation has brought us is what I understand to be the law in South Australia, under which one is not allowed to kill snakes unless one is attacked by them. There is an urgent need for the Hawke Labor Government to implement an effective program for business deregulation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JONES(Queensland)(4.43) —This afternoon we are debating a matter of public importance introduced by Senator Peter Rae, namely: The urgent need to implement an effective program for business deregulation. This matter is certainly assumed to cover a broad field, judging by the comments of previous speakers in this debate. It has ranged from the business area to trade union wages and, in the time that is available, honourable senators could not possibly cover the total area of this subject. I wish to make a couple of comments on this matter. What has to be understood is that the Hawke Labor Government has already taken action to deregulate in a number of areas. It has taken that action fairly positively, when one considers deregulation in the car industry, the steel industry, finance and banking. One could discuss whether we should deregulate the interest rate, the dairy industry, and the sugar industry in my own State. There would be some argument against deregulation in those areas because of the protection that is inbuilt for those industries. I suppose the way in which one argues the matter of deregulation depends on the view one takes, one's involvement in the industry and the financial return to that industry. I return to the action which the Government has taken on deregulation. It is important to recognise the costs of regulation. Based on 1978-79 figures, the cost was assessed at $3,720m. That covers both State and Federal spheres and is the cost of making those regulations work. One must consider the effect of any attempt by the Federal Government to deregulate and to reduce that amount of cost to industry and business-and when I talk of business I prefer to talk of small business, as regulation has a definite impact on small business. We must consider the amount of money that is spent on regulation that would be saved to industry if some of the regulations that are now in force could be cut back. Senator Childs referred to a meeting held by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 11 October 1984, at which he had asked the Australian Council of Trade Unions and four industrial groups-the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the National Farmers Federation-to identify those regulations that were considered to impose unnecessary and substantial costs on business, and to give views on whether such regulations should be modified or abolished in order to assist industry. The Prime Minister also asked the ACTU and those industry groups to meet government officials to draw together the conclusions and the examinations by the various groups, and to again meet the Prime Minister and relevant Ministers to review progress. The Prime Minister proposed a thorough evaluation of any new regulatory proposals to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. I think that is an important consideration when one considers the effects of changes in regulations. On 11 December 1984 the Prime Minister also wrote to all Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to request that they send forward some information on the subject of regulation or deregulation at both State and Federal level. Senator Maguire referred to the position in South Australia and also referred to the referendum that was defeated. Had members of the Opposition, particularly Senator Peter Rae, really believed that it was urgent for some action to be taken on deregulation, they surely would have been out supporting the referendum. The referendum proposed an interchange of powers between the States and the Federal Government. I believe that such an interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States may have helped to alleviate over-regulation throughout Australia. The Prime Minister made that request and the responses he has received so far have been from the BCA and the CAI. At this stage I think the Prime Minister is still awaiting further information from the ACTU, from the State Premiers and from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the subject of deregulation and what action should be taken by the Federal Government. It is fairly important to consider the views of the Confederation of Australian Industry-a body that may well not put forward points of view that I would argue. I refer to a letter written by Mr Ken Williams, the President of the Confederation, to the Prime Minister. That letter clearly outlines the matter with which this debate is now dealing, namely, over-regulation of industry. Mr Williams in his letter estimated that the cost of State and Federal regulation in 1978-79 was $3,720m and that it would be substantially higher. If we look at the situation today, in 1985, of course we find that a greater imposition is being placed on industry because of the cost of regulation. Mr Williams made a number of other points. He stated: . . . CAI has identified regulations across a broad range of private sector activity which are adding substantially to industry costs. I think that goes without saying. He went on: These regulations for example include non-uniform food laws-- I think that was one of the points raised by Senator Rae-- which have added $500m to food prices over the last ten years, the cost to business of providing government with statistical returns, and the administrative costs of collecting taxes and duties on behalf of taxing authorities. They impact on companies of all sizes-particularly the many small businesses-- That was the point I raised before-that one of the industries which were suffering because of over-regulation was small business throughout Australia. Small businesses do not have the financial capacity to meet the cost imposed on them because of that regulation. Mr Williams went on: . . . represented through CAI's membership-and on all industries from mining through manufacturing to transport and finance. Suppliers of consumer goods including food, pharmaceuticals, veterinary chemicals, petroleum and electrical and electronic products were particularly critical of the costs of regulation. I think those are fairly reasonable and valid points which he has made. I do not believe that all regulations should be removed. But some regulations should be placed on industry because we do not look only at cost. Regardless of whether we are talking about a State government or the Federal Government, I think it is important that regulations cover health matters in relation to the industry in which the goods or services are provided. Cost is not the only factor that comes into regulation. Mr Williams, who is the President of the CAI, went on: . . . the cost to the taxpayer for supporting a galaxy of government regulations; the cost to the consumer in the form of higher prices to cover the added expense of producing goods and services under government regulations; the cost to the worker in the form of jobs eliminated by government regulation; the cost to the economy resulting from the loss of smaller enterprises which cannot afford to meet the onerous burdens of government regulations; and-- I think that point has been made-- the cost to society as a whole as a result of a reduced flow of new and better products and a less rapid rise in the standard of living. Those points about regulations were raised by Mr Williams in a letter to the Prime Minister which was attached to a submission made by the CAI and given to the Prime Minister to allow the task force to look at the evidence which was being put forward so that the Government could look at changing some of the regulations and at deregulation in Australia. Senator Rae said that there is an urgent need for an effective program. I believe that there is a need, firstly, for the information to be gathered. Time needs to be given to government so that it can bring together the information from the various leaders of the various industries throughout Australia, including the trade union movement in general, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the other groups which are involved in industry throughout Australia. They need to be given an opportunity to put forward their points of view in relation to the cost factors that are being placed on their industries by the increasing number of regulations which are being placed on industry by State governments and by the Federal Government. I suppose one would then have to look at uniformity of legislation. That goes back to the points raised before in relation to the referendum. I think it is very important that we do not have the situation where a small business, which is paying taxes at a Commonwealth level, finds that it is spending two out of every three days trying to fill out forms to meet the requirements of regulations placed on it by a State or Federal government. One has to look at the contents of the Confederation of Australian Industry submission to the Government. If one looked through the contents one would have to say that the submission covered most of the areas which would be affected by regulation or which would benefit by deregulation in this country. Some of the items listed in the contents are: National food Legislation State Credit Legislation Census and Statistics Act 1905 Foreign Investment Review Board Sales Tax Act (Commonwealth) Financial Institutions . . . Prices Surveillance Act Tax Instalment Deduction Legislation Employment-Termination Payment One of the views put forward by the Confederation in relation to termination payment is one of the views with which I would not agree, but certainly it is putting forward that view. I believe that the view which will be put forward by the ACTU will allow some discussion at that level where there should be some deregulation or some changes made. If we go a little further we look at what is happening in relation to lack of uniform business regulations. The CAI submission went on: . . . a significant proportion of indirect costs to industry of State business regulation is attributable to a lack of uniformity in State laws relating to packaging and labelling, food and weights and measures. I think that brings out the point raised by Senator Rae and that is the cost in relation to the food industry in Australia. Industry is suffering not only from the cost of regulation but also from the cost of the identification of the goods and services provided in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or any other State in Australia. One finds that the identification and the production of goods are entirely different from State to State. That is an imposition which is being placed on manufacturing industry and which I believe should be removed to allow it some opportunities for some uniformity throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. Delays in deregulation need to be viewed from the point of view of groups other than those which have some financial interest in the matter. Deregulation needs to be viewed by groups such as the unions and the workers, including those on production lines, and those involved in the industry. Surely when one talks about deregulation one has to look at what will happen to those people who are involved in the industry. One has to look at what will happen to the industry itself. Senator Peter Rae —That's what our policy provides. Senator JONES —This is right. One has to see that we are not going to create a situation where a large amount of unemployment develops because of some action taken in relation to deregulation in that area. One proposition was put forward by Mr Jacobi in the House of Representatives. He made a proposal which was raised in the paper put forward by the CAI. Mr Jacobi raised the proposal to establish a joint standing committee on business affairs. The CAI submission went on: There is much merit in Mr Jacobi's proposal in that it would be, if implemented, a concrete step directed not merely at making ad hoc cost saving decisions, but directed at imparting changes into the system of Government itself. It is only by the making of such changes that business will be free to flourish, unshackled by legislative burdens. I think that sums up the position. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Jones —I move: That the business of the day be called on. Senator Lewis —I would like to speak against that motion. The arrangement is that Senator Parer from Queensland- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — I am sorry, Senator Lewis, this motion is not debatable. Senator Jones —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. In actual fact, Senator Parer's name was not on the list. Mine was the last name on the list. When I finished speaking I thought I was the final speaker. Senator Button —Nobody can speak to this motion. Senator Jones has moved 'That the business of the day be called on'. Question resolved in the negative. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.00) —I am indebted to Senator Jones for his general support of the need for an effective program for business deregulation. Senator Maguire indicated in his address that the Liberal Party of Australia tended to oversell deregulation. Frankly, I believe that there is very close correlation between regulation and the size of government. In fact, Dr Helen Hughes of the Australian National University, in referring to the growing band of public sector employees said that she did not mind paying them if she was sure they would not do anything. Unfortunately, public sector employees continue to contribute to the 10 new regulations a day introduced within Australia in the various levels of government. If ever an industry, and thus the country as a whole, has suffered at the hands of regulatory government it is the mining industry. In an era of deregulated financial systems and a floating dollar demand for our chief exporting industries to become more competitive has become urgent. This demand occurs in the context of increasing pressures on wages, interest rates and inflation, gross uncertainty in the area of Aboriginal land rights and a continuing poor trading performance with a rapidly increasing current account deficit. Let me give the Senate recent figures on the contribution of the mining industry to Australia's prosperity and some of the costs incurred by that industry. In 1983-84 Australia's mineral industry earned in excess of $9 billion in export income-some 40 per cent of the nation's total export earnings. Net profit, however was a mere $461m. With continuing poor returns, investment declined last year by over $1 billion and is expected to continue to fall by over 10 per cent this year. Exploration has declined some 40 per cent since 1981, even without accounting for inflation. Government taxes and charges and regulations are milking the industry dry. In 1983-84 the industry paid more than $2.4 billion to governments or 64 per cent of pre-tax operating profits. Costs are increasing. In 1983-84 rail freight charges, port charges and other costs increased by 15 per cent as a proportion of total costs on the previous year. On top of this the industry spent almost $3.3 billion on industry investment and infrastructure, including $1.1 billion on housing, community facilities, hospitals, schools, community roads and town power and water supply. However, perhaps even more important to the industry than the visible costs are the hidden costs of government intervention and regulation which constitute a regime of delayed extortion and uncertainty. The bias towards more and more regulation is crippling our most efficient and productive export earners. There is a need for some regulation in industry. Equally clearly, there is now too much regulation. Regulation is costly and complex. It affects almost all areas of mining whether, for example, as a result of environmental impact statements, both State and Federal, or anything else. Regulation leads to lost export opportunities, higher taxes and charges, artificial prices, less investment and, needless to say, higher unemployment. Its cost to entrepreneurial skill and efficiency is a cost this country cannot afford. My colleague Senator Short has referred already to the efforts of the Western Mining Corporation at Kambalda in bringing on a mine 18 months from the first drill hole. The same story can be told of the Bowen Basin, where mines were brought on from the years 1966 to 1974 at the rate of one every two years. One has to ask how those companies did that without the help of government? It must boggle the minds of a lot of people who work in this sector today. Today, for example, we have the Joint Coal Board telling people how they should mine, whether they should mine underground or open cut. However, the worst phase in the mining industry's history-I draw this to the attention of the Senator-occurred during the Whitlam era. Some projects stopped by Labor through the improper use of export controls have remained undeveloped. Others, with the change in government, were able to proceed. In an effort to develop a mine I can recall making a futile plea in 1975-in those black years-for someone to tell me who controlled an area in which a company had a lease. I asked whether it was the landowner, local government, the State Government or the Federal Government? It clearly was not the company. Senator Short referred to Kambalda, which I will refer to again. The companies involved at Roxby Downs are now dealing with 54 different departments and instrumentalities-34 South Australian and 20 Commonwealth. These companies consider they are fortunate as they have good uranium rather than bad uranium. I do not know how that definition comes about but the orders from the Government state that there is good uranium at Roxby Downs but bad uranium throughout the rest of Australia. I come now to the export control system, which has been in force since 1972. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for consideration of this matter has now expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.06) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is impossible to look at the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation without drawing attention to what the Government has done to the CSIRO by way of funding. This was brought out in the Estimates examination conducted by Senate Estimates Committee D on 26 September last. It is important that I draw to the attention of Australians just what a great bar the Government has put upon the effective operation of this great Australian organisation. For instance the appropriation of the Organisation decreased in real terms by between 3.5 and 4 per cent. Projects and programs have had to be wound down or slowed down. Staff numbers have had to be decreased. We were told during the Estimates examination that up to 180 position would have to be shed from within CSIRO during the year to accommodate the Government's diminished appropriation. In fact that global allocation to CSIRO in the current year went down from $331m to 322.47m. That is a reduction in money terms even before one allows for the effects of the inflation and before one considers what one expects CSIRO to do for Australia. It is one of the tragedies of this country that a Minister who spoke so much about the importance of science and so much about the job that CSIRO was trying to do-a Minister with whom we are personally friendly-was such a failure when it came to arguing in the Cabinet for the welfare and protection of science. Nowhere was this better brought out than in the Budget of the CSIRO, which actually went down by 2 per cent in money terms. When one adds the effect of inflation there was in fact a greater reduction. Not only was the capital allocation for CSIRO reduced by $10m but CSIRO was also required to take on board certain expenses which had not normally been its to accommodate. For example, it was required to absorb $1.4m in unavoidable salary increases-amounts which had previously been met by the Government. Therefore, apart from the reduction in money terms the Organisation was immediately $1.4m worse off. In addition to this it was required to absorb $2.7m in repairs and maintenance costs-money that it had not previously had to absorb. With these two amounts added together CSIRO was now $4.1m worse off. In addition, during the year an extra amount of $4.7m was identified by CSIRO's own officers to the Senate Estimates Committee as being needed. However, because of the extra amounts needed in the budget to cope with inflation this was not added. CSIRO was then something like $8.8m worse off under the appropriation, even apart from the reduction in money terms. It was thought that across the Organisation a 3 per cent reduction in its operations would be required. This means a 3 per cent reduction in its work to improve many of our primary industries, the work it does to help improve the welfare and living standards of most Australians and its work to improve our accommodation to what is a fairly hostile continent. However, in some areas of the CSIRO-the non-protected areas, the areas not given special budgetary treatment-the reduction might be 4 or 5 per cent. Because this was the second year in a row that CSIRO had to take that kind of squeeze, for many of the divisions it was extremely difficult to accommodate and sackings of people might be required. The amount allocated to the Organisation this year for operating costs to run its projects, quite apart from salaries, is $72m and the amount allocated last year was $72m. That is to say, the Government has made no allowances for the effects of inflation in reducing the capacity of CSIRO and the amount allocated was obviously not enough to enable Australia's premier science organisation to maintain its activities. This was the second successive year in which this occurred. What emerged in the Senate Estimates examination on 26 September last was an amazingly frank series of answers by officers to questions about the budgetary allocations. The officers laid out for anyone who wishes to read it how severe the cut was. It identifies to the Australian people just how much the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, has failed the organisation for which he has ministerial responsibility. Apart from anything else, a Minister's job is to deliver adequate resources for his organisation. This clearly has not been done. It is a tragedy for CSIRO and, in the long term, it is a tragedy for Australia. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.11) —The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has served this country very well since it was restructured in 1978. The last seven years have seen many sweeping changes designed to modernise its operations and bring it closer to the industries and organisations that it serves. The future of Australia will be determined by our ability to adapt to change and to take advantage of new technology. It will also be largely determined by the originality of our research endeavours and by the initiative shown by both our scientists and technicians and our developers. The CSIRO is noted for its very high standard of excellence and its originality. Thus it is able to take its place at the forefront of our development. The annual report for 1983-84 outlines the new initiatives taken by the executive of the CSIRO in order to improve its interaction with industry. These will have important ramifications for this country. For example, the CSIRO gave birth to a new commercial company known as Sirotech. This is the mechanism by which new technology developed for certain industries by the CSIRO could be successfully implemented and marketed by those industries. In the same way, it is anticipated that industries will be better able to communicate their real research needs to the scientists and technical experts through this company. The Organisation, in an effort to give greater emphasis to research achievements of direct benefit to industry and the community, has implemented new criteria for the promotion of its scientists. Two new initiatives have begun this year: A new research unit aimed to stimulate the development of a space technology industry in Australia has been formed, and a new Division of Information Technology is off and running. This new Division has been formed to conduct research on the acquisition, storage, processing and dissemination of information by computer technology and other means for the benefit of industry and the community. As my colleague Senator Baume has just mentioned, these new initiatives depend, of course, on realistic levels of government funding. In recent years the CSIRO has achieved notable success in many areas, despite decreasing resources. In recent years, funds available to this body have been decreasing in real terms-as was mentioned earlier-by between 3 and 4 per cent, particularly for ongoing activities. Initially, this meant that staffing levels were not adequate to meet the needs of research programs. Unrealistic funding followed, which meant that the Organisation's real operating costs could not be met. There are some concerns in the community, particularly in the scientific community, about a so-called economic winter so far as government funds for research and development in this country are concerned. This would be a real tragedy. The CSIRO is presently facing a review and this too is causing further concerns among scientists. The concerns to industry about the future of government funded research and development are very real at present. Funding must be increased to overcome the problems of devaluation. For example, equipment and many items such as chemicals, hormones and enzymes are purchased in American dollars and for the necessary research programs to go ahead compensation must be made in real terms to offset this problem of the devaluation of the dollar. I believe the CSIRO could face a bright future. It has enormous potential to lead Australia out of its economic and technological doldrums, but to do this it must have adequate funding. I will refer to the areas which were designated as growth areas in 1983-84, provided that funding is there, I think it would be disastrous if such projects were to founder because of lack of funds. The nominated areas are interesting. They include: Oceanography-I must congratulate the CSIRO on the opening of new laboratories in Hobart recently-plant pathology, water and soils and biotechnology. The Organisation is making a determined effort to concentrate its resources into projects that are of national significance and to ensure the most effective use of its human resources in order to make the best use of available funds. I believe it is doing this very well and it is to be commended. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.16) — With the tabling of the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, it is time to look closely at some of the criticisms levelled at that Organisation. It has been accused of not undertaking research of direct importance to our industrial sector. Some CSIRO research which has had immediate impact on our industrial sector spring to mind. Firstly, its research into the prawn fishing industry in the Gulf of Carpentaria has placed this industry on a sound economic footing. Today this is Australia's most valuable fishery. It is worth over $120m per annum. Secondly, CSIRO research has reduced our import bill for paper by half a billion dollars a year. Thirdly, CSIRO has developed new welding technology which could earn $20m a year in overseas sales. Fourthly, thanks to CSIRO, Australia now has the capacity to design silicon chips for industrial applications. These chips are as powerful as any in the world. This is done through the very large scale integration project which is now operating at Technology Park in South Australia. The CSIRO feels the brunt of criticism for which it is not entirely responsible. Our manufacturing industry is most certainly in decline. But where are the concerted research and development programs being undertaken by industry itself? The manufacturing industry, along with government, must share a large part of the blame for poor research and development in the manufacturing area. For far too long we have been copiers of overseas designs and processes. We desperately need to carry out more research in the physical sciences to reverse this situation. The CSIRO is being hampered in its effort to do this through having simple stop gap funding instead of continuing stable funding arrangements. CSIRO's staffing restrictions mean that highly qualified scientists must spend their precious time dealing with administrative and technical matters instead of applying themselves to research. In addition, the constant threat of Government reviews of CSIRO activities eats deeply into staff morale. The CSIRO is currently facing a review by the Australian Science and Technology Council before being reorganised. Yet both internal and international reviews of CSIRO's activities consistently show that its research is valuable to our national scientific objectives. Budget cuts have bitten deeply into CSIRO's ability to conduct research into areas of vital national significance. I take Project Aquarius as one example of this. The Fraser Government allocated $3m for bushfire research into water bombing from aircraft. In the project's third year, bad weather permitted the burning of only three of the 16 specially selected blocks of forest land. The project was partially extended for one year before being cancelled. This meant that the most vital aspect of the research was not completed. This knowledge could have been used to save lives. In addition, we lost the opportunity to convert 17 Grumman Tracker aircraft for aerial water bombing because the Government was not provided with conclusive evidence that these ex-Navy planes were suitable for a fire fighting role. The Government now plans to sell them instead. As with the Project Aquarius incident, the Government has not informed the CSIRO of its future policy strategies. The CSIRO is left guessing as to what its new role should be in response to the Government criticism that it has failed to discharge its duty to the Australian public. CSIRO needs stable funding, the provision of adequate managerial and support staff, and a clear indication of future government policies to allow it to contribute effectively to industrial and scientific research in Australia. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.20) —The first thing I will do in speaking to the 1983-84 annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is pay tribute to Dr Paul Wild who retires as Chairman of CSIRO in September this year. The seven years that Dr Wild has held the helm of this organisation since the Birch Independent Inquiry into the CSIRO have been seven years of extraordinary difficulty and of very great achievement and enterprise on his part. His work, whether on Interscan or on forward thinking-one might best say creative thinking-about the high speed Sydney to Melbourne rail, marked him out as a visionary leader of an organisation which has in the past been short on visionaries and whose chief executive needs to be a man who has a spark of imagination and a commitment to thinking about things which are all too often regarded as unthinkable. It is, as Senator Peter Baume and Senator Watson have said, a great tragedy that CSIRO continues to be the meat in the sandwich of ongoing bureaucratic wars between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Together with the tabling of the annual report of the CSIRO there was tabled a statement by the Minister, Mr Barry Jones. The best thing that Mr Jones could find to say about the CSIRO report was-I use the word which he used in the first paragraph of his tabling speech-that it is an 'attractive' publication. It certainly is an attractive publication but the rest of the Minister's tabling speech is simply a self-promoting eulogy about what a marvellous fellow he is and how significant has been his contribution to Australian science. For instance, in his tabling statement, he said: At the recent Venice Conference on Technological Innovation and Job Creation, President Reagan's science adviser Dr Jaye Keyworth, said that between 1981-85 administration expenditure on basic research had increased by 60 per cent. Of course what he did not bother to say was how much increase there had been in expenditure on basic research in Australia, because, quite simply, there has been a cutback in basic research in Australia due largely to this Minister and to his failure. Having been prompted by his reference to the Venice Conference, I sought out Mr Jones's speech to the Venice Conference. He had nothing better to do with his time than to spend four days at the Cini Foundation building in San Giorgio Maggiore where he gave an address to assembled scientists in Venice, no doubt becoming an expert on the hydraulic movements of antique buildings. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of his speech, when talking about robotics, knowledge systems and their profound effect upon our social and economic development, Mr Jones said: This could be a period for using technology creatively to expand human capacity and enlarge human happiness, at both the individual and collective levels. The responsiveness of our political systems is so slow that I see little chance of it happening. All one can say is that under Mr Jones's administration of science and technology in Australia the little chance of it happening has become no chance at all. As I have said, we have seen continual bureaucratic infighting between the Prime Minister and Mr Jones, Mr Jones attempting to pull down, weaken and destroy the significant role that CSIRO plays in this country. We saw that with the tabling of the report of the Joint Working Party. I do not need to remind honourable senators that when that document was tabled in this place it was tabled minus the covering Executive Summary which exposed the extent to which CSIRO had been crippled by government cuts. We had to ask specific questions of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) as to why he had not tabled the Executive Summary which went with the statement which he later had to table, because the Executive Summary nailed him and his Government for what they had been doing to CSIRO through financial restrictions. On 7 May in the Melbourne Age there was an article headed: 'Review threat to CSIRO. Hawke, Jones clash over probe on Government funded studies'. Thank heavens the outcome of that clash was, once again, that Mr Jones got rolled. Not only has his Department been split up and a significant part of it removed from him because of his incompetence, inertia and inability to handle science and technology matters, but over the question of what review was going to be given to the CSIRO and Mr Jones's plan to give it a structure like that of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-heaven help us-the Prime Minister prevailed and the review will now be undertaken by the highly respected Australian Science and Technology Council under the chairmanship of Professor Slatyer. One wishes the ASTEC review well. One wishes the CSIRO well; one wishes Dr Paul Wild well; and one wishes Australian science, at the earliest available opportunity, a new, decent, competent Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The provision of patrol boats in this area is very well appreciated and is a marvellous idea. I had the pleasure of riding on board the patrol boat which we supplied to the Solomon Islands Government. The Solomon Islands Government is very proud of the boat. It is an excellent boat. This statement announces successful design for a new patrol boat to be supplied to some Pacific Forum countries for surveillance and enforcement of their maritime exclusive economic zones. The successful design is for a 165-tonne vessel measuring 31 1/2 metres. I know that the boat we provided to the Solomon Islands is along those sorts of dimensions, but it seems to me that we need some lateral thinking in regard to the designs of these boats. I recognise that this design was successful after consultation with participating countries. Consideration was given to its range, speed and accommodation. However, the participating countries see much kudos in having a 165-tonne big naval vessel whipping around with their flag hanging on it. I can understand their thinking along those lines, but it seems to me that the cost of maintaining such a vessel should be considered. I understand that these boats get along at about 28 to 30 knots. You, Mr Deputy President, would be one of the few people in this place who would understand how much fuel a vessel would eat when shifting 165 tonnes at about 29 or 30 knots. That is the sort of speed necessary to perform the role which these boats are performing. Senator Mason —If you are silly enough to have a displacement hull. Senator LEWIS —Senator Mason, who will speak later, tells me that the situation is even worse because such a vessel has a displacement hull; of course it has. Why are we not looking at something like an enlarged Shark Cat of something like 10 or 12 metres in length? Senator Mason —Or a hydrofoil. Senator LEWIS —Or a hydrofoil. It should be about 10 or 12 metres long with two outboard motors. The convenience of an Australian-designed outboard motor is enormous. If something goes wrong with one engine it is only a matter of lifting it off the boat and putting on a replacement motor while the other one is being repaired on shore. Similarly, a catamaran or hydrofoil could be trailed up out of the water on to sand. The cost of maintaining a 165-tonne vessel really bothers me. One could include a recoilless cannon, a 30-millimetre machine gun, which would be adequate armament for such vessels. We would probably then be in a position to supply double the number of boats at far less than the cost of this vessel. It is about time that we stopped this old-fashioned naval approach whereby these vessels have to have all sorts of accommodation. If we looked at, say, a three-man Shark Cat or hydrofoil-type boat we could provide all that is needed to perform its role, at far less cost and, in particular, at far less cost to maintain. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.30) —I share Senator Lewis's support for the idea of giving aid to Pacific nations in the form of patrol boats, but it is very inappropriate to attempt to deal with a contract worth at least $45m in five minutes. This contract has been awarded to a Western Australian company, Australian Shipbuilding Industries, which, with all due respect to it, is completely unknown. As far as I am aware, it has not built any ship of any size for the Royal Australian Navy, nor has it been involved in a refit program of any consequence for the Navy; let alone work for the Navy for years and years. Its ability to fulfil a contract, let alone fulfil a contract of this complexity, is very much unknown. It seems to me that one of the few things ASI had going for it was the fact that it came from the same State as the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who has made no secret of his belief that the submarine contract should go to Western Australia and that the basing of the RAN's new submarine fleet should be at Cockburn Sound. The execution of this contract is a very important matter. If we look at the history of shipbuilding in Australia we find a history of almost unrelieved failure. The classical shipyard that has been in business is, of course, the Government's yard at Williamstown in Victoria, home of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia which led to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Williamstown dockyard is legendary. Not one ship has been built here for years. I am opposed to the fact that we gave that shipyard a contract for two new FFG frigates. The refit programs it has been involved in has been marred by cost overruns of an enormous magnitude and time overruns of an enormous scale; so much so that the Navy is not able to update its older ships in the way that it would like. The Navy cannot do so because of the incompetence and inability of the Williamstown dockyard to perform on time and on cost. If we look at the position in regard to Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd, which is the subject of the 227th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the way in which HMAS Tobruk was built-and the report is open in front of me at the moment-there is in that report a picture of five kilograms of waste steel offcuts that were pulled out of an air duct to the main engine. The whole history of Tobruk is one of absolute incompetence on the part of the builder. There is also the Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard, which is building the underway replenishment ship, HMAS Success, which again is running years late on its delivery date and tens of millions of dollars over its contract price. It has probably doubled in price. We have a picture of unrelieved gloom in respect of Australian shipbuilding except for one supplier, and that is North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd in Cairns. NQEA has been doing work for the Royal Australian Navy for at least 15 years, to my knowledge. It started refitting and it has always been responsible for refitting the Attack class patrol boats. NQEA built the Fremantle class ships in the face of enormous technical difficulties because the plans were not supplied in the way they should have been and the design was inadequate. But NQEA had the design skills to pull that plan together and to build those ships to an enormously high technical standard, to build them ahead of time and to build them on cost. I do not object at all to ASI getting this contract but I do think that a government letting a contract of this magnitude has to have some reassurance that the builder has the capability to do it and I am not aware from the Minister's statement where this evidence comes from. I have not talked to anyone in the Navy, the Department of Defence or NQEA about this matter but I do make the presumption, and I may be wrong, that NQEA was the next successful tenderer. The Minister said that there was a difference of $5m in the price. Over 10 ships, $5m is only $500,000 per ship, and that is very little. I would have thought that in the face of ASI having an unproven design and an unknown record in shipbuilding, on the one hand and NQEA having on the other hand, a proven record-the best record in Australia today-with a design which was a development of its Taipan class, which is a development again of the Fremantle class that we have already bought for this country, it would have been quite reasonable to have sat down and negotiated with the close tenderers and refined the problems a little more rather than buying on first price. I do not know whether there is a cost overrun clause in the contract. The tragedy is that NQEA, the best shipbuilder in Australia, now has no work. In March 1983 it was promised by Mr Integrity himself, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that there would be two more ships extended to the Fremantle order. The Government won the election, but the order for the two ships disappeared. In the election campaign at the end of last year it was again stated that NQEA would be favoured to get the nod on the Pacific contract, but again no work was forthcoming. We have the best shipyard in the country with no work at all. What is the reward for success in Australia if one makes the investment in techniques and capability and one does not get anywhere? I am left with the belief that the Labor Government is on a bash Queensland program. By denying NQEA a follow-on contract for the Fremantle class ships the Government has effectively taken the leading contender for the submarine replacement program out of the list. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I give Senator Mason the call, I point out that under Sessional Orders there is only one minute left for debate on this matter. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.35) —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will take that one minute that is available to me. The Australian Democrats support this initiative, which we see as a promising continuation to an effective industry to build small naval ships in Australia. Of course, we are building the two FFG frigates here, and they are not small ships. However, the Fremantle class patrol boats and the Australian Shipbuilding Industries ships we are discussing now are small vessels. This is not to say that they lack in importance. Indeed, the development of modern Smart missiles which are lethal virtually regardless of the platform from which they are launched, must profoundly change any reasonable attitude towards naval priorities. Missiles like the Harpoon find their target, unerringly, if used in sufficient numbers. Even Phalanx and similar quick firing systems which provide protection by putting up a large barrier of lead in the path of an incoming missile can deal with only a limited number of missiles at the same time. Hence, success in some critical naval battles will depend to a considerable extent on the number of missiles that can be fired simultaneously. Hence, the cheapness of the platforms, both in terms of money and crew numbers, becomes vital. It is in this context that the Democrats, sponsoring as we do the concept of a strong independent Australia, strongly support a heavily armed, fast and lightly manned, small ship navy with a major missile component. That missile, in the interests of compatability, reasonably should be Harpoon. I would like to see, as the next step, a missile ship built under licence in Australia in hydrofoil configuration. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under Sessional Orders for the consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I table what is described as a background paper on Australia's trade performance and prospects. With the concurrence of the Senate, I will incorporate in Hansard the text of a statement made this afternoon in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), entitled 'Australia's Trade Situation and Policies'. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Australia's trade situation and policies Mr Speaker-I seek leave to make a statement on Australia's trade situation and policies. The last thirty years have seen fundamental changes in the world economy and in the world trading environment which have been reflected to some extent in the structure and composition of Australia's trade. Shifts in the pattern of world comparative advantage, the emergence of newly industrialised countries, the strengthening of trade blocs and the intensification of protection pressures have all impacted on, and contributed to, the major changes that have taken place in the composition and direction of Australia's trade over the last thirty years. In this period Australia greatly diversified its exports. In particular, we developed an efficient export-oriented minerals sector to supplement the traditional rural export industries, which for so long had provided the bulk of Australia's export income. It is often forgotten that only thirty years ago rural exports accounted for 80% of Australia's total export earnings, with wool alone providing half our total export revenue. Moreover, 40% of our exports were directed to one country, the U.K. Australia's rural exports, accounting for some 40% of export earnings, remain very important to us. But the general situation has changed markedly. We no longer depend on the fortunes of one product, but on the fortunes of a range of primary commodities. Manufactures exports have also grown but at an insufficient rate to maintain Australia's position in world trade. In terms of seeking out and developing new markets Australia has been successful, re-orienting its trade away from Western Europe (especially the United Kingdom) and towards Japan and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. Australia's export performance Despite the changes that have occurred to the composition and direction of our trade, the evidence suggests that by comparison with others the adjustment has been insufficient to accommodate the rapid changes occurring in the international trading environment. Our efforts to develop the exports of products in high demand have been less than satisfactory. As a result, Australia's trading performance has been relatively poor. A wide range of standard statistical measures demonstrate this fact. Four are especially telling: As a world exporter, Australia's ranking has slipped from 8th to 23rd over the last 30 years. Over the same period our share of the world export market has dropped from 2.6% to 1.2%. The international purchasing power of our exports has shown weak growth over the last thirty years by comparison with other major trading nations and actually declined in the decade to 1983. Australia's penetration of most major overseas markets has also declined, even in the ASEAN and Western Pacific Region as a whole. I am taking the opportunity to table a paper, prepared by the Department of Trade, which examines these trends and gives a detailed account of Australia's export performance and prospects. There are two principal reasons for Australia's relatively poor trade performance. Firstly, over the past three decades the world demand for primary commodities, which account for over three-quarters of our exports, has grown more slowly than demand for manufactures, and the terms of trade have moved against primary commodity exporters. Protectionism has escalated in major world commodity markets and other distortions of trade, such as the massive use of subsidies by less efficient producers, have undermined international markets for sugar and dairy products and pose a serious threat to beef and cereal markets, further undercutting our advantage as an exporter. The second major cause of our poor trade performance has been the inward-looking nature of our manufacturing industry. Manufactured exports have been the driving force behind the growth in world trade for most of the post-war period. Given the continuing magnitude and pace of technological and other changes underway in the world economy. This situation seems set to continue. However, during most of the post-war period our manufacturing industries have been conditioned by import-replacement policies which shielded them from international competition. Added to cost-structures and discouraged innovation and adjustment. Overall, Australian manufacturing has shown itself to be ill-equipped to capture a share of the rapid growth in world manufactures trade. Similarly, Australia has been slow to move into the export of services which is expanding very strongly and will continue to increase greatly in importance in the future. The outlook for commodities trade is mixed. Technological changes are taking place and new patterns of energy usage emerging which will further reduce the raw material requirements of manufacturing industry in overseas markets. This situation is being exacerbated by protectionist pressures and increasing government involvement in the production and marketing of raw materials. The Government will do all it can to break down the serious barriers and distortions to world commodities trade which are so disruptive to efficient producers such as Australia. But it is likely that any progress in improving the conditions under which world commodities trade is conducted will be painful and slow. Australia's current trade situation and outlook Australia's external account has weakened this financial year. In the nine months to March 1985 Australia's trade account was in deficit by $1.7 billion. This compares with a small surplus in the same period last year of about $160m. The weaker than expected trade account has contributed to the depreciation of the Australian dollar experienced since the beginning of 1985. There can be no doubt that this adjustment reflects in part an assessment of Australia's poor trade performance. Growth in export earnings has been narrowly based and held down by the continued weakness in world commodity prices. Imports, on the other hand, have grown rapidly. Indeed most of the larger than expected increase in the trade account deficit this year has been due to the surge in imports which has accompanied the rapid expansion of domestic demand. Associated with the recovery. As regards prospects for the world trading environment in the next year or so. Most commentators are fairly optimistic. The recovery which began in the United States broadened in 1984 and the performance of the world economy was the best for several years. According to the GATT. The volume of world trade grew by 9 per cent in 1984, compared with only 2 per cent in 1983. The prospects for continued trade growth, for the world as a whole and Australia in particular, are however, less certain over the remainder of the decade. Intense protectionist pressures threaten the future trading environment. During the recession, and following sharp movements in exchange rate relativities, developed countries expanded restrictions on trade flows in agriculture, textiles, automobiles and steel. Developing countries have responded by intensifying their import restrictions, ostensibly to assist adjustment and domestic unemployment problems. The rise in protectionism has been characterised by the increase of non-tariff barriers including the resort to managed trade and the widespread use of export subsidies. It will be difficult to secure broadly based improvements in Australia's trading performance unless these trends are reined in and reversed. The recent large depreciation of the $A will help to improve Australia's trade and current account positions over time. Returns to Australian exporters will increase and, provided costs can be contained, the competitiveness of both export and import competing industries will improve as a result of the devaluation. Whilst we can expect improved returns for commodity exports, the boost to exports is potentially more powerful outside the traditional commodity trades, in services and manufacturing. It is up to the Australian business sector, supported by an effective trade policy, to capitalise on these opportunities. Trade and structural adjustment I want to make the point, however, that the devaluation alone will not overcome structural problems which are the legacy of thirty years of inappropriate policies. The lack of export orientation in our manufacturing industry presents fundamental problems for the Government in formulating and pursuing its trading policies. It is imperative for us to create conditions which will encourage improved export performance in the fastest growing areas of world trade-manufacturing and services. In meeting the challenges which lie immediately ahead of us, we will be assisted by the progress which the Government has made over the past two years in improving the fundamental economic conditions in Australia. This has involved the successful operation of the prices and incomes accord resulting in the achievement of declining inflation, rapid growth and, consequently, the dramatic decline in real unit labour costs. There has also been a restoration of corporate profitability to more normal levels. The resultant stability in business and general economic conditions has been a factor in the strong recovery of investment. As well, the fact that the incidence of industrial disputation has been at its lowest level for 17 years has significantly enhanced our reputation for reliability of supply. The Government's successful deregulation of important sectors has also provided a powerful boost to the efficiency and dynamism of the economy and has provided a major fillip to our export sector. Getting these fundamental conditions right is of vital importance but, as we have seen, will not in itself adequately improve our export performance. The Government has also put into place a range of structural adjustment measures designed to assist and rejuvenate Australian industry. Special plans have been negotiated between government, business and unions in the steel and motor vehicle industries. The plans offer incentives for improved efficiency and modernisation of plant. They also allow for a growing element of competition from imports, thereby imposing a discipline on domestic industries to match the performance of efficient producers in other countries. The Government's industry policy arrangements have not been confined to the troubled sectors of our economy. We have also introduced positive measures to encourage efficient Australian manufacturing operations in industries as diverse as computers and shipbuilding. New incentives for industrial research and development have been foreshadowed along with encouragement of a venture capital market through the management investment corporations. The revamped Australian Manufacturing Council with its Industry Councils provides a tripartite framework within which policies can be developed for a range of Australian industries. The opportunity now presents itself for Australia to take advantage of our successful domestic economic recovery and the process of effective structural adjustment already begun in our industry base and to meet the challenge of exporting. For the first time policies are being put into place to develop an environment for industries which will be competitive in Australia and on world markets. In an interdependent global economy Australia requires industries which are successful on both fronts to provide for secure employment and sustained growth in incomes. Dynamism of the region The growth taking place in the Western Pacific Region presents considerable opportunities to Australia. Countries in the East Asian region are estimated to have increased their share of world exports from 9 per cent in 1962 to 17 per cent in 1981 while their estimated share of world imports grew from 10 per cent to 14 per cent in the same period. The challenge to Australia in the next 25 years will be to tie itself as closely as possible into the opportunities associated with the rapid growth of Asia's newly industrialising countries. China's modernisation program also presents unique opportunities which Australia is particularly well placed to secure. There is a good chance that by the end of the century the regional economy will be larger than that of Western Europe. We could share in this growth but one of the sharpest disappointments in recent years has been that while the level of that trade has grown sharply, our comparative performance in some of the most dynamic markets in our own region has been poor. In Japan our market share has almost halved from 9 per cent of Japanese imports in 1973 to 5 per cent in 1983 and in the ASEAN economies our penetration of the market has fallen from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. Whilst our share of the Republic of Korea's market has almost doubled to 4 per cent and our performance in China has been generally strong, overall our share of the Western Pacific region's imports has fallen from 7 per cent in 1973 to 4 per cent in 1983. Significantly, we have lost ground in regional markets just at a time when their growth compared with the rest of the world has been most impressive. Clearly if we are to make the most of the opportunities which exist in the dynamic Pacific economies we will need to do more than react in an ad hoc fashion to the changes occurring around us. An important measure of the success of our trade and industry policies will be the degree to which our economic structure complements and growth performance matches that of regional countries. This should best be achieved within a multilateral system. However the benefits that have accrued to Australia from the operations of the GATT in the past have been much less than they might have been. The reasons for this can be traced to the failure of major trading countries to adhere to GATT rules or to extend the principles of the Agreement fully to those areas of world trade which concern Australia most. Multilateral trade negotiations There is a need to retain a credible GATT system directed at liberal trade and improved adherence to the rules which it embodies. This need underlies our decision to support a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, provided that those issues of fundamental importance to us and to other countries of the region are adequately addressed. Broadly stated, our objectives in the negotiations, which I hope will begin early next year, will be to use all of the opportunities they offer to pursue a more liberal and predictable environment for trade and, through that, better access to markets. We believe that the negotiations should as a matter of priority deal with the major barriers and distortions in world trade. These are agricultural trade distortions, non-tariff barriers, subsidies and safeguards. We will vigorously insist on these matters being addressed. Following the Bonn Summit there were reports of opposition to the inclusion of agricultural questions in the proposed new round. We will firmly resist this position. What we want to avoid is a new round which merely addresses the concerns of the powerful and fails to take account of the interests of smaller trading countries such as Australia and others in our region. As part of our preparations for a new round, through the Prime Minister's regional initiative, we have been actively exploring with a number of Asian/Pacific countries the issues and actions necessary to ensure that the outcome of the new round more directly meets the interests of the majority of GATT members including those in our own region. We expect this close association with the countries of our region to carry on into the round itself and significantly to influence the character and substance of Australia's involvement with the round. One specific possibility we may wish to consider as multilateral negotiations unfold is that regional countries explore the opportunities for trade liberalisation between each other under the umbrella of the MTNs and on a non-discriminatory basis. The fact that barriers to regional trade are highest in precisely those areas where comparative advantage is greatest provides a compelling logic for considering this option. While an important aspect of the proposed negotiations will be the adherence of all GATT trading countries to the rules, these rules themselves do not lead directly to trade liberalisation. Negotiations about the progressive liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff measures will also be important. We will have to actively participate in these negotiations to try to achieve improved market opportunities for agricultural, manufacturing and services industries. This will in turn mean that we will be asked to liberalise our own market. The Government, for its part, is committed to the gradual reduction of Australian industry protection levels as part of its strategy to secure an efficient and competitive industry base. These policies will continue to be pursued along with arrangements to address the needs of those in the community affected by structural change. Our industry is moving in the direction of greater international competitiveness and becoming increasingly aware of the foreign market as a way of building up its strength. We should be able to build on these changes taking place in the Australian economy in order to maximise our opportunities in markets of interest to us. Bilateral trade developments Progress in international negotiations is necessarily slow and difficult and results to date are far from encouraging. It is important for the continuing strength of the economy that we use every means at our disposal to expand exports. I have already noted the increasing emphasis on special bilateral arrangements and 'managed' trade, particularly between the major trading countries. We view this trend with concern. At the same time, however, we need to ensure that we develop trade policies and practices that will allow us best to secure our own interests. A number of our most important trading partners have certainly been more successful than we have in presenting a unified face across the range of their dealings with us. I am conscious of the need for greater co-ordination of our bilateral trade efforts. One of the objectives I have set for conduct of the trade portfolio is to give greater priority to the management of our trade relations with our major partners, particularly those in our region. I have already visited New Zealand to pursue trade questions of mutual interest, including the further progress of our closer economic relations Agreement. The importance of our trade relationship with New Zealand and the benefits being derived by both countries from the Agreement is reflected in our trade figures. Australia's exports to New Zealand have grown from $1.036 million in 1981/82 to $1.422 million in 1983/84 which represents a growth rate of 37% compared with 27% growth in total Australian exports over the same period. Australia's imports from New Zealand grew from $726 million in 1981/82 to $922 million in 1983/84, reflecting a greater rate of growth over the period than for Australia's imports from the world as a whole. We will work towards the progressive development of the closer economic relationship with New Zealand. A Ministerial meeting to review progress is to be held in Canberra in August. The Prime Minister visited Brussels, Washington and Ottawa earlier this year and trade issues figured prominently on the agenda. Earlier this month I visited the Republic of Korea and as a result of the visit our trade relationship with the ROK, which had suffered some minor frictions, is now on a firmer and more positive footing. This relationship is already important to us and is likely to become even more significant over time. Next week I will visit Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand to reaffirm the priority the Government accords to its trade relations with the ASEAN countries. Visits to the other ASEAN capitals and China are planned for later in the year. We will continue to take whatever action is possible through Government to Government contact to ensure that Australia's trade opportunities are maximised. Trade facilitation In putting our policies into place, however, Governments must rely on the ability, business sense and imagination of all sectors of industry to play their essential part in the process. We are particularly concerned to find the most appropriate way to support the export efforts which industry is taking. These considerations were important in the decision to establish the new Australian Trade Commission. The Commission will assume the responsibilities, functions and powers of the Trade Commissioner Service, the Export Development Grants Board, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation and some of the promotional functions of the department. The new Commission will have a budget of some $200m and staff of some 1,000. Its establishment marks an important step in the concerted action needed to overcome Australia's difficult trading situation. For too long Australia's export marketing efforts have been bedevilled by unco-ordinated administration within the Commonwealth Government. If we are to obtain the best value for the trade facilitation and promotion dollar and if exporters are to be provided with the most efficient and effective service, these efforts have to be better co-ordinated. The Commission will act as a 'one stop shop' for exporters and provide the full range of appropriate advice and support drawing on all of the Government's resources. It will also have responsibility for overseas marketing, promotion and publicity. It will be expected to operate in as commercial a fashion as possible and will be able to deploy its resources in a flexible and responsive way. It should be emphasised, though, that all areas of Government have to be conscious of the resources they expend and the returns they achieve. In the present economic environment there is an over-riding need to restrain all Government expenditures and reduce the deficit. In the trade field, achieving a balance requires the identification and full justification of the trade development programs of Government institutions. Goals must be set and the objectives of programs clearly specified. When the Trade Commission initiative is fully implemented, the Department of Trade will be able to concentrate its resources on matters of trade policy, broad strategic issues, multilateral negotiations and Government to Government trade relations. The new Australian Trade Commission will be able to build on the work already done by the Department of Trade to develop a global marketing strategy for Australia. The Department is focusing on competitive export industries and our most important export markets for special efforts. As part of this exercise, the Department is looking particularly to some manufacturing and service industries, which embody our comparative advantage and which are most likely to achieve export success quickly. The Government as part of this exercise will be addressing ways in which domestic barriers to export can be reduced, for example by removing unnecessary industry regulation. The exercise also involves the Department in assessing prospects in particular markets such as China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and North America, which are based on a careful assessment of the patterns of demand and the capacity of Australian industry and individual exporters to respond competitively. Such exercises in improving market intelligence are being developed for all our major markets. Conclusion Without a substantial improvement in our export performance, Australian living standards will almost certainly decline. For this reason, it is vital that as a Government we implement policies to ensure success. Our primary goal is to maintain the economy in a position of sustained non-inflationary growth. But the Government will be unable to realise its employment and growth goals without the right policies in relation to imports and exports. Trade policy considerations must be fully intergrated into the Government's broader economic framework. We have taken a number of decisions in macro-economic management, including on the monetary and industry policy fronts. Future decisions in the trade area will be equally important. I have outlined a number of fronts on which the Government is pursuing policies directed at improving our performance as a trading nation. The steps that have been taken in the past two years and the decisions taken recently to streamline and make more effective the Government's efforts in trade facilitation should enhance our capacity to face this challenge. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.39) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Earlier this afternoon in another place the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) made the statement which has now been incorporated in Hansard and circulated to honourable senators. It is a long ministerial statement which is headed 'Australia's Trade Situation and Policies'. Although the statement is fairly long, and I think fairly accurate in detailing Australia's trade situation, it is certainly very short on government policies or any accurate analysis of what contribution the Government has made and proposes to make to a solution of Australia's trading problems. It is a statement which I think substantially and correctly details the problem that we face in Australia. It is one that has become very well known in recent days and particularly as a result of the depreciation of the Australian dollar which clearly registered for all Australians, perhaps for the first time, and certainly in a most glaring manner, the state that we have now reached as far as the world scene is concerned. The fact of the matter is that over the last few decades Australia's trading situation has sadly deteriorated, to the extent that this year we are facing a very large trade deficit, not to mention the current account deficit which is even greater and has even more horrific proportions. In the first nine months of this year Australia has recorded an international trade deficit of $1.7 billion. That clearly underlines the problem that has been building up. The reasons for it are many and varied and, as I said, the statement analyses them. I suppose that one of the most important has been the deterioration of our traditional rural export trade over recent decades. That has been due probably to reduced demand for the commodities exported, but price also has played a very important role. The Australian rural sector has faced difficulties over the last few decades with a lowering of demand, and therefore price, for such commodities and with the greatly increased costs that it has had to bear at the same time. A combination of those factors has led to a much lower proportion of Australia's export earnings being accounted for in the rural sector. I think only some 40 per cent of Australia's export earnings now comes from the rural sector. Nevertheless, that is still a very high percentage. Even though historically the rural proportion of total exports is low for Australia, rural industry still registers a very important share of Australia's export earnings. This underlines the need for very careful attention by government in establishing proper policies affecting the rural sector. I think the other factor that has led to a deterioration in Australia's trading situation is the fact that growth in world trade has occurred largely in manufactured goods rather than in the commodity area. Australian manufacturing industry has been slow to respond to the opportunities that exist in that regard and particularly in our area of the world, the Western Pacific region. It is certainly to be hoped that in future Australia's manufacturing and service industries will show greater innovation and greater enterprise in taking advantage of existing opportunities. The fact that we have not done so is another major contributing factor to the decline in our position as a trading nation. Fortunately, the decline in Australia's position in the years covered by this statement would be a great deal worse if it had not been for the increase in Australia's mineral exports over that period. Certainly, the shift from reliance on rural exports to other exports, particularly minerals, has not all been bad. The mining industry has been able to some extent to replace the role of the rural sector in that sector's period of decline as a contributor to our overseas earnings. As I mentioned in this chamber some weeks ago, it is somewhat sobering and certainly somewhat surprising for most Australians to find that coal is our single greatest export earner. That gives an indication of the dramatic change that has occurred in the relative importance to the Australian economy of the mining and rural sectors. That achievement is listed in an otherwise somewhat gloomy statement and record. As the statistics show, the growth of the mining industry has been on the brighter side. However, an Australian government certainly cannot assume that these improvements can continue without adequate government policies to encourage our export industries and to enable them to expand greatly and, hopefully, to flourish. That in turn depends very much upon which policies Australian governments, particularly the Federal Government, pursue. The Minister for Trade claims in his statement that the present Government's macro-economic, monetary and industrial policies have provided the right basis for successful expansion of Australia's overseas trade in the future. That statement is likely to be greeted with some scepticism by many sectors of Australian industry. As I said, the overall result of this Government's policies, in the two years in which it has been in power, is the dramatic and massive depreciation of the Australian dollar, registering clearly the situation that Australia has now reached. Overseas observers and experts, in their assessments of our economic performance, have registered very clearly their view that Australia's position is underlined by the massive depreciation of the Australian dollar which has occurred in recent weeks. That clearly registers the world view of the performance of the Hawke Labor Government in tackling one of Australia's fundamental problems, namely, our balance of trade, our balance of payments, and our level of exports, our contribution to world trade. It is clearly a major problem that governments will have to tackle in the future. There is no reason for the sort of complacency which the Minister for Trade has indicated in this statement in saying that his Government's policies are on the right track. Indeed, the only trade-related Government policy which he mentions as his contribution as a Minister to a solution to this problem concerns his recent announcement of the establishment of an Australian Trade Commission which will assume the responsibilities and functions of a number of existing services, namely, the Trade Commissioner Service, the Export Development Grants Board, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the Overseas Projects Corporation, and some promotional functions of the Department. So this much vaunted contribution which this Minister is to make to the solution to our trading policies is really to be a reshuffling of the deck chairs. This statement is, as I said, very long on rhetoric about the performance of the Hawke Government and very short on any specific policies which it might pursue to improve our trading situation. Perhaps not surprisingly, the statement is entirely silent on the negative aspects of the Hawke Government's policies in relation to overseas trade. I am not suggesting by any means that they entirely account for the present rather dismal situation in relation to trade. Nevertheless, they are of a negative kind and not the positive approach to solving this problem which is required. The commendation that the Minister makes of the Government's industrial relations policies will be received with a pretty hollow laugh at least by the coal mining industry in this country because of the great industrial unrest in recent months in the Hunter Valley. The problems on the coal chain in that valley are well known. Of course, the notorious New South Wales train drivers' strike in the Hunter Valley during the time that the Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Australia provides, I think, a very considerable rebuff to the claims made by the Minister in this statement about the success that the Government has had in industrial relations and in ensuring Australia's ability to supply. Australia's ability to supply, particularly in regard to mineral exports, has been a matter of continuing and growing concern over recent years. The problem in the Hunter Valley several months ago has very considerably shaken the confidence of purchasers of Australian minerals, particularly coal, in Australia's ability to continue to supply. As I said, those claims of the Minister will be received with a hollow laugh in that industry, if not in others. The other policies that this Government has pursued are ones which, as I said, are totally negative and destructive of Australia's trade standing in the world. What could be a clearer example of that than its uranium policies? I refer to its policy of banning uranium exports except from certain favoured uranium mines-either productive mines in the Northern Territory or the prospective one at Roxby Downs. The policy of banning a major potential source of exports from this country for a long period ahead is absurd as far as Australia's immediate interests are concerned and it must have an impact on the views of potential buyers of Australia's uranium. The uncertainties that buyers see that they could have in dealing with Australia will add to our problems. A particular aspect of this Government's uranium policy, which is in place simply to satisfy the Left in the Australian Labor Party and other minority sections of the community, is the banning of the sale of uranium to France. By that decision the Government has interfered with contractual arrangements that had already been entered into by Queensland Mines Ltd, which was the producer and exporter. Long term contracts were being entered into with France and the Government stepped in to prevent those contracts being fulfilled. Nothing could be worse for Australia's standing as a reliable supplier, not only of uranium but of other minerals-indeed, any other exports-than for the Government to step in after contracts have been signed and undertakings have been made and prevent the fulfilment of those trading obligations. This is a classic example of the negative contribution which this Government has made towards solving Australia's trading problems. Before I leave the question of uranium, I should say that the long term prospects for Australia in regard to the supply of uranium are very good. The Government's argument that the ban on the export of uranium is of little consequence may be a consideration in the very short term but, apart from the aspect which I have already mentioned, the fact that by this Government's policies Australia will be denied access to the very long term and growing demand for that mineral is quite absurd. Another aspect of government policy which has not been addressed by the Minister in this statement and which certainly ought to be addressed is the adverse impact of export controls and the way in which they are administered. Australia's export performance could certainly be increased if the detailed way in which export controls are imposed and administered were abandoned. Australian producers and suppliers of minerals could then get on with the job of negotiating with purchasers and supplying them, without the delays and hassles which are attended by present export control administration. This has resulted time and time again in the loss of export sales. Contracts are simply not able to be finally entered into because of delays in the administration of export controls. There are, of course, many other aspects of this statement which should be closely considered and perhaps debated further in this chamber. I have simply highlighted some of the grave omissions of the statements and emphasised the fact that the Government has made very few positive contributions in improving our trading performance, the very subject on which the statement has been made. If this is an example of the approach of the Hawke Government to solving that problem, it is very clear that very little will be achieved to correct the dismal situation that we have now reached in Australia while it is in charge. Certainly, the Hawke Government's Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, does not indicate in this statement that he, as Minister, will make any positive contribution. He is prepared to ignore completely the negative contributions which this Government has already made to solving this problem. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.59) —The statement of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) which has been tabled is a motherhood statement. Unfortunately, it describes a number of problems but it does not give any real solutions. Since the mid-1970s, under successive governments, Australia's foreign debt has grown alarmingly. In 1974-75 our debt would have been almost $5 billion. It increased to $28 billion by the end of the Fraser Government's term in 1983, in large part through private borrowing for a non-existent mining boom. By late 1984, under the Hawke Government, our foreign debt reached $40 billion. At the same time, although we hold foreign reserves of over $10 billion, our capital inflow is at best sporadic, much of it being of a speculative nature. In these times when economic issues, particularly employment and, lately, the complexities of international currency movements have become news in Australia, the perilous foreign debt situation has yet to be realised by our people. Yet, unless we can survive this huge debt, our financial situation will become such that our overseas credit rating will fall, interest rates will rise, import restrictions will have to be applied, unemployment will grow and living standards will fall. Few Australians seem yet to understand the social and political implications of Australia's current external financial situation. We have in fact become economic junkies, borrowing more and more abroad to maintain living standards which are not sustainable in the long run. We are living beyond our means. In the face of this situation, the country not only needs to produce more efficiently but above all it must sell abroad more efficiently to lighten its foreign debt burden. We are now in the same situation as Britain was in 1940. We must export or die. It is ironical that Australia, which owes its great wealth to agricultural and mineral exports-wealth which has spawned its modern complacency-is now neglecting agriculture. It is neglecting the dairy industry and the dried fruit industry. There can be no easy or short term solutions to the economic problems we are confronting. A revitalised export sector is essential and will provide a fillip to economic recovery as a whole. Australian exporters now need a stable and long term commitment from this Government to allow them to plan for expansion. Since 1961, with the introduction of the export marketing development allowance-the EMDA-and the pay-roll tax rebate-the PTR-there has been a series of changes to what little export incentive was given. This has not been conducive to a stable environment for the export sector. In the 1980s there has been an active discouragement of exports through government's failure to support them. With its distorted and fundamentalist view of the world economy, the Fraser Government did away with one of our most constructive export schemes in 1983. This had a considerable impact on pro- cessed and manufactured exports. I am talking about the export expansion grant-the EEG. These grants provided a real incentive at a low budgetary outlay as they were based most realistically on proven export performance. The schemes supported exports to the extent that payments would be made only if the exporter increased his share of the world market, and then based only on solid evidence. However, all grants under the EEG were taxable. The cost of the scheme, at its highest, was only 0.5 per cent of our budgetary outlay and probably brought back to the country at lot more money through its encouragement of exports. The abolition of the EEG scheme put Australian exporters at a considerable disadvantage in the competitive world market. Australia cannot afford to continue to be a trading pacifist. If we cannot use our influence to create a new and just world economic order with more stable exchange rates and no dumping, we must at least be prepared to become aggressive traders. The Government's response so far has been to establish the new Australian Trade Commission. This is the only concrete proposal in the paper we are now discussing. It is just simply a band-aid. However, we applaud it. It is a good measure, but it is not the evidence that we are looking for that Australia is prepared to market its products vigorously and aggressively in the face of unfair international competitive practices. We must be prepared to support export industries entering into bilateral trade agreements which include the possibility of bartering our commodities. After all, the major problem for our export sector is that incentives offered to our competitors by their home countries are growing while the support we give our exporters is decreasing. The result is that Australia as a trading nation is disadvantaged in the world market-place. The EEG scheme was abolished outright because the Fraser Government felt, I presume on Treasury advice, that it contravened the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-GATT. In this quixotic gesture to favour economic purity, we managed to cut off our nose to spite our national face. When international pressure against the United States Domestic International Sales Corporation scheme, or DISC scheme, for tax deferrals on export earnings grew because the scheme was said to contravene GATT, the United States simply modified it into the Foreign Sales Corporation scheme, or FSC scheme, which follows the letter, if not the spirit, of GATT. Similarly, New Zealand, our close neighbour, showed realism when it acceded to the Multilateral Trade Negotiations code on subsidies and countervailing duties by expressing the formal reservation that it would 'examine' methods to bring its own export incentives schemes into conformity with the code within 'a reasonable period of time'. The ability of both New Zealand and the United States to get around or to simply ignore GATT places Australian agricultural exports at a disadvantage. The USA can sell its grain and New Zealand can sell its dairy products at our expense. The former Minister for Trade, Mr Bowen, identified in 1984 more than 2,000 non-tariff measures used by our competitors to the advantage of their exports. The United States and the European Economic Community in particular are both guilty of incentive schemes amounting to subsidies for exports in flagrant contravention of the GATT principles that Australia still takes seriously. The United States provides, under Public Law 480, a scheme tying foreign aid to United States agricultural exports, is offering finance of up to 40 years, with 10 years grace, at 2 to 3 per cent interest to less-developed countries. While the Australian Wheat Board has in 1985 granted three-year credit facilities to certain developing nations of Latin America, there is no way that it can compete with the virtual hand-out credit terms of Public Law 480. It is interesting to note that Australian wheat which has been sold to Latin America from the 1984-85 crop has been handled by multinational corporations and that while the Wheat Board has made the sales the gain to Australia has not been as great as it would have been had the sales been channelled through Australian companies. The role of multinationals in marketing Australian commodities will have to be addressed. It must be addressed by this Government, and soon. The United States also maintains the Commodity Credit Corporation, or CCC, which guarantees finance within the United States financial system for foreign importers of United States agricultural products. That is in addition to the DISC-FSC scheme which provides fantastic fiscal incentives to United States exporters. The European Economic Community has a system of incentives varying from country to country within the Community. There are value-added tax exemptions on goods for export in all EEC countries. The common agriculture policy export restitutions scheme subsidises EEC exports. Many countries of the Community, for example, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany-offer taxation provisions by allowing the overseas income of foreign branches and subsidiaries of their own national companies just to be taxed abroad. This incentive will be taken up only if tax is at a lower rate than in their country of origin. This is called 'avoiding double taxation'; it amounts to effective subsidisation of exports. We in Australia have no such schemes. We are pure; we are poor. The meeting last week of Western leaders in Germany clearly showed that the leading countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-OECD-are not willing to abandon their relative trade advantages in world markets. They will not change. It is Australia that must change. We in Australia must face the realities of international trade and act pragmatically in the national interest. Certain measures must be taken inside Australia. We need a publicity and educational campaign within the country in the form of an export drive, so that the population at large realises that its well-being and living standards depend on Australia's ability to export. We need to support Australian exporters by schemes similar to schemes used by our competitors, based on performance. The support schemes will be continued only for exporters who perform, and such schemes must take into account Australia's inherent geographical disadvantages and the consequent cost of transporting Australian goods overseas. We need government action to reduce the incredibly long time it takes to move goods through Australian ports. Current delays caused by union demarcation disputes have added considerably to the cost of exporting from Australia. We need a comprehensive inquiry into the structure of duties in Australia, with the aim of reducing duties where this directly leads to increased export costs. We must encourage the provision of Australian transport, insurance and other services in order both to increase our invisible credits and to reduce our invisible debits. No scheme will be easy or produce short term miracles. Yet in the fact of our huge foreign debt, an active and productive export sector can produce the much-needed foreign income to cover the national debt. We are, I believe, now faced with the distinct possibility that tomorrow the Government will reduce the single remaining support to Australian exports, the export market development grants, or EMDG, scheme which has been in place since 1973. The EMDG scheme has never been overly generous. In the 1984-85 Budget its total expense accounts for only 0.25 per cent of the Budget outlay. Had it not been for the EMDG scheme, many small companies would not have been able to meet the promotional expenses involved in opening new markets or in maintaining old markets in the face of increasing and subsidised foreign competition. If the Government cuts its funding for this scheme, it will do enormous harm to the thousands of small exporters who are the basis of our export sector, and it will deliver many Australian exporters into the control of multinational interests. It is foolish to argue that the decreasing international value of the Australian dollar will prove incentive enough for our exporters. However, it will help them. It is also interesting to note that our major European trading competitors, who have also suffered effective devaluations against the United States dollar, have steadfastly kept their equivalent and invariably more generous schemes intact, and in some cases even increased the benefits to exporters. When the export expansion grants scheme was abolished in 1983, the saving to the Treasury was less than $150m, a minute proportion of our total Budget, against a loss of an estimated $2 billion to $2.5 billion in export earnings. With the present EMDG scheme it is simply less expensive to continue paying the grants as at present than to bridge the gap its removal will create. This is because of the consequent fall in export earnings. It would be more harmful to try to bridge this gap by further overseas borrowings, which would exacerbate our foreign debt burden or guarantee that Australian living standards would start sliding in the very near future. The point is that not only must the export market development grant scheme or similar be held in place but added incentives must be given to our export sector to maintain Australia's economic viability. The basic problem with this ministerial statement is that it amply describes the problem but offers no solutions. Yet we need to solve this problem if we are to have any hope of maintaining the living standards of Australians. The alternative is for Australia to follow Argentina down the path of poor economic growth and dropping living standards. The problem is that unless Australia exports more, we will become one of the poorer countries in the world. The solution is for the export sector to become a high priority for the Australian Government and for us to reap the benefits of the expanding trade opportunities in the Pacific region through the formation of a south-west Pacific economic community. I believe that it is extremely important for the Government to face these problems now and not just try the band-aid measure of creating a new trade commissioner. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae) agreed to: That the Senate refer to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the following matter: The relationship between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory with respect to the arrangements under which the Commonwealth has provided and will in future provide the Northern Territory with financial capacity to meet the employer liability under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme; and that as part of its considerations, the Committee study the findings and resulting arrangements of the 1984 Joint Task Force Group Report into the Northern Territory Superannuation arrangements and make recommendations in relation to the implementation thereof. 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 Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.16) —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- Introduction This Bill is the first of three being introduced by the Government as part of a concerted national effort to come to grips with the problems of occupational health and safety in the community. The others will be presented at a later date. One will relate to general duties of care and regulations in respect of occupational health and safety in areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction, including the Australian Capital Territory, external Territories and areas of Commonwealth employment. The other will relate to the establishment of a mandatory notification and assessment scheme for industrial chemicals. The Bill is the product of sustained dialogue with the States and Territories, employers and unions and has been developed in a spirit of full co-operation and with a recognition of the appropriate areas of responsibility of all parties. The level of consensus makes the Bill a unique document. Representatives of both the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry have been in agreement at all stages of development of the national focus and strategy. As well, the Opposition has indicated its support on two previous occasions. The Government welcomed this support and trusts that it will continue. Background In presenting the Bill the Minister repeated part of what he said in November 1983 when announcing the establishment of an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. He said on that occasion that one of the most important and far-reaching policy proposals to which the Labor Government was committed was a national strategy on occupational health and safety. The nation as a whole is incurring enormous losses from unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Individual employees suffer the hardship of physical pain, disabilities and loss of income. Employers bear losses through reduced output and higher workers compensation insurance premiums. The community as a whole faces higher prices and taxes to meet the spiralling costs of occupational injury and ill health. Conservative estimates are that more than $6 billion a year is wasted through loss of production and associated costs because of occupational injury and ill health. About 300 people are killed each year in work-related accidents and a further 150,000 people are injured at work each year. This is a gigantic social, human and economic penalty that can only be reduced significantly by concerted action on a national scale and this Bill represents the first substantial legislation by a Federal government to bring about a change for the better in the working environment. The origins of this Bill derive from the Government's efforts to comprehensively implement ALP policy in this area. This led to the establishment of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in 1983. In May 1984 the Minister tabled the report of the Interim Commission as a first step towards achieving a national focus and plan of action for occupational health and safety on the broadest possible scale-an issue, we believe honourable senators will agree, which transcends party politics because at the heart of the matter is the health and well-being of everyone in the work force and their families. For too long occupational disease, injury and death have been seen as an almost inevitable part of the human and social cost of production. Companies must produce an adequate return: and often the company that is only marginally economic is also the one with the worst problems in the health and safety area. There is often not enough incentive within an organisation to improve health and safety conditions because a great deal of the cost of illness, injury or death is borne by the community at large-medical, nursing and hospital costs, lifetime care for the permanently disabled worker and the value, in national terms, of lost production. To this has to be added the almost incalculable personal and human cost when an employee suffers injury, illness or death. And although the top management of a company may believe, in principle, that it is in the long-term interests of the company to adopt sound health and safety practices, it may at the same time assess the short-term performance of its middle-management by production-measurement criteria that could result in injury and other incidence rates higher than they would otherwise be. Such commitment at the senior level must be translated into action through all levels of management and on the shop floor. This is one reason why a national focus and strategy is so necessary. If the nation is to enhance the working environment-not only to improve the health and safety of its citizens but also to enjoy the very real economic and social benefits that are available-there has to be a concerted and co-ordinated national effort. The problems the Bill sets out to alleviate are many and varied, and include that of inadequate knowledge and the poor transmission, access and utilisation of the knowledge that is available. Larger firms are often able to obtain information and, perhaps more importantly, know where to seek information and assistance, but smaller companies have a more difficult task. This lack of co-ordination between the various elements making up the work environment highlights the need for much better reporting systems and co-operation at all levels. Health and safety hazards are so numerous and diverse that it is beyond the practical confines of a second reading speech to detail them all-and new ones are being identified all the time. For instance, there are thousands of materials of known toxicity in commercial use already, and all the signs are that this number will keep pace with developing technology. But even the most common hazards represent a threat, and therefore a challenge to the community. The community's goal, and consequently that of the government, must be to reduce the unacceptably high national level of occupational death, injury and illness. This objective is not just something the Government sees as 'desirable'-something that everyone is in favour of for its own sake. It is a soundly-based economic objective as well as a socially desirable one. Improvement in working conditions is a basic goal of the prices and incomes accord and a national safety strategy is therefore an essential component of the non-wage aspect of the accord. The success of any national health and safety strategy rests heavily on the commitment of employers, employees and their respective organisations and governments to an equitable system based on the principles of participation and acceptance of appropriate responsibility. Finally, it is up to employers and employees to bring about necessary improvements. Central to this is our commitment to consultation and co-operation with State and Territory governments, the trade unions, employers and their organisations, occupational health and safety specialists and community groups. This consultation led to the establishment by the Government of a non-statutory National Occupational Health and Safety Commission with representatives of Federal, State and Territory Governments, employers and unions in October, 1984, following acceptance of the main recommendations of the Interim Commission. Since then it has initiated positive action in priority areas such as chemicals, information, repetition strain injury and training. As well, the transfer of relevant senior administrative and specialist staff from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Health to the Commission has been completed. Aims and objectives This Bill provides for a statutory national Commission to be tripartite in nature because it is the Government's clear belief that progress can best be achieved through the close co-operation and involvement of employer and employee peak-councils and Commonwealth, State, and Territory governments. The Bill underlines the Commission's primary role of co-ordination and facilitation, with the major jurisdiction over occupational health and safety remaining with the States, some of which have recently taken significant initiatives in this field. It will still be up to each State to implement standards within its own jurisdiction. The National Commission will be required to report annually to the Minister and at that time the Minister will provide the Parliament with a report on progress throughout Australia on the implementation of declared national standards. The roles and responsibilities of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth are clear and distinct and the Bill does not seek to transfer any of these. The Bill specifically sets up the Commission within the limits of the constitutional power afforded to the Federal Government. It will enable the Commission to undertake additional, beneficial, activities in the fields of standards development, research, training and information collection and dissemination at a national level-thus representing a positive initiative in co-operative federalism. There are about 160 Acts and ordinances relating to occupational health and safety and this is one of the areas where the Commission will seek to work with State and Territory governments toward the introduction of national standards. It has been recognised on many occasions that there exists a serious deficiency in our Australian occupational health and safety systems in the lack of a uniform reporting system. The new Commission has the important task to develop and implement such a data base. Only then will it be possible to objectively determine the national priorities. The objectives of the establishment of the Commission are, in brief: The development among the community of an awareness of issues relating to occupational health and safety matters and facilitation of public debate on them. The provision of a forum where all parties can consult and debate matters pertinent to the subject. Development of a national focus for activities. The functions of the Commission as envisaged by the Bill will include such things as the formulation of policies and strategies on occupational health and safety matters, recommendations on co-operation with Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and groups and individuals engaged in occupational health and safety matters; the declaration of national standards and codes of practice; research; testing; training; funding; and provision of information. This will ensure that all Australians regardless of language and occupation have an opportunity to participate in the promotion of a safer and healthier working environment. A fund to be known as the National Occupational Health and Safety Research Fund will be set up under the Bill and the Commission will be empowered to provide funds for research projects relevant to occupational health and safety measures. The existence of this fund will enhance the Commission's ability to attract funds from the public and private sectors so as to ensure a co-ordinated approach to research in priority areas. The Commission will not limit itself to investigations and research within Australia but will seek to participate in the international transfer of ideas and information and to draw on the expertise of such bodies as the OECD, the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. There is an additional reason for intensifying the information links with such bodies-the development of internationally accepted work practices. And this in turn can have a distinct economic as well as social benefit for Australia. Thus we need to work for international agreement so as to level out the impact of appropriate standards worldwide and so enhance the emergence of higher productivity, decreased absenteeism and improved work safety stemming from the encouragement of new technology, substitute materials and re-designed jobs. It is the Government's intention, and indeed it was the firm recommendation of the Interim Commission, that Australia should work toward ratification of International Labour Organization convention 155, 'Occupational Safety and Health and the Working Environment'. The members of Australia's tripartite delegations to the 66th and 67th sessions of the international labour conferences held in 1980 and 1981 participated in the formation of convention 155 and its associated recommendation 164. Though there is not yet full compliance with the provisions by the Commonwealth and all State governments, we believe the successful introduction of the national strategy need not be delayed by this, and indeed represents a positive move toward ratification. The Bill provides for the Commission to consist of 17 members, namely: a chairperson; 3 members nominated by the ACTU; 3 members nominated by the Confederation of Australian Industry; 1 member nominated by the premier of each State and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; 1 member nominated by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; 1 member nominated by the Minister for Health; 1 member nominated by the Minister for Territories. The emphasis on consensus in the operation of the Commission is underlined by the requirement that there be 12 affirmative votes before a decision can be made by members. The Bill provides for the Commission to function in two divisions to be known as the National Occupational Health and Safety office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. The National Office will be the operational arm of the Commission, providing the secretariat and policy development functions, working with State and Territory governments and playing its part in the dissemination of information. The National Institute will be the technical and scientific arm of the Commission. It will carry out research, statistics, specialist training and other matters to be determined by the Commission. The Director of the Institute will be a statutory appointment. While the National Institute's work priorities will be determined by the tripartite National Commission, the scientific objectivity of the Institute and its work has been protected within this legislation. In the Bill the scope of the definitions has been defined broadly because the most significant powers being given to the commission are those of inquiry and information-gathering for the purpose of developing appropriate national standards. Under the Bill, 'occupation' means a full-time or part-time occupation and includes occupations such as those traditionally recognised as an employee; an independent contractor, a statutory appointee, government service-including the defence force or a police force-a member of parliament, a self-employed person, a worker in a family business, a director. It also encompasses within this definition persons undertaking occupational activities whether or not they work in paid employment, e.g. voluntary workers, students, prisoners. These persons are often exposed to injury and illness which is occupationally related. The definition of 'occupational' health and safety matters' means matters relating to occupational health and safety including: The physiological and psychological needs and well-being of persons engaged in occupations. Work-related death or work-related trauma. Prevention of work-related death or trauma. The protection of persons from work-related death or trauma and the rehabilitation and re-training of persons who have suffered work-related trauma. This definition is in line with international conventions and practice in other countries, particularly in so far as it encompasses the areas of work-related stress-a condition all too common in today's modern workforce. Because of the multiplicity of regulations affecting occupational health and safety, one of the important aims of the Bill is to enable the commission to declare national standards and codes of practice. These will be advisory in character and would only be declared after consultation with interested parties and after interested persons had had an opportunity to make representations. The application of national standards will be a matter for state and territory governments in their jurisdictions, and for the commonwealth in respect of its own employees, the A.C.T. and external Territories. As indicated earlier, it is the Minister's intention to introduce later this year specific legislation to afford occupational health and safety protection to employees of the Commonwealth and those in the A.C.T. and external Territories. The Commission would be empowered also to conduct an inquiry into an occupational health and safety matter. For this purpose the Commission may appoint a commissioner who may not necessarily be a member of the Commission. In general, the Commissioner appointed to conduct the inquiry will be required to provide a copy of the report to the Commission and the Minister responsible to enable the Minister to provide a copy of the report to the House within 15 sitting days of receipt of the report. The Commissioner's powers will be broadly those exercised by the industries assistance Commission in its inquiry. There is provision in the Bill for the inquiry, or part of it, to be held in private if the commissioner is satisfied that this is desirable in the public interest because of the confidential nature of any evidence, and the commissioner may direct that publication of evidence be restricted or prohibited. The Bill affords protection of the commissioner and witnesses in the conduct of an inquiry. The Commissioner would have the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court in the performance of duties and any witness would have the same protection also. No employees appearing as witnesses or giving evidence at such an inquiry could be dismissed or have their employment prejudiced because of their appearance at an inquiry. Nor could an employer threaten to dismiss an employee because that employee proposed appearing as a witness or giving evidence at an inquiry. For anyone contravening this provision the Bill provides for fines similar to those of comparable bodies. It is fundamental to the Government's philosophy that the principles of openness and participation are basic elements of our national occupational health and safety strategy. This is reflected throughout the Bill in the dissemination of information functions required of the Commission. As mentioned previously, the Commission will have the power to establish a research trust fund. This will enable the Commission to assist research by an individual as well as by Commission staff, and to provide funds for organisations to assist in implementation of the national strategy. It will also promote the joint funding of Australian Research into occupational health and safety referred to earlier. Conclusion The Federal Government has demonstrated the ability to achieve uniformity of legislation in many areas. The national companies code is one example. We are confident that we can work with State and Territory governments, unions and employers, to develop uniform national standards for occupational health and safety, to rectify the serious neglect of past Federal governments and to work in a spirit of co-operation. Regardless of party or politics, there is every philosophical reason why society should be as protective of men and women in their working environment as it is with regard to the food they eat or the non-working environment to which they are exposed. The time is long overdue for the construction of a national framework of action. Other countries such as Canada, the United States, Britain and various other European countries have been implementing major programs but we have lagged behind despite the general belief that we are among the most advanced countries in the developed world. This Bill, and the Commission which it sets out to establish, will provide the national framework and a positive impetus to collective efforts to improve the working environment of all Australians. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows-- The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee greater flexibility in setting the rate of special levies on local cargo. I will now explain briefly to honourable senators the background of this Bill. The Stevedoring Industry is characterised by a higher degree of labour mobility between employers and ports, labour pooling in some ports and rotation of labour through terminals in major ports. These are important factors in ensuring efficient labour utilisation and higher industry efficiency. These factors also make central funding of many employer obligations the practical and cost-saving alternative to individual company arrangements and complex portability provisions. As a result of this, the stevedoring industry has a long history of levies on employers to fund these centralised arrangements. Successive Federal governments have been involved in the industry since 1942. Although that role has been substantially reduced as a result of agreement reached at the National Stevedoring Industry Conference in 1976/77, the Government still provides statutory support for certain levy arrangements agreed between the parties. In determining rates for the levies for which it is responsible, the government acts on advice from the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (SIFC) which is made up of representatives drawn from the industry. Other non-statutory levies are managed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour (AEWL). At present, there are two types of levies applied in the industry-statutory and voluntary industry levies. There are currently two types of statutory levies: one is a general levy on man hours which finances employers' retirement fund contributions, long service leave provisions, administration costs, the port conciliator service and, in non-permanent ports, attendance money, guaranteed wage and retainer and annual leave; and the second is a special levy on tonnages and on man-hours employed on bulk cargoes, which has been used to pay out the undischarged deficit of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which was wound up in 1977. Various voluntary levies are imposed by the AEWL to cover sick leave, annual and long service leave provisions, early retirement benefits, idle time, and ancillary labour redundancy and long service leave provisions. As with the statutory levies, these apply both to cargo tonnages and man-hours. Between 1977 and 1984, redundancy in the Stevedoring Industry was financed through voluntary levies imposed by AEWL, with local cargo levied at 20 per cent of the rate applicable to overseas cargo. This differential rate reflected a much greater contribution by overseas cargo to the technological and trading pattern changes that have contributed to redundancy in recent years. In 1984, amendments to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977 enabled the SIFC to fund redundancy through an increase in the statutory special levies. This allowed the SIFC to refinance an existing AEWL loan and take on responsibility to fund identified redundancy in the industry. However, Section 7 of the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act 1977 requires that local cargo be levied at 75 per cent of the rate applicable to overseas cargo. This essentially reflects the relative contribution to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority deficit referred to above. This compares to the 20 per cent differential applying under the voluntary levies. Consequently, the amendment currently before the Senate seeks to amend section 7 of the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act to provide discretion to the SIFC to recommend a rate of levy on local cargo (loaded) less than 75 per cent of the rate on overseas cargo (loaded and unloaded) should the Committee see this as appropriate. This would allow the redundancy component of the statutory special levy to be set closer to the initial 20 per cent. The exercise of this discretion by the SIFC is appropriate for several reasons. Firstly, with the long-standing 'industry deficit' now fully amortised, the special levies will, from June 1985, solely provide funds to meet repayments of borrowings made to finance redundancy in 1983 and 1984. Secondly, scope to allow a reduction in the levy on local cargoes will offer some relief to those operating the coastal trade. Coastal operators at present are facing severe competition from road and rail transport and an improvement in their cost structure will assist the industry in providing a more cost-effective service to its customers. Honourable Senators should note that an increase in the special statutory levy on overseas cargo will be necessary to maintain sufficient funds to meet the Finance Committee's obligations. However, this increase will be small because the special statutory levies apply to a far greater volume of overseas cargo than local cargo. In 1983-84 the levies applied to approximately 23.9 million tonnes of overseas cargo and 4.9 million tonnes of local cargo. Furthermore, any such increase would be more than offset by the overall reduction on the special statutory levies which will occur as a result of the amortisation of the industry deficit component of those levies. As I have indicated, this is currently scheduled to take effect in June 1985. There will be no cost to the Federal Government as a result of this amendment. The Government believes that this amendment represents a further step along the path of improving the efficiency of this vital industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.20) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill proposes to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to incorporate into that Act the excise alterations to crude oil as announced on 23 October 1984 by the then Minister for Resources and Energy. As part of a package of incentives for the oil industry the Minister announced the introduction of special excise arrangements for crude oil fields discovered on or before 17 September 1975, but which had not been developed before 23 October 1984. These fields are now eligible for concessional excise treatment under what is to be called an intermediate excise scale. By way of background I should mention that the taxation arrangements on crude oil produced from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975, called 'old oil', were modified from 1 July 1983 to correct a number of anomalies. The excise scale was restructured so that increased production from each prescribed production area, as defined in the excise by-laws, attracted progressively higher rates of excise. Oil discovered after 17 September 1975, termed 'new oil', attracts excise at a rate very much lower than the excise on 'old' oil. In formulating the intermediate excise scale the Government was aware that up to 140 million barrels of oil was contained in 'old' oil fields that had not been developed at least partly because of inadequate returns to producers under the 'old' oil excise scale. As a result of the introduction of the intermediate excise scale and a related decision to modify the existing substantial new development policy the Bass Strait producers, Esso and BHP, have decided to proceed with the development of Bream and Tuna B, and, subject to delineation drilling, Barracouta and Turrum in Bass Strait with a total investment involved in the order of $1.8 billion. This program will provide a welcome boost to employment opportunities in the region over the next few years, provide a further boost to oil self-sufficiency and postpone the impending decline, at the same time it is expected to contribute significantly to government revenue. The intermediate scale will apply to production from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975 but undeveloped as at 23 October 1984, which lie in areas specifically excluded from the 'greenfields' resource rent tax-that is, in Bass Strait, the North West Shelf, and onshore The excise liability for crude oil produced from these areas will be determined by applying the intermediate excise scale to the ruling government determined import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil. The modest excise rates and concessional excise free allowance for this oil, which are set out in clause 8 of the Bill, reflect the Government's desire to provide development incentives to the oil industry. The Bill also proposes certain adjustments to the excise rate on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas following the setting of new wholesale prices for naturally occurring LPG. As in past determinations, the excise rate has been calculated using a weighted average of the LPG export prices over the preceding six months and the current domestic price. This Bill reduces the excise rate by $2.26 per kilolitre to $34.70 per kilolitre for the period 1 October 1984 to 31 March 1985, and increases the excise rate by $2.24 per kilolitre to $36.96 per kilolitre on and from 1 April 1985. A technical adjustment has also been made to the excise rate for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 September 1984 to reduce it from $35.96 per kilolitre to $35.55 per kilolitre. Financial impact statement The introduction of the intermediate excise scale will generate additional revenue to the Commonwealth above that which it would otherwise have received under the 'old' oil excise scale. Under that scale several projects were considered uneconomic and would not have been developed. Excise from projects to which the intermediate excise is to apply is expected to yield in excess of $300m to government revenue in net present value terms from the Bream, Turrum, Perch and Dolphin projects over the next 20 years. The reduction in the excise rate applying to naturally occurring LPG from 1 October 1984 is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue by approximately $2m in 1984-85. The increase in the excise rate with effect from 1 April 1985 will increase revenues by almost $1m in 1984-85, while the adjustment to the LPG excise rate from 1 July 1984 will involve a refund of excise of approximately $0.5m. The net impact of the alterations is expected to result in a reduction in revenue of about $1m in 1984-85 compared with the Budget Estimates. I commend the Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 which is now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains four Schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1985 autumn sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 1-4 (1985). Honourable senators may recall that details of the tariff changes contained in the Bill were outlined at the time of introduction of those Customs Tariff Proposals in the House of Representatives. Certain of the amendments contained in the Bill arise from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on: certain consumer electronic equipment and components; and separate articles direction No. 1 (1983). The Bill also contains amendments relating to: the decision taken by the Government in respect of the Steel Industry Authority's August 1984 report on cold rolled strip and sheet excluding tinplate: continuation of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy, including acceptance by the Government of recommendations made in the May 1984 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee; the introduction of a special concessional tariff item to enable removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty from imported goods used in the construction or modification of ships eligible for bounty; measures which the Government has decided to apply to specific aspects of the post-1984 arrangements for passenger motor vehicles; implementation of phasing duty arrangements under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations-trade agreement; the updating of the names of certain countries specified in Schedule 1 to the Customs Tariff Act; and further simplification of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. The purpose of the main provisions in the Bill is to effect changes to assistance arrangements for certain industries. Any assessment of the financial impact of these arrangements must therefore anticipate the effect the tariff changes might have on the volume and origin of imports and, hence, on revenue collections. Having made this observation, it is estimated that the financial impact of these provisions will be as follows: (1) the removal of separate articles direction No. 1 (1983) following the IAC's report on this matter is expected to have minimal financial impact. Indeed, the IAC noted that the direction had declined in scope and usage and that its impact in assistance terms was small; (2) in respect of the changes relating to certain consumer electronic equipment and components, the assistance measures contained in the Bill are estimated to result in a $2m net gain to revenue in the first year of their operation. In subsequent years, however, when the longer-term tariff rates come into effect, a net reduction to revenue of some $5.5m is anticipated. This reduction may be offset to some extent by increased levels of imports: (3) the removal of the 2 per cent or less duty on goods for use in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels is estimated to reduce revenues by $0.7m a year. This concession removes a cost disadvantage for vessels constructed in Australia which was not borne by imported vessels; and (4) the impact of the Government's decision on certain steel will have little impact in this financial year. The decision could, however, result in additional revenue of up to $3m next financial year if there is no change to present import levels. In respect of the post-1984 arrangements for the passenger motor vehicle industry, a net gain to the revenue is likely, particularly in the short term. This gain cannot be quantified with any precision. In regard to the other provisions of the Bill it has also not been possible to quantify their financial impact with any degree of accuracy. There are no significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule of the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the records and tables office. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Harradine from moving that the Notice of Motion given by him earlier this day be called on forwith. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That the Notice of motion given by Senator Harradine be called on forthwith. Motion Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.22) —I move: That the Senate, noting the Fifth Report of 1985 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, relating to the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985- (a) directs that Committee, when dealing with a private senator's Bill, to take all appropriate measures to enable that senator to participate, without voting, in its deliberations on the Bill, to make available to that senator any submissions which the Committee has received on the Bill and any comments on the Bill which the Committee is considering reporting to the Senate, to provide that senator with an opportunity to be heard orally or in writing in relation to such submissions or proposed comments before the Committee makes any report to the Senate on the Bill, and to ensure that the senator is advised of the approximate time of presentation of the report and is provided with a copy thereof at the same time as it is received by members of the Committee; and (b) directs that Committee to confine itself strictly to the criteria for reporting on Bills contained in the resolution appointing the Committee, and not to comment upon matters relating to the policy of Bills. I have moved that motion to ensure that what happened in the dying hours of last Friday does not occur again. I am quite aware that strenuous efforts are being made to pre-empt a fair and reasoned parliamentary and public debate on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. By any standard, the object of that measure must rate as a matter of the highest public importance. In short, the object of that measure is to prevent the creation of a race of laboratory human beings which are second-class and disposable. I regret to say that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been used unwittingly as an instrument in an attempt to ambush that important Bill and the Committee's report was rushed into the Senate in the dying hours of last week. Already copies of that report have been distributed far and wide, mainly to those academics with a vested interest in laboratory experimentation on human embryos. Senator Tate —Rubbish. Senator HARRADINE —Not by Senator Tate, but they are now in their hands. These people, in fact, are leading the onslaught against my Bill. The people to whom I refer are those who provided private submissions to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-that is to say, the Queen Victoria Medical Centre whose principals are Professor Carl Wood and Dr Alan Trounson. I am perfectly well aware of what Dr Alan Trounson has said in respect of these matters. He has called my Bill a denial of academic freedom. He has said that the professors will not be pleased and that, indeed, the Vice-Chancellor will not be pleased. These people have utilised most unscientific and emotional weapons in the public campaign against the Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you must confine your remarks to the motion which does not appear to me to cover the topics that you are now bringing to the attention of the Senate. Senator Grimes —Are you suggesting that the Committee is a tool of people you do not agree with? Senator HARRADINE —No, I am not. I am saying that on their material-that is, the material that has been supplied by the Queen Victoria Medical Centre-the assumptions underlying the main observation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee were formulated. That is how that comes into this matter. In fact, the material from the Queen Victoria Medical Centre was introduced to the Committee by Senator Missen. There was notification that the document was available and that was stated in the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. In addition, the Committee received a private submission from Senator Puplick whose views are well known in respect of this matter. He presented material to the Committee and that material is full of unsubstantiated statements, none of which were tested in the light of day. What I am proposing to the Senate is- Senator Haines —Many of Senator Puplick's statements were rejected by the legal adviser and by the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I understand that. Senator Haines —You just said they were not tested. We did test them and we did reject them. Senator HARRADINE —What I am putting to the Senate is that there has been an essential confusion between two important Senate roles-that is, the representative function of the Senate and its audit and control function. I see the function of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee as being, essentially, an audit and control function. Its main principles are directed against too much Executive power. I think the Chairman will agree with me that principles two, three, four and five are all directed against too much administrative power. In my Bill there is no administrative function and no Executive power other than the power to determine prosecution. Principle one, which relates to the protection of individual freedoms, is the principle towards which the general observation of the Committee is directed. It will be my submission that that principle fails on one ground. In the interests of balance, why was not the proposer of the legislation notified of the private submissions? Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HARRADINE —It has been suggested to me that I may have reflected on members of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I make it perfectly clear to the Chairman and members of the Committee that no reflection whatsoever was intended. If those honourable senators read what I have said they will see that that is not the case at all. What I have said is that the Committee's report, based as it was on private submissions which had been untested and not referred to the mover of the Bill for consideration and report, has been utilised for the purposes of attempting to pre-empt reasoned and rational debate-both parliamentary and public-on this question. Senator Grimes —And you reckon that is not a reflection on the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —No, it is not. Senator Grimes —It treated the Bill the same as it has treated every other Bill. Senator HARRADINE —There is no honourable senator on that Committee to represent the viewpoint of the mover of the legislation. Senator Grimes —I am never asked when my Bills go there. Senator HARRADINE —I know. So far as the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is concerned, the Government is always asked to to and fro. So far as private members Bills are concerned, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has on it a representative from every other point of view in this chamber. It does not have a representative of my point of view. Senator Grimes —All right, you sit on it. You go to all the meetings. You can sit on all the committees. Senator HARRADINE —I would be very happy to sit on it. Senator Grimes knows as well as I do that I have sought to sit on committees but have been asked not to press that request because it would upset the balance between the parties. Of course, I am serving on some four of five committees, including two joint committees. However, it is not only the report itself but also the reporting of the report that I am concerned about. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I concede the difficulties that confront me in raising this substantive point of order because it could well be ruled out of order by you on technical grounds. I would like the Manager of Government Business to comment on my point of order. Earlier today Senator Harradine came to me-I should know, after years of experience of his tactics-and waved a piece of paper- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, I ask you to stick to your point of order. Senator Chipp —He waved a piece of paper towards me and said: 'Don, I am going to move for the suspension of Standing Orders later this day so that when the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is examining legislation proposed by a private member the private member has the right to appear before the Committee'. I said: 'Will you see my Whip about that?' Senator Harradine said: 'Yes, I will.' When Senator Harradine moved into the chamber at a few minutes past six, a prime time on radio, and moved for the suspension of Standing Orders-I do not know what Whips were in the chamber, whether Liberal or Labor; I do not know whether the shadow Minister on duty for the Liberals was in the chamber or whether the Manager of Government Business was in the chamber-that matter was allowed to proceed. Mr Deputy President, I am asking you to rule whether that reason given by Senator Harradine was sufficient. Mr Deputy President, you might remember that I had to ask what was before the Chair. At that stage there was not one honourable senator in this chamber who knew what matter was before the Chair. Senator Robertson —That is not so. We knew what was going on. Senator Chipp —Is the Government Whip telling me that he knew what was before the Chair and that the Government Whip allowed this to be debated? Senator Robertson —Yes, I was listening. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, the point of order is that the proper procedure was not followed when Senator Harradine moved the suspension. He had leave of the Senate. Any single senator objecting would have prevented his having leave. As no honourable senator objected, Senator Harradine was therefore given leave. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, my point is that no honourable senator objected because if every other senator had been deceived by Senator Harradine as I had been no senator would have objected to leave being given. I gave leave in good faith. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President, I object to that and ask that it be withdrawn. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, I wish to finish my point of order. This is a matter on which Senator Harradine wants to deny every childless mother in Australia-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, you must confine yourself to the point of order you are raising. As I understand it, it relates to the proper procedure. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, it is not an unimportant fact. Such a matter should not be allowed to be sneaked in by a sneaky senator with a sneaky gesture. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, you may speak in the debate if you wish to make those sorts of points. As it stands, the procedures of the Senate were followed. Senator Harradine had leave to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. There was no protest. I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —I reject completely what Senator Chipp has said. I told Senator Chipp that I was moving for the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of bringing this matter on. The time for moving for the suspension of Standing Orders is at the placing of business. Senator Chipp ought to know that. If he does not know it, he ought to. I took the courtesy of writing to the Chairman of the Committee to advise him the matter would be brought on. I did take the courtesy of speaking-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, I have dealt with the point of order. I ask you not to continue to debate the point of order. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, I have been accused of deceiving people in this chamber. It is not so. I spoke to every relevant person on this question. I reject that accusation completely. I come now to the matter on which I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. It is a motion to ensure that a private senator must be able to sit on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee if that private senator has a Bill before that Committee. I am pointing out that if that had been achieved on this occasion the misinformation distributed by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee would not have been distributed. If honourable senators would like me to give line, chapter and verse I will tell them where it is not correct. I will tell honourable senators where in certain respects it is completely incorrect. Of course, two minor matters can be taken on board. The inadequacy of the Committee report could have been overcome if the Committee had distributed the private submissions that had been sent to it and had it given these to me to be considered by the relevant experts. Senator Missen —They were ultimately given to you. Senator HARRADINE —They were not given to me. Senator Tate —They were given to you after the Committee reported. Senator HARRADINE —They were given to me after the Committee reported to the Senate. What I am saying is that they ought to have been given to me beforehand in order that the Committee had all the relevant information. Senator Missen —I see. That is your view. Senator HARRADINE —I think that is the logical point of view. The point must be made that although there are representatives of every party on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I am not represented on that Committee. The Committee met for some 20 or 25 minutes to discuss this Bill on Friday morning. Why did it bring in the report on Friday afternoon? What was the urgency of the matter that it had to do so? Senator Tate —Because you told me in the corridor it was an urgent matter; that is why. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Tate said that I said I believed it was an urgent matter. He knows as well as I do that under the Standing Orders there is no possibility of any debate being carried out on this legislation until Thursday week. So if that is the excuse that has been given for this material not being supplied to me it is a very lame excuse indeed. I do not make any bones about the fact that I feel a grave sense of injustice in respect of this matter. If the Committee would only see what it has done. With the experts' advice, I have prepared a response, word for word, to the Committee's report. I will lay that on the table of the Parliament. Furthermore, I have a document which has been prepared by none other than the consultant draftsman to the Senate. In order to indicate to members of the Senate that there is very little in the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, I do not think that the actual content of the report on your Bill is relevant to your motion. You are dealing with matters of principle which are of general application-not of particular reference to your Bill. Senator HARRADINE —I am attempting to illustrate how the problem could have been overcome had the relevant documents upon which the report was based been distributed to me and had I received the advice which is available. I have been refused leave to incorporate this material in Hansard by Senator Chipp. I will lay it on the Senate table. That is my right. The material will then be available to any member of the Senate. I make this point: Whilst the Standing Orders are such that I require leave to table those documents, I believe it is only proper that they be tabled. Senator Tate —You don't need to. The Committee will take them and consider them. Senator HARRADINE —The Committee has not done so. It has brought down a report which has been widespread and which has caused this public comment to be made in the Press: A powerful Senate committee has thrown doubt on the future of a bill aimed at halting many in vitro fertilisation procedures in Australia. The Senate standing committee for the scrutiny of bills said yesterday . . . The report referred to a statement made by Senator Tate as follows: . . . Senator Tate said yesterday that his committee, which was made up of members from all political parties, was not concerned with the substantial policy issues underlying Senator Harradine's bill. Senator Missen —What are you reading from? Senator HARRADINE —I am reading from the report in the Hobart Mercury of Saturday. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, are you seeking leave to table certain documents? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I seek leave to table the preliminary comments contained in the fifth report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and also the document entitled 'Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985: Prepared by the Senate's consultant draftsman'. Leave not granted. Senator HARRADINE —The refusal of leave indicates the level to which persons will go to ensure that there is not a reasoned and responsible debate on this matter. The question is that a number of private submissions were received by the Committee, including submissions from interested parties-one from Queen Victoria Medical Centre and one which was signed by Senator Chris Puplick. Those documents were part of the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The report said that they were available from the Committee secretariat. Any senator can go and pick them up from there. Senator Haines —That is right. You were given them immediately. Senator HARRADINE —I was not given them before the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had reported to the Senate. That is the essence of the issue. Senator Haines —Neither was any Minister given any information before the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported. Senator HARRADINE —Suppose that a Democrat senator put forward a private member's Bill. When that Bill goes before the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and material is presented to the Committee for its consideration, would that Democrat senator not consult with the member who moved the motion in order to gain some information? Senator Chipp —I take a point of order. My point of order is very simple. Mr Deputy President, will you please listen more carefully to what Senator Harradine is saying and ask yourself, as presiding officer in this chamber at the moment, whether it is relevant to the motion to which he is speaking? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine has been skirting fairly widely in speaking to the motion. On the other hand, at some stages he has been replying to interjections. I ask that those interjections cease and that Senator Harradine confine himself to arguments in favour of the motion which he has moved. Senator HARRADINE —I see that the parties in this place have a vested interest in ensuring that when these matters are considered the proponents of the Bills are not consulted or are not asked for advice about material that is relevant to the legislation. Senator Haines —It is never done. Senator HARRADINE —I am saying in this motion that it ought to be done. Senator Grimes —You can say it without abusing members of the Committee and questioning their motives. Senator HARRADINE —I am not abusing members of the Committee-not at all. I make it clear that none of this would have happened had I been provided with the material which was the basis of the Committee's recommendation. Senator Grimes —I would like to remind you that you would not have been speaking if we had not given you the okay to speak. You have taken advantage of both sides of this House which gave you the right to speak under these circumstances. Senator HARRADINE —That is not true. This is a most important aspect. Senator Grimes knows as well as I do that I do not intrude into General Business time or anything else. I deliberately do not put obstacles in the way of government. I believe the Senate does have the responsibility to determine legislation and to examine legislation. What I believe about the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is that it is confusing two of our roles. One of our roles is a representative function. Another is the audit and control function. As far as this measure is concerned, the Committee obviously has been confused about its role because it took submissions from private outside sources on the merits of the case. The outcome-honourable senators can read through the Committee's report-tends to damn the legislation. However, if an analysis of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report is made it will be seen that the Committee has not addressed the issue properly in accordance with its principles. Under those circumstances it was necessary for me to place before the Senate the reason why I considered that this was so. I have not been able to do that. I have been refused leave to incorporate documents in Hansard; I have been refused leave to table documents in the Senate. What sort of open society are we? I was denied access to the documents upon which my Bill was attacked before the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported to the Senate. I have now been denied the opportunity to provide information to all honourable senators by tabling in this chamber the responses from the experts. I do not mind if my Bill is subject to the utmost public scrutiny provided that the information that is provided to whichever committee it comes before is subject to testing in the usual way. If that is achieved there will be reasoned and responsible debate. I know that the academic juggernaut has been cranked up and is hurtling down the street. That is what happened on tertiary education fees and it is happening again on this measure. I may be one of the very few non-academic, non-university people, in this chamber-we are a dwindling race-but I believe it is necessary to have a reasonable, responsible debate and for this matter to be properly considered by this chamber. For that purpose this motion commends itself to the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.22) —I will be moderate in my response to Senator Harradine but I believe that he has been guilty of a very ungracious and ill-founded attack on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, of which I am proud to be the Chairman and have been since the Australian Labor Party came to government in 1983. In particular, his charge which amounted to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee being part of some conspiracy to pre-empt reasonable, deliberative discussion of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 is completely wrong, as I will show by outlining the sequence of the history of this matter. The truth is precisely to the contrary. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has bent over backwards to expedite matters in the most courteous way possible in order to enable the Senate to get hold of material as soon as possible to enable that reasoned, deliberate consideration of the matters of great principle which need to be discussed and which form the substantive matter of Senator Harradine's Bill, on which policy matter the Committee had nothing to say. It was concerned only with its own strict terms of reference which are to ensure that nothing slips into the Senate in a way which disables it from properly considering the clauses of a Bill which might infringe on civil liberties whilst achieving some good ends. Quite often it happens that so much concentration is focused on the end to be achieved that some clauses of a Bill are badly drafted, too broadly drafted, or impose burdens of proof on those who are to be subject to its penalties in a way which is not acceptable in a democratic society which values the civil liberties of those subject to its penal legislation. When I say that the attack has been ill-founded I think it will emerge as such when honourable senators consider the following history. Senator Harradine talks about the late introduction of the report. As he said in reply to Senator Chipp, he knows that there are certain moments in the parliamentary day when things are appropriately done. Senator Harradine introduced this Bill into the Senate 10 minutes short of the close of business on 7 May, a Tuesday night when we were about to get up to go home for Anzac Day and the subsequent week of recess. It was introduced at the last moment in the sitting period on 7 May. The first opportunity the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had to consider the Bill, therefore, was on 8 May, at its regular meeting. Certain draft comments had been prepared by the secretary and they were discussed by the Committee. We found that they needed some extension. Clauses needed to be thought about and in the course of that discussion Senator Missen brought forward some points which he had distilled from some reading he had done, including a submission from the Queen Victoria Medical Centre and some draft comments which had been privately circulated by Senator Puplick. We referred all this material to the Committee's legal adviser. I indicated to the Committee at this Wednesday morning meeting of 8 May that some days earlier I had had a discussion with Senator Harradine in a corridor during which he stressed his desire to get his Bill debated as a matter of some urgency and in as short a time as possible in the very near future. I indicated my desire that no committee that I chaired should stand in the way of an early, reasonable debate on the issues about which he was concerned. I chair two relevant committees: One is the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the other is the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which is considering a reference relating to the legal status of children derived from in vitro fertilisation techniques. I said that I had no desire-I am sure that my committees had no desire-to do anything which would impede the progress of the Bill if Senator Harradine could make other arrangements to have the matter brought on. I had no idea what timetable he might be able to arrange in his discussions with the Whips and leaders of the various parties. Mindful of his desire that the matter be brought into the Senate as soon as possible, and not being quite sure when that might be conveniently brought about, I asked Committee members to meet especially last Friday morning at 8.30, instead of at our regular meeting on Wednesday this week, in order to do nothing other than to look at Senator Harradine's Bill in the light of the legal adviser's response to the matters raised by Senator Missen in reliance on certain material and his own thoughts. In other words, I asked Committee members to give up their normal, civilised breakfast time on a Friday morning, at the end of a hard week in this place, to come to Senate Committee Room 5 to discuss Senator Harradine's Bill. They did; they met and deliberated. Earlier in the week the Committee had decided in relation to certain Customs Bills that when a matter was fostered or promoted in the Senate by an honourable senator or the Government-as a private member's Bill or as a Government measure-we would present a report to the Senate as soon as possible in case the matter came on. Senator Chaney —I am grateful that you did on that occasion. Senator TATE —The report was very useful to the Senate in relation to the Customs debates we had earlier in the week. The Committee prepared a report on Senator Harradine's Bill. In the course of doing that we discarded much of the material which had come from the legal adviser-material which he thought should be put forward to the Senate. We tried to confine ourselves as strictly as possible to our terms of reference so that we did not intrude into questions of policy. I then had a discussion with members of the Committee. I asked: 'Wouldn't it be the decent thing to do to circulate privately to Senator Harradine all the material that we had before us so that he could make it available to his legal advisers as soon as possible?' The Committee said: 'That would be a good idea but you would have to consult with Senator Puplick because, obviously, he had not made the material available to Senator Missen with that understanding'. I spoke to Senator Chris Puplick of New South Wales and he said: 'So long as you make it clear to Senator Harradine that my document is, as is indicated on the heading, a draft and that any views on the Bill are not my concluded views on it but represent a preliminary analysis, I would be happy for you to make it available to Senator Harradine so that he can take it to his advisers and have it as part of his fuller understanding of what lay behind the Committee report'. I wrote to Senator Harradine in the following terms: Dear Brian, I enclose a copy of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee Report on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 which you introduced into the Senate on 23 April 1985. The Committee met this morning, out of its usual sequence, in order to get a Report before the Senate as soon as possible, given your desire to have the matter brought on for debate in the next week or so. I have also thought it proper that you should have access to Senator Puplick's and Senator Missen's draft comments on your Bill together with the letter from our legal adviser which advises on some points which the Senators raised. Some mention is made of a document circulated by the Queen Victoria Medical Centre and I enclose that also. I do this so that you have as much information before you as did the Committee. I would emphasise, however, that the Committee in making its 'internal working documents' available to you does so on the basis that Senator Puplick's paper and Senator Missen's letter do not represent their concluded analyses of the Bill and should not be attributed to them as their views. I think this is an important paragraph: The Committee would be happy to consider any response or amendments you may care to make and, as is its custom, would include these in any further report to the Senate on your Bill. The Committee meets on Wednesdays during sitting weeks and any response received by noon on the preceding Tuesday will be circulated to members of the Committee prior to that meeting. Yours sincerely Michael Tate Chairman Senator Harradine —Why didn't you show it to me beforehand? Senator TATE —The material was considered as internal private material by the Committee. It was sent to our legal adviser. We made a report on the basis of some of it. We discarded much of the comment in it. Nevertheless, we decided that Senator Harradine should have the benefit of that fuller understanding of what led to our report. Senator Harradine —Afterwards. Senator TATE —Wait there. I then had a problem on the Friday because I could not find Senator Harradine. I do not believe Senator Harradine was available for consultation that day in the Senate. Nevertheless, I gave instructions to the secretary of the Committee-- Senator Chipp —Where was he? Senator TATE —He just was not available at the time I was seeking him. I gave instructions to the secretary of the Committee to prepare the letter that I have read to the Senate, the various documents which had to be xeroxed and the report which had been put together by the Committee that morning as speedily as possible. In fact, as one knows, that process took the greater part of the day, given the problems of reproduction, in the printing sense, downstairs. The report, the letters and the accompanying documents did not come into my hands until approximately 3.30. I signed the letter to Senator Harradine at approximately twenty to four. I had the letter and the enclosures delivered to Senator Harradine's office at ten to four. I presented the report to the Senate at about five past four and I asked the secretary to deliver a copy, it then being in the possession of the Senate, to Senator Harradine's office. In fact, Senator Harradine's office, in receiving the document before the Senate adjourned, was in a better position than any honourable senator including the honourable senators who were members of the Committee, who I believe did not receive the report until it was delivered in the ordinary circulation system this morning. Senator Harradine —That's after the event. Senator TATE —I could not give Senator Harradine the report before it was presented to the Senate because I have no doubt I would have breached some sort of privilege. I believe I have outlined to the Senate a course of behaviour on the part of its Committee which I thought was courteous and as useful as it possibly could be to Senator Harradine, in order to put as much material in his hands as early as possible and to enable thereby, I thought, his legal advisers to work on the matter over the weekend, which indeed they did, as evidenced by the documents which Senator Harradine sought to table. It was advantageous to him to have those materials. Despite the virtually defamatory remarks Senator Harradine has made about the Committee this evening, the Committee would be pleased to receive those documents which he has in his possession, will consider them at its meeting on Wednesday morning, will seek advice, if necessary, from its legal adviser to help the Committee in its deliberations, and will bring to the Senate, as it normally does, a report incorporating the response of the Minister, the private member or the Australian Democrats spokesman who has sponsored a Bill in this place in relation to our first analysis of the Bill and giving our final thoughts on it. In any case, the first analysis of a Bill by the Committee is not an absolutely conclusive damnation or applauding of the Bill. It is what amounts to an alerting of the Senate to the issues involved so that the Senate's debate can continue and be enhanced by having before it in relation to our terms of reference information of use not going to the actual core policy of the Bill. I believe I have demonstrated that the Committee has bent over backwards to ensure that Senate debate occurred in a proper, full and decent way. I believe that Senator Harradine has no cause for complaint and I hope that the Senate will reject the motion, not perhaps because of its content but because it is presented in a way to mask what amounted to an attack on one of the Senate's committees which I believe was quite undeserved. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.35) —I support Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and, as Deputy Chairman, I agree entirely with the course which he has outlined and which I believe is perfectly satisfactory. It is one of the worst attacks that we have seen on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in this Parliament-one which we must repudiate absolutely. I believe this has been done because we are on the air. This is a committee of the Senate which has worked hard and long and which is presently working in a period when a mass of what I recently called a sausage machine of Bills is coming through-- Senator Haines —Forty-one in one week. Senator MISSEN —That is right. It is driving our adviser and the rest of us in this chamber crazy. That is an unfortunate event and it is not good for the way in which this Parliament is proceeding. In addition to what Senator Tate has said, while agreeing entirely with what he said, I remind the Senate and Senator Harradine that at all times honourable senators know that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills will consider as quickly as possible Bills which are presented, whether by private members or by the Government. The Australian Democrats have fair experience of the fact that we may criticise the Bills which they put forward. Senator Haines —As with Government Bills. Senator MISSEN —That is correct. The point is that the Democrats have never objected to the fact that we issue reports which float these problems. We then invite them to make comment on them, which they do, and we report their comments. Nobody can say that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has not been prepared to do that. Senator Harradine says: 'Oh, it is after the event'. Of course it is after the event. We do not go trading to find out everyone's views, because our first job is to find out the things being suggested by our counsel particularly and to put to him things that come to our notice as being matters that ought to be developed. I make it perfectly clear that these were not private submissions put forward by Senator Puplick or by the Queen Victoria Medical Centre. They were both documents put forward by me as Deputy Chairman because they came into my possession and they seemed to me to be very relevant to matters within the criteria of the Senate Committee. I regard as very grave Senator Harradine's action in attacking Senator Puplick as he did. I will read part of the letter which I wrote to the secretary of the Committee on 8 May and in which I referred to the first report we had from the adviser: Further to our discussion about the adequacy of the adviser's comments on this Bill, I enclose the following additional documents for his further consideration. (a) Copy of Senator Chris Puplick's Draft Comments on the Bill (Though he expects those comments to be expanded, I think they do point up various aspects that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee should draw attention to). (b) Copy of a Statement on the Bill made by the Queen Victoria Medical Centre (Centre for Early Human Development) and forwarded to me. Particularly the comments on Definitions of ''Prohibited Experimentation'' call for comment. At a rough glance the following aspects of the Bill . . .call for further comment- I went on to deal with that. That letter was sent to Senator Harradine and, as Senator Tate has pointed out, he has had that letter in his possession. He knows that there is no justification whatsoever for the attack on Senator Puplick. If Senator Harradine wants to attack anyone, he can attack me. Senator Harradine —I made no attack on him. Senator MISSEN —You did, Senator Harradine. The honourable senator gave the impression that Senator Puplick was putting some private submission before the Committee, which other senators could not do, whereas in fact he was doing what was proper-he was presenting to a number of honourable senators a draft comment of his own sterling work on the Bill, which comment may have been right or wrong. It was a draft document and it seemed to me very useful that our adviser should have a copy of that and should consider the matters that relate to the particular criteria that this Committee is concerned with. I take full responsibility-not Senator Puplick. I asked permission of Senator Puplick to use it. He had some doubt about it because it was a draft document, but he agreed that it could be used. Likewise, the Queen Victoria Hospital is not to blame. It sent that document to me and to some other senators and I felt that the remarks on experimentation and the definitions were important to the job which the Committee was doing and that the Committee's adviser had to look at them. It is very unfortunate that Senator Harradine has made this quite unnecessary attack on a fellow senator. I remind him of something he knows already. Standing order 306 says: Senators may be present when a Committee is examining Witnesses, but shall withdraw if requested by the Chairman or any member of the Committee, and shall always withdraw when the Committee is deliberating. If Senator Harradine had wanted to be present during proceedings he could have been, and if he wants to be present when the Committee is determining still further, there is certainly nothing to stop him. I am sure that the Committee would not object in the slightest until it came to make its final decision. Then it would be the six members of the Committee who would decide the issue. But the suggestion that the Committee meets in any hole-in-the-corner way is quite mistaken. Senator Harradine —Are you saying that I can attend? Senator MISSEN —Of course Senator Harradine can attend. He knows that quite well. Senator Harradine —I didn't know that. The Standing Orders say that another senator can attend when witnesses are present. Senator MISSEN —Now we have all learned something. Standing order 306 states: Senators may be present when a Committee is examining Witnesses, but shall withdraw if requested by the Chairman or any member of the Committee, and shall always withdraw when the Committee is deliberating. I can assure Senator Harradine-he must know this-that any committee would be happy to have present other senators who want to attend because they are particularly interested in a Bill. There is no reason in the world why Senator Harradine could not be present. Of course, as my colleague points out, we would be happy if any senator, any person who is present before the Chair, came along as a witness and presented documents. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is only too happy to have material before it. It has to act in a hurry because when it was formed it was made very clear that it was not to hold up the progress of legislation through the Parliament, which puts a limitation on its operations. We have the problem of having to produce a quick report. The Bill under discussion has been introduced in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives, therefore the honourable senator must appreciate that we had to take the opportunity to deal with it when we could. As Senator Tate has pointed out, if a Minister or the honourable senator who has introduced and is proceeding with a Bill criticises one of our reports, those views will be put to the Senate in the same way. I think it is most unfortunate that this debate has happened as it has. I think we operate in a way which is fair to other senators, and we will continue to do so. The terms of reference, which are set out in the front of this report of the Committee, state: . . . the Committee, for the purpose of reporting on the clauses of a Bill when the Bill has been introduced into the Senate, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the Senate. It consequently was fully within the rights of the Committee to consider any matters that members of the Committee put forward at that stage. More material may come forward. This is obviously a very controversial matter. I suggest that it is quite wrong to use this debate in this forum-in fact, when the proceedings are being broadcast-as an attack on a Committee which is doing a jolly good job by the Senate and which therefore deserves its praise. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.43) —I wish to add some comments to what has already been said. Senator Haines —I should have gone first. I am better looking! Senator COONEY —I agree with all that. I simply say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and apparently so is bias. In this case, I think Senator Harradine has the bias in his eyes. Anybody who has listened to what Senator Tate and Senator Missen have said will understand that the bias is in his eyes and his eyes only. The motion says nothing about the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. It must be made clear, particularly to those in this chamber and to those listening to the broadcast, that if the motion before the Senate comes to a vote it will not be a vote about the rights or wrongs of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, in vitro fertilisation or anything like that. This debate is solely about the procedures of this chamber, and that is all the motion is about. If anything is said later about what the Senate did this evening it should be understood that what has been talked about is the procedures by which this chamber and its committees conduct themselves. That is solely what the debate is about. I repeat that the debate is not about the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. That is the occasion for this debate, but the debate is not about that. Let us look at what the motion says. Part (b) states that the Senate: . . . directs-- that is the word used-- the Committee to confine itself strictly to the criteria for reporting on Bills contained in the resolution appointing the Committee, and not to comment upon matters relating to the policy of the Bill. That is what was put forward by Senator Harradine. He has produced no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to show that the Committee did not do exactly what it was meant to do. Senator Harradine —I was trying to, but I was ruled out of order. Senator COONEY —The fact remains that Senator Harradine has produced no evidence to support a proposition which contains an implication that members of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills-Senator Tate, Senator Missen, Senator Crowley, Senator Haines and Senator Scott, men and women whom I have found most honourable while I have been in this chamber and-I in some way fell down in or were derelict in our duties and failed to perform the task put upon us by the Senate. Senator Harradine has invited the Senate to condemn the people it has elected to carry out the functions for which they were elected. It is my confident submission that there is no evidence to support his proposition. If there is no evidence, the motion should never have been moved in this chamber. It is a libel, an insult and a terrible thing to say about Senator Harradine's fellow senators. That is the fact of the matter. I understand Senator Harradine's emotion about the subject of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. I think it ought to be debated at some time. The principles that Senator Harradine wants to bring out when he talks about that Bill should be discussed throughout the community because they are important. But he has not introduced that Bill tonight and he is not talking about it tonight. He is talking about procedural matters. He interrupted the proper flow of the Senate's business to introduce something that I would have thought, with my limited experience here, should have gone to the Standing Orders Committee. The honourable senator has not only pointed his finger at the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills but also condemned the Standing Orders Committee. He said that the Committee is not sufficient, not proper and not capable of carrying out the change in the rules that he has invited the Senate to make through the directions he has asked it to give to some members of that Committee. Of course other senators will be quite emotional and quite upset that the honourable senator should get up and, as it were, impugn the ability, perhaps the integrity and certainly the capacity of the members of two committees. Certainly, on behalf of my fellow committee members with whom I have associated, I reject the suggestion that the honourable senator makes. I say the same about members of the Standing Orders Committee who have not had the opportunity of rejecting the implication in this motion that they are in some way incapable of changing the rules of the Senate which it is their elected duty to do. I conclude by emphasising-I think it ought to be emphasised again and again-that we are dealing simply with the rules that guide the Senate's proceedings, not with anything to do with experimentation on human embryos. This debate has nothing to do with in vitro fertilisation. The clear proof is in the very terms of the motion before the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.50) —I think the Senate should congratulate Senator Cooney for drawing the attention of honourable senators to what we are supposed to be debating today, that is, Senator Harradine's unrealistic expectations of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and his apparent belief that that Committee should be operating differently from every other standing committee of the Senate. In making his statements about how the Scrutiny of Bills Committee should be operating, he has impugned, I believe, the integrity of every member of that Committee. I think it is worth reminding honourable senators that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee is in fact an all-party committee. Senators Tate, Cooney and Crowley are Government members on the committee; Senator Missen represents the Liberal Party, Senator Scott represents the National Party of Australia; I represent the Australian Democrats on that Committee. What Senator Harradine said in his speech earlier tonight impugns the integrity of every one of us and, I think, by implication, the parties which put us there, by alleging that we are behaving in some way inappropriately and by suggesting that we are not behaving as a Senate standing committee should behave. He has asked that senators putting forward private senator's Bills be entitled to participate in the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee's deliberations on the Bill. As Senator Missen has already pointed out, other standing committees are governed by standing order 306, which quite specifically states: Senators may be present when a Committee is examining Witnesses, but shall withdraw if requested by the Chairman or any member of the Committee, and shall always withdraw when the Committee is deliberating. In 1978 I was not a member of any standing committee, but I did attend the meetings ex officio when witnesses were presenting submissions to one of the standing committees of the Senate. I was not, however, entitled to take part in its deliberations when it prepared its report. I was not entitled, therefore, to vote on any contentious issues that came up or, indeed, to prepare any sort of minority report. Certainly I was not in a position to take part in the preparation of a majority report. Senator Harradine in his motion suggests that individual senators should breach standing order 306; that the Chairman of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee should enable senators to breach standing order 306, to allow them to be present for the deliberations on the Bill. Senator Harradine is asking that he-and it is, let us face it, a specific instance that Senator Harradine is upset about-be treated quite differently from any other senator. During his speech he asked me whether at any stage I discussed with my colleagues the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's deliberations on Australian Democrats' private members' legislation. I tell the Senate and you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that at no stage have I ever done so. The reason is not that I have some particular high form of integrity or that I am very close mouthed or anything else; it is simply that we deal with legislation on a particular day and the report is presented as of that meeting. We are given no opportunity to discuss it. The most that I can do, that Senator Missen can do if it is a Liberal private member's Bill, or Senator Tate, Senator Cooney or Senator Crowley can do, if it is a Government Bill, is to leave that Committee with the draft of the report which is soon to be printed and say to the Minister or the senator concerned: 'This is what we have decided is questionable about your Bill'. As Senator Tate pointed out, often the comments that are raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee are not picked up in this place. They are simply presented in the report and the legislation is passed or opposed with no particular reference being made to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's comments. On occasions Senator Macklin and one or two other senators have picked them up, and I think that is all to the good. Indeed, we did so recently in regard to the extradition legislation. Certainly, I would have been very surprised if Senator Tate or any of the other Australian Labor Party senators on that Committee ran to the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, and pointed out just what the problems were that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had raised. The reason they did not do so, as Senator Tate said, is that when we raise concerns in our report-they are not criticisms; they are concerns-about the drafting of a piece of legislation, Ministers and individual senators who have presented private members' legislation are always given the opportunity to respond. In the main they do respond. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has a tendency to give a rocket to Ministers and to other senators who do not respond in time for the next report to be sent out. Over the last couple of years since this Committee was established, we have been indulging in an educative project and program, not only of Ministers and private members and senators, but also of departmental officers and draftsmen, about what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee will or will not tolerate. We do have a specific set of criteria. It was grossly inaccurate, not to say misleading, of Senator Harradine to allege that the comments that were made in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's report on his Bill referred only to administrative problems when, as he said, there are no details of administration contained within the legislation. He mentioned only principle 1 (a), parts (ii) to (v). He completely omitted to mention 1 (a) (i) which concerns portions of the Bill which trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Anybody who has read this report will realise that every single clause that was raised as a matter of concern by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee was raised because of principle 1 (a) (i). That included the section entitled 'General Comment' on the Bill. Page after page of the report states: The Committee draws this aspect of the Bill to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that the application of the Bill-in the general section-to corporations and not to other persons or bodies may be considered discriminatory in the absence of complementary State Legislation applying to natural persons. Other areas of the report deal with the impact that it has on personal rights and liberties. It does so in regard to clause 5, clause 6 and clause 12. There is no question of parts (ii) to (v) being dealt with by the Committee in any way. The Committee raised genuine concerns about the alleged purpose of the legislation, vis-a-vis its likely actual effectiveness. In referring to measures contained in clause 5, under the heading 'Prohibited experimentation', the Committee made the comment- I think it was justified-that the terms 'experimenting', 'manipulation', 'procedure', 'dissection', and 'drug' are not defined. Surely, nobody could object to a committee whose role it is to scrutinise legislation making a comment that a number of extremely important terms are not defined and, in not being defined, may well cause things which the senator concerned-that is, the senator producing the Bill-did not intend. Senator Harradine —There are simple answers to that. Senator HAINES —If, as Senator Harradine says, there are simple answers to that, the place for those to be given is in his response to this report. Every single time that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has raised in a report matters of imprecise definition, infringement of civil liberties or any other of the criteria that we have to consider-non-reviewable administrative decisions, inappropriate delegation of legislative power, and so on-when the Minister or the private senator involved has responded, that response has been covered in the subsequent report. As I said earlier, we are in the habit of giving rockets to people who ignore those comments that we raise. I think previous speakers in this debate have also indicated their indignation at Senator Harradine's decision to question the integrity of the Committee and its members. He has apparently requested treatment different from that given to any other senator or Minister. I think he has argued quite unfairly that we have used the wrong criteria. Further, he has not recognised that we have approached this legislation as we approach every other Bill that comes before us-from a set of criteria laid down by this Senate some years ago. We look at legislation with a genuine concern about its actual impact as distinct from the intention of the Minister or senator who is putting it forward. There is no question about the fact that we expect that Senator Harradine will give us a response. We will look at that response and treat it as we have treated every other response to every other Bill, whether government or non-government, that has come before us. I, for one, bitterly resent the fact that Senator Harradine has taken this action. As Senator Tate said, we spent extra time last Friday morning dealing with Senator Harradine's Bill because he regarded it as urgent. However, we have been treated in this quite unfair and very cavalier manner by Senator Harradine who has attempted to debate not the motion that he has put before us but rather the contents of his Bill. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.02) —I indicate that the Opposition will not support Senator Harradine's motion. I think most impartial listeners to this debate, if there is such a thing as an impartial listener to this debate, would be a little puzzled at the intensity of the debate that has taken place. I suppose it is worth noting that behind the debate which has occurred about the actions of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is, of course, a piece of legislation which gives rise to some fairly passionate views. The Committee has reported on a Bill entitled the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. That Bill is expressed by its mover, Senator Harradine, as a Bill to prevent the experimentation on human embryos. That, of course, is a matter which goes to very significant issues of principle. Those issues are complicated by the fact that the Bill touches upon the question of in-vitro fertilisation which, again gives rise to some fairly passionate views. Of course, this question touches upon the possibility that some previously childless couples may or may not be able to have children. So, behind the debate on the actions of this Committee are issues which give rise to a great deal of passion and which I am sure all members of the Opposition regard as being of fundamental importance. Having said that, and having listened to the debate with some care, I do not believe that it would be proper to allow the moment to pass without expressing the confidence of the Opposition in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The fact is that the Committee was established some years ago with the objective of drawing to our attention issues which might otherwise escape our attention. I refer particularly to issues which go to the question of individual liberties, the possible trespassing on personal rights and liberties and so on. It might be said that this legislation is unlikely to escape close and critical scrutiny, unlike many of the Bills which come to this place and which go through the Senate without the detailed personal examination that perhaps they require. The success record of the Committee is considerable if one measures success by the fact that the Senate has responded to many of the matters which the Committee has drawn to its attention. I believe it has been a very useful tool in improving the standard of legislation which has gone through this chamber. I think it is a significant and successful committee. Senator Michael Tate and other Committee members have mounted what I think is a very effective defence of the Committee. I do not wish to repeat all of what they have said. However, I wish to endorse the fact that the Committee works under some difficulties. When the Committee was established, over the objections of the then Government, one of the concerns was that it would delay legislation. I think my colleague Senator Durack explained that to the Senate at the time and I subsequently made some further comment as a member of the then Government. The Senate Committee is required to deal with Bills quickly if it is to perform its function, namely, to alert us to matters which need our attention. As recently as the last week of sittings we had a very good example of that need for speedy action when the Government brought on for debate the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985 which had not been reported on by this Committee but which was debated and was the subject of certain attempts at amendment by the Opposition. I acknowledge the courtesy of the Committee and its Chairman, Senator Michael Tate, in making available to me at the first opportunity the report on the Bill which in fact supported the grounds for making an amendment which was subsequently adopted by the Government. I merely quote that as an example of how, in the normal passage of legislation through this place, which can be accelerated sometimes faster than an Opposition would want, speedy response from the Committee is essential if it is to do its job. I must say that I have a close personal interest in the Bill which was introduced by Senator Harradine and which I regard as raising very significant issues. I therefore had a look at the Committee report with more than usual interest. I think the report goes close to commenting on some issues of policy because, in a sense, fundamental questions of human rights are involved in the policy of this Bill. I think it is not surprising that the terms of the Committee's fifth report of 1985 give rise to some argument in the mind of Senator Harradine and, indeed, perhaps in the minds of some others, about the extent to which the report touches on the basic policy of the Bill. I must say, however, that it seems to me that the Committee has handled the Bill in a responsible way and in accordance with its usual practice. Therefore, I do not think the Committee should be subject to great criticism. I must say that the precise way in which the Committee operates has escaped my attention for some time. Senator Michael Tate presented a paper to the Second Conference of Commonwealth Delegated Legislation Committees held in Ottawa in April 1983. I note that Senator Tate, in the passage of the report that he gave under the heading 'Description of Operations', talks about the fact that the Committee meets in private and although it is empowered to hold public hearings it has not attempted to gain a high public profile. He points out that, notwithstanding that, the Committee has received submissions from private individuals. So we had notice from the Committee that some people choose to draw matters to the attention of the Committee. A notable feature of the responses from Senator Tate, Senator Missen and Senator Haines has been the fact that they have drawn attention to the second go which the Committee provides. The Committee takes into account the matters which are drawn to its attention in turn by the proponents of the Bill, whether they be individual senators or the Ministers who are the ones who most commonly bring Bills forward in this place. The Opposition would have no objection to examining, in conjunction with Senator Harradine and, indeed, the Committee itself, any procedural change which might best ensure that the proponent of a Bill, be he a Minister or a private senator, gets a chance to contribute to the views of the Committee at whatever stage is appropriate. On behalf of the Opposition, I do not adopt the view that there is no better procedure than that devised by the Committee. I have no doubt that, given the record of the Committee, it would examine dispassionately any suggestion made, whether it be by Senator Harradine or anyone else, as to how it might improve its procedures. However, I think it would be quite inappropriate for us at this stage on the run to adopt a motion which directs the Committee to do this and that in response to a situation where I think the Committee has acted in accordance with its published procedures and where I believe that no damage has been done to Senator Harradine or to his Bill in the sense that, in common with this Committee's usual reports, it simply draws attention to matters which the Senate ought to consider. I believe that in a way it is unfortunate that this matter has been dealt with in the manner it has. I do not think consideration of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, exposure of the important issues brought forward by the Bill to ensure dispassionate examination of those issues, and the obtaining of a sensible vote in this place have been advanced by the way Senator Harradine has gone about the matter. I acknowledge the deep concerns of Senator Harradine in bringing forward this legislation, but I do not believe that either the Senate or Senator Harradine's cause has been served in the way this matter has been handled. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to express my general support for the work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I do not believe it warrants criticism for the way it has dealt with this particular matter. I believe that if we are to improve its performance, such a course needs to be pursued in a rather more constructive way. The Opposition will, if the matter comes to a vote, not support the motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.12) —I rise briefly to report that the Government will not support this motion either. I do not think I need go through the arguments which have been so eloquently put by Senators Tate, Missen, Cooney and Haines in defence of their handling of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill in the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also acknowledge the good work which that Committee has done and will undoubtedly continue to do and I also acknowledge my respect for the members of that Committee. Senator Chaney has pointed out that the subject matter of the legislation is vitally important for debate in the community. He has also correctly pointed out that it is a matter which contains a great emotional element. People feel very strongly about these issues, and I have no doubt that when the legislation comes up for debate there will be a debate in this place, as there usually is in the Senate on a subject like this, which will be full of emotion, but which will be constructive and at a high level, as debates of this type always are. But I do not think that debate has been advanced by what has happened here today. As one of the people who were responsible for this debate taking place, I believe I should say something about how that happened. Senator Harradine gave a notice of motion, that which is now being debated. He came to me as a Government representative, and I know that he also saw Opposition members, saying that he was concerned that his private member's legislation had been condemned by the Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and that he had not had an opportunity to put his case. He was concerned about what had happened and was concerned about the procedures of the Senate, and that is what his motion is about. His motion relates to the procedures of this Committee and therefore the procedures of the Senate. In moving this motion, it seemed to me on face value, not having read at that stage the report of the Committee, in common with any other senator, that Senator Harradine may well have had a case if his Bill had been condemned by that Committee and if he had not had the opportunity to put a case. He said that he intended to move suspension of Standing Orders to do so and to put up this debate today. Bearing in mind that, after consultation with the Opposition, we knew that this was an important issue, and also that we had a lot of business ahead of us, I said that if we opposed it the numbers would not be present to suspend Standing Orders but that it would be better to suspend Standing Orders to allow Senator Harradine to put his case and then adjourn the debate. We could then examine the matter and decide how best to deal with it. Perhaps, as Senator Cooney said, the best course may have been to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee, or perhaps we should all go away and think about the matters of principle Senator Harradine said he was raising. We could then have a debate on whether an issue like this, which is emotional and important, has raised a defect in the procedures of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Therefore, we agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders. What has happened since then is that for over an hour, probably an hour and a quarter, we have had a debate of the type we have had. Senator Chipp —An hour and a half. Senator GRIMES —An hour and a half. The debate has proceeded in this way because Senator Harradine did not talk about the defects in the Senate procedures. He impugned the motives of the members of that Committee. The expression he used was that that Committee had ambushed his Bill. He talked in what has been described by Senator Tate, who is careful in his use of words, as a defamatory way-indeed, Senator Cooney described his words as libel. Senator Missen and Senator Haines had strong objections to the words that were used. On the way through Senator Harradine had a crack at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre authorities in Melbourne, and at Senator Puplick. That was not a bad effort for someone who was talking about the procedures of this place. He put up an argument which has been described by many speakers as a conspiracy theory. The only possible conspiracy is that the Committee allegedly conspired in some way to obstruct debate on this legislation and inhibit the possibility of this legislation going through. I believe that Senator Tate, Senator Cooney, Senator Missen and Senator Haines have adequately answered that sort of accusation by Senator Harradine. It was not only the words used; it was the demeanour and everything that went along with it. This is not the first time this has happened in this place. I make no bones about it; I believe that both the Government and the Opposition co-operated in what on face value we thought was a reasonable request by Senator Harradine. We therefore gave to Senator Harradine a privilege-and it is a privilege because he certainly has not got the numbers in this place-to suspend Standing Orders in these circumstances. We suspended Standing Orders without any debate so that Senator Harradine could put his case. I believe very firmly that I have been deceived and that he has abused the privilege that the Senate gave him. That will not happen again, so far as I am concerned. So far as I am concerned, in future he can move his notices of motion and they can come up at the normal time notices of motion come up. If that procedure had been gone through in this case the motion would probably have come on for debate after the Bill had been debated. I can anticipate with almost absolute certainty that next week, or the week after next, Senator Harradine will be one person in this place who will get up and complain about the legislative backlog, if there is one, and about lack of time. Yet the Senate has spent an hour and a half debating something we need not have debated. If every Minister or every private member who brought a Bill into this place carried on in the way Senator Harradine has carried on, we would never get any business done. If every Minister or every private member who is concerned about a report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-a report which, as Senator Cooney rightly pointed out, is not about the intent of the legislation but about the manner in which the legislation has been put together-put on a performance like that which we heard this evening, if he happened not to like what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee said, instead of pursuing the normal procedures of responding to that Committee, having the responses reported to the Senate and having the Committee again consider those responses, we would get nowhere. I suspect one of the reasons for Senator Harradine's performance here tonight is his strong views on this matter-and I do not deny him those strong views. I put it to him that those strong views should be put when we debate the substance of the legislation. I suggest that another reason-and there has been plenty of impugning tonight-is that today is broadcast day for the Senate and the time when this motion came up tonight happened to be what some people seriously consider to be prime time for Senate broadcasts. I will not be misled in this way again. I doubt that many other people will. I am sorry this debate has happened, not only because of what it has done to the Government's legislative program but also because of what it has done to the Senate. For that reason we will oppose this motion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.20) — in reply-In respect of the last remarks I say that there was no intention to deceive anyone. In fact, I went out of my way to write to Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, to tell him that the motion would be coming before the chamber, that I would be giving the notice of motion and that I would be seeking to debate that notice of motion today. I also notified the Government, the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats. I notified all of those people. In fact, I had been prepared to debate the motion as to whether Standing Orders should be suspended. As it so happens, the Standing Orders were suspended by a decision of the Government to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Honourable senators should put themselves in my position. I have legislation which has come before this Parliament. That legislation has gone to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, upon which I am not represented. It has been said by other senators that that is an all-party Committee; but I am not represented on that Committee. Therefore, I do not have the opportunity to present my views personally to that Committee. Senator Missen said that I do. I would like to have the viewpoint of the Chairman of the Committee and of you, Mr Deputy President, as to whether that is correct. If it is correct that I am entitled to get the information which has been supplied to the Committee in respect of my Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, prepare a submission to the Committee and personally present that to the Committee, of course there is no point whatsoever in this proposition. But I read the Standing Orders differently from Senator Missen. I would like to draw attention to the Standing Orders. This is a matter about the Standing Orders and the rights of individual senators to bring something forward. Standing order 306 states: Senators may be present when a Committee is examining Witnesses, but shall withdraw if requested, by the Chairman or any member of the Committee, and shall always withdraw when the Committee is deliberating. The motion which established the Scrutiny of Bills Committee stated: That a Senator, though not a member of the Committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote. Senator Missen —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —That is right. That is, I would be allowed in its public sessions but not in its private sessions. The Committee would be in a private session- Senator Missen —That does not exclude us from hearing from you at any other time. Senator HARRADINE —That is interesting. If I can get confirmation from the Chairman of the Committee or from you, Mr Deputy President, that what Senator Missen is saying is correct, obviously there is no point in the motion. But clearly, that is not the understanding at all of other people on the Committee. Other people obviously have read the provisions of the resolution appointing the Committee. According to the resolution appointing the Committee we have the situation in which a senator, though not a member, is able to participate in the public sessions of the Committee. Standing order 306 enables that senator to be present when other people are being called as witnesses and are being examined by the Committee. That would have been very fine had there been called before the Committee those people from whom, in fact, the information was received and presented to the Committee; namely, those from the Queen Victoria Medical Centre. I would have been very happy to be present at the Committee to examine those people. As it was, the material which was supplied was not referred to me for my comments. The recommendations of the Committee were based upon some of that information and the assumptions in that material. Am I right or am I wrong? Senator Tate —If you want me to answer that, through you, Mr Deputy President, my answer is that Senator Harradine would not be entitled to be present at a private meeting of the Committee but is entitled, as I indicated in the last paragraph of my letter, to put forward a response which would be considered by the Committee and published alongside our further consideration of it. This has been our normal course, which is well known over the history of the Committee's operations for the last several years. Senator HARRADINE —What Senator Tate is saying is in direct contradiction of what the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Senator Missen, is saying. Senator Missen —No, I am not. Senator HARRADINE —He was saying that I was able to attend the Committee and put forward views there. It is clear that I am not able to be present at the Committee's hearings. As anybody who has served on committees knows full well, in a committee things are raised which can be answered immediately, there and then. As I said before and I repeat, the viewpoint of every other senator in this chamber except me is represented on that Committee. I think that matter ought to be looked at. That is why this proposal was designed and put forward. Senator Grimes —That is why you rubbished all the members of the Committee and impugned their motives. Senator HARRADINE —I have not impugned their motives at all. Senator Grimes —What is this about ambushing your Bill and all that sort of thing? Senator HARRADINE —I explained completely what that was about. I have shown clearly that the basis upon which Senator Missen's submissions were made to the Senate was clearly unfounded. I make it perfectly clear that what I said was that the Committee chose-even if it was its usual practice-to consider submissions from other people about my Bill and did not provide me with those submissions so that I could refer them to the experts before the Committee reported to the Senate. As a result of that, publicity was given to the Committee's report, as I explained. That publicity was adverse to the legislation. I admit that there was some misreporting because if one looks at the Committee's report one can see that it really is not drastically adverse to the legislation. But I was not prepared to accept certain aspects of it in that shape, by reason of the advice that has now been given. Would it not have been better and would it not be better if a committee were to examine fully the matters and to provide the information to whoever introduced the Bill so that that information can, in turn, be sent to his advisers? Today I have attempted to table the document prepared by the legal adviser, the person who is contracted by the Parliament to draft Senate Bills. That has been denied me. I have also been accused by Senator Cooney of not giving evidence. I tried to develop that in my speech but was ruled out of order. I have not been able to attend the Committee. I was not provided, before the Committee reported, with the comments of other people, which could have been rectified at that stage. Now I am being denied the opportunity to table the comments made by the experts contracted by the Senate. Senator Cooney —You made your accusations before you produced the evidence. Senator HARRADINE —I ask Senator Cooney, when he receives those documents, to look at them to see whether what was said by Senator Haines was correct. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. In saying this I am paying ultimate courtesy to the Chair, but one thing that cannot be said about the debate which has taken place in this Senate for the last hour and three quarters is that you have not shown extraordinarily generous treatment to Senator Harradine. With ultimate respect for you, would you please read Senator Harradine's motion once again, recall what has been said in this debate, and contemplate whether what he is saying now is totally irrelevant to what is contained in his motion? What he is talking about now is what has happened, what should have happened and what allegedly did not happen. The debate is all about what he believes should happen in the future. Mr Deputy President, I say with great respect that you have shown him extraordinary latitude-and probably quite properly so. However, is it now not time, having taken up so much time of the Senate on a broadcast day, that he should be bound to respect the Standing Orders of the Senate? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Standing Orders of the Senate are the same on broadcast days and non-broadcast days. Senator Harradine, you are, of course, entitled to answer points made in debate, but I ask you to concentrate in your summing up of the debate more on the form of the motion you put to the Senate. I repeat that you are entitled to reply to any points adverse to you made in the debate. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, I was doing precisely that. In fact, I was restricting my remarks directly to the contributions made by other senators. The attempted point of order-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. Do not discuss it any further. Continue with your argument. Senator HARRADINE —I have dealt with the questions raised by Senator Cooney and Senator Missen. Those statements are unfounded. Senator Haines said that I had indicated that the Committee concentrated only on its principles two, three, four and five. I make it perfectly clear now that, if Senator Haines reads the Hansard tomorrow morning, she will read that what I said was that the Committee had six terms of reference, the last five of which dealt with the Committee's responsibility to ensure that excessive power was not exercised by the Executive Government and that excessive administrative power was not used in the administration of the law. As I said in presenting my case to the Senate, that is true. In fact there is nothing in the Bill, other than the decision to launch prosecutions, that has any relevance to those principles. Of course, principle 1 (a) is the principle which Senator Cooney raised and which will be answered only if the documents can be tabled in the Senate and the real facts of the situation raised. I realise that the Government has problems in getting through legislation. However, Mr Deputy President, I put it to you that I have not transgressed on General Business time. I believe that I am as entitled as any other senator to some sort of representation of my views on this Committee. I say quite deliberately that it would be better if those views were expressed at the time the discussion takes place so that not only could I have the views of the Committee at that stage but also it could have my views. That would be the best way to have a rounded consideration of the matters by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I acknowledge that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is very hard working; it has a lot of material go before it. However, I believe, in view of that, that it is essential that the Committee have all the information and not make a determination on part of the information. Let us not forget that that determination was made in a very short time-25 or 30 minutes on Friday morning. It was not necessary to make the decision then because my Bill cannot be debated until at least Thursday week. The Committee is now to meet on Wednesday of this coming week. The Chairman of the Committee has said that now the Committee report has been tabled it is up to me to comment on it. I shall do so. I acknowledge that the Chairman has indicated that this will form part of the subsequent report. Many people, particularly people who are employed by the Senate on a contract basis, have worked on this material. I believe it was quite improper not to allow that material to be presented and to be tabled in the Senate. Leave was denied by Senator Chipp. Again I ask leave of the Senate to table those documents so that the truth of this situation and of the material is available to all honourable senators. Leave not granted. Senator HARRADINE —Again leave has not been granted. I believe that one of the problems with which I am faced is that I am not represented on that Committee. I was not provided with the information before that Committee made its decision. Now I am denied the opportunity to lay before this Parliament the expert advice on comments of the Committee. I believe that this is a denial of the rights of individual senators and the antithesis of seeking after the truth. As I said before, it is important that my Bill is scrutinised. It is important that that scrutiny is done in a manner which allows submissions to be made and tested in the usual fashion, that is, by witnesses coming forward, if necessary, to be tested. I am prepared to submit myself to examination by the Committee by giving evidence, if that is the Committee's wish. I hope that that is the Committee's wish because, from what I understand the Chairman has said, I am not able to sit with the Committee and engage in discussions with the Committee at the time of the deliberations. I believe that is an injustice to an individual senator. I am sorry that this motion will not be carried. I believe it is something that honourable senators should consider when considering further statements or a motion that may be moved by Senator Chaney this week. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Mr Deputy President, I have been misrepresented and I wish to make a statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —By something which you said in this debate? Senator CHIPP —No, something which Senator Harradine said. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In that case you are making a personal explanation. You need leave of the Senate. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP —Senator Harradine, for the second time this evening, has detailed, as he understands it, the circumstances under which he was granted leave to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. He said that he consulted party leaders-the Government, the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats-who had given him authority to move to suspend Standing Orders. At no stage today did I give any assent at all. The sum total of the conversation Senator Harradine had with me, as I said before, was to come to me with a piece of paper, which I now see, wave it so that I could not read anything and say 'Don, where's Michael?'-referring to the Democrats' Whip. I said: 'He is in his office'. He said: 'I do not want to canvass the substantive matter with you now. All I want to do is move for the suspension of Standing Orders so that a private member who introduces a Bill can appear before the Scrutiny of Bills Committee'. I said: 'Senator Macklin is in his office. Go and see him'. I submit that no person with any sort of logical reflexes at all could understand from that that the Leader of the Australian Democrats gave Senator Harradine the authority or the blessing of the Australian Democrats to move to suspend Standing Orders today. As I said before, it is a blatant, absolute and wilful untruth. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I object to that statement. When Hansard comes out tomorrow it will be shown that what I said was that the Government had apparently approved of my moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. I did not say that the Australian Democrats had approved of my moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. Question resolved in the negative. Senator Chipp —You try to change Hansard and I will have you up before the Privileges Committee. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order. Senator Chipp has just accused me of proposing to change Hansard in respect of the matter that he raised. I believe that is a reflection on this Senate. I ask that it be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order. I did not hear the remarks. As you have stated it, it is not a point of order. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'these Bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an independent Customs Service and, without limiting the generality of the reference, for report on- (a) the practical impact of the changes on the Service, the Minister, customs agents and the general public; (b) what advantages flow from the proposed changes; (c) the extent to which the changes add to or reduce the accountability of the Australian Customs Service; (d) how the changes affect the role and responsibility of the Minister; and (e) the cost of the changes'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.43) —The Senate is debating the Customs Administration Bill 1985 and a related measure. Since it is some days since we debated the legislation-a delay not occasioned by the previous debate-I think it is worth observing that we have had a substantial amount of second reading debate which has involved my moving an amendment. Subsequently Senator James Short, a Liberal senator from Victoria, announced his intention to move an amendment to my amendment. I do not intend to speak at great length this evening, but in light of the fact that we have yet to deal with my amendment I would like simply to remind the Senate of the issues which are before us. It is not an issue in this debate, as far as I know, that the establishment of an independent Customs service is desirable. The Opposition regards that as likely to be in the interests of both the Australian Customs Service and Australia. The issue which does arise is whether the Government has adopted the most suitable means of going about that. We have before us two Bills with relatively little explanation of the advantages which are supposedly to flow from the changes which the Government seeks to institute. What the Government is proposing to do is to establish what is in effect a separate government department headed by a statutory officer who will have all of the powers and authorities of a departmental head. In addition, a vast number of discretions and powers which are currently vested in the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) are to be vested in the new statutory officer, the Comptroller-General of Customs. The concern which the Opposition has I think can best be explained by simply referring to the second last paragraph of the second reading speech which sets out, as far as one is going to find in the second reading speech, the advantages that flow from the change. The speech states: The creation of the office of Comptroller-General of Customs and the establishment of the Australian Customs Service will provide a number of benefits including relieving the Minister and Secretary of the Department of the routine of Customs administration with greater opportunity, in consequence, for both to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. The Opposition is not satisfied from the second reading speech and from the debate so far, which has not included any contribution, I might say, from Government senators, that the Government has examined this matter with the particularity which is required. The amendment which I have moved simply seeks to refer the main Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an independent Customs Service and, without limiting the generality of the reference, for report on the practical impact of the changes on the Service, the Minister, Customs agents and the general public; to report on what advantages flow from the proposed changes; to report on the extent to which the changes add to or reduce the accountability of the Australian Customs Service; to report on how the changes affect the role and the responsibility of the Minister, and to report on the cost of the changes. Senator Short seeks to add to that that there also be a report from the Committee on the extent to which these questions were addressed and answered by the Government prior to introducing this legislation. The concern which has been expressed by the Australian Democrats about the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition is that the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations might in some way delay the reorganisation of the Customs Service. They are concerned that the Customs Service should be able to get on with the job. I think that is a fair summary of the sorts of concerns which Senator Jack Evans expressed. The point which I have made and which I make very briefly again in response to that concern is that it is inconceivable, in my view, that the Government could have brought this Bill forward without considering those questions. It would be quite extraordinary if the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce suggested to the Government that this sort of change be made if no assessment had been made of the practical impact of the changes on the Service itself and on the general public. It would be inconceivable that he would bring this forward without having made some assessment of what advantages flow from the changes and so on. Therefore, it is really just a matter of the Government exposing rather better than it has in this general debate what it is about before the legislature puts its imprimatur on the changes which are sought. I would have thought that was a matter which would require an investigation taking days rather than the months which was the concern of Senator Evans. Indeed, it was the sort of concern which was expressed by Senator Evans which I am sure led Senator Short to suggest that the Committee also check on the extent to which these questions were addressed and answered by the Government prior to introducing the legislation. I have no wish to prolong unnecessarily the consideration of this legislation. I would ask the Government, in the interests of proper consideration of the legislation, to agree to the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. I remind the Government that the Committee to which the Bill would be referred is a committee that has three Government senators, including one with a casting vote. There is a Government majority on the Committee. An Australian Democrat and only two members of the Opposition are also on the Committee. It certainly cannot be suggest that we are trying to send the Bill for examination to a committee which is controlled by the Opposition, which the Opposition could use other than for the purpose for which we desire to send the legislation before it, namely, to ensure that there is effective parliamentary scrutiny of what is a very important measure. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, this measure is important. The Customs Service is responsible for the collection of nearly $11m of Commonwealth revenue in a year. It is responsible for a great deal of the surveillance against the importation of drugs. It is a body which has some 5,000 employees; it is a body which successive inquiries have suggested has very significant difficulties and problems, and public statements from serving officers in recent days confirm that there is a great deal of discontent. I commend the amendment, and the further amendment moved by Senator Short, to honourable senators. I hope that this Bill will be given some Committee scrutiny. I am sure that the Bill is in the long term interests of the Customs Service, the Government and Australia. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.51) —I oppose the amendments because they propose references to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which I chair. Senator Chaney did not have the courtesy to raise with me or the Committee his proposal to move a motion for this reference. I understood that it was our usual courtesy in this place to check with the committee chairman whether the program of a committee was likely to be able to fit in an additional load. There was no attempt at all to discuss this proposed reference with the Committee to see how our program was going. There was not even any advice in advance or after the event. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect such consultation. The Finance and Government Operations Committee is already well loaded up with references and it would be impossible for it to take on this reference at this stage. As Senator Chaney would be well aware, the Committee is having a major look at the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. We are working very hard at the moment to finalise a report on that before the end of this period of sittings. On top of that is a related matter, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, with which we have been dealing over the last week. Earlier today we accepted another reference on a related matter of superannuation for the Northern Territory. Statutory authorities superannuation is another matter with which we are also trying to deal. The Australian Dairy Corporation is still on our plate and we have another report to prepare on the form of the Estimates, plus the whole general question of non-statutory bodies. Without wishing to labour the point, if the reference were to be forced upon us it would be some months before we could even begin work on it. I think we need to look at the terms of the reference. It is not just a minor matter of checking a few clauses in a short Bill. It requires reporting on the necessity for the creation of an independent Australian Customs Service and without limiting the generality of the reference, a report on the practical impact of the changes of the Service, the Minister, Customs agents and the general public. It requires reporting on what advantages would flow from the proposed changes, the extent to which the changes add to, or reduce, the accountability of the Australian Customs Service, how the changes affect the role and responsibility of the Minister and the cost of the changes. Senator Chaney would be well aware that such a reference would require advertising for public submissions, time for those submissions to be prepared by interested parties, time for public hearings and so forth. One could not do justice to that sort of inquiry in a short hearing. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Opposition is wanting deliberately to overload the Finance and Government Operations Committee and to further hijack Government Business in this way. As I have said, I do not think that the Committee could do justice to such a major reference in less than a year, in view of the other matters before it. I oppose the amendments and support the motion for the second reading of the Customs Administration Bill 1985. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(9.55) —A further appeal has been made to the Australian Democrats by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) to have this matter referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I thought that he and the Government may be interested in the Democrats' response. I have indicated previously that we are very anxious to see the Customs Administration Bill pass. We are very keen to see the reorganisation, the restructuring and the new operations of the whole of the Australian Customs Service introduced at the earliest opportunity. For that reason, and only for that reason, we will not be accepting the amendment proposed by Senator Chaney. One needs to recognise that the inquiry which has been proposed in these terms of reference would take many months. I indicated that it would certainly be well into 1986 before the Finance and Government Operations Committee would be likely to report back to this chamber. In the meantime the drug runners and the organised criminals of this country would run rampant because they would know that there was a disorganised and demoralised Customs Service operating on the borders of this country. The quicker we get the restructuring under way, the quicker it is recognised that we have an effective, efficient Customs Service in this country, the better it will be for the great majority of Australians. The only minority who will be disadvantaged will be the potential drug runners, the potential illegal immigrants, the potential importers of goods that should not be coming into this country. I hope that the Opposition recognises that the Australian Democrats do take on board the comments that have been made. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) must have looked at all of these matters before this Bill was introduced. We expect governments to do that. I am just a little surprised that Senator Chaney, who was in government for many years, is not conscious of the fact that not only do governments have the responsibility for doing these things but also it is not the role of the Opposition to behave as though it were the Government and take over those responsibilities while it is in opposition. Therefore, I now indicate that the Australian Democrats will be opposing the amendment, which if passed, would defer and delay this legislation as a result of its referral to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.57) —I thank honourable senators for their general support of the Customs Administration Bill. We have had a long debate which has included the moving of an amendment which was probably out of order and a couple of speeches based on that amendment. The extraordinary point about the debate is how discursive it has been. It has been so discursive that it is very difficult to divine the Opposition's point from all the sound and fury-it does not signify very much-which has come forth from honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Senator Macklin —I think that was stolen. I recognise it. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is stolen but only a person of the honourable senator's erudition would recognise that. I am very glad that he and, perhaps Senator Aulich, are here. As I have said, it has been a very wide-ranging debate and in the course of it honourable senators have drawn attention to the importance which they attach, and which the Government attaches, to the functions of customs, the rapidly changing responsibilities of the Australian Customs Service-they are very much in the public eye-the additional duties which are imposed on the Customs Service in the current situation and the general importance of the Service. Quite a few comments were made about the morale of the Customs Service. The point was made that it needs a greater level of resources. Included was an expression of concern about the modernisation of the Customs Service. The first point I make is that the Customs Service has been much inquired into. In spite of that, in the course of this debate there have been numerous readings from Press reports of one kind or another about alleged morale and other problems within the Customs Service. Each of the major items of criticism raised examined the very nature and existence of the Customs Service. I make the point that the Customs Service, by virtue of what it does and by virtue of what its functions are, is fair game for the kind of criticism which was raised in the Senate by Senator Chaney, Senator Short and others, largely by way of readings from Press cuttings. In fact, this matter was dealt with by the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures (in New South Wales). Senator Chaney —I quoted from a royal commission. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney may have quoted from some royal commissions. Senator Chaney quoted from a lot of Press cuttings too and it is that scuttlebutt to which I was referring. Senator Chaney —A typical Buttonian response. Actually, I quoted from several royal commissions. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney quoted from a lot of Press cuttings, and he should not come in here blimping away about this. Senator Chaney quoted from a lot of Press cuttings and that is the issue with which I am dealing. Senator Chaney may not like it, but he is going to have to lump it in the next couple of minutes. I inform Senator Chaney about the nature of these Press allegations. I am referring to the Mahony inquiry and what it had to say about the source of some of these allegations. Senator Chaney —Which I referred to. Senator BUTTON —It was very smart of Senator Chaney to refer to it. Senator Chaney is a smart lad from Western Australia. I just wish he would grow up. The section of the Mahony report to which I refer is that section which talked about Press cuttings about officers of the Customs Officers Association who had made allegations about the Customs Service. In dealing with that Association and its officers in the course of his inquiry, Mr Mahony said: The COA representatives, in public hearing, stated that unsubstantiated allegations of corruption had been made to the media-- by the Customs Officers Association-- for the purpose of gaining public support for the objectives of the Association. My view is that this practice tends to mislead the public, damages the credibility of the COA and reflects adversely on the whole Customs organisation. I make the point that in the course of this debate there were a number of unsubstantiated allegations from newspaper cuttings referred to by senators in this chamber-unsubstantiated-which are, of course, damaging to the Customs organisation. It is in that context and the context of discussions about the morale of the Customs officers that I raise that quotation from the Mahony report because I think it is important to realise that that has been part of a course of conduct which has been going on for a number of years. It is unfortunate that it was reflected here in the way in which it was. I said that there had been a number of discursive elements in this debate of that kind. There is one very important point that Senator Chaney made, and I quote: The coalition policy is for modernisation of the Customs Act. I agree with that. I think that is an excellent policy. It does not say very much but I think we all agree that we should be in favour of modernisation of the Customs Act and, indeed, as some senators said, we should be in favour of modernisation of the Customs Service. I am in favour of that. I believe that the Customs Service has to be assisted considerably in terms of resources, and particularly resources such as additional computer services. Of course, whether one can do it that is a matter for judgment by government, given the overall demands on resource allocation. With respect, it is a matter for judgment by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. It is a matter for judgment by Government because the allocation of resources is part of the Government's responsibilities. I share the Opposition's view that, in an ideal world, the Customs Service should be given a great deal more resources than it currently has, particularly technological resources. Customs is a very important organisation. Its functions are changing and, as I said, there is a need for a modern, efficient service with good resources including equipment, perhaps better trained staff and perhaps better facilities for staff development. The Customs Service has been through a period of staff training and development which I believe will greatly improve its efficiency. It has been a very difficult exercise for the Service to embark upon in terms of personnel, but it has undertaken that exercise. I turn now to the Opposition's amendment. The Government cannot accept the Opposition's amendment. In fact, the Government thinks it is totally misconceived. In our view it is important to proceed quickly with the establishment of a separate and independent Customs office if the benefits of such a step are to be realised. I invite senators to have a closer look at what this Bill actually does than I suggest they did prior to their speaking in this debate. All the Bill does is to establish an independent Customs Service with a Comptroller-General who is separate in identity from the Secretary to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. That is all it does. A lot of the second reading debate has been concerned with the operations of the Customs Service in its wider sense rather than the provisions of this Bill. While I understand that it would have been good to have had a debate about the Customs Service-we certainly had a discussion about the Customs Service and that was welcome-I make it quite clear that the Government, in presenting this Bill, is not saying that it is in any way an answer to all of the criticisms and problems that have been raised by senators and which would undoubtedly be raised by senators on the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations if the matter were referred to that Committee. A lot of things raised in the debate as being important to senators were not matters which are subject to the terms of the amendment or any- thing like that; they go far wider than that. They may well be construed as being within the terms of reference if a reference were made based on the Opposition's amendment. I make it quite clear that the Bill does not create a new authority; it creates the statutory position of Comptroller-General of Customs. The reasons for the change lay in a concern to streamline the operations of the Customs Service and the development of industry policy. They are the twin basic reasons for the change. As I said, it is a first step in a series of steps which the Government will be taking in relation to the Customs Service. Formerly, the Secretary to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce was also the Comptroller-General of Customs. This placed an intolerable burden on the occupant of that position and it did not allow a clear identity to emerge for the Customs Service. I will be quite frank about one example. Some honourable senators will remember the Paddington bear affair, as it was called, and other honourable senators will seek to forget the colour television affair. However, let us for a moment be objective about it and remember both of those incidents. They both involved a considerable period of inquiry into a particular incident for the Customs Service. The Secretary to the Department of Industry and Commerce, as it was at that time, on each of those occasions was lost, as it were, to the Department while he dealt with the peculiarly Customs administrative problem for a period of several weeks. In contradistinction, the Secretary to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce cannot exercise his function, as the present legislation stands, as Comptroller-General of Customs with the diligence which is required in the sort of service which everybody in this Senate has talked about-that is to say, a modern, progressive, efficient Customs Service. The head man in that Service does not have the time to devote to the administration of that Service the time which it is necessary to devote if it is to be truly efficient and a properly functioning Customs organisation. There is no secret about that. It is a matter of concern which apparently has not bothered other governments that a man should be required to fill two positions, both of which are of very great importance, particularly the position of Comptroller-General of Customs, it being a position of growing importance. The Comptroller-General of Customs and the Customs Service are more and more in the public eye with each development in illegal imports of one kind or another, particularly drugs and so on, and the new role which inevitably and regrettably the Customs Service has to exercise. As I said, the reasons for the changes lay in the concern to streamline and improve the efficiency of the operations of Customs. Of course, the Government recognises that in that process a whole range of other things have to be done. But we have to start somewhere, and it is necessary to start that process with a person who will devote his full managerial and directing energies to it. Therefore, we need an independent Comptroller-General of Customs not burdened with a range of very onerous functions of another kind. An intolerable burden was placed on the person who filled the position of Secretary to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and also the position of Comptroller-General of Customs. There was a confusion of identity, as it were between the two positions. The reason for the legislation to break the nexus between the Secretary and the Comptroller-General was to create a separate statutory position of Comptroller-General. The creation of an independent Australian Customs Service will have a tremendously important effect on the morale of the Service as well as providing it with a permanent base and a permanent identity. Some honourable senators who know a lot about the Customs Service will tell us that. The worst thing that could be done for the morale of the Customs Service would be for this legislation to be delayed on the basis of the spurious arguments that were put in the Senate late last week. I make the point that the Customs Service has until now been transferred six times to various departments in different guises, shuffled around from one department to another with different roles, functions and arrangements. This is the first time that the Customs Service has, in a sense, been given that separate identity which I believe Customs officers sincerely want. Because the Australian Customs Service has important administrative links with industry policy-particularly in this process of disengagement from the policies of the past-it is intended that the Service will remain within the portfolio of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It is the Government's view that the creation of a separate service, a separate office, will be an important step in improving the operation of Customs and its potential for co-operation with the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The cost of the changes are not considerable at all. All they involve is the provision of some additional management support for the Australian Customs Service as a result of its split from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. That matter is currently being determined by an interdepartmental committee or in bilateral discussions between the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Customs Service. One would have thought that, as those bodies have responsibility for the allocation of resources, that committee could be appropriate to determine those matters. As soon as those matters are determined the precise cost figure will be available. It will be a very small cost. As I said earlier a number of other points, which I will refer to only in passing, are dealt with in the Opposition's proposed amendment to the Government's legislation. We have, in the Opposition's amendment moved by Senator Chaney, a series of interrogatories which the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is invited to investigate. The appropriateness of the interrogatories can be seen by a simple examination of what they say. Firstly, in part (a) the Committee is asked to report on the practical impact of the changes on the Service. The practical impact of the changes on the Service will be absolutely minimal in a sense. As I have said, the Government recognises that a number of changes have to be made to the Customs Service. It is just a question of how we start to bring those changes about and which authority implements them. Is the authority to be a split personality public servant devoting half his energies to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, or do we take the Customs Service more seriously than that and say that it should effectively have its own Comptroller-General who will be responsible for developing these changes in conjunction with the Government? The Committee would then be asked to consider the practical impact on the Minister. I do not know that there is much practical impact on me except that we have to debate this legislation. I believe that there would be no impact on Customs agents and I believe that, given a great deal of time and without the assistance of any Senate committee, great benefits will accrue to the general public in respect of this matter. A number of advantages will eventually flow from the proposed changes. The first will be the capacity of a full time Comptroller-General to get on with the business which all honourable senators who have spoken in this debate have said is needed-directing attention to modernising and improving the efficiency of the Customs Service, and monitoring the extent to which changes add to or reduce the accountability of the Customs Service and so on and how they affect the role and responsibility of the Minister. We have already indicated in the second reading speech that a working document is being prepared in consultation between my Department and the Customs Service on the relationships between the Department and the Service. I am quite happy to indicate that as soon as that document is prepared and finalised-I think it will be in a week or so-it will be made available to the Senate and all honourable senators can read it if they wish. I give the undertaking that as soon as the document is prepared it will be made available. It was suggested that the Committee should also investigate the costs of the changes. I said that they will be very small. The Government is determined that they will be very small. In terms of these changes, the real costs of improving the efficiency of the Customs Service will come later. They will involve a whole range of questions such as better computer equipment, perhaps additional staffing, better staff training and better staff development than the Customs Service has had in the past. That is where the costs will lie, not in the changes represented by this Bill. We are then asked in the amendment, which is a Claytons amendment in the sense that it may not be an amendment at all, to see to what extent these questions were addressed and answered by the Government prior to introducing this legislation. These matters were addressed by the Government and we are very concerned to take a series of steps in relation to the Customs Service in respect of which this Bill and its associated Bill represent only the beginning. We say that it is a very modest and small beginning, but a step in the right direction. There is one other matter with which I wanted to deal. Senator Jack Evans asked in the course of the debate what account the Government, in arriving at its decision, had taken of the Fifth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In respect of that matter-as a matter of courtesy to Senator Evans, I have already discussed this issue with him-I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a brief document which sets out the matters of which the Government took account. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION BILL 1985 CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The Government has considered the comments made by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in the Committee's Fifth Report. In addition, the Government has paid particular attention to the Committee's remarks set out in Chapter 3 of their report. In paragraph 3.37, the Committee recommends that if legislation is presented which proposes the establishment of an authority in the categories listed in paragraph 3.36, a statement expressing specific reasons for preferring a statutory authority be tabled. The wide range of functions to be carried out by the proposed Australian Customs Service straddle a number of the categories adopted by the Committee in paragraph 3.34 and 3.46 of its Report. Many of those functions are as a matter of course integrated in the normal Customs operational structure. Of the Committee's categories, Customs functions particularly cover the categories of executive Authorisation (3A), Regulatory Authorities (3B) and Adjudicator/ Licensing Authorities (3G). The Committee considers that categories 3B and 3G are functions which it is appropriate to perform through a statutory authority rather than through a Ministerial Department (paragraph 3.34). Also, the Government notes that the Committee does not see the need to relieve Ministers of responsibility as being sufficient in itself to require the creation of a statutory authority. The Committee also recognises the Office of Comptroller-General of Customs as a statutory office under the Customs Act. The measures contained in this legislation merely extend the operation of that office to a body to be called the Australian Customs Service. The functions of the Customs are as the Committee notes in its first Report on December 1978 in a Statutory Authority. At paragraph 1.10 of that report the Committee noted: 'In the case of the Customs Act, the normal ministerial powers of direction were seen as appropriate in respect of policy and priorities, while control over the details of Customs administration was vested in the Comptroller-General'. The Committee went on to say: 'As demonstrated in the instance of the Comptroller-General of Customs, it was not seen as impossible, nor even inappropriate, for the Permanent Head of a Ministerial Department to be accountable to the Minister for some aspects of his administration and directly to Parliament for other aspects'. The Government considers that there will be distinct advantages that will flow from the proposed arrangement, not the least being that it is expected to be more efficient. The Second Reading Speech on the Customs Administration Bill 1985 mentioned that a benefit of the creation of the Australian Customs Service will be the relieving of the Minister and Secretary of the Department of the routine Customs administration with greater opportunity, in consequence, for both to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. At present, the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, are, by virtue of the Public Service Reform Act, recognised as the same person. This has posed an intolerable burden on the holder of that office, and has meant that important industry policy matters and Customs administration issues have not been able to be given the attention that they deserve. Quite obviously, the separation of the Secretary and the Comptroller-General of Customs will alleviate this to a major degree. The Government maintains that Australia needs a readily identifiable Customs body which will be able to give undivided attention to its major role of revenue collection and law enforcement. Revenue collections in excess of $10 billion are involved. This legislation proposes an independent body within the industry portfolio that is closely associated to that portfolio and responsible to the same Minister. The Second Reading Speech mentioned that the powers that are not already proposed to be transferred to the Comptroller-General are being reviewed to determine those which should be transferred from the Minister to the Comptroller-General. This will not, however, reduce the accountability of the Australian Customs Service to the Parliament. The Comptroller-General will regularly report to the Minister, and there will be an annual report required each year. This Report will be tabled in the normal way. Senator BUTTON —I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Hearn, J. M. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Jack Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Coleman, R. N. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Robertson, E. A. Walters, M. S. Primmer, C. G. Hill, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION BILL 1985 Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Australian Customs Service). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.29) —Clause 4 deals with the establishment of an Australian Customs Service and the appointment of a Comptroller-General of Customs who shall, under the Minister, control the Australian Customs Service. This clause raises a number of issues which I would like to mention to the Committee in order to get the response of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The issues raised by this clause are, of course, similar to the issues which are raised by the legislation generally because they relate to the establishment of the independent Customs Service. We have had some discussion on that by the Minister in the last few minutes. As he has done in the past, he chose to misrepresent the arguments which had been put and to make some statements which were factually inaccurate. In addressing this clause I remind the Minister that in the second reading debate I drew attention to a series of reports which had touched on the Customs Service. Those reports included the report of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration, which I pointed out related to the problems of the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. I also pointed out that a review by Mr Mahony, which was referred to by the Mininster in a rather pompous tone a little while ago, arose out of the difficulties, as I said, of a Liberal Minister. So in fact there was reference in the second reading debate to that, to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and, of course, to the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Senator Button chose to refer only to references in newspaper reports and that, of course, is a very inaccurate way of summing up the debate which occurred on this issue. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional orders 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 PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet at 8.30 a.m. tomorrow in committee room No. 6. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence relating to a further extension of specified period for presentation of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board Annual Report 1983-84. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 6 May 1985. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 55. Telecommunications (Telex Charging Areas) Amendment No. 1. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed sub-sections of the following Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Act 1984-Sub-section 4 (2)-10 May 1985- Gazette No, S157, 9 May 1985 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Act 1984-Sub-section 4 (2)-10 May 1985- (Gazette No. S 157, 9 May 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 12) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has the contract held by Allders International Pty Ltd for the operation of duty free shops at Kingsford-Smith Airport been renegotiated since its original awarding; if so: (a) was any such renegotiation undertaken at the request of Allders International; if so, upon what basis was such a request made; (b) how do the terms of the new contract vary from those of the preceding contract; and (c) when it was decided to allow a new contract to be renegotiated, why were the originally unsuccessful tenderers not invited to resubmit tenders on the same basis. (2) Is Allders International an entirely foreign-owned company. (3) In how many other instances have similar commercial contracts let by the Department of Aviation been renegotiated. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes-for a twelve month trial period only from 1 December 1984 to 30 November 1985 subject to termination on two months notice by either party. (a) the renegotiated trial was jointly concurred in consultation between my Department and Allders International Pty Ltd to overcome uncompetitive pricing on branded merchandise in particular photographic and electronic products and to more effectively compete in the commercial market place with off-airport Duty Free Shops, to provide the travelling public with cheaper prices and enhance the Commonwealth's long term revenue prospects. Following these consultations Allders International Pty Ltd were invited to place a formal proposal before my Department for consideration. (b) the terms of the agreement with Allders International Pty Ltd for five years commencing on 1 March 1983 are- Year 1 $120,000.00 per annum base rent plus $541,667.00 per month plus 36.10 per cent of any amount by which the actual gross revenue in that year exceeds $16,560,000.00. Year 2 $120,000.00 per annum base rent plus $583,334.00 per month plus 36.10 per cent of any amount by which the actual gross revenue in that year exceeds $18,600,000.00. Year 3 $120,000.00 per annum base rent plus $625,000.00 per month plus 36.10 per cent of any amount by which the actual gross revenue in that year exceeds $20,472,000.00. Year 4 $120,000.00 per annum base rent plus $666,667.00 per month plus 36.10 per cent of any amount by which the actual gross revenue in that year exceeds $22,548,000.00. Year 5 $120,000.00 per annum base rent plus $708,334.00 per month plus 36.10 per cent of any amount by which the actual gross revenue in that year exceeds $24,828,000.00. With a further guarantee that payment in respect of turnover achieved in excess of the nominated levels shall not be less than $500,000 in any year. The terms of the renegotiation are for a 12 month trial period only from 1 December 1984 to 30 November 1985 the rent and consideration payable to the Commonwealth to be: Base Rent $120,000 p.a. plus minimum guaranteed payments of 1.12.84 to 31.10.85-11 months at $7,100,008 p.a.-$6,508,340, 1.11.85 to 30.11.85-1 month at $7,600,000 p.a.-$633,333 or 5 per cent of gross turnover from photographic and electrical sales and 45 per cent of gross turnover for all other sales whichever is the greater. Lease and Authority to revert to current agreement at conclusion of trial (1.12.85) or after 2 months notice by either party. (c) Such action was deemed inappropriate, as the variation to the existing contract for the trial period enhances the guaranteed rental return to the Commonwealth on which tenders were originally assessed. (2) Allders International Pty Ltd is a company incorporated in New South Wales and is a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company. (3) From time to time my Department deems it desirable to review its business arrangements in keeping with commercially accepted and motivated practices. No consolidated record of such instances has been maintained. (Question No. 175) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) What categories of social welfare recipients are eligible for supplementary (rental) assistance. (2) Are any unemployment benefit recipients eligible for supplementary assistance; if so, under what circumstances; if not, why not. (3) What proportion of unemployment benefit recipients have been in receipt of unemployment benefits for (a) more than 12 months; and (b) more than six months but less than 12 months. (4) What would be the estimated cost to the social welfare budget of making supplementary assistance available to all pensioners and beneficiaries. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Under the Social Security Act, supplementary (rent) assistance is payable, subject to a rent test and an income test, to people in receipt of: age pension; invalid pension; widow's pension; wife's pension; spouse carer's pension; supporting parent's benefit; rehabilitation allowances. A similar payment, known as supplementary allowance, is payable to sickness beneficiaries who have been continuously in receipt of benefit for six weeks or more. (2) Unemployment beneficiaries are not eligible for supplementary assistance/allowance. The extension of such assistance to unemployment beneficiaries would be a matter for consideration by Government in the Budget context. (3) Data on unemployment benefit recipients by duration of benefit are only available from the quarterly computer surveys of beneficiaries. At the November 1984 survey (the latest available) the proportion of unemployment benefit recipients who had been in receipt of benefit for (a) more than 12 months was 36.1 per cent, and (b) more than six months but less than 12 months was 20.0 per cent. (4) Supplementary assistance is already available to all pensioners, and supplementary allowance (after six weeks) to all sickness beneficiaries who meet the eligibility conditions. The estimated cost, in a full year, of extending supplementary allowance to unemployment beneficiaries and special beneficiaries under similar conditions as for sickness beneficiaries is of the order of $194m and $6m respectively. Senator Grimes —On 19 March 1985 (Hansard, page 380) Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the activities of commercial insurers in the health insurance field. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The honourable senator would be aware of the undertaking given to the electorate by the Prime Minister during the recent Federal election campaign on the retention of community rated health insurance. One of the proposals contained in the seven point package recently put by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments to the Australian Medical Association, which is aimed at settling the doctors' dispute in New South Wales, provides that all insurers who offer health insurance must do so under the conditions of the National Health Act. Insurers who are registered under the Act are required to comply with community rating. Pending a satisfactory resolution of the doctors' dispute, necessary legislation to give effect to this proposal will be introduced in the near future. Senator Grimes —On 18 April 1985 (Hansard page 1206) Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding the extent of drug taking in Queensland. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: There is no evidence that drug taking is any more a problem in Queensland than in certain other States. On the question of whether the Commonwealth has any plans for attacking drug taking specifically in Queensland, the Commonwealth has endorsed a National Campaign Against Drug Abuse in which all Governments will co-operate. The Commonwealth will contribute to the campaign by the funding of national projects and by making additional funds available to the States. A proportion of these funds will be applied to new and expanded services within Queensland both in relation to educating the community towards a more responsible attitude to drugs and in treating and rehabilitating the casualties of drug abuse.