Thursday, 16 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 28A, I lay on the table my warrant withdrawing, at his request, Senator Sibraa from the panel of Temporary Chairmen of Committees and appointing Senator Tate to the panel in his place. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Human Embryo Experimentation Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 101 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 115 citizens), Robertson (from 27 citizens) and Walters (from 173 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession sale, hire or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion; child pornography and explicit nudity. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees of post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the Government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ''first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 36 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes be extended to 8 October 1985. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for today for the disallowance of the National Crime Authority Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a short statement of explanation on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. Senator COATES —An amendment to the National Crime Authority Regulations contained unusual provisions which empowered the Authority to serve a summons on a witness in a very indirect and potentially hazardous way. If the Authority was satisfied that normal methods of service would not succeed, lawful service could be effected by serving a third person whom the Authority considered likely to bring the summons to the witness's attention, or by mailing the summons to a place which the Authority considered was frequented by the witness. The Committee considered that it would be more protective of personal rights and liberties, and not impede the Authority in its work, if this unusual power were exercised by a judge in chambers rather than by a member or acting member of the Authority. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was invited to consider this suggestion and also the drafting of the Regulations. The notice of motion was due to come on today. Yesterday afternoon the Minister wrote to the Committee, accepting its proposals. He has given an undertaking that an urgent amendment will be made to the Regulations and that the powers of summons to which the Committee objected will not be exercised pending finalisation of this amendment. The Committee met this morning and agreed that the Minister's response is satisfactory. It considers that this outcome is in keeping with the Committee's principles and commends the Special Minister of State for his co-operation. As the Senate will appreciate, the time-table I have outlined did not enable me to give notice of intention to withdraw and thus I sought leave to do so. I thank the Senate. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, in accordance with sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, the Senate approves the variation to the form of the Statement of Financial Transactions of the Commonwealth presented to the Senate on 15 May 1985. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Orders be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; and (b) General Business, Order of the Day No. 101 (Social Security and Repatriation (Abolition of Assets Test) Bill 1985 [No. 2]). Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.08) —I move: That the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 66 of 1984 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. This Ordinance seeks to increase tenfold various fines that may be imposed on people who sell non-exempt goods outside specified hours. These penalties are inappropriate as this antique, unenforceable Ordinance is somewhat of a sick joke. Money wasted on token attempts to police the Ordinance from time to time can be spent much more constructively, and in this the poor inspectors get public ridicule while the real culprits, those who force them to unsettle the trading conditions for the people of Canberra, head off interstate after issuing dire warnings that the blitz will be on. The former Minister for Territories and Local Government had this change gazetted on 2 November last year while the matter was still before the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. A sub-committee of the Assembly was considering the whole question of trading hours when the previous Minister loaded it up with an extra reference. He could not wait for the report. He just had to increase the fines. He did not want seven days a week trading de facto. The matter was of the utmost importance. He could not afford to wait any longer. Perhaps he had not been able to improve the substance of the ordinance in nearly two years in which he was Minister in this area, but he was determined to leave his mark. Let me be blunt about this. The Ordinance belongs to the distant past. At least those having to administer it think that this is so. It would be a splendid service to the Territory on the eve of self-government if the Attorney-General's Department-one of the 12 departments that look after the Territory-went through all the ordinances to cull the bits which are of nuisance value only. Perhaps the House of Assembly will consider this task suitable for a sub-committee. There should be a place for dead wood. Either it should be cleared for new growth to push through or it should go on the fire. I take just one amusing example of the effects of an ordinance-the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance 1959. The Ordinance deals with a very important matter. At one point it says that animals which are chained up and kept in close confinement must be exercised daily and reasonably. I would like the Senate to picture the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) heading down to Parkwood Eggs to take all the hens for their daily constitutional. If the matters had been left to the Australian Capital Territory community to decide I am sure that a workable provision would have been made in its place ages ago. But these things naturally tend to be low down on the priorities of Ministers of the Federal Government, especially when they have their other major portfolio responsibilities. The history of trading hours in the Australian Capital Territory is a saga of public indignation, reports thrown into the bin, periodic warnings by the Department and business as usual. I hope that this cyclical charade will come to an end once the people in the Australian Capital Territory have the unfettered power to make their own decisions as a community. I look forward to self-government of the Australian Capital Territory. Prior to 1927 the provisions of the New South Wales early closing Act applied to limit the exploitation of employees. When the Parliament moved to Canberra the objectives of the New South Wales legislation were embodied in the Trading Hours Ordinance of 1926. One of the early tasks of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory was to examine whether trading hours should be regulated and, if so, with what underlying principles. One feature of its recommendation was for late night closing on a week night agreed upon by employees and employers alike. The Trading Hours Ordinance 1962, which is still the principal Ordinance, was based on these findings. It introduced the notion that some goods would be exempt from selling time controls, especially in the food and beverage area. The list of exemptions-the goods that can be sold at any time-has been refined over the years to leave us with a number of goods. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the list of the exempt goods under the Trading Hours Ordinance. Leave granted. The list read as follows- SCHEDULE EXEMPT GOODS 1. Foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages 2. Flowers 3. Garden requisites 4. Goods for use in the decoration, renovation or repair of domestic premises 5. Hardware 6. Hobby and handicraft goods 7. Ice 8. Motor vehicles and parts for motor vehicles and engines 9. Newspapers, books and periodicals 10. Paints 11. Plants, trees, shrubs, seeds and turf 12. Petrol, fuel-oils and lubricants 13. Second-hand goods 14. Soap, toothpaste, tooth-brushes, shaving-cream and lotions, cosmetics, razors and razor blades, adhesive bandages and toilet paper and tissues 15. Souvenirs, postcards, stationery, art works and reproductions of art works 16. Timber and goods for use in wood-working 17. Tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, cigarette-papers, cigarette-holders, matches, pipes and pipe-cleaners 18. Tyres and tubes 19. Wallpaper Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The fourteenth of these headings is: Soap, toothpaste, tooth-brushes, shaving-cream and lotions, cosmetics, razors and razor blades, adhesive bandages and toilet paper and tissues. Matches are mentioned three lines down. Last October the previous Minister unveiled a new model which he commended to the House of Assembly. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard also. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Food and beverages; Flowers; Garden requisites, plants, trees, shrubs, seeds and turf; Goods for use in the decoration, renovation or repair of domestic premises, but not including furniture, white goods, domestic electrical appliances, carpets, curtains, floorcoverings, and manchester; Hardware, timber and goods for use in woodworking; Ice; Motor vehicles, bicycles, and parts for motor vehicles, engines and bicycles; Newspapers, books and periodicals; Petrol, fuel-oils and lubricants; Bona fide second-hand goods sold at premises run by non-profit community and charitable organisations; Toilet requisites; Souvenirs, postcards, stationery, art works and reproductions of art works; and Tobacco products and accessories. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The really interesting part is that the Minister wanted to exclude 'furniture, white goods, domestic electrical appliances, carpets, curtains, floor coverings and manchester' from the goods that could be bought, from-and I quote the new model-'Goods for use for the decoration, renovation or repair of domestic premises'. The Minister really wanted to make exemptions distinctive instead of having the previous situation where 80 per cent of goods were no problem in theory and virtually 100 per cent in practice. Naturally, this fervour to introduce the ordinance, the election and the $5,000 donation made to the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association are utterly unconnected! It has become the practice, and still is, for retailers to sell goods to their customers once a form has been filled in declaring: I am making this purchase, for use in the decoration renovation or repair of domestic premises. Some people might even have been buying light globes or designer kitchen kettles. If the customer is always right, surely just about anything can qualify, if not under the heading of house repairs then under that of hobbies and handicraft goods. The Minister wanted to give this last one the chop and to make second-hand goods saleable only if they were 'bona fide' and sold at premises run by non-profit community and charitable organisations. One could expect trouble if one wanted to buy office furniture, and apparently that is what inspectors would ask when they were sent around to have a cup of tea and a friendly chat with the staff and proprietors of shops. They would have to wait until Monday to buy their office furniture. However, these exercises in protecting the public from itself did not come cheap. For instance, a House of Assembly Hansard reveals that a blitz by six inspectors on the long weekend in October 1983 rattled up about 68 hours of work at an all-up cost of $1,700. No one was charged, but the Department did consider taking action against 15 Canberra stores over alleged breaches of the Australian Capital Territory Trading Hours Ordinance. In fact no one was ever charged by the Department. That is right; no one! The only conviction I could find in looking through the records happened to be when a major retailer did not defend a case brought against it last year. It accepted the $200 fine, which was the maximum penalty then for first offenders, after a private citizen who had purchased a citrus juicer laid a complaint. The company was breaching the legislation to draw attention to the lack of action over earlier breaches by others. In recent times the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has periodically laid quite a few complaints, including one celebrated case when a trader was incorrectly summonsed and the case was thrown out on a technicality. Seriously though, I would have thought that when an industry was undergoing vast restructuring those looking after the interests of employees would try to encourage more economic activity and, as a result, more jobs. I also pay tribute to the inspectors and the work of the consumer affairs officers here and around the nation. Eight people are empowered to act as inspectors under the Trading Hours Ordinance 1962. One plays a supervisory role and two others are only called on away from the normal course of events. Of the other five, all of whom have other duties, four handle consumer complaints. Unfortunately for their workload the Australian Capital Territory has neither a small claims tribunal nor a residential tenancy tribunal which would make their work a lot easier. People should not be forced into the courts to uphold their rights in such matters as small claims and residential tenancies. Such provisions are available in Victoria and other States. The latest annual report of the Consumer Affairs Bureau mentions 18,000 consumer inquiries and some 2,700 rental queries in the course of the financial year. Officers providing assistance to the public under this sort of pressure should not be bullied at the Minister's whim, nor should they get the blame for non-enforcement of silly or trifling provisions under ordinances and regulations. I shall leave to others the opportunity to describe the events that followed the Fraser Government's attempt to include the total repeal of the Trading Hours Ordinance 1962 in a Bill submitted during the last days when it had control of the Senate. I look forward to the people of the Australian Capital Territory being able to decide for themselves the shopping hours question in the very near future. A lot of residents are already voting with their wallets on the weekend. Overall takings of over $500,000 in the Fyshwick area alone on a Sunday would probably be an understatement, according to some people with wide industry knowledge. Just under half of Canberra's families have both husband and wife working. Among married couples, 54.8 per cent are two-income families, compared with an Australia-wide average of 40 per cent. Therefore, it is not surprising to see large numbers of families choosing to go out as a group on a Sunday to shop for major items. Only an intolerant society would seek to deny them the opportunity of making up their minds what to buy in a relaxed atmosphere at a time most convenient to them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table comparing the Australian Capital Territory with the rest of Australia in relation to family work patterns. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FAMILY COMPOSITION, MARCH 1985 As a percentage of married couple As a percentage Number families of all families ('000's) Per cent Per cent Australian Capital Territory Married couple families 50.7 87.7 Husband and wife both working: Children 0-14 years present- none 11.4 22.5 19.7 one 6.7 13.2 11.6 two or more 9.7 19.1 16.8 Total 27.8 54.8 48.1 Other families 7.1 Total families 57.8 Australia Married couple families 3,483.4 86.7 Husband and wife both working: Children 0-14 years present- none 662.9 19.0 16.5 one 280.4 8.0 7.0 two or more 450.3 12.9 11.2 Total 1,393.7 40.0 34.7 Other families 536.5 Total families 4,019.9 Compiled at request by the statistics group of the Legislative Research Service from March 1985 Labour Force; Australia and information supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Finally, I wish to bring to the attention of honourable senators the disruption of trade that enforced blitzes by inspectors bring in their wake. A furniture retailer who opens on one Sunday of each month was kind enough to extract some figures from his books for me. In April, on the one Sunday that he opened for business, he took just over 25 per cent of his monthly turnover-on one day. He said that his staff originally talked him into opening on a Sunday; he told me that he would have been just as happy down at the coast. In March, this same retailer did 27 per cent of his business for the month on the one Sunday on which he opened. Interstate manufacturers ring on the Monday morning following such Sundays to find out how it all went and to see whether they can get any more orders. Yet there are people who want to put an end to this sort of enterprise which is obviously in high demand in Canberra. In February, after summonses had been taken out by union officials against various companies, this chap did not open as another blitz was on. His takings fell by $170,000 in that month. The same sort of thing happened in July, November and December of last year. The real losers, it seems to me, were the public of Canberra and those manufacturing, selling and delivering who missed out on the handsome wages and commissions resulting from this sales boom. I think it would be criminal to fine fellows like him $2,000 for the first offence or $5,000 after the second offence. I am sure that most other senators will agree. I urge the disallowance of the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance 1984. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.23) —Many of the reasons for disallowing the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance have been given in the speech which we have just heard from Senator Vigor. Much of the history of trading hours in the Australian Capital Territory has also been given. The Trading Hours Ordinance has operated since 1962. The construction of shops in the Australian Capital Territory has followed the fact that those trading hours existed. The small neighbourhood centres in the Australian Capital Territory trade extensively on the weekends and, in fact, earn a lot of their income then. To deregulate the trading hours totally is something that would need to be phased in gradually. I do not think that there has been much disagreement about the fact that this matter needs to be considered as far as some traders are concerned. I cannot imagine what business government has in fiddling with trading hours. Once government has proceeded along a certain course it has to have some regard for the consequences. It is now fairly plain that in Canberra there are many groups which do not agree with the proposal that trading hours be restricted. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has recently had a debate on this matter. Two meetings were held. Two out of three of its members now favour deregulation of trading hours. It seems that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is planning to make changes. I just cannot imagine how he could have brought in these draconian penalties at the same time as changes were being considered. Undoubtedly, it is a case of putting the cart before the horse. The matter has been explained in part before the House of Assembly. I make the comment that the way in which this Government plays with the House of Assembly is extraordinary. If it suits the Government to place a matter before the House of Assembly, it does so; if it does not suit it, it does not do so. We know what happened to the Casino Control Ordinance. That Ordinance was tabled within 10 days of a Cabinet decision, without going to the House of Assembly. For some reason, the Trading Hours Ordinance was sent to the House of Assembly and these draconian penalties were introduced without the House of Assembly having the full opportunity to debate them. One can only speculate on who was really governing it and pushing it along. Now that we know that self-government is to emerge quite soon, there can be no doubt that this is a local matter that ought to be left to the House of Assembly. Many other matters are being left aside on the pretext that they will be matters for the new Assembly to work out. We are constantly being faced with that excuse. The Government is being totally selective in its attitude to Canberra in regard to the decisions it will make and what it will leave for the future. The matter of trading hours certainly ought to be decided by the House of Assembly if self-government is to proceed. The penalties that would be appropriate for breaches ought to be considered only then. I venture to suggest that some of the penalties that might be suffered for trading out of hours-in fact penalties for working-are far more draconian than many other penalties one is likely to encounter in the courts of the Australian Capital Territory. One only needs to read through the court lists to see that what I say can be substantiated. In one situation under the present Ordinance the unions wanted to prosecute the owner of a shop selling dress materials on a Sunday for being in breach of the Ordinance. Of course, that absurdity did not proceed. Quite clearly-and this is allowable under the present Ordinance which provides these draconian penalties-people buying material from such a shop, especially on Sundays, would want it for a hobby. There are other examples that illustrate graphically that, as has been stated, trading in things which relate to house repair and renovation and hobbies is excluded from the present trading hours restrictions. While the present Ordinance exists with so many grey areas that make it impossible to police and while nobody can be absolutely certain where a number of items fit, it seems extraordinary indeed that the Minister should see fit to increase the penalty for an alleged offence of trading outside the present restricted hours from $200 to $2,000 and, for a second offence, to $5,000. I think the Government ought to have another look at what it is doing. If it has plans for changing the trading hours those plans ought to be made known. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory looked into trading hours and tabled a report entitled 'Retail Trading Hours in the Australian Capital Territory' in August 1982. It recommended that changes be made to the trading hours to increase trading on Saturday afternoons but to leave it still somewhat restricted on Sundays. As honourable senators will remember, there were two minority reports-one by Senator Georges and the other by Mrs Kelly, Mr Fry and Senator Colston. I think those reports indicated the degree of controversy over the question of trading hours. The Committee report indicates quite clearly the deficiencies of the present Ordinance, whether one has restrictions or not. I suggest that to proceed to increase the penalties under the Ordinance is totally unacceptable and, in fact, will not change anything very much because there will still be the same confusion as to what the exemptions really mean. Those exemptions have been incorporated in the Hansard record of this debate so that people may read them. It is clear that people want to shop at weekends. For instance, when the market at the National Exhibition Centre was opened people flocked to it. Now that it has been restricted to Saturday mornings they continue to do so. About 20,000 people go to the Exhibition Centre on any Saturday morning when it is open for trading. Of course, that causes great confusion and chaos on the roads leading to the Centre. No doubt it would be a much more successful and orderly affair if the market were allowed to trade into Saturday afternoon. Changes are needed to the Ordinance. These changes need to be addressed. To start by increasing the penalities for breaches of the Ordinance before cleaning up the Ordinance itself is beyond comprehension. The Ordinance ought to be disallowed. I hope the Senate will disallow it so that the matter can be addressed appropriately. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.30) —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has considered the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance 1984 in its normal course of events. The Committee determined that it was fully in accordance with its principles and that there was no requirement for the Committee to move for its disallowance. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.31) —I have a fair bit of experience in the field of shop trading legislation by reason of my office holding as a member of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association over a large number of years. I note a statement made by Senator Vigor which, I think, should be corrected. He mentioned in passing that the SDA had made a donation to the Australian Labor Party. I think that is irrelevant to this matter by reason of the fact that the SDA has had disputes with governments of all political persuasions on the very vexed issue of shop trading hours. It appears that what is happening here is nothing less than a veiled attack on the concept of shop trading legislation or, in this case, ordinances. If we have a policy for legislation to regulate shop trading hours we require, as is the case with other legislation, adequate penalties to ensure the enforcement of the law, especially in this case. In this case the incentives for persons to breach the law are very real indeed; they are financial incentives. If a retailer can breach the law, and thus take advantage of his situation in the commercial market, he will do so at great profit to him and to the disadvantage of those traders who are observing the law. Any parliament that takes seriously the legislation before it must ensure that it is obeyed and observed. I understand, of course, that that is a matter for the Executive arm of government but it is important for the legislative arm to ensure there are penalties in the legislation which would dissuade those who might be tempted, for profit motives in this case, to breach the law. The proposal to disallow the Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance 1984 is not supported by an objective test; that is, the test which is required in this case by legislators to ensure that the law is observed. We should provide a penalty which would dissuade anyone who may be tempted, through profit motives, to breach the law. At present the penalty for breaching the law is simply a pittance; it is only two hundred bucks. That is petty cash to the likes of major retailers. Senator Robert Ray —They put $2m into an election campaign in Victoria. Senator HARRADINE —Of course. It is petty cash. What is two hundred bucks? It is nothing to major retailers. Let us always remember that it is not always the small traders who are at the forefront of the campaign for open slather trading; by and large it is the major retailers. That certainly has been the experience throughout the length and breadth of Australia and I would assume it would be the experience here because if there is open slather trading, that will lead to a monopoly situation developing. If there is open slather trading, it means we will have the law of the jungle; the survival of the fittest. The fittest in the retail trade are, of course, the giant retailers. They are the fittest and they will soon send to the wall the small retailers, to whom the Australian Democrats give lip service. I point out to the Democrats that there has been, certainly in my State, a major campaign by small retailers to prevent the extension of trading hours because they know that the ultimate result of that is that they will be sent to the wall by the major retailers. Let us look at what will occur with employment. A number of surveys have been conducted and all of these surveys that I have seen-and I think I have seen most, if not all of them-have shown that the result of open slather trading is a decline in full time job opportunities in the retail trade and the extension of the casualisation of the industry, including the recruitment and employment of school kids. This should be another matter of concern to this chamber when considering a proposal like this. By voting for the disallowance are we really promoting a situation where the current law can be ignored with impunity? Two hundred bucks is what I would call impunity. It is nothing to these people. I believe that we should very carefully consider this and be very sure of what we do. I believe that if we vote for the disallowance we will leave in place an Ordinance which has inadequate protection for those people who want to observe the law and we will give undue preference to those majors who seek to breach the law, a breach for which they will not, by our decision, receive any reasonable penalty. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.39) —I rise to comment very briefly on this matter. I oppose the disallowance of this Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance for a very good reason. Senator Vigor seems to have some view about the future of Australia being a matter of changing the nature of people's work. Senator Vigor's view of the future is not a view that I agree with. If he believes, for example, that Sunday is something that should be turned into a Dalek holiday where families, instead of going on picnics, playing sport and moving out into the big wide world, in fact spend their day in a K-Mart waltzing around buying goods, then he has a different view from what I believe families ought to be doing. Also, he has tended to underestimate the whole problem of what happens when a whole industry is casualised. If Senator Vigor believes that the whole question of shopping should be one in which a section of the working population is forced to be available seven days a week on a casual basis, when and where employers decide, that is his view. It certainly does not agree with mine. Senator Harradine has already referred to the casualisation of the industry around Australia, where about half a dozen major conglomerates are deciding the work patterns of a very significant proportion of the population. Something like 16,000 people in Tasmania alone work in the retail trades industry and their livelihood is dominated by about five or six major companies. The same pattern applies in all other States. Those companies wish to have seven-day a week trading because it suits them ultimately to knock off penalty rates. They want to ensure that they can bring people into and out of work when it suits them and run their operations on the basis of employing a very high proportion of juniors. They want to run their operations on the basis of employing casual employees who are brought on for two days at the heaviest time of the week and then put off, let us say, on Monday and Tuesday. Those companies, in fact, do not really care about their employees. Employees are put off, for example, when they turn 18 years of age. There is a pattern there that I find reprehensible. If that is the sort of society which Senator Vigor wants, if that is what he wants in the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia, he is entitled to support that type of approach. That is not the vision that I have of the future. It is all very well for people who have some American and European ideas and who believe that somehow or other the people of this country are going to move towards a total free market flexible labour situation to have their say. Such a concept looks pretty good but over the years a family and work pattern has been built up in this country which I find appropriate. In other words, if one wishes to operate as people do in certain parts of London and take Thursday off, work Saturday morning and then take Saturday afternoon and Sunday off-and it is almost impossible for a fairly large family actually to go anywhere as a family on a weekend-that is one's choice. I just happen to believe that by historical accident and by a certain amount of activity on the part of the union movement in this country, weekends have been made an important part of family life and of people's personal development. Senator Chipp —Penalty rates have also made thousands of workers unemployed-thousands and thousands. Senator AULICH —I do not believe that that is the case. The honourable senator indicates that penalty rates in fact have prevented further employment in certain industries. I believe that he ought to look very carefully at the cost of penalty rates in the tourist industry. I understand that three years ago the figure quoted for the on-cost of penalty rates in the tourist industry was 50c a room per night. Is that a cost which is going to disemploy people, if I can use that term? Is that a cost which is going to prevent further employment in the tourist industry? The situation certainly has not changed. Senator Chipp —How many restaurants have closed at weekends because of that? How many restaurants remain open on Sundays? Senator Lewis —You try to get a feed on a Sunday. Senator AULICH —Mr Acting Deputy President, I believe that the interjections are getting too strong at this stage. People are simply dropping one line prejudices into this chamber and that is not the kind of debate in which I wish to be involved. I wish to indicate clearly my total opposition on a personal basis to the disallowance proposal we are now considering because it is inconsistent with the approach of the Australian Labor Party that has been taken in every State of Australia. I had a personal responsibility in Tasmania for bringing in shop trading legislation. I suggest that in fact other States have a look at some of that legislation which combines both the flexibility that some people in this chamber want with a protection for families and workers that I believe is appropriate. I have made plain my personal disagreement with the proposal that Senator Vigor has put forward. I indicate clearly that there are broader ramifications for some of the issues that he raised which will certainly be raised in State parliaments in the near future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.45) —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Firstly, let me congratulate you on your appointment as a Temporary Chairman of Committees. It is a great pity that honourable senators come into this place and air their prejudices by opening a general debate on shop trading hours at weekends when they really do not know what they are talking about in relation to the Australian Capital Territory Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance. Notwithstanding that Senator Harradine believes, apparently, that the only way to control big business is to impose major penalties on big business, the truth of the matter is-- Senator Harradine —I did not say that and you know it. Senator LEWIS —That was the implication of what the honourable senator was saying. The truth is that, notwithstanding that the penalties for trading out of hours in the Australian Capital Territory are fairly insignificant, so there could be open slather, to use Senator Harradine's words, the major retailers close at 12 noon on Saturday and do not reopen until Monday morning. Food shops, such as Woolworths, are open on Saturday afternoons until 5 o'clock and that is of great convenience to many people who live in the Australian Capital Territory. As is the case in most capital cities nowadays, people who are working in their homes during the weekends are able to shop at hardware stores which are open all weekends. Notwithstanding that the penalties are insignificant, the truth is that the law is obeyed because, believe it or not, some people do obey the law regardless of how large the penalty is. That is the first point I make. The second point is very simple. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has endeavoured to put the cart before the horse. The Minister has written a letter, I think to all of us-perhaps he has written only to me-in the following terms: It is my intention to introduce the amendments-- these are the amendments to the trading hours- as soon as possible after the agreement of the ACT House of Assembly is obtained. The first amendment will extend trading on Saturday afternoons until 4.00 p.m. The current legislation restricts trading to 12 noon. He then talked about proposed amendments to trading hours that he will introduce. I say that he has the cart before the horse. The Minister ought to clarify the Trading Hours Ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory, which is an absolute shambles. Once that is clarified he can bring in a provision-or he may include it in that Ordinance-as to what the penalties ought to be in order to implement those trading hours. So it is wrong and it is nonsense to be imposing substantial increases in penalties at this stage when even the Minister concedes that the Trading Hours Ordinance is a shambles. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.48) —I move: That the debate be adjourned until a later hour this day. Senator Chipp —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Before we vote on that motion, can the Minister advance any reasons for it so that we can consider the reasons before we vote? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not a point of order, but the Minister may care to reply. Senator RYAN —I tend to find myself in agreement with the points put forward in the debate to date. The Trading Hours (Amendment) Ordinance under discussion has not reduced anomalies and has perhaps created more anomalies. I find myself in agreement with the view that if this Ordinance were to be disallowed we would have an opportunity to look at the whole matter afresh, have further consultations with the local community, the trade union movement and so on, and perhaps produce something which better serves the needs of the community than this Ordinance appears to do. I have simply moved for the deferral of the debate at this stage because there are other views not at hand at the moment. Therefore, I am unable to convey them to the Senate. Senator Chipp —Do you mean the Minister? Senator RYAN —No, I am seeking to have the matter adjourned until a later hour, but it is up to the Senate to determine whether that will be done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(10.50) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Whether the claim by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that certain information should not be made available to Senate Estimates Committee C, on the ground of commercial confidentiality, is justified. At the Estimates Committee C hearing on 15 March this year the Australian Broadcasting Corporation declined to provide information about the salaries paid to staff on the program The National on the ground of commercial confidentiality. Estimates committees cannot receive information on a confidential basis. For this reason Estimates Committee C was unable to receive the material confidentially and to make a decision as to whether the claim for commercial confidentiality was justified. To overcome this problem the Committee decided to move the motion for reference of the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to enable the matter to be determined. This morning when I arrived at my office there was a note on my desk asking me to call the ABC. I did so and I was assured by the officer to whom I spoke that the ABC had no problems about providing the information requested, provided that confidentiality could be assured. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.51) —I opposed this matter being dealt with as a formal motion because I understood that the reference was a very narrow one and I wanted to express my reluctance about the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations being involved in a very particular matter merely because an Estimates committee was miffed at not being given a piece of juicy information about one newsreader's income. I thought that the general principle ought first to be determined. I have discovered, now that I have been able to read the terms of the motion that has been moved, that this to some extent is what the motion seeks. I think it needs to be determined whether statutory authorities, especially business authorities, ought to be allowed to enter into contracts with people who work for them rather than insist that everyone be paid a salary at an award rate, and whether they should claim commercial confidentiality. One of the problems is that the Estimates committees hold their hearings in public. We would need to determine the extent to which that commercial confidentiality is reasonable and whether the information should therefore be provided. I do not accept that what might have been decided by the Senate in 1971 or in some other year should automatically stand forever. But I am happy for the Committee on Finance and Government Operations to look at the general principle. For a while I was under the impression that Senator Primmer was part of the Chaney conspiracy to overload the Committee and its staff. But now that I understand the situation, of course, I forgive him. I inform the Senate that the Committee is trying desperately to finish the half a dozen references that are before it before Senator Jack Evans finishes his term on 30 June. That is our priority at the moment. The Committee is working flat out to do so. I inform members of the Estimates Committee that the matter will not necessarily be able to be dealt with quickly. It was suggested earlier that I might be tempted to call for a division on this matter. I reassure the Whip that I will not be doing so. As far as I am concerned, the matter can be referred to the Committee, but it is not something to which we would be able to give an answer in a couple of days. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.54) —I welcome Senator Coates's apparent support for this motion. It is good to see him lifting his game in this way and being prepared to undertake this work. Senator Ryan —Don't be patronising. Senator CHANEY —Don't be silly, Senator. That follows a series of discussions, and I am very glad that Senator Coates will not split the Australian Labor Party on this issue. It would have cost me my debating point that members on the other side of the House do not have principles, and that they never vote against a Caucus decision. A very serious issue has been raised by Senator Primmer in his motion. I think the Senate has always agreed that it is necessary for statutory authorities to be accountable for public monies. There is a general conflict of principle over commercial confidentiality. On a quick examination of what happened in the early 1970s, it seems to me that the matter has not been completely dealt with and I think committee examination is warranted. I commend the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(10.56) —This is a resumption of the debate on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1985, a Bill which sets up the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, as well as providing for national standards of codes and practices. When I was cut off in my prime last night before completing my address I was replying to some remarks by Senator Sheil. I think I replied to them all, but before I move to the substantive debate I should say to Senator Sheil that this is the only area I am aware of where the Queensland Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions agree. For a National Party senator that might have been a persuasive reason why he would find the charity within himself to support this Government measure. In terms of observers of politics, I think it is a rarity to get such a wide cross-section of consensus. On this occasion the magical consensus has been found. The Queensland Government, in common with all other State governments, the main employer bodies, the union movement and the Commonwealth Government all agree on this legislation. Only the Opposition disagrees, and it is a rather ingenuous Opposition indeed. I return to the substantive debate. Occupational health and industrial democracy are two features of the ACTU-Australian Labor Party prices and incomes accord. That accord is responsible for underpinning the Government's economic policies. It is the key player in bringing inflation down and reducing industrial dispute. Last year it caused the Government to achieve an economic growth rate of 5.1 per cent compared with an economic growth rate in the last year of the Fraser administration of 0.9 per cent. It is the basis on which this country's economic progress has been built. One aspect of the accord is that the Government is to proceed with occupational health and safety legislation. It has done so by taking that matter to the National Labour Consultative Council, a tripartite body, reaching an agreement with all the main players in industrial relations, resulting in this legislation. That should be fundamentally recognised as a strong basis for this legislation gaining comprehensive support in this Parliament. The legislation proposes not to enforce standards but to provide a mechanism in which national research information evidence can be taken as to what standards should exist, setting an example through those standards to encourage industry, including unions and employers, to live up to those standards and improve the general occupational health and safety provisions in our wider community. For anyone who is interested in the industrial relations debate-and I know that a number of Opposition senators often parade themselves as experts on that subject-one key matter that should be emphasised in industrial relations is finding areas in which employers and unions can agree and, by developing those agreements, encouraging a greater feeling of trust to emerge between both parties, a better rock upon which to build a firmer understanding where there is dispute. If a reservoir of trust or goodwill is established by working together positively in areas in the mutual interests of both parties, that reservoir of goodwill which can help resolve complex and difficult disputation when it arises can only be to the good. If one casts around one's mind for areas of mutual interest, certainly one is training and improvement of skills in industry, including apprenticeship training, and overwhelmingly the area of occupational health and safety is another. I would have expected more support from the Opposition for this legislation. It represents an effort in the work place, backed by government, aimed at the emergence of a greater degree of co-operation at the coal face of industrial relations, on the shop floor. That must improve the general standard of industrial relations in Australia as well as lower the loss time to industry and avoid the necessity for people to suffer the debilitating accidents that occur, the diseases that arise and, unfortunately, in many cases the deaths that occur. Some 300 people were killed last year when working in industry in Australia. Having made those points, I am somewhat perplexed that the general thrust of the Opposition's position is that nothing should be done. Opposition members commiserate and articulate a general concern about the matter but oppose this legislation. They suggest that it is best to let the market decide. One normally could understand that view from the Opposition, but there is a clearly established need for standards to be set to provide some leadership to the market. If that had not been the case in the past, we would have the exploitative behaviour-not by all but by some employers-which has resulted in gross exploitation, gross dereliction of safety requirements and diseases developing in industry which are not desirable. This legislation provides the leadership on a tripartite basis to help employers and unions lift their game and save this nation a major and debilitating loss to its productivity from industrial accidents and disease. I turn to some of the major arguments used in opposition to this legislation by coalition speakers. One of the main themes in the remarks of Opposition members is that this Bill represents an attack by the Labor Party on employers. That is a ridiculous assertion, but Opposition speakers have paraded this fiction under a number of headings and tried to portray ALP members as haters of employers. That is not a credible proposition anywhere, and certainly not in this chamber. The Hawke Labor Government has done more than any previous government to provide formal recognition of employer organisations. It was this Government which set up the Economic Planning Advisory Council and which gave employer organisations a role in helping to manage the economy by harnessing the intelligence, goodwill and enthusiasm of the social partners and in getting a more consensus oriented approach to the economic settings for Australia. There are a number of other examples of cases in which this Government has given formal recognition to employers in order that they may play their role more effectively on behalf of their own organisations. The other point that makes a mockery of the allegation that this is an attack on employers is, of course, the very fact that employers agree with this legislation. I vividly recall the time when I was fortunate and privileged to be a member of the National Labor Consultative Council, chaired by the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Macphee. It was the employers-my recollection is that this came from Bryan Noakes, who is now in the Confederation of Australian Industry-who raised in the first place the suggestion that legislation of this type was necessary. This Government is bringing to fruition an initiative that the employers themselves undertook. The other aspect that make ridiculous the argument that this is an attack on employers is that although this legislation is an attack on some employers, the responsible organisation of employers, the Confederation of Australian Industry, recognises that unfortunately, as in any general organisation representing many interests, some do not play the game. Most of them do, and the Confederation wants to see the standards and respect of those who do the right and proper thing upheld, and the singling out of those who do not play the game. They should not have a competitive advantage over those who do things properly simply because they cut corners and avoid health and safety regulations which would protect the work force. There are some employers, it must be admitted, who do not play the game, and the employers themselves argue that such people should be brought to book and made to observe the standards. I think no one would argue that something ought not to be done about employers who do not observe safety provisions, who are, in fact, quite happy to acquiesce to industrial diseases spreading in their industry or who have a high accident rate, because they tarnish the image of employers generally. As I have said, most employers are conducting themselves in a proper way. The ones who are not are dragging down the general image and they are the ones about whom this legislation is concerned. Having dealt with that proposition, let me deal with an argument developed by the Opposition spokesman for employment and industrial relations, Mr Peter Shack, in the House of Representatives. He battened on to what he regarded, in his reply to the second reading speech, as a defect in this legislation. The tenor of his remarks was that clause 38, which he singled out, would enforce unnecessary regulation upon employers, the emphasis being on the word 'enforce'. If one reads the qualifications in the speech of Mr Shack one can see that he made ridiculous his own proposition. He acknowledged that clause 38 of this legislation provides for standards to be agreed upon and that the standards and codes are advisory only. I think it is useful to go to the explanatory memorandum to see exactly what clause 38 is about. That memorandum describes it in these terms: The Commission's principal functions under this Bill are to investigate occupational health and safety matters; to collect, compile and analyse the best available information; and, through this process, to declare national standards and codes of practice. It is this provision that Mr Shack and other speakers from the Opposition find objectionable. I think that the terms of the provision indicate that it is eminently reasonable. It is only because Mr Shack finds that it might be somehow sneakily possible for unions to insert in awards what those declared national standards are, that Mr Shack sees a way for something awful to happen. I think that is a ridiculous proposition. The codes and the standards that would be declared by this Commission, given its composition, would be agreed to tripartitely and with medical, ergonomic and other expert evidence as well. The standards that are to be agreed on are standards of which all the key players in the industrial relations field would approve. That is the first point. The second point is that if those standards were to find their way into awards-that is a quite proper thing to occur-they would do so by consent and agreement between unions and employers in a particular work place. Indeed, that may be a very good thing to have happen in order to develop those standards more and more and to apply, modify and shape those standards to suit the needs of an award or industry. But I make the point that they would find their way into awards by consent. The other possible way in which they would find their way into awards would be by arbitration. Knowing the record of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on these matters-it is a record in which the Commission is constantly cautious and conservative-I believe it would move and be persuaded to impose those standards by arbitration only if there was a serious record of neglect or a serious accident problem in an area. Then and only then could it be moved, on the basis of the facts and the record, to do something about trying to lift the game in that industry. In regard to Mr Shack's argument I conclude by citing one other thing and that is that, in fact, most reputable employers impose standards upon themselves which are in advance of the standards that this legislation might cause to be proclaimed. They do so because they recognise, fundamentally, that it is better to have a safe work place in order to lower the overheads due to workers compensation insurance and the costs of lost time to their industry, not to mention the damage to their own work force caused by accidents or disease, and they self-regulate effectively. Those employers would not be at all worried by any standards that might be imposed by award arbitration on employers who do not observe the reasonable levels of behaviour. Those employers drag down the whole accident rate and those unreasonable employers-the corner-cutters-are the ones who need to be prodded into, in fact, conducting themselves in a good and proper way if they are to help this economy to develop by removing the debilitating burden of accidents that reduce our productivity levels. There is another and, I think, interesting argument. It was referred to by Senator Sheil yesterday. I did not have the pleasure of hearing Senator Messner's address, but doubtless he would have referred, because, indeed, Mr Shack did, to the argument of the reversal of onus of proof. Senator Sheil intimated that the reversal of onus of proof is a disgusting thing to have in legislation. I say quite clearly that the reversal of onus of proof is, in fact, very problematic and one ought to be extremely careful where it is prescribed in legislation. I agree with that. I point out for the benefit of Senator Sheil, a National Party senator from Queensland, that if he feels as passionately about the reversal of onus of proof as his speech yesterday betrayed he did, maybe he should talk to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen about the reversal of onus of proof in industrial legislation in Queensland. I am sure that all the people of Australia would applaud him if he would bring his offices to bear on that Premier. The legislation in the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute shows that the reversal of onus of proof provision has been resorted to. People have to prove that they did not do certain things. That is, indeed, disgusting. Whilst the reversal of onus of proof is a problematic argument, there can be no justification, no matter what concern for the social good there might be, for the Queensland reversal of onus of proof in the industrial legislation in that State. Let me now turn to the reversal of onus of proof which is involved in this legislation. Let me start the excursion into the analysis of the reversal by saying once again-I know I am being repetitious but, nonetheless, this needs to be put on the record-That this legislation is agreed to by the employers and they have come to this Government in support of it. So, in this case, the reversal of onus of proof provision has the support of the leading employer organisations in Australia. I suggest that those employers would not move to accept a reversal of onus of proof position which might prejudice some employers unless they were convinced that the reasons for moving to such a position were good and valid reasons. The reversal of onus of proof matter was referred to, as Senator Sheil pointed out, in the Alert Digest of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. For those who are interested, the reference is page 36 of No. 4 of 1985 produced on 8 May 1985. The unfortunate aspect about the reference made yesterday in the debate to the Scrutiny of Bills report is that there was no real, comprehensive reading of what, in fact, that report said. There was just a reference to it being raised as a problem and then the bigoted argument was put that, therefore, it should be deleted. I think it is necessary, in fact, to visit page 36 and look and see what exactly the Scrutiny of Bills Committee said because it answers the general proposition put by Senator Sheil and other speakers in this debate. Page 36 states: Sub-clause 52 (2) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss, or to threaten to dismiss, an employee from his or her employment, or to prejudice, or to threaten to prejudice, an employee in his or her employment, because the employee has given evidence, or proposes to give evidence, at an inquiry. That provision exists to protect witnesses from having retribution visited upon them because they went forward and gave evidence which this inquiry would need to set national standards. We should bear in mind that these are employees and that the range of subtle measures or pressures that an employer can bring to bear on an employee who wants to testify about unsafe practices in the work place is immense, because the employer basically has the right of hire and fire and the very job of the employee is at risk if he comes forward to an independent body like this Commission and testifies that there are unsafe practices in the work place. There is an absolute need to protect the integrity of witnesses and the quality of evidence in those circumstances. Not only is it a matter of the employees' very jobs; an employer can retard promotion, transfer employees to remote areas and do all sorts of subtle things to discourage honesty and proper evidence being given to an independent commission. Only in circumstances where there is that coercive power of employers to qualify evidence is there this reversal of the onus of proof. The other thing that has to be said is that we should go a little further into the Scrutiny of Bills Digest to see what else the Committee says. I shall pick up my quotation from where I left it: By virtue of sub-clause 52 (4) an employer charged with this offence is to bear the burden of proving that the employee in question was not dismissed, prejudiced or threatened because he or she gave evidence or proposed to give evidence if it is established that the employee was dismissed, prejudiced or threatened with dismissal or prejudice and that before that occurred he or she gave evidence or proposed to give evidence . . . Having established that, what does the Scrutiny of Bills Committee say? After citing a number of other Bills in which this is allowed, it says: The Committee . . . has accepted the argument that the reversal of the onus of proof is necessary for the proper protection of witnesses since it is very difficult to prove that a person has been dismissed for a particular reason. The reversal of the onus of proof was accepted by the Committee. I know that Senator Sheil raised the matter as if it was not accepted, but the fact is that it was, although the Committee went on to debate whether there should be an evidential burden or a persuasive burden. That is an interesting argument, but the Committee did not recommend that the persuasive burden inherent in this legislation should be changed. It drew our attention to it but did not recommend that it be changed. There is one other very good reason why this Senate should consider that it not be changed. If coercive pressure is put on witnesses to give evidence, the type and quality of evidence coming forward would not be the necessary type and quality of evidence to rely upon in making proper decisions. We are talking about occupational health and safety. If the evidence is wrong the risk of decisions which impose hazards in the work place becomes serious, and it is in those circumstances that the reversal of proof is considered. I conclude by saying that $6 billion was wasted last year through loss of production associated with occupational injury. Three hundred people were killed and 150,000 injured at work. They are of themselves substantive reasons why the Senate should deliberate very soberly on and, hopefully, support unanimously legislation to reduce not only loss of production but also the heavy burden on the maimed, the wounded, the sick, the ill and the dead because of industrial diseases in this country. The framework we are setting up does that. I commend the legislation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.18) — The subject, safe working practices and surroundings and the need to ensure that employees suffer no physical or psychological impairment as a consequence of their employment, is not a matter of dispute between the Opposition and the Government. It never has been. The Opposition's record on this has been absolutely clear since Federation. Despite the agreement on the topic and the importance of it, the Opposition is totally opposed to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill. It is totally opposed because the legislation is unnecessary, misguided, extravagantly expensive and is therefore wasteful. The Bill has far too wide an ambit. The powers involved are far wider than are needed for the task, and the draconian, medieval penalties needed to support those wide powers are entirely unsupportable. In short, we see no justification for the time of the Parliament to be taken up with legislation like this. I said that it was unnecessary legislation. It is unnecessary because there is no argument advanced and there is no argument that can be sustained to suggest that this is not a field purely for the State governments. It is not a field for the Federal Government to be legislating heavily into in the way it is. I would like some speakers on the other side to show me the relevant clause in the Constitution that justifies the Commonwealth's entry into this field. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), when he introduced this legislation in the other place, admitted that 160 statutes covering the same topic were on the Australian statute book. There is an enormous amount of legislation. We on this side of the chamber would not argue for one minute that that legislation was the best legislation that could be on the books. Quite obviously we are dealing with a dynamic field and, in a technological environment, technology is always ahead of the legislation being brought in. Clearly it is desirable that we have national standards, and agreement as to what can be done. That gives the key to what the Federal Government should be doing. The Federal Government should not be overarching, to use the phrase that Senator Sheil used-a beautiful piece of journalese we can thank the Australian Labor Party for-but should be negotiating with and counselling the State governments, getting together to co-ordinate the legislation for the benefit of the Australian industrial scene. The Labor Party made a great thing out of the fact that this Bill is not an interventionist Bill, that it will not affect anyone and that, like motherhood, it will be for the benefit of all. Yet the most cursory reading of the Bill would cause a reasonable person to be very worried about the great interventionist properties inherent in it. The whole tenor of the Bill is, frankly, interventionist. To maintain, the way the Government does, that it is purely a Bill that will enable the Federal Government to operate in an advisory capacity in this field is almost breathtaking in its effrontery. The Federal responsibility here, as I said a few minutes ago, is to work with and through the States and encourage them to co-operate in this most important field. That is why it is unnecessary legislation. It is also misguided legislation. We simply cannot legislate to make people be safe. It is a matter of education and, until one has the patience, intelligence and the communicative skills to make a case clearly to everyone involved-employers and employees-all the legislation in the world will not be completely effective. If we have the patience and the time, to explain and to educate and to bring employers and employees to the point of view that they have a common interest in making work places and work practices as safe as is humanly possible, we will achieve the goal. But I repeat: We cannot legislate to make people safe any more than we can legislate to make people follow the law. Here we come to one of the fatal weaknesses of the Labor Party in government. It is very much part of the Labor ethos that all problems can be solved if it legislates, preferably through some central authority in Canberra. The second string to the Labor ethos is that if it has enough money or throws money at a problem it will go away and be solved instantly. It is the classical cheque book fixer of social ills. Yet we have known from time immemorial that things are not solved by the application of money alone. The other point I made about the legislation is that it is extravagantly expensive. This is the week of the mini-Budget. We have had all the hype through the preceding months about how this Government is going to cut expenditure and save the taxpayer. Well it might, because it is the biggest taxing and biggest spending Government with the biggest deficits, of any peacetime government in Australia. But how hollow those charges are in the face of this vast new and unnecessary quango. As a result of the Minister's own statement we will appoint a commissioner and we will have a 17-man board. The administrative cost of that is enormous. We would not know what it was, but it would cost half a million or a million dollars a year just for the top echelon to operate. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will have 300 employees. By the conservative estimate of the Minister it will cost $24m this year and $41m next year. What will it cost next year, in real terms-$41m, or $61m? You can bet your boots that in three or four years time it will probably cost in excess of $100m. It is absolutely absurd for the time of this Parliament to have been taken up with all this nonsense about saving expenditure when we have this wild extravagance on a body which we do not need. The money will not come from out of the air. The Commission will be paid for by the Australian community. It will be paid for directly by way of income tax and company tax. The $24m this year, the $41m next year and the escalating cost from then on will be paid directly through taxes. It will have an indirect effect, financially, in two ways: Firstly, the Bill provides that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission can charge for its services. So we will have the Gilbertian situation of people-such as Senator Cook, when he was in the union movement-walking into a factory and saying: 'Either you agree to my demands in relation to safety precautions or I will pull the plug and we will all go on strike'. There will be disruption in the work place and then the next day in the mail there will be an invoice-a fee for payment-for somebody not pulling the workers out on strike the day before. Secondly, there will be an enormous amount of harassment, such as time taken up while inspectors go through the place and see what the operating procedures are, top management being tied up talking to petty officials all the time and the filling in of innumerable forms day after day, at a cost, in real terms, to the company involved. As I said earlier, there will be the absolute blackmail of union representatives or a representative of the Commission going to a work place and saying, at critical times, the way union representatives are very skilled in doing: 'You agree to this condition or we will go on strike'. That is the old concrete-pour mentality of the Builders Labourers Federation. The Government will write a cheque for that type of action through the whole industrial world of Australia. The fourth point I raise concerns the wide powers which are contained in the Bill. This Bill goes everywhere through Australian industry. There are no limits to it. The Bill provides that the Commission has the power to recommend that some of its findings be incorporated in industrial awards. Once we get into the area of industrial awards, again we allow the union officials to enter premises. Again, we have harassment and disruption, to no good purpose, in industry. Mark my words: No one believes that the introduction of this National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will reduce in a statistically significant way the death rate or the morbidity rate in Australian industry and that is what it is all about. On the subject of wide powers, we find the old hoary chestnut of support for international conventions-in this case, support for the International Labour Organisation convention on safety practices. There is nothing less that Australia needs than to get into bed with the ILO. As I said here a few weeks ago and as I put on the record, I got overwhelming support from all around Australia to the notion that Australia abandon its membership and withdraw from the ILO. I reaffirm that point. There is a very strong feeling in the community that we should get out of it. The last thing that we should be doing is going along hand in hand with its conventions for safety proposals. We are able to determine what the appropriate standards in Australia are. After all, we have led the world in this area, and during the great majority of years since Federation that has been under Liberal governments. It is not the Australian Labor Party that has lifted the standards of living or safety in the work place in this country. We do not need to conform to the Utopian views of the Socialist Internationale as expressed through the International Labour Organisation on this matter. We are well able to look after ourselves. On the subject of powers, we get to the quite draconian penalties that the Bill involves. The Commission has the power to summon witnesses and to seize documents. The power does not extend only to people who are directly involved in any dispute; it has a very wide ambit as to whom it can drag before the courts. Senator Sheil raised the point that the Commission can support people who make any complaint-whether real or imaginary-and protect those people, particularly those who make false charges, from any censure by the management. These are things that no reasonable person would support. All this is backed up by penalties of $1,000 or six months in gaol. The possibility for abuse under this legislation, to the detriment of the general good welfare of society, is quite enormous. In the debate that has taken place here, I have to compliment Senator Sheil and Senator Messner for the cases which they have put. They have left me with very little to say about this legislation. The Australian Democrats, as usual, have supported the Labor Party and, at the same time, criticised the legislation in a way that is totally illogical. One can only assume that since all the Labor speakers on this are from the Left and the far Left, it is a matter of great interest to the Government that the legislation goes through. It has said to the Democrats 'We want this legislation', so the Democrats, once more, have been the sycophantic followers. I think that the kindest thing that can be said about the Labor Party's argument in this place is that it is an academic argument of people who have no involvement or experience in industry and, at worst, is mischievous. I have had an interest in industrial affairs in factories and manufacturing processes that goes back for over 30 years. I have looked at conditions of work and employment all around the world-not only in Australia. One ought to make the general observation that while the thrust of the Labor argument has been that management is at fault, that is not the whole picture. It is not the whole picture by a long way. Quite clearly, at times management succumbs to economic pressures. There are greedy manufacturers-there is no argument about that-and we do not defend those people. The overwhelming picture in Australia is one of management awareness of the needs to operate safely and carefully and to preserve the health of the work force. I do not believe that argument can be challenged. The other point of view is not mentioned; that is, that the employees are not always co-operative in regard to safety measures. It does not matter whether those people are employed in the rural industry or the manufacturing industry. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would know, a property owner can tell his farm workers or people on the station to follow certain procedures, to wear gloves, to not inhale fumes and all the rest of it when applying poison, but his workers will go down the paddock and operate without any respect for common sense and safety procedures. Precisely the same thing occurs in both urban and industrial operations. A proportion of the work force will not recognise the dangers of what they are doing, no matter how many times they are told. I guess this gets back to the earlier argument I made about the impossibility of legislating for a 100 per cent success rate. We are dealing here with human relations. Human nature simply cannot be confined or controlled by legislation. It does not matter how draconian the legislation is. A simple example is the way in which people persist in sun bathing on the beach or persist in smoking. There is an enormous amount of service on those dangers. When one goes overseas one sees women in their thirties and forties, let alone in their fifties, in the cooler temperate climates of England and North America and one compares their skin with the skin of Australian women who engage in excessive sunbathing on the beach. They end up with deep mahogany tans by the end of Christmas. One sees the way it affects the appearance of Australian women later in their lives. There is positive evidence on the dangers of skin cancer, skin ageing and so on from excessive solar radiation. But one still goes to the beaches around Australia and finds them packed. You cannot even walk between the bodies during the holiday periods. Of course the same applies to lung cancer and smoking. I think it is rather interesting that one honourable senator who spoke on this Bill and who knows better smokes. Yet that honourable senator stood up here yesterday and talked about industrial safety. One other thing I wish to refer to in a general way is the incidence of industrial deaths and the cost of industrial accidents in Australia. Three hundred deaths a year are attributed to industrial accidents. We deplore that loss of life. We deplore even more, those who are incapacitated. I think the morbidity resulting from avoidable injury in the industrial scene is deplorable. I refer not so much to the loss of limb-I think people can cope with that-but incapacitated people such as quadriplegics and those suffering cerebral impairment from head injuries, for example. That is the terrible part of industrial injury because it is a continuing burden for their families and for society to bear. I do not agree with one of the honourable senators from the Labor side who said that the figure of 300 deaths was a vague figure. I think that the statistical procedures in this country are sound enough for us to be reasonably sure that that is the correct figure. However, the cost of $6 billion to society resulting from industrial accidents and injury is a real one. I must say, however, that while it is a true cost, the cost of those injuries could really be brought down. I am saying that the operation of workers compensation and invalidity schemes, particularly those applying to Commonwealth employees, provide no incentive for people to avoid a classification of invalidity. Thus more people end up being invalided out on pensions than would be so if that incentive were not built into the legislation. This is something I wish the Government would look at. I guess what I am saying is that the Government should take a longer view and examine the effect of the legislation rather than being carried away in its warm feelings and obvious good intentions in relation to this. Once again, as on so many matters, the Labor Party never takes the long term view. The Labor Party looks at society today, sees the immediate problems in front of us and gives no recognition to where communities come from. The Labor Party does not look at the problem in perspective. It does not look at the past, see what might be possible in the future and make a balanced judgment. The argument advanced by Senator Sheil is a very real one in relation to the vast improvements attained in industrial safety in Australia. In 200 years we have come an enormous way down the path, but we are nowhere near the end. The scientific base, in its broader sense, is getting bigger and bigger every day so that more and more things are known, particularly in relation to industrial society. Many of the practices we regard as safe today I have no doubt will be viewed with great disfavour in the future. I do not take a pessimistic view because I think we have come a long way although, in no way, have we reached the end of the line. I think we are just starting. Finally I come back to the point that the Government is blandly deceptive when it says that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will be purely advisory. My goodness, a $14m advisory body. Does the Government really believe that the body will be advisory when it is proposed that 300 people will be working for it? The Commission is an ideological solution for some groups in the Labor Party. It makes them feel good to go down that path. I think a few members of the Labor Party have mischievous intentions with respect to the operation of Australian industry. The establishment of the Commission represents a cosmetic approach and does not get to the heart of the problem. The final word must rest with the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills because some conclusions of that Committee were misquoted by Senator Cook. As honourable senators know, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has a majority of Labor members. The Committee's report on the National Occupational Health and Safety Bill is very interesting. The Committee has drawn attention to three clauses. Since the matter has been misquoted I will quote from the record the conclusions in relation to the three clauses. Clause 52 concerns the reversal of the onus of proof. The report states: The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that the reversal of the persuasive onus of proof may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. 'To trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties' is a very strong statement. Clause 63, relating to the objection to the dissemination of information, basically deals with commercially secure information being made public. The conclusion of the Committee is: The Committee draws attention to the clause in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Again that is a very strong censure. The report states in relation to clause 64, referring to the delegation of power to people not members of the Commission: The Committee is concerned that this provision imposes no limitation, and gives no guidance, as to the attributes of the person to whom a delegation may be made and accordingly draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers. There is nothing more to be said. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(11.42) —I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this most important and historic piece of legislation, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill. The Bill represents the fulfilment of yet another election promise for the Hawke Labor Government. I am sure that over time it will be recognised as one of the most important attempts at social reform by this Government. It also represents the fulfilment of a major non-wage component in the prices and incomes accord. I regret that Opposition senators, whilst admitting the appalling degree of risk that working people are subjected to in earning a living, will oppose the Bill. They concede that the fact that over 300 people a year are killed is a disgrace. They publicly deplored the fact that there are 150,000 industrial accidents each year. More importantly for them, they are astounded that a $6 billion price tag is attached to the annual cost of accidents at work in this country. Yesterday afternoon attention was drawn by my colleague Senator Crowley to a contribution by one Opposition member in the other place in which he admitted publicly just how appalling the occupational health and safety record in this country really is. Mr Downer, the honourable member for Mayo, is reported on page 2039 of the Hansard as follows: Honourable members are aware that Australia's record in the field of occupational health and safety is, in global terms, one of the worst. In early 1984 the National Safety Council claimed that Australia had the third highest work place accident record in the world. While different industrial and economic structures and different statistical methods can make international comparison fairly misleading, such casuistry in no way detracts from the fact that our record is poor. Despite this record, the Opposition still opposes the Bill. The Opposition did not even move amendments to the Bill. That does not surprise me. It proves that the Opposition has lost any sense of direction in all areas in the field of industrial relations. Members of the Opposition are bankrupt of ideas in this area. We were all aware of this during their time in government. Their attitude now proves that they have learned nothing in the two years they have sat on the Opposition benches, which is where they are destined to stay for many a long year to come. As was pointed out earlier, this is an historic piece of legislation. It is unique for the spirit of co-operation that has developed between all interested and involved parties-trade unions, employers and governments, in the States and Territories. The Bill represents a significant win for the trade union movement. The union movement has always held safety at work to be of major importance. There are many chapters in the history books of this country recording the struggle. Unions have campaigned at all levels for improved safety standards on the job. They have campaigned at the political level for improved workers compensation for those unlucky enough to be incapacitated whilst working. The campaigns were extended to include a universal health care scheme, an integral component in any scheme to provide a safe and healthy working environment. The impetus for change in working conditions has always come from organised labour. The trade union movement represents organised labour. Sometimes the changes were won with relative ease but on the majority of occasions concessions were won only after long and bitter struggles. I am proud to record that in my previous occupation I assisted to a little degree in this struggle. I was lucky that in the last 10 years or so, my active period with the trade union movement, occupational health and safety received a higher priority in union thinking and action than perhaps it did before. I am particularly pleased with the emphasis being placed on occupational health as distinct from safety. It is worth recording that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, of which I am a member, was the first union to employ, on a full time basis, union officers to work solely in the area of occupational health and safety. This happened in 1979, the year that the Australian Council of Trade Unions adopted its first occupational health and safety policy. The ACTU occupational, health and safety unit was established in conjunction with the Victorian Trades Hall in the next year, 1980. Since then that unit has gone from strength to strength in its action and authority. Other unions have also become more active in protecting workers' health and safety. As the consciousness within the union movement increased so too did the pressures for parliamentary reforms. Unfortunately, workers had to wait until they got Labor governments into office before they could record successes in the legislative area. Workers suffered a setback when the Whitlam Government was unjustly tossed out of office in 1975 but the demands for reforms in occupational health and safety were not so easily stamped out. The Hawke Government, on attaining office, moved quickly to act on its promises made in the 1983 election campaign. Very soon after the election the Interim Occupational Health and Safety Commission was established. An inquiry was held and the report of this body was delivered just over 12 months after the Hawke Government took office. The establishment of the Commission was announced just 19 months after the Hawke Government won the treasury bench. That is a commendable achievement which, hopefully, will culminate today with the passing of this Bill. The fact that such a Bill is needed to protect the health and safety of people while they are working is without dispute, except by those on the Opposition benches who represent no one except, perhaps, sheep and maybe insurance companies. The statistics should be enough. They have been quoted before but are worth repeating. Over 300 people are killed each year and over 150,000 people are injured each year. Over $6 billion is levied annually to pay for this cost. Senator Jack Evans made a very telling point yesterday when he said that the figure was four times the amount which was cut from Government expenditure in the economic statement announced on Tuesday last. One would expect four times the headlines but, unfortunately, that has not been the case, nor is it likely to be. I will stay with statistics for a moment. Senator MacGibbon had something to say about the statistics I have just mentioned. I will quote some figures from my State. The figures come from the Western Australian office of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and are for the year 1982-83, the latest available. In that year there was a total of 31,377 accidents in Western Australia. They cost a total of 115,721.2 weeks in lost time and represented an average of 3.7 weeks for each individual accident. The total cost of the claims was $79,387,000 and the average cost of each claim was $2,530.10. The figure of 115,721.2 weeks lost through industrial accidents is the equivalent of over 2,225 years. A cautionary note must be entered here. When the Western Australia Year Book was checked to do a comparison of previous years, the following explanatory note made very interesting reading. The note referred to the 1981-82 figures and I have not been able to confirm that the 1982-83 figures have changed. The Western Australia Year Book states: The statistics shown in the table below have been compiled from a collection introduced from 1981-82 and designed to enable industrial accident statistics to be compiled on a comparable basis for each State and Australia. Prior to 1981-82 statistics of industrial accidents were derived from details of claims for workers' compensation reported to have been closed during the year ended 30 June. From 1981-82 onwards, the statistics represent all industrial accidents involving time lost from work of one day or more occurring during the year ended 30 June. For a particular year of record ended 30 June, reports of finalised cases are received progressively from insurers up to the end of September after which time reports are provided for unfinalised cases. The data are not comparable with those published in previous issues of the Year Book. The figures do not represent all industrial accidents which actually occurred in Western Australia during the year because: (i) in the case of non-fatal accidents, they include only those which resulted in absence from work of one day or more; I could give instances of how that affects people and how it can represent a juggling of figures. The Year Book continued: (ii) only accidents coming within scope of the Workers' Compensation and Assistance Act 1981-1983 of Western Australia are included in the statistics, which therefore exclude industrial accidents resulting in death of, or injury to, self-employed persons and persons employed by the Commonwealth Government; (iii) the statistics include only accidents occurring at the work site or in the course of the worker's normal duties and therefore do not include 'journey cases' . . . . During the year ended 30 June 1982, 1,763 claims occurred in respect of journey cases; (iv) industrial disease cases are not included. The exclusion of self-employed persons is likely to have considerable effect in industries where self-employment is significant (e.g. retail trade, rural industries). Because of the exclusion of Commonwealth Government employees some industries are not covered (e.g. defence forces and Communications) . . . . The accuracy of collection coverage (i.e. whether reports of all accidents involving time lost from work of one day or more are actually submitted to the Workers' Assistance Commission) is very difficult to control because of the diverse administrative system maintained by the insurers. The data should be used with the knowledge that coverage between years may not be consistent and this may effect the validity of statistical trends which become apparent. It must be accepted that the figures used in this debate are not the true figures and must be very conservative. It is often forgotten when arguments take place about occupational health and safety, and when statistics are tossed around, that the figures used represent people-real people with blood in their veins as well as on the floor, who are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands, sons and daughters and, of course, mates. Industrial accidents traumatise not only the victim but the relatives and friends as well. It is just not possible to measure in economic terms the cost of industrial accidents to those surrounding and in close contact with the unfortunate victim. The more severe the accident the greater the trauma and the psychological problems that may develop. A crippling industrial accident affects a person's social and sporting life and often causes major disruption to the whole family circle. No sum of money can measure this and no amount of money will compensate for the psychological damage caused. It is unfortunate that the debate on occupational health and safety invariably degenerates into talk about dollars and cents. All of the Opposition speakers referred to money and they put the emphasis on the cost to the employer of workers compensation premiums. This again shows how out of touch the Opposition is with the realities of the industrial world. It is unaware that there are quite a few enlightened employers in this country who are actually saving on workers compensation premiums by instituting occupational health and safety programs. One such program was cited by my colleague Senator Crowley when she spoke yesterday about Repco Australia's program on repetitive strain injury at its Tasmanian plant. I had the pleasure of meeting with the manager of that plant, Mr Ivan James, when I launched a videotape in Sydney last month. I commend the initiative of Mr James and of his company and recommend that members of the Opposition make themselves aware of the program developed in that plant. I also commend the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and the workers in the plant for their initiatives and co-operation. People like Mr James have nothing to fear from this legislation or any other legislation of its type. I also recommend that honourable senators and members of my own Party view the videotape, which is called Stopping RSI At An Early Oppor- tunity. In my short time in this place I have found that there are still some people who do not fully appreciate this particular industrial problem. I return to the matter of workers compensation. Mr Fergus Stewart McArthur, the honourable member for Corangamite, is obviously obsessed with money. In his incisive contribution to the debate on this Bill in the other place he made the following statement: I suggest to honourable members that the $6 billion wastage is due more to the lack of incentive to return to work after injury. There are just no incentives in Australia to return to work when workers' compensation payments provide 85 per cent of salary and even 100 per cent when the employer makes up the difference. This contrasts noticeably with the situation in the United States of America, where compensation payments make up 50 per cent of salary, and with the bonus system based on units of output the worker could end up receiving 30 per cent of his normal take home pay. Unless there is an incentive to return to work no amount is expensive, centralised bureaucratic commissions, institutes or committees will succeed in regulating or educating workers to the merits of working rather than receiving workers compensation premiums at home. The $6 billion will continue to grow. Indeed it will continue to grow if we do not pass this legislation. With thinking like that, Mr McArthur deserves automatic membership of the Queensland National Party. After hearing Senator Sheil's comments yesterday, I would suggest that he and Mr McArthur would sit very comfortably together in the dark ages of slavery and serfdom. Mr McArthur also has an interest in the visible band-aids of safety. He mentioned on a number of occasions the usage of safety glasses, helmets, safety boots and protective clothing. Certainly there is a place for these sometimes useful protective devices to be worn. However, it must be remembered that safety boots will not save one's life if one falls from a faulty scaffold. Safety glasses will not protect one from exposure to asbestos. Overalls will not save one from chemical poisoning. Earmuffs, or at least the majority that are on the market at the moment in this country, will not protect one from industrial deafness or most other industrial accidents. All too often management representatives have used these band-aids to prove to their shareholders and to themselves that they really care about the welfare of their workers. Most workers have woken up to these tactics. After reading Mr McArthur's speech, I am not so sure that he ever will. I am tempted to also reply to Senator Sheil's comments but my colleague Senator Cook, in a calculated, concise and comprehensive contribution to this debate, dismembered and destroyed whatever points were contained in Senator Sheil's wild and meandering contribution. I will not waste the valuable time of the Senate by speaking further on Senator Sheil's comments. The shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations attacked the Bill and described it as draconian. Senator MacGibbon, who spoke before me in the debate, also mentioned the word 'draconian'. He used that word when he referred to some of the penalties contained in the Bill. Let me quote what those penalties are and for what offences they apply, and then let us ask the question: How draconian are they? Clause 46 of the Bill concerns the failure of a witness to attend a hearing of the Commission, for which there is a penalty of $1,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both. For refusal to be sworn or to answer questions the penalty is $1,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both. For providing false and misleading information the penalty is $2,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both. For contempt the penalty is $2,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both. Clause 52 (2) of the Bill provides that an employer shall not: (a) dismiss an employee from his or her employment, or prejudice an employee in his or her employment, because the employee has appeared as a witness, or has given any evidence, at an inquiry; or (b) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee from his or her employment, or prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, an employee in his or her employment, because the employee proposes to appear as a witness or to give evidence at an inquiry. The fines in this instance are: For an offender who is a natural person, a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or both; or if the offender is a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $10,000. Draconian indeed! Some of the large corporations in this country would quite easily smile at a fine of $10,000. I could mention some names, but I am reluctant to point the finger at any giant steel manufacturer and point the blame at it. One is tempted to compare those offences and penalties with those contained in the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act to find out just exactly how draconian the penalties are. One is also tempted to compare Mr Shack's comments on both pieces of legislation to determine his objectivity and his credentials as an observer of the industrial relations scene, on workers' rights or on the field of occupational health and safety. His biased attack proves his lack of objectivity. The penalties which I have related to the Senate deal only with the procedures of the Commission and the taking of evidence. They do not refer to the implementation of policing of codes of practices, standards or regulations. This is an area that will, when it is discussed later in the year, cause the honourable senators on the Opposition benches to shriek in horror. They will shriek even if the penalties remain at the ridiculously low levels that they are at the moment. Let me give the Senate a very brief case history of the situation that exists in my home State of Western Australia. Let the Senate consider whether we ought to include charges such as murder or even manslaughter as well as fines and imprisonment in the penalties. The case history relates to a person called Wesley Sean Millett, who was 16 years of age at the time of his death as a result of an accident that occurred on 23 January 1983. Wesley Millett left school in October 1982 and got a job with a particular electrical contractor through the Commonwealth Employment Service. He was employed on a three-month probationary period, after which he was to apply for an apprenticeship. He was not registered with the department of industry and training. He was not given an eye test to check if he was colour blind. Obviously the ability to distinguish between colours is a key skill when one is working with electricity. No information was given either to the boy or his parents who tried to get such information through the Commonwealth Employment Service about the laws relating to apprenticeships. The boy was not granted a lic- ence by the State Energy Commission. Wesley and another lad, a third year apprentice, were sent out by themselves by the contractor and often given instructions to do live work on Totalisator Agency Board machines which were still operating. This was done in order not to disrupt the work of the TAB in the vital area of betting on horses and dogs. The accident in which he was killed happened at the Sundowner Hotel when Wesley was installing power points to video machines. He was putting new cables into existing cables when he was electrocuted. After pressure from the boy's parents and the Western Australian State branch of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia the matter finally reached the Magistrates Court of Perth two weeks ago-more than two years after the accident. The contractor was charged with six breaches of the Electricity Act regulations-three breaches for each of the boys. He received the maximum fine of $100 in each case, a total of $600, or $300 in relation to Wesley Millett. He was also ordered to pay costs of $589. The total cost to the contractor was $1,189. The boy's parents, who were awarded $1,100 for funeral costs, had to outlay about $5,000 in legal fees. The contractor-and this is the disgraceful part-who had and still has a reputation for employing young boys and sending them out unsupervised and with no safety information, also lost his contracting licence for seven years but kept his electrical workers licence. Since then, the contractor's son has taken over the contractor's business and is employing the father. The business is proceeding as usual. A charge of murder or manslaughter would not compensate Mr and Mrs Millett for the loss of their son. To my knowledge they have never demanded that such a charge be laid. If such a charge had indeed been laid it would have proved to the Western Australian and Australian community, and to wage earners in particular, that there is justice in this country. This is not an isolated case. My colleagues in the union movement could quote many other instances. History is littered with other infamous instances. The mention of a name will be enough to direct attention to those instances. Names such as Baryugil, Alpha chemicals, Port Kembla coke ovens, Wittenoom, et cetera, are all scandals in their own way. The common link between all of these instances is that it is working people who ultimately pay the price. Sometimes it is the ultimate price-their lives. Some people will condone such action. Who will forget that infamous comment by that 'great Australian' Lang Hancock who, when talking about asbestos related deaths of workers, said: 'Some have to pay so the majority can benefit'. We will be talking about Hancock in other debates. Other senators who have spoken in this debate have explained the detailed clauses of the Bill as well as the composition, role and functions of the Commission, the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. All of these matters have been explored and elaborated upon. I will not repeat their remarks, other than to comment briefly on one of the functions of the Institute which are set out on page 21 of the Bill. The functions include work relating to research, statistics, testing, training and other matters whether or not related to those activities. I do not seek to put any of these functions in any order of priority or importance but I would highlight the area of training. Fundamental to the effectiveness of any legislation is the necessity for all affected by the Bill to be made aware and have the opportunity to inform themselves of the objectives, scope and powers of the legislation. The people affected in this instance would include employees, supervisors, government inspectors, union representatives, shop stewards and workers. This will be an enormous task. However, with the spirit of concensus which has prevailed so far in the drafting of the legislation and which must continue to prevail, I am sure that we can accommodate that. In conclusion, I compliment the members of the Interim Commission who worked long and hard to prepare the ground work that culminates with the Bill before the Senate. I pay tribute to all members of that Interim Commission. I mention particularly Dr Judith Watson, the representative of the Western Australian Government on that body. If all the members of the new National Occupational Health and Safety Commission share the commitment to provide workers with a healthy, safe, stress-free work environment that Dr Watson has and works to achieve, the new Commission will have a huge task to live up to. Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for the speed with which he acted to fulfil the Australian Labor Party election promises and the crucial non-wage component of the prices and incomes accord. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.11) —I must warn the Senate about something I perceived in the approach of my colleague from the Government benches. I believe that Senator McKiernan indicated some desire to use an isolated bad practice in Western Australia by a small operator to support his argument for the implementation of national standards across Australia. If this is the way in which the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1985 is going to be used, I believe it will not assist basically the cause of industry in Australia. However, I must admit that for some time now I have been in two minds about the Bill. On the one hand I have considerable sympathy for its aims and objectives. However, on the other hand, I have grave fears that we will be establishing yet another government authority. I think we are all in agreement about the short term benefit of this legislation, given the industrial problems that the industry is facing at the present time. But I question some of the long term implications and the socialist approach that has been adopted in recommending the Bill to the Senate. I believe that those social implications will have a long term detrimental effect on industry. Having been a manager of a major textile manufacturing company I, of course, am very conscious of the need to safeguard the health and welfare of employees without whom business could not operate. I must deplore some of the remarks that have been made from the Government benches. Some Government senators seem to imply that top management is not all that interested in health and safety issues. They seem to believe that one of the purposes of this Bill will be to make employers very much more conscious of such issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. Managers are very concerned about the health and welfare of their employees. However, I think we have to look at the enormous cost to industry, individuals and families of work related illnesses and injury. We also have to consider workers compensation premiums alone which are now actually crippling many small businesses. The on-cost component of labour is such that it is becoming a major disincentive to increase employment at the very time when we should be enacting provisions to encourage more people to join the work force and to make employment more attractive. At this time we should be considering wiping out such things as payroll tax and other costs which are prejudicial to employment. I support wholeheartedly the move to develop a greater community awareness of issues relevant to occupational health and safety matters and to provide forums for public debate and discussion on such issues. I go even further and support the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission's desire to see the development of what I term consultative machinery at a Federal level and the need for further examination of Federal and State responsibilities and mechanisms for co-ordinating and seeing that occupational health and safety legislative requirements are implemented. It has been recognised for some time that there is a need for some form of nationally co-ordinated approach to the problems of occupational health and safety. But I do not believe the correct approach is to set up such a commission, with all its co-called draconian provisions; and they must be seen to be draconian provisions, if we have regard to the sentiments expressed by Senator McKiernan and Senator Cook. As a nation, naturally we must take measures to ensure that there is enough incentive within an organisation or industry to improve both health and safety conditions. It is the taxpayers who must ultimately pick up the cost relating to occupational injury, illness and death. The health costs alone-medical, hospital and pharmaceutical costs-have stretched to the limit the community's capacity to pay. If we add to those costs the costs of sick pay, workers compensation, lost production, damage to machinery and, in many cases, lifetime care for permanently disabled workers, the cost to the community is six times the amount that the Labor Government suggests it will save by way of its Budget cuts. It is quite a significant figure. Having discussed with industry leaders the aims and objectives of this Bill, I have been persuaded that this Bill, while it has what could be referred to as considerable theoretical merit, will lack a practical approach with regard to implementation. I think we must recognise that some State governments, industry leaders and unions have agreed to the objectives of the proposal. But it must be pointed out that they are not agreeing to the proposal for the same reasons. I think this is the danger in implications of the Bill. There are those who wish to continue to be the pacesetters-the union movement and socialist governments-who wish to see this proposal used, as Government speakers have said, as a vehicle for social reform. I will use the analogy of the airline industry. If the Department of Aviation disagrees with any suggested improvement in, say, ground facilities, it immediately uses the safety issue and says: 'We cannot do anything that would impair the safety of the aircraft'. The proposal might relate to the gardens, the service facilities on the ground or some other matter. But as soon as one starts talking about airlines, people come to their defence by using the word 'safety'. The danger is that this Commission may be misused, under the guise of creating safety provisions, in order to implement a wide range of new conditions which will affect industry across the board. At the moment States have departments of labour and industry which specify the terms and conditions of employment and safety issues. But this Bill proposes to set up a commission which will introduce a new twentieth century Labor Party or socialist approach as to what are to be the ideal conditions within industry. Therefore, there are those who are supporting this legislation on the very premise that they will use this measure as a vehicle to implement-not radically, not necessarily overnight, but over time-a range of new industrial conditions. They use the word 'safety' as an excuse to implement such conditions. On the other hand, there are industry leaders and some State leaders who are concerned about some States which are becoming the pacesetters. Some States are legislating for unrealistic conditions for industry and workers compensation. The debate today has indicated that workers compensation obligations begin within the framework of the boundaries of the industry concerned. They extend far wider than that. We all know that if a worker, in travelling to and from work, catches his heel on his front gate, for instance, the injury could be the subject of a workers compensation claim. It is those sorts of added costs that are being passed on to the employer that are becoming unacceptable. Some State governments believe that this national vehicle may slow down the rate of growth of some of the unreasonable measures contained in workers compensation legislation that is coming forward in some States. As I said, the cost to industry is horrific. Industry is concerned that some States are becoming pacesetters, and that the legislation that they introduce will be used as a precedent. It believes that the Commission could be used as a vehicle to slow down such moves. I believe that those who take such an approach will find that this legislation will be used as a vehicle for complete social reform. While I have mentioned a range of people who have supported the Bill, I note that it has not received the same enthusiastic support from the National Safety Council. I suggest that people should consult that body a little more widely. I think we must accept the need for some degree of uniformity. but we cannot always have uniformity in all areas across a broad spectrum of industries and across the range of geographic conditions that we have in Australia. That is, after all, why we have States. While there might be a need for a forum for discussion in which ideas can be shared, I am very much against using a commission in this capacity. There is a need, therefore, for discussion, co-ordination, education and research; I think we all agree on that. The Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission made it quite clear that many of the functions to be carried out by the Commission are presently carried out by a host of Federal and State government departments. This means that there will be an overlap and duplication. We are establishing yet another body on top of those that are already in place at present. I therefore think that this proposal is unnecessary. It has been suggested that the Commission would be merely an advisory body. If it is to be an advisory body, there would be no compulsion and no requirement for the so-called avant-garde States engaging in new legislative pursuits to follow the directions of the body. Therefore, the Government, is setting up a very costly bureaucracy to do something which, after all, it has admitted is advisory. I doubt whether the long term future of this body will really be that of an advisory body. However, in spite of my support for the aims and objectives of this Bill, as I said in my opening remarks, I have fears about the establishment of yet another statutory authority. This Government, in the first nine months of its term of office, has created 25 new qangos. That is a significant number. I believe that this qango will be used by unionists and socialists to improve conditions unrealistically under the guise of health and safety. But this Bill not only seeks to establish yet another commission-in fact a 17-member commission, with a projected staff of about 140 people-but proposes to organise this Commission into two bodies. I refer to the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. The report of the Interim National Health and Safety Commission, which recommended the Bill as it stands, projected that the Commission's staff level would more than double by the end of the second year to around 350 people and that the anticipated budget in that year would amount to $42.1m. It does not go on to say what its further rate of growth will be, and one shudders at the thought of where it may finish up. It could be used as a vehicle to control and manipulate industry. Surely this country can do without this sort of commission. I agree with the need for some sort of consultative, loose mechanism whereby people could get together to discuss these problems, but this legislation seems to be imposing a bureaucratic monster. It seems ironic that the anticipated $40.3m supposedly saved by increasing the prescription charge to $5 in the latest mini-Budget will be less than that required to manage the Occupational Health and Safety Commission. In other words, the sick and injured will be forced to pay for an organisation seeking to save on sickness and injury. The costs anticipated are absolutely unnecessary. Of equal importance in the national occupational health and safety question is workers compensation. In my earlier remarks I mentioned that the cost of workers compensation premiums is crippling many small businesses and substantially increasing the on-costs of all industries. These costs, which have to be built into the price of goods, are forcing our industries into a less competitive position in the market place. Not only are the number of compensation claims increasing, but also the value of individual claims is going through the roof. If one makes the provisions easier to enable somebody to make a claim, unfortunately there will always be a minority who seek to manufacture claims. It is evident to every business leader that workers compensation claims often arise in the early hours of a Monday morning. This is only in a minority of cases, but it is a matter of which people should be aware. How can industry keep paying for such demands and for increasing the scope of on-cost services to industry? Why should such huge amounts of money be awarded for what in some cases appear to be minor injuries? Workers compensation has got right out of hand. It has extended well beyond the work place and, if it is allowed to continue with its spiralling costs, it will be a major cause of this country's further decline in world markets, and a major impediment particularly to our manufacturing industries. I believe there is now a case, in view of the fact that these workers compensation and other on-costs have become so unreal, for the social security system to pick up these costs. Why should just the employers have to pay unreal costs? These are becoming a social cost to the nation and should not necessarily be just a cost to the employer. Because of extension of the benefits, which have become so unreal and costly, the Government should now consider costs of this sort, such as workers compensation, as of a social security nature. If this Commission is to have no teeth, it is far too costly a dinosaur to take the purported steps needed to achieve uniformity. If on the other hand it is to have teeth, we have been deceived because its bite will have severe repercussions on the future of manufacturing industry. I congratulate those organisations which have been pace setters in trying to improve health and safety issues. I refer to those companies which have become leaders in trying to overcome the problems of repetition strain injury. I acknowledge the lead taken in this area by a company in my State, the Repco organisation. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(12.32) —I support the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill, which is one of the major advances made by the present Government in its two years of office. It is consistent with the framework of discussions that occurred prior to the election, Labor policy and our approach towards improvement of society in general. It is the result of a great deal of discussion, organisation and hard work on the part of the members of the Interim National Health and Safety Commission and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The Minister should be commended for a number of initiatives he has taken in industrial relations. He knows when to talk and when to stop talking and get on with the action. This Bill is an example of that ability. This Bill is part of the accord. Many workers are still not aware of the benefits of that document to themselves and to Australian society in general. It is interesting to note that some people who live in ivory castles in the financial community in England and New York have indicated some concern in recent discussions with the Treasurer, Mr Keating. One 17-year-old boffin was heard to complain that the union movement in Australia was directing the Government. All this was said 12,000 miles away, in a position of great privilege and a limited life outlook, and from the mouth of a 17-year-old who was about to succeed to his father's financial empire. Some people overseas do not understand what is being achieved in this country in proper, rigorous and intelligent consultation between the union movement, the business community and this Government. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been an essential part in that process, initiated by the accession to the leadership of the Party of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). At this stage it is worth looking at parts of that accord. To my knowledge this is the first occasion on which a wages and incomes and social policy which has been organised between the labour movement and a Labor government or a coalition Labor-type government anywhere in the world has been successful. We have often heard of the social contract or variations of it as applied in other countries failing. This accord has worked in Australia because it has been approached in the right way. It is my sincere wish that some people who live 12,000 miles away-or in the case of some Opposition members who live about 12,000 years away from Australia and what is going on in this country-will come to appreciate that what we have in the accord is a unique instrument to enable us to improve the conditions of all people in this society as well as the condition of society itself and Australia's economic performance. With the agreement, understanding and patience of this chamber, I shall read some of the principles that underlie that accord-the framework within which this Bill has come to this House. I quote from the document: The Parties have reached agreement that the objective of such an approach-- that is the accord- should be to protect living standards of Australians including wage and salary earners and non income earning groups. Over time those standards should be increased to reflect the distribution of improved output as measured by national productivity. Additionally, agreement has been reached on the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of real disposable income. It is recognised that maintenance of, or improvement in, living standards may be secured through processes other than by simple money wage increases. That is a fair statement of this Government's industrial relations and social policy approach which has been clearly indicated in the accord. Again, I indicate some of the features of that accord to put this Bill into proper framework. Some of the promises the Government makes in the accord need to be pointed out. The Government's record in terms of those promises again ought to be made plain and put on the record in this chamber. I will mention some of the issues which were discussed and which the Government agreed to deliver on. Universal health cover-we have delivered on that. Restructuring tax to ease the burden on low and middle income earners-we will be delivering on that very soon. Tough measures to smash tax avoidance-again we have delivered, with the exception of one or two thrusts which were held up in this House recently, again by people who do not quite understand that it is necessary to smash the tax avoidance industry in this country in order to achieve this equitable redistribution which the accord talks about. An inquiry to improve industrial relations-again, that will be delivered when the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems is brought down next week. Make immigration family reunion and refugee intake the major criterion for determining migrant intake-we have delivered on that. Enforce standards and provide motivation for States, employees and employers to improve occupational health and safety-we are delivering on that this week. Provide detailed economic planning with trade unions and employer contribution and co-operation-that has been done through the National Economic Summit Conference and the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Again the Government, across the board, has delivered on everything it has promised in that accord. I want this message to get through loud and clear to all shop stewards, to people who work in industry and to people who are watching this Government's performance and in some ways might have overlooked just how important a contribution this accord has been and just how carefully and consistently the Government has applied itself to bringing these matters to fruition. I am sure that all honourable senators who manage to get out of this chamber from time to time to talk to people on a casual and social basis will understand this: In the community there is the desire for all of us to act in the community interest. I believe that the days of confrontation are over. I believe that the approach to politics of the strong man leading the weak, which appeared to be a fairly accepted viewpoint in the early days of the Fraser Government, has gone. In this chamber I think even some people on the other side are starting to realise that there is another way to do this, their Queensland counterparts notwithstanding. I normally do not waste my time in political invective. I believe there are more positive things to do in this life than that. But I must admit that the contributions of the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, Mr Shack, to this whole public debate cannot be overlooked. They are surprising in their naivete and in the degree of support they have received from members of his Party. It is obvious that Mr Shack has been given a Christmas present by his minders and mentors. I guess that that Christmas present could be described as a gift from the Adam Smith toy shop, during one of his previous reincarnations. In other words, he was given the book and the ideas and told to go out and sell them. He has done fairly well. He has fooled a few people. But I think people are starting to wake up. They are starting to wake up when it comes to discussion about Bills such as this. They see that this is in fact a Bill which is setting out to overcome positively some of the problems in our community and that sheer ideology based upon some outdated economic historian of the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century is simply not appropriate. Mr Shack has been playing with his toys while adults in the community are going about the serious business of- Senator Lewis —What makes an idea inappropriate because it is old? Senator AULICH —If an idea historically fails, it is inappropriate. Adam Smith has failed and to use that as a blueprint for the future obviously indicates just how bereft of ideas the honourable senator's Party is. Mr Shack went into the community and attacked this Bill. He attacks anything which looks as though it smells at all of big government, of consensus or of any attempt at all to work with the union movement. He criticised this proposed National Occupational Health and Safety Commission on the basis that it is too big. He indicated in the form of a question his viewpoint. 'What', he asked, 'will the establishment of this Commission achieve which could not be simply achieved by direct inter-ministerial and departmental contact between the Commonwealth and the States?' I will answer that for Mr Shack because obviously he did not watch the performance of the Fraser Government. I do not know where he was during that period. I presume he voted every now and then. I presume he read some of that Government's outpourings in the Press. I will tell him what this Commission and Government will do. The Government has done what Malcolm Fraser and his friends were not able to do in a period of more than seven years. I went to a number of ministerial conferences of Ministers for industrial relations. I saw Mr Peacock, Mr Viner, Mr Macphee and Mr Street in action. They were the four Ministers who just happened to go through the position of Minister while I was a Minister in the State Government. There were four Ministers in that short time before they took their place in that holding bay in the sky which the Liberals call thwarted ambition. Every one of those people waited on Malcolm Fraser to find out what to do every time we got to the important issue of structures for industrial relations in this country and also what we were going to do about occupational health. They talked and talked, occasionally set up a working party, and talked again, and finally did nothing. Meanwhile, people were killed and injured on the job and this country lost millions, in fact, billions of dollars if the latest estimations are correct-that is, $6 billion in lost time caused by accidents and injuries on the job. That is simply not good enough. What has happened in this place is that we have brought in a Bill which provides a framework for us all to move forward in a co-operative way. Madam Acting Deputy President, at this stage I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —The question is that we move into non-controversial debate. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Senator Townley-Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This is not a non-controversial debate. It is definitely a matter of public interest. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(12.43) —Today I wish to raise a matter which has appeared in the Press. It concerns the Vietnamese community in Australia. The Vietnamese community in Australia will protest to the Federal Government about a resolution of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party calling for the suspension of immigration of Vietnamese refugees until the community is pledged to end violent demonstrations. I point out that this is not the policy of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. It is possible for the administrative committee, by resolution of an absolute majority of 17 votes, to so carry a resolution which will be Victorian branch policy. That resolution did not receive 17 votes. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as reflecting the views of the branch of the Party of which I happen to be a member. Furthermore, it can have the status only of a resolution to our June conference which will be held on the weekend of 22 and 23 June. I assure everyone here and everyone in the Vietnamese community that, as sure as I stand here and can count numbers, that resolution will be dumped into the rubbish bin of history where it belongs. I would like to say that the Press release which was put out yesterday by the Victorian branch President, George Crawford, went beyond his powers as branch President. It is not up to him or his ilk to interpret Federal policy. Our Federal rules are clear. I know that they often evoke criticism from those opposite. Under the rules, only the Federal Executive can interpret Federal policy for the Party, or the Federal Labor Caucus in this institution. It is up to those two bodies only to interpret the Federal platform. The Federal Platform, Constitution and Rules costs only $2 for anyone who wants to buy it and read our immigration policy. It is quite clear that what was said yesterday is anathema to that policy. Those statements by Mr Crawford were divisive. I think they were unintentionally racist. That is about as kind as I can be. I think the racism involved in his remarks was unintentional. The Press release that went out yesterday stated, in part: Mr Crawford said the present program of Vietnamese immigration into Australia fell into two categories-orderly departure, by arrangement and consent between Australia and the Government of Vietnam, or resettlement of refugees, who are usually boat people, temporarily resident in third party nations, such as Malaysia. He said the Committee believed that the principal immigration of Vietnamese should be confined to the first category until such time as categorical assurances are received from representatives of the refugee section of the Vietnamese community that they will desist from intimidating other Vietnamese, students, diplomatic representatives and the Australian community from the exercise of their political rights. Unfortunately, that is one of the worst forms of racism possible. It is true that certain elements of the Vietnamese community have demonstrated recently in support of their political beliefs. It is regrettable and unfortunate that some violent incidents have occurred. Apparently there was a celebration dinner in Port Melbourne to commemorate the fall of Saigon at which some rocks and bottles were thrown. I do not condone that action. I do not believe that violence has any role in politics. I notice that many of the Vietnamese leaders in this country have come out and condemned that sort of behaviour, and rightly so. But to attribute those activities of a minority to a whole community group is something that we do not want to see happen in this country. It is racism of the worst order. In the 19 years in which I have been in the Labor Party, I have seen a great metamorphosis occur in that Party. I have seen sectarianism almost evaporate. One would have to admit that, following the events of 1955, there was sectarianism in the Labor Party, as there has possibly been in other parties. It is also true to say that 20-odd years ago the Labor Party had essentially racist elements in its platform. But since that time there has been a metamorphosis. There have been changes in which virtually every racist element has been expunged from our platform, and I think that is borne out by our behaviour and the leadership example we have set in the community. I think the sort of statements that were made yesterday reflect badly on the Labor Party. I am ashamed that they were made. Nevertheless they are not reflective of the membership of the Victorian branch or any other branch of the Labor Party in Australia. I reiterate that we do not condone violence. We have always been consistent in that regard. Some of those who have condemned the violence of Vietnamese demonstrators were happy to sit mute during other violent demonstrations on other occasions. I think we would have to say unanimously that it is up to the Federal Parliamentary Caucus or the Federal executive of the Labor Party to state what is and what is not Federal Labor Party policy. That will continue to be the case in the future. It does not matter what statement any president of a local branch of the Labor Party may have to say on it; that is the constitutional position and that is our position. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.48) —I want to talk today about the deficit situation in this country. I do this not necessarily because of what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said the other night. Of course, many of the points have already been answered by many of my colleagues, who have clearly shown the weak points of his statement. I do not want to elaborate at this stage on their valid criticisms. I want to talk about the long term damage which is being done and which is being helped along by this Government. The deficit in this country is clearly a monster. Several different indicators are available displaying the present Government's considerable addition to the nation's expenditure, deficit and, of course, public debt. There is no doubt that at the moment we are experiencing a big spending and a big taxing Labor administration. An aspect of the Government's behaviour which most alarms me is Labor's apparent indifference to when and how this extravagant expenditure will, if ever, be repaid. I argue that on a close examination of the facts some very serious things will come out. I believe that that is what is needed. Such an examination will clearly display the Government's weak performance concerning the financing of our public debt. I have with me some figures which indicate the magnitude of our debt problem which I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. I showed these to the Whip earlier, as I did not realise that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would be in the chamber. I seek leave to have the first table, headed 'Public Debt Interest', incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS Public Debt Interest ($m) 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 (Bud. (For. (For. (For. 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978 79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Est.) Est.) Est.) Est.) Total Public Debt Interest 887 967 1,412 1,649 1,971 2,223 2,561 2,881 3,378 4,330 5,601 6,467 7,206 7,973 Total Outlays 17,820 21,831 24,093 26,717 28,991 31,637 36,098 41,305 48,935 56,570 63,948 68,264 70,920 74,430 Public Debt as percentage of total outlays 4.978 4,429 5.861 6.172 6.799 7.027 7.095 6.975 6.903 7.654 8.758 9.474 10.161 10.712 Source: Budget Papers 1984-85 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1985-88. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. The table shows that the Forward Estimates of Senator Walsh's own ministry indicate that by 1987-88 a greater percentage of our nation's Budget will be spent on our public debt interest payments than will be spent on defence. That is a pretty horrendous situation. I think it bears repeating. We will be spending more on repaying our loans, our old debts-- Senator Lewis —It is not on repaying. Senator TOWNLEY —Yes, that is right. We will be spending more on the interest on our old debts than our total spending on defence. Senator Short —And education. Senator TOWNLEY —I will get on to that on another day. I just thought I would keep my remarks simple today by mentioning only one thing. This is the first time that our public debt interest has exceeded our defence spending. What is more alarming is the growth in interest payments on the public debt. In 1974-75 the figure was 4.98 per cent of our Budget and in 1987-88, on conservative figures, it will be almost 11 per cent. The projection is that nearly 11 per cent will be spent in 1987-88 just in interest on the public debt. Defence spending represented 9 per cent of the Budget in 1974-75, and it represents just over 10 per cent of the Forward Estimates for 1987-88. I seek leave to have a comparative table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS Defence ($m) 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 (Bud. (For. (For. (For. 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978 79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Est.) Est.) Est.) Est.) Total Defence Expenditure 1,635 1,862 2,190 2,386 2,616 3,018 3,550 4,134 4,782 5,383 5,820 6,324 6,927 7,564 Total Outlays 17,820 21,831 24,093 26,717 28,991 31,637 36,098 41,305 48,935 56,570 63,948 68,264 70,920 74,430 Defence as a percentage of total outlays 9.175 8.530 9.090 8.931 9.023 9.540 9.834 10.008 9.772 9.516 9.101 9.264 9.767 10.163 Source: Budget Papers 1984-85 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1985-88. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Interest on the public debt is clearly pushing its way into a larger proportion of Budget decisions and Budget expenditures. Its rise in importance is clearly being almost ignored or not understood by the present Government. Senator Walsh's response to questions in this House displays the Government's casual or ignorant approach to this problem. In answer to a question from Senator Maguire on 10 May 1985, he said: . . . it follows inevitably that when an economy is in the depths of recession, as this economy was when this Government came to office, it cannot be turned around overnight. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is clearly avoiding the importance of the debt issue. At any rate, if we have experienced the recovery that the Minister and the Government so often talk about, why have there not been any improvements in the public debt interest situation? As I indicated earlier, the interest repayments are increasing, recovery or not. The table that I have incorporated certainly shows that. The Minister refuses to explain to the people of Australia why this Government is unable to reverse this public debt escalation and, as far as I can see, what was done on Tuesday night will make not one iota of difference to the future situation. On 25 March this year I pointed out to the Minister the sad fact that Australia already has a debt per head which is greater than such economically disastrous countries as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Poland and Chile. He again responded by avoiding my question. By his actions he again indicated that the Government takes no responsibility for this public debt situation or where it is going in the future. There is reason to believe from a questioning of Senator Walsh on 10 May that the Minister has a very weak grasp of the economic consequences of such a large public debt. He tried to suggest that the debt is acceptable for two reasons. He said, firstly, that the debt is mainly internally financed and, secondly, that internal financing has no effects other than to 'restrict the options that government have available to them in the spending area'. I agree with the Minister that much of the public debt is financed internally, but the external financing of that debt is becoming more important. Tuesday's balance of payment figures show that the invisible items on the current account are continuing in deficit. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document showing those figures. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Statistics Group Balance of Payments: Government Interest 1974-75 to 1983-84(a) Property income-interest on Government loans As a percentage of Invisible Net Invisible Net Year debits invisibles Interest debits invisibles $m $m $m % % 1974-75 4,342 2,060 76 1.8 3.7 1975-76 5,181 2,933 85 1.6 2.9 1976-77 5,923 3,528 115 1.9 3.3 1977-78 6,650 3,899 163 2.5 4.2 1978-79 7,695 4,362 307 4.0 7.0 1979-80 9,028 4,763 386 4.3 8.1 1980-81 9,728 4,997 373 3.8 7.5 1981-82 10,549 5,519 370 3.5 6.7 1982-83 11,107 5,234 535 4.8 10.2 1983-84 14,048 7,643 648 4.6 8.5 (a) All items shown are debits. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Senator TOWNLEY —Tuesday's Australian points out that the current account deficit has increased by 62 per cent on the 1983-84 figures notwithstanding a surplus in the balance of trade. Interest payments are increasing as a debit on the current account and by the Minister's own figures-conservative figures, as he said they were in that document-they will get worse. It is clear from the trends that our public debt interest rate payments will continue to put the current account in deficit by more and more. Economic theory suggests that, all things being equal, such a deficit will continue to keep our dollar down while it is left to float as it has. We saw it drop by roughly a couple of cents yesterday following the magnificent statement on Tuesday night. We all know what a lower dollar means. It means a lower living standard now for all of us and, more importantly, for those in the community who are still relatively young. In the future, when the public debt interest repayments go up through the roof, the living standards of people in this country, I believe, will go through the floor. When we consider interest repayments with a floating dollar it is possible to predict a multiplier effect. A low dollar means that we must pay more interest on international loans, where they are contracted in foreign currencies, so loan repayments must continue to increase at an increasing rate. Where does this lead us, one might ask? The Minister for Finance says that the public debt owed overseas is only about 12 per cent of the total and therefore does not matter. But the conclusion that must be drawn from my arguments is that our interest payments overseas will get worse in the future, especially with the floating dollar and the bigger amounts we will have to find in the years ahead. Quite clearly, the result will be reduced living standards for all Australians. A second limb to Senator Walsh's argument suggests that the public debt is not alarming. He tried to suggest that an internally financed public debt only restricts the options that governments have available to them. These comments also fly in the face of all economic theory. Senator Walsh has often referred to his replies to me as his lectures. One can only imagine that Professor Walsh, if he wants to be known in that way, makes up his economic theory as he lectures me, because internal financing of the deficit damages our economy in many ways. The amount of borrowing required to finance deficits the size of this Government's deficit will put considerable pressure on the financial markets. I have always had on the notice board in my room a sign saying: 'Commander should be counselled chiefly by persons of known talent'. I ask whether Professor Walsh has any known talent in this matter of economics. I do not regard him as somebody who should be taking the line of lecturing people. He is certainly not doing it in a very good way. If he looks to his economic text books he will find that we will get a crowding out situation because of the demands for money to enable the Government to pay the interest that it has to find. I believe that interest rates will go up under the pressure of the big Government borrowing that we are living under and is forecast by Senator Walsh's own figures for the future. Who is going to pay for this borrowing? It will not be the phantom Swiss gnomes or anybody like that. It will not be the past Fraser Government. Average working Australians are going to have to pay for it. I thought they were the ones that Labor was supposed to be looking after. It certainly does not seem to me that this Government is looking after the ordinary people who try to buy a house in the manner that I would have expected of a Labor Government. I believe that many people in this country will soon be paying higher home loan interest rates. Senator Walsh and his Government do not recognise that internal debt financing will put home interest rates under pressure. The cuts which Mr Keating made on Tuesday night, of course, represent only a quarter of our current interest repayments on the public debt, and therefore are not very significant at all. Secondly, Senator Walsh is wrong in saying that internal finance is not a burden on future generations. If he had bothered to refer to a book called Public Finance in Australia by Professor Peter Groenewegen he would have found, on page 231, the statement that if public borrowing reduces private investment by more than an equivalent amount raised by the alternative of taxation and if the rate of return of publicly borrowed funds is less than the rate of return in the private sector, internal borrowing can impose a burden on future generations. It was a professor who said that. I believe that members of the Australian Labor Party, as governors of Australia, should be ashamed that they are allowing Australia's future to go down the drain, or are selling it down the drain. They are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the problem. Such is the magnitude of our present credit problems that in November last year, before the devaluation of the dollar, the Age reported as follows: . . . it is a fact that on bankers' criteria Australia ranks as a debtor with some troubled countries. That was at the end of last year. If we compare ourselves with our poor Tasmanian neighbour, New Zealand, we see how bad things are looking with respect to this country's public debt. New Zealand's debt interest as a percentage of its total government outlays in the year ending 31 March last year stood at about 11.5 per cent of the Budget. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which shows those figures. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Statistics Group New Zealand Government Outlays, 1973 to 1984 Debt interest N.Z. Public Total as percentage of Year ending 31 March Debt interest outlays outlays ($'000) $m % 1973 184,817 2,244.5 8.2 1974 200,322 2,635.5 7.6 1975 221,030 3,292.0 6.7 1976 270,013 3,764.6 7.2 1977 367,037 5,819.0 6.3 1978 464,524 7,072.8 6.6 1979 590,111 8,371.8 7.0 1980 757,793 9,438.4 8.0 1981 891,497 11,552.5 7.7 1982 1,202,928 14,012.7 8.6 1983 1,475,792 15,443.3 9.6 1984 2,014,875 17,263.8 11.7 Source: New Zealand Year Book and New Zealand High Commission. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. The Finance Minister's own conservative Forward Estimates put Australia's public debt as a percentage of total outlays at nearly 11 per cent by 1987-88. If one looks at the graph which shows the way interest rates are going, one sees a definite bend where those conservative estimates are plotted. I believe that the debt figure will go steeper than the figures that I have had incorporated today. When New Zealand's public debt interest hit the 11 per cent mark, several of the United States lending institutions downgraded its credit. I think we can predict such a downgrading for Australia within a couple of years. The effect of that downgrading will be immediate. A report in the Australian Financial Review on 19 October last year, when New Zealand had its credit downgraded, pointed out: Since some major US lending institutions would bid for tenders only from AAA or AA+ rated countries, Moody's downgrading was likely to restrict the range of lenders and result in a slightly higher rate. Not only will we find it harder to get money but also we will have to pay more for it. Therefore Australia will have a lot of problems in the coming years. It is clear from all of this that we must reduce our government spending and reduce it drastically, not in the feeble way that was done on Tuesday night. If we do not do it, the future living standards of many people in this country will go down steeply. This Government, I believe, should recognise its responsibilities and, if it does not know what it is talking about, find somebody who does to tell it. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(1.03) —I raise in this public interest debate a matter which, at the moment, does not have a controversial nature. Some people say that it is a pie in the sky but I believe that it has the potential to become very controversial and very divisive in our community. I refer to the report in the West Australian newspaper on 16 April 1985 relating to the barter deal alleged to have been signed between Lang Hancock, that well known Western Australian entrepreneur, and the Romanians to develop an iron ore mine in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The deal as I understand it is fraught with many difficulties. Firstly, how great a benefit will Australia receive from the development of the Marandoo project if Romania is to provide $100m worth of mining equipment, railway rolling stock and other plant, machinery which is already manufactured successfully in Australia and which was targeted in the recently published report of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, the Ferris report, as not yet having been exploited to its full export potential? Secondly, in considering the barter deal concept, how can this arrangement succeed when hard cash is obviously needed to pay workers in the temporary construction phase? In this temporary phase we are looking at up to 2,000 jobs. Thirdly, the arrangement between the partners, Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd and Lang Hancock, over the development of Marandoo is reminiscent of the ANZUS Treaty in that it is an arrangement in principle only, with no concrete details having been drafted between the partners. The direct benefit in terms of jobs from the development of the Marandoo project appears at this stage-it is only in the temporary construction phase-to be about 2,000 jobs. The real job benefits would come in the manufacturing sector and only if we produced the mining equipment, rolling stock and other plant in this country. Hancock's deal seeks to exclude the Australian manufacturing industry, in particular a section of that industry which is widely recognised, right across the world, as being technically advanced, producing a competitive product and which, as I have said, has been targetted by the Ferris report as having great export potential. This section of the Australian manufacturing industry already services the world's largest hard ore mine, yet Hancock is looking to Romania to supply such equipment and machinery when the Romanians are well known as suppliers to a soft ore industry. There are characteristics differences, relating to specifications and other things, between hard ore and soft ore. The Australian Financial Review editorial on 17 April 1985 also questioned the deal. It posed a question for the Australian Government as to our role in sanctioning such a deal on the grounds of national trade policy or other policies. The question begs: What is the barter deal concept? It can be described as a method or type of trading that overcomes problems associated with earning sufficient foreign exchange that would inhibit countries with such problems from trading in a conventional manner. It is often used by countries with products which are difficult to sell on the world market or are in oversupply. Partners at the receiving end of a barter deal often have problems finding somewhere to sell the goods acquired in that deal. This brings me specifically to the Hancock-Romanian barter deal. Firstly, as established in the National Times article by Duncan Graham in the 10-16 May 1985 edition, 'hard cash to pay the workers has to come from somewhere'. Hancock has reportedly taken a 23 per cent controlling interest in a Hong Kong trading company, Burwill International Pty Ltd, and through this company will attempt to sell throughout the world the extra Romanian goods exchanged in the barter deal for Marandoo ore. The implication is that this will enable Hancock to pay the workers' wages in the construction period only. How can this be if the Romanians cannot trade their own goods on the world market in the conventional manner at the moment? They have to resort to barter deals to do so. Another cost from the Marandoo-Hancock-Romanian barter deal is to be seen in the limited choice of capital equipment. Again I must emphasise Australia's proven capacity to produce such equipment, and the possibility open to us as exporters of such equipment. The ANZUS-like agreement in principle between partners CRA and Hancock throws another aspersion on the Marandoo, Hancock-Romanian barter deal. It has been widely reported that CRA would prefer a cash rather than a barter deal. The West Australian of 17 April reported that CRA claimed that the Marandoo deposits would eventually be developed. Right now it appears that CRA needs to be satisfied with the nature of all arrangements for the project and talks will continue to establish a mutually satisfactory agreement upon which the project could proceed. It appears that CRA has doubts about the efficiency of the Romanian equipment. It should be remembered that the Australian industry is tailored for hard core ores and that Romanian experience is with soft core ores. It has been noted that CRA was absent from the contract signing-yet it is Hancock's partner. According to Graham's article in the National Times, from which I quoted earlier, Hancock says that a letter from CRA in 1984 confirms that it has agreed to develop the mine. As I noted earlier, the West Australian suggests that the Marandoo project will eventually be developed. It is the proposed development now, with all the costs, public and hidden, of the Romanian barter deal that is to be questioned. Graham's article adds: Each party cannot be prejudiced by the collateral arrangements of the other-a clear reference to concern about the barter deal and the Romanian built equipment rolling down Hamersley railroads. Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, incidently, is owned by CRA. In considering the impact on the Australian manufacturing industry of Hancock's barter deal with the Romanians, I have sought to emphasise jobs for Australians in the manufacturing sector and the potential for exporting in mining equipment, railway rolling stock and other plant, which we already manufacture successfully. There are obvious parallels in my concern over the development of Marandoo and the push for a maximised Australian content in the second phase of the North West Shelf project. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(1.12) —On Tuesday of this week this chamber debated the fishing legislation. I think it would be reasonable to repeat two points that I raised in that debate. As recorded at page 1890 of the Hansard, I said: I would . . . like to use the opportunity of this debate to raise the question of fuel costs. I asked a question last week about an impact study on the effect of this year's fuel cost rises on the profitability of existing fisheries and on the likelihood of new developments. I have not yet received a reply and I hope that I will . . . get some response shortly. Fishing uses more fuel per unit of production than any other industry and its situation needs to be taken into account. There is little use in putting new legislation into action to save the fishing industry if at the same time fishermen are unable to continue to fish because fuel becomes too expensive to use. How many honourable senators appreciate that the cream of the tuna fleet and, of course, of the prawn fleet are now putting from $35,000 to $40,000-worth of fuel in their boats before they go to sea? As recorded on the following page, I then said: The management of the northern prawn fisheries has demonstrated what can be achieved, and I would like to take this opportunity to give it special commendation for what it has done at a time when the Government was not too sure what it ought to do. The organisation, led by Peter Pownall, has demonstrated what can be done and, having struggled to rationalise a very bad situation for many years, there is every indication that it can fix it; and this legislation regularises the arrangements that cover its very excellent buy back system. If it has a good season and follows the plan through, it will be better off as an industry in the future. I only hope that every approach-and there certainly will be approaches-will be turned down totally as they arise. All sorts of approaches will be made to water down the scheme, and I hope that they are totally resisted. My congratulations go to Peter Pownall and all the boys from the north, and I offer them as a model for other fisheries. Members of the Government may not be aware that an average 25-metre prawn trawler of modern design, fuel efficient and operated carefully, has had its annual fuel bill increased by $45,000 in May 1985 alone and that in most cases it now amounts to something like $250,000 a year to keep an ordinary prawn trawler fishing in the Gulf of Carpentaria. On the fleet basis, it is the equivalent of having to catch something like an extra 140 tonnes of prawns. The total extra cost to the northern prawners of the May fuel increase alone is in the vicinity of $4m to $6m. This follows an increase earlier in the year and looks as if it is going to precede another rise which has been foreshadowed for probably June or July of this year. As I mentioned, the northern prawn industry has embarked on a buy-back system. Tuesday's legislation approved a $1m contribution from the fishermen themselves to reduce the effort and increase the economy of the fishery. This fishery alone provides employment for some 2,500 people and provides $120m to $150m a year in export income. It just cannot stand such an enormous obstacle as this fuel increase now puts in its way at a time when it is doing everything that it can to get on its own feet. This is just another wanton act of disruption to an industry which operates in a remote part of Australia and provides employment for 2,500 people and an export product that is worth from $120m to $150m a year at a time when Australia badly needs export income. I suppose that there is some rationale for saying 'Let them join the dried fruit industry and the dairy industry or whatever', but I find it totally incomprehensible that a government can so selectively proceed up the track of attacking the productive sector of Australia and of transferring an enormous amount of money from that sector to the non-productive sector, as resulted from Tuesday night's effort. Our trade balance is slipping, so the Government cuts our export incentives and attacks the industries that produce export income. Perhaps we may be told just whose economic theory it is that we are following. We may then understand it better. But in the meantime we are destroying confidence in investment. We are ruining our export industries and we are on the brink of causing further diabolical sociological disruption. In this case the Government has gone along with the way this industry intends to rescue itself, and the approval of the fishing legislation on Tuesday put that into play. The industry has done its part and has agreed to put up its own money, which will assist the Government in the overall arrangements of balancing the biological and economic issues, and now-bang!-it is hit with another rise in the cost of fuel. The day the agreement was ratified by the Senate the Government took the sort of action that makes the industry's performance extraordinarily difficult. The industry has acted in total good faith and it now looks to the Government to take action to restore the viability that it has taken away. I believe that there are four issues to which the Government should be directing itself at this time. One is the restoration of the safe anchorage scheme which operated for some years and provided a best-pricing basis for fishing boats to obtain fuel at a more economical price. Secondly, there is the removal of the 2c tax on fuel which fishermen pay but which in fact is a bicentennial roads program tax. I believe that it is an absolute nonsense that the fishermen are still paying this 2c and have not been able to shake it off. Thirdly, the Government should be pressing to establish a thorough fuel utilisation study and to provide all the assistance that it can, ensuring that better value is obtained if and when it is possible. Fourthly, the Government should be trying to provide assistance with negotiations to arrange bulk fuel contracts from overseas for use by this group of people or by other groups in the same situation. The industry is important. It is absolutely vital to the area and, very clearly, government action needs to be taken to restore the good faith to the arrangements that the industry made only recently with the Government. It is not only the fuel cost that this industry, as one of the productive industries, copped on Tuesday night. The industry loses heavily as a result of the export incentives. No industry has used the export incentives more valuably than the fishing industry, which has done a lot of work overseas trying to win markets in various places. It wins them and loses them in various countries from time to time. It costs a lot of money to investigate and develop them, and export incentives have meant that the price obtainable in Australia has been far better than it otherwise would be. Then, of course, there are the massive cuts to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, some of which will flow on to the fishing industry. I ask the Government to look at the mess that has been created. I am sure that it has happened without any full realisation of what is involved. We have to get the industry settled down and operating effectively and economically. The present fuel situation simply cannot proceed without producing disastrous results. When I asked a question in the Senate last week about a fuel impact study I was told that it was unknown whether any such thing had been undertaken. It is my view that no such action has been taken. Without such a study it would be impossible for the Government to make the necessary decision based on real facts. I just ask the Government to give it some real consideration to do it quickly and to get the industry settled down again. Sitting suspended from 1.22 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the administrative committee of his own branch of the Australian Labor Party has passed a resolution which calls for an end to the acceptance by Australia of refugees from Vietnam because of the isolated clashes there have been between Vietnamese living in this country? Did this motion, which is reported to have been carried with the support of the Left and Independent factions, originate from the Victorian President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr George Crawford? Will the Minister advise whether there is any support for this stance in the Government, a stance which appears to me to fly in the face of the bipartisan support for the refugee program? Senator BUTTON —The Press reports in the Melbourne Sun and the Melbourne Age have been drawn to my attention. They could scarcely escape the attention of any reader of the Melbourne Sun, for example, because it is a front page item in that newspaper. I read those Press reports with a great deal of concern. On behalf of the Government and, if I might say so, on behalf of myself, I totally repudiate the decision made by the Victorian branch administrative committee on Friday night. I must say at the beginning of this answer that, in spite of political differences, over most issues this country has been relatively successful in attaining bipartisan attitudes to migration issues, particularly the question of refugees. It is a sad fact nonetheless that from time to time there surfaces in the councils of political parties of all persuasions displays of prejudice and bigotry directed towards perhaps Aboriginals or particular migrant groups. I very much regret that on this occasion it happened to be the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party which is involved. The national platform of the Australian Labor Party pledges that Party to be opposed to racial discrimination in any form whatsoever. Further, the section of the platform dealing with refugees commits the Australian Labor Party, in conjunction with other countries and under the direction of or in consultation with the United Nations, to a series of programs in respect of intakes of refugees to this country. Of course, in recent years Vietnamese refugees, for a variety of reasons, have been the largest group involved. But we have a commitment at this stage to an intake of 2,500 refugees this year. I want to make it clear also that in one minor but significant respect the newspaper report is incorrect. I understand that it was a very poorly attended meeting of the Victorian administrative committee. It is alleged in one newspaper that the proposition, which undoubtedly emanated from Mr Crawford whom Senator Chaney particularly asked me about, was supported by the Left faction-if I can call it that; we have groups in the Australian Labor Party which are sometimes described as factions-and by the Independent faction. For some years now in a number of newspaper reports and so on my name has been loosely or otherwise associated with the Independent faction in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. I wish to inform the Senate that there was only one member of the Independent faction at the meeting, there being three normally. That person spoke against and voted against the resolution. I have suggested to that person that he ask the newspapers concerned to check their information a little further before they publish reports of this kind. I invite journalists in the gallery associated with those newspapers to see that that sort of thing happens in the future. I regard it as a matter of personal as well as political concern that that report is totally incorrect in that respect. To come back to the thrust of Senator Chaney's question, the platform of the Australian Labor Party is clear. The position of this Government is clear. We seek to encourage bipartisan views on these very important issues related to migration and refugees. I repeat: It is sad that I have to totally repudiate on behalf of the Government, myself and, I believe, honourable members on this side of the Senate the comments which were made in the course of that discussion and the resolution adopted by the Victorian branch at its administrative committee meeting. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of general confusion in country areas about changes to the petroleum freight subsidy scheme? Can the Minister clarify the position, particularly in regard to the increases in petrol prices as from next Tuesday? Can the Minister explain also why inland cities like Mt Isa and Alice Springs cannot be exempt from this decision, given their extreme isolation and obvious hardship of having petrol costs skyrocket unacceptably? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that there is any confusion in country areas it has, of course, been assiduously cultivated by the misrepresentations of people like Mr Hunt of the National Party of Australia who, in his Press release yesterday, suggested that there would in fact be a rise in the petrol price for all country people, a rise in effect of around 4c across the board. Nobody suggests that these cuts are painless, but it is important to appreciate where the pain does in fact fall, and to what extent. What the Government has done is increase the maximum freight component payable by consumers in certain non-metropolitan areas from 1.2c per litre to 5.2c per litre-that is to say, a maximum of 4c. The overwhelming majority of petrol consumers in metropolitan, provincial and rural areas presently pay no freight component at all, or have been paying no more than 1.2c per litre. There are, however, some 3,900 remoter locations around Australia where for that part of the freight cost of a litre of petrol which exceeds 1.2c the government has up until now been paying a subsidy. These locations will be affected by the cuts, but it needs to be appreciated just to what extent they will be affected. For just on half of them the subsidy has been 1c or less, so only 1c or less extra will now be payable by consumers. That is true for example in some places like Moranbah in the Bowen Basin, Bathurst, Woomera in South Australia, and Evoca in Tasmania. In three-quarters of these remoter locations consumers will pay 3c per litre extra or less. For example, in Mt Tom Price and Goldsworthy in the Pilbara and in Ceduna in South Australia it will be between 1c and 2c, and in Kalgoorlie it will be between 2c and 3c. It is only in one-quarter of the 3,900 locations that consumers will have to pay the maximum 4c extra. That includes a miscellany of places like Wyndham, Exmouth, Alice Springs, Flinders Island and Coober Pedy where it is obvious their remoteness is such that freight costs are very substantial indeed. I give just a couple of examples. In Mount Isa the freight subsidy has up until now been 6c a litre and not payable by the consumer. The Government subsidy will in effect be reduced to 2c with the consumer paying 4c. In a place like Thursday Island, to which it is extraordinarily expensive to deliver fuel, the subsidy has been 23.8c per litre and will go on being 19.8c per litre with, again, the consumer paying a maximum of 4c. The main point I wish to emphasise in particular to counter the confusion that is being deliberately promoted around the place in that these locations, where the full 4c extra is being paid, represent only around one-quarter of the total. In fact, in Queensland-to the extent that we have been able to pull out population figures in just a couple of States so far-fewer than one in five of country people who have previously been getting a subsidy will be paying the maximum of 4c. For the rest, most of them will be paying less than 1c, and for the others it will be 2c or 3c. I think that needs to be put very clearly on the record. I should add quickly that despite the statements of National Party spokesmen such as Mr Hunt, the National Farmers Federation yesterday made it very clear that in its view the cuts were fair. The President of the NFF, Mr McLachlan, said that the Government's general package was a step in the right direction and that so far as freight rates specifically were concerned, farmers were 'prepared to take some medicine if all other sectors in the community were treated accordingly'. It is a pity that Mr Hunt does not listen to his own constituency. I have now noted Mr Howard coming unequivocally on to the public record this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that there is no question, in the unlikely event that he should ever return to government, that a Liberal government with him as Treasurer would reimpose the subsidy and in any way undermine the cuts that the Government has made. Against that background, it needs to be appreciated, once and for all, that the cuts are fair, that they have been imposed for good, sound reasons, and there is no scope whatsoever for misrepresentation. I add one more point: If consumers anywhere in the country believe that they are being ripped off by petrol pump proprietors adding 4c a litre in the next few days in circumstances where the freight subsidy probably ought not to be that much, they are very welcome to get in touch with my office directly and we will tell them from the schedule of subsidy rates that are available just what the maximum should be. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Finance to the claim in the Treasurer's mini-Budget on Tuesday night that defence spending would be cut by $83.9m against the Forward Estimates. I also refer the Minister to an estimate by officials of the Department of Defence given to a Senate Estimates committee on 18 April last that the full year costs to the defence vote of depreciation of the Australian dollar would be between $350m and $400m. In view of the fact that the Forward Estimates will be substantially affected by the depreciation of the dollar, again quoting the Treasurer, does this mean that the so-called cut will be wiped out by this substantial increased spending, or does it mean that the Government's defence effort will have to be substantially reduced to accommodate the effects of depreciation of that magnitude? Senator WALSH —The Opposition continues to thrash around in a futile attempt to find the sort of misrepresentation in last Tuesday's statement that was characteristically contained in similar statements which the previous Government delivered to the Parliament. All of the figures-I am sure I have said this before; it has certainly been published before, but I will say it again slowly and as monosyllabically as I can-in the statement published on Tuesday night were reductions from the Forward Estimates of expenditure calculated on the same parameters which applied at the time the Forward Estimates were prepared at the end of 1984. It is correct-one would not have to be an arithmetic prodigy to work this out-that defence outlays, at present exchange rates, will be higher than they would have been under the parameters which applied at the end of 1984. The Government did not adjust any of the figures in Tuesday night's statement for exchange rate effects. Indeed, it would have been impossible to do so because it would have had to adjust the figure every day as the exchange rate changed again. As a practical matter it would have been impossible to do so. For that reason it was not done. If the exchange rate stays where it is now, there will be significant increases in defence outlays. There will be other changes in Budget figures which will more than offset those outlays. Due directly to the higher consumer price index effects of that change-all this is assuming that the Australian dollar value stays in the area where it is now, that it does not move too far away from where it is now-the increased revenues will more than offset the increased outlays in total if the normal pattern of revenue and outlays changes following this sort of adjustment applies. Moreover, the stimulatory effects upon growth of the devaluation are likely to add considerably, as a separate item, to government revenues and conceivable have a negative effect on government outlays. Senator Durack is worried about the balance sheet at the end of the line. It is correct that outlays on defence and on some other items will be increased if the dollar value stays where it is. Senator Durack cited figures of between $350m and $400m. I do not know precisely on what exchange rate they were based, but they sound to be of a reasonable order of magnitude. If what Senator Durack is worried about in the end is the final revenue and expenditure balance, as a proportion of gross domestic product, I inform him that because of the devaluation all of the movements are likely to be in the direction which this Government regards as being favourable-other than the CPI effect, of course-and which I would expect even the Opposition would regard as movements in the right direction. Senator TATE —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to a letter published in the Mercury last Wednesday purporting to be written by Dr Neil Graham who signed himself as the Chairman of the National Trainees Association of the Family Medicine Programme in North Adelaide? In that letter Dr Graham said words to this effect: I am appalled at the recent Federal Government decision to cut $2.9m from the budget of Australia's only general practice training scheme, the Family Medicine Programme. Is it a fact that any such cut was made? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did read the letter purporting to come from Dr Neil Graham who, as Senator Tate said, calls himself the Chairman of the National Trainees Association of the Family Medicine Programme. As Senator Tate and other honourable senators know, there is no truth at all in the letter. No such cut was made. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has been informed that its funding will be maintained. During the last four or five weeks I, like many other senators-the letters concentrated particularly on Senator Crowley and me-have received many letters from members of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners talking about cuts that it believed would happen in its program. I might add that during that time I received no letters from any of those doctors concerning the problems facing the New South Wales medical profession or the activities of their colleagues in New South Wales who were claiming up to $1,000m from the public purse. Over the years, before every Budget, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners conducts a campaign of this type and over the years its funding has been maintained by conservative and Labor governments. When I have replied to those letters over the years I have usually pointed out to my medical colleagues that the vast majority of them are conservative voters, that the vast majority of them support cuts in government expenditure and that the vast majority of them, as a rule support the contractionary policies proposed by conservative governments in this country, but they always claim that everyone else rather than themselves should have to bear the cost cuts. They always claim that they have a right to receive considerable public funding for their training. Yet when they complete their training they want the untrammelled right to charge what they like. My only reply to letters like Dr Graham's and others is that certainly in future Budgets with which I am connected I will look at their claims with a jaundiced eye. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Education a question about tertiary education fees, which I am surprised she has not yet been asked by the Liberal Party. In view of this morning's reports that the Prime Minister and presumably the Government have not ruled out introduction of tertiary fees, I ask the Minister whether she is aware of the Government's previous commitment to free tertiary education? The Hawke Government election platform of 1983 states: A Labor government will . . . maintain the provision of free tertiary education. Is the Minister aware of the cruel effects the reimposition of tertiary fees would have on the 68,000 part time tertiary students, mature aged students, especially women, and post graduate and country students? The economic statement of the Treasurer two days ago cut $73m to $74m from the education Budget. Does the Minister not believe that education has suffered enough through these cuts, especially given that Australia's economic future will depend on its ability to produce an educated work force capable of producing high technology products which can be exported? Senator RYAN —Senator Chipp's question ranged far and wide over a number of issues. In answering it I do not think I will take up the matter of the relationship between the need for a technologically trained work force and certain kinds of educational provisions. Perhaps that is a subject Senator Chipp would like to raise as a matter of public importance. I have very worked-out views on the matter but I do not intend to emulate some of my ministerial colleagues and give the Senate the benefit of my views at this point. Senator Chipp's question contained one factual error. I take the opportunity presented to me now to correct it. He spoke of a sum of $73m being taken from the Education portfolio. That figure is not right. I know that there was such a sum under the heading 'Education' in the Treasurer's Government expenditure savings statement. In fact, two items in that list are not funded from the education portfolio. The block grant to pre-schools in the States has never been funded through the Education portfolio; it has been funded through the Social Security portfolio, or what is now the Community Services portfolio. That figure was not a cut in the education budget; nor was the figure of $2.3m for the Australian Film and Television School. Although I am extremely interested in the activities of the Film and Television School, it is not an institution which is funded through my portfolio. The funding cuts in my portfolio actually amounted to some $54m. Senator Chipp raised the issue of tertiary fees. All I can say is that there was a proposal emanating from the Department of Finance during the period of preparation of the May economic statement to impose fees on tertiary students. The Government decided not to proceed with that proposal, as is quite clear from the statement. I am aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was asked about this matter by Richard Carleton on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program last night. What he said is something that people in this place who are familiar with the workings of the Labor Party should have regarded almost as tautological. It is possible in our Party for any member to secure a discussion about any matter. It is certainly possible, given the way that the Labor Party works, that there will be further discussion of this issue within Party forums. However, the Government currently has before it no proposal concerning fees for tertiary students. Senator Chipp proceeding to ask a supplementary question- The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not regard that as a supplementary question. Senator Chipp —Mr President, on a point of order may I ask you why? I think I am entitled to do that. I asked the Minister a specific question and she said: 'Within our Party we have no less an authority than the Prime Minister equivocating on it'. There are 68,000 students out there who I think would appreciate an answer. Mr President, why is it not in your view a true supplementary question? I remind you that this is the first time that you have so ruled in many months. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is not the first time I have so ruled. I have ruled on a number of occasions that a question asked by way of a supplementary question is not in fact a supplementary question because in my opinion the second question did not relate to or arise from the Minister's answer. Senator ELSTOB —I ask the Minister for Community Services whether he has seen reports of the alleged effects of the cuts in child care expenditure in the Government expenditure savings statement on the future of the children's services program? Will the cuts affect future development of the program and what will be the effect on existing centres? Senator Messner —You have fallen for the three-card trick, too. Senator GRIMES —I would have thought that if it were a three-card trick Senator Messner would be up trying it out. I have seen some reports in the media this morning of the alleged effects of the cuts that were announced to the children's services program. One of the more bizarre reports concerned the Australian Council of Social Service, which alleged that we had in fact halved expenditure for children's services. That is about the standard of numeracy we have come to expect from that organisation in recent times. I will mention what the effects of the expenditure cut will not be and then I will talk about what the effects will be. Firstly, the pre-school block grants have been $30m per annum since 1978. They have been eroded by inflation since that time. I can remember only two State Ministers for youth and community services ever making any more than just minor protests about that. In that time pre-schools have been accepted as the responsibility of the States. The Commonwealth merely gives the money in a block grant. In fact, many of the States are incorporating pre-schools into their primary schools and spend very much more than the Commonwealth contribution. I would expect the States to consider the removal of that expenditure in the light of the forthcoming Premiers Conference and really consider very carefully whether they are going to cut their pre-school expenditure in the way some of them claim they are. Secondly, it has been claimed that this reduction in expenditure will mean that our policy of providing 20,000 new child care places in the next three years has been abandoned. That is not so. That policy remains very firmly in place. There will be a continuation of the policy we have had for the last two years, during which we increased the number of child care places by some 70 per cent and increased the coverage from 4 1/2 per cent of children of pre-school age to 7.8 per cent. What we have in place is a fee release system which is very generous, although not so generous as the Department of Finance officials who gave Senator Walsh the figures which he cited yesterday would lead us to believe. Still, they are very generous. The scheme is very generous for two-income families and for those with more than one child. It involves subsidies to people on considerable incomes-sometimes in excess of $40,000-of anything up to $65 per week. The cuts and modifications mean that after October next some people will have to pay a little more for their child care. Those increases will be concentrated in the upper income groups and, I imagine, would be around $10 a week. There may have to be lesser increases lower down the scale. In a country where there is a great shortage of children's services and where only 7 per cent of children are covered, those in Commonwealth subsidised child care happen to be privileged people. Those in the queues outside frequently happen to be very needy people. In times of economic difficulties such as this, to ask those who are well off to pay a small amount more for their child care so that we can continue expanding the way we have expanded and so that we can continue to provide a fair service is not an unreasonable state of affairs. For a State Minister to suggest that child care centres will have to close and that it will be a disaster for the children's services program, as one Minister suggested this morning, only represents to me a statement bordering on hysteria. Other State Ministers have not carried on in that way. We will retain the child care services. We are proud of what we have done and we will continue in the same way. A few people will have to pay a small amount more; we do not think that that is an unreasonable situation. Senator MacGIBBON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the two F18 aircraft which were completed in the United States of America for the Royal Australian Air Force will depart naval air station Lemore in California at midnight tonight for a 16-hour non-stop transit to Williamtown in New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that they will be refuelled in flight on 10 occasions by United States KC10 tankers as the RAAF has no airborne tankers? Since flight refuelling is essential to maximise the effectiveness of modern combat aircraft, and since the RAAF has four Boeing 707s which were bought primarily for this role-a role which in no way affects their passenger or freighting capacity-will the Minister give the Senate an undertaking that provision for the installation of these long overdue and essential flight refuelling kits will be in this year's Budget? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is premature to disclose anything that may, or may not, be in this year's Budget. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Defence to see what he might be minded to tell him by way of reply. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Education aware of a report in yesterday's Press that the Government's decision to reduce the technical and further education capital program by $12m is a departure from the Government's commitment to expansion of this sector of education? Does that statement accurately represent the Government's action? Senator RYAN —I am aware of that report and, like many of the reports that arose out of the May economic statement, it is an inaccurate representation of the facts. The facts are these: The Government will be providing $128.9m for the TAFE capital program for 1985 and 1986, a reduction of $12m on the Forward Estimates of outlays, so it is still a very large capital program. Of course the Government took this decision, as it had to take other difficult decisions, in the context of its detailed review of the Forward Estimates against the national economic objectives that have been set to ensure continuing economic recovery. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has been asked to advise on the details of projects to be funded within a program of $128.9m for the financial year 1985-86. Final decisions on overall funding levels for calendar years 1986 and 1987 will be taken in the context of the Government's consideration of the 1986 and 1987 supplementary reports of the Tertiary Education Commission. The TAFE capital program is a large and complex one. It has been operating for two years-1984 and 1985-at the record high levels set since this Government came to office. The additional resources injected by the Government have enabled a substantial increase in the funds available each year for the commencement of new projects. Some $47 1/2m is available in 1985 for design work on, and the commencement of, major new capital works. Within the reduced level of funding for 1985-86, the Government has decided that building projects which are commencing in 1985 or which were commenced in earlier years should have priority in order to discharge commitments. After allowing for these commitments, design funds will be provided for new projects in 1986 and 1987 to assist in the orderly development of major capital new works. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this is still a major priority of the Government and one to which record high levels of resources have been allocated. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Sir William Prentice, on the application of freedom of information legislation. In that decision, did the Tribunal seek to take into account the motives of the person seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act? Since amendments to various Acts Interpretation Acts have been made to allow courts and tribunals to take into account the intention of the Parliament in passing this legislation, is it not a fact that both the Senate Committee which reported on this matter, Senator Durack in introducing the original legislation and Senator Gareth Evans in introducing amending legislation, made it quite clear that the motive of applicants requesting information under the freedom of information legislation was not a matter to be taken into account by tribunals and courts? Therefore, will the Government either seek some appeal against the decision made by Sir William Prentice or, if appeals are not available, seek some amendment to the Act making it quite clear that the motives of applicants for freedom of information requests is not a proper thing for courts to take into account in making their determinations, particularly since the Tribunal appears to have laid weight upon the fact that the request was made in order to embarrass the person or organisation from which the information was sought? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen Press reports of the decision of Sir William Prentice to which Senator Puplick refers in which there is some suggestion that Sir William was prepared to take motive into account although equally those reports, as I recall them, said that he did not, in the event, take into account motive in determining the particular matter before him. Maybe under those circumstances- Senator Puplick —It says so in his judgment though. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I recall it, that is my understanding of what I have read in the Press, which so often can be quite astray. I readily concede that this is something that can be properly understood only against the background of a careful reading of the judgment. Senator Puplick is correct in his description of the understandings which lay behind the passage of the legislation. They are made quite explicit in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Certainly it was not intended that motive or intent be taken into account. As to any action that might now be taken by way of appeal-if that is appropriate in terms of the particular matter-or legislative amendment, I will refer that aspect of the question to the Attorney-General, who of course has the responsibility for these matters. Senator RICHARDSON —Has the Minister for Finance seen Mr Howard's promise reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald that he would not attempt to reverse the Government's decision on the petroleum freight subsidy. Is the Minister satisfied now that the Government's expenditure statement decision on this scheme enjoys the wide support of most sections of the Australian public, including the Opposition? Senator WALSH —I certainly have seen that very significant statement from Mr Howard reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which he said that he would not attempt to reverse the Government's decision on the petroleum freight subsidy. He clearly implied that the Opposition would not attempt to overturn any of the expenditure cuts which were announced on Tuesday night. I commend Mr Howard for his conversion to fiscal responsibility. He is clearly trying to tip the lead of the National Party of Australia out of the saddle-bag of the Liberal Party of Australia. I wish him well in that pursuit and in his attempt to hold a responsible Liberal Party line against the pork barrellers of the National Party. Liberal support for the responsible measures which were announced on Tuesday night can be partially explained in these terms: The Liberal Party expects to be back in government one day. Whether it actually will remains to be seen. The Liberal Party knows that because of that it will have to accept the consequences of any decisions or any legislation that this Parliament throws out, particularly matters which have such important long term consequences as the proposed amendments to the veterans' dependants or widows' entitlements, disability and widows' benefits. Unfortunately, no such constraint applies to the Australian Democrats, who know that they will never have to accept responsibility for the things they are for or against. The Democrats position can be summed up in this way: They are against all expenditure cuts and for all expenditure increases. They are against all increases in taxes or revenue raising matters and they are for all tax cuts. Senator Chipp —Have you ever tried to tell the truth in your life? The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Chipp! The Minister is tending to get away from the contents of the question and is rather getting into the realms of debate of his ministerial statement the other night. I ask him to come back to his answer to Senator Richardson's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Yesterday the Senate threw out a proposal which would have raised $50m in revenue. The Liberal Party's response to that can easily be attributed to ideological prejudice. The Democrats' response cannot be so easily attributed. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to come back to Senator Richardson's question or I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. In conclusion, I genuinely welcome Mr Howard's conversion and the Liberal Party's conversion to fiscal responsibility. I hope-as I said before, I am harping about this attempt to empty Country Party lead out of Liberal Party saddle-bags-that members of the Liberal Party have the courage to support Mr Howard and hold the line against the irresponsibility displayed by their coalition partners, both in government and in opposition. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. It follows the answer that he gave to Senator Durack in which he said that increased revenues will more than offset the additional outlays as a result of devaluation. I ask the Minister: What calculation has been made of the increases in revenue from income tax receipts which result from increases in the consumer price index from devaluation effects? If such calculations reveal the considerable increases just mentioned by the Minister, why did the Treasurer in his statement on Tuesday not commit the Government to seek discounting at the national wage case and any deferred productivity claims? Does not the answer of the Minister for Finance contradict what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that discounting was something that did not need to be faced until well into the future? Senator WALSH —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle attempts to draw some link between the increased revenues likely to be returned because of the devaluation induced CPI increase and the national wage case. Frankly, I do not see any logical link between the two, but I will deal with those two issues. To my knowledge no calculations-I think that was the word that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle used-have been made of the likely increases in personal or other income taxes because of the likely higher CPI figure. I have seen some ball park estimates. I cannot recall what they are, but I will ask the Treasurer whether there are any more precise estimates, given certain assumption about CPI increases. I did stress in my earlier answer, perhaps I should interpolate here, that the major boost to government revenues will not come from the higher CPI effect on outlays but because of the anticipated stimulus to growth that the devaluation will have. As to the national wage case, the reason for the statement made by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and me yesterday for the Government decision not to argue for discounting at the September national wage case is that at that time, as Mr Howard has already stated publicly, the devaluation induced CPI effects will not be significant. They are unlikely to be significant at that time. Therefore, the Government's decision was that the question of whether there should be any discounting for the CPI would not be raised by the Government at the September national wage case, but that the Government would instead seek a deferral of the productivity claim which at that time is likely to be quantitatively more important than the devaluation induced CPI change in the March and June quarters of 1985. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister make available the calculations in the ball park figures that he mentioned because they must have taken into account the expected effect on the consumer price index of the devaluation? Such information would then allow us to verify with some accuracy his claim that increased revenue will more than offset the increased outlays in such departments as Defence and others. Senator WALSH —I will not give any guarantees at this stage about making figures available but I will look at the matter and report back. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of international consumer protection guidelines recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and aimed at protecting Third World consumers from exploitation by multinational companies? Is so, can the Minister indicate what measures are being taken within Australia to ensure that Australian companies operating in Third World countries conform to these guidelines? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that on 9 April this year the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution 39/248 incorporating guidelines for protection of consumers in all countries, particularly those in developing countries. Australia participated in the negotiation of the text and supports the adoption of international standards for consumer protection within the context of national laws and socio-economic systems. The guidelines aim to extend to consumers in developing countries the same protection afforded to consumers in developed countries, including protection from practices such as dumping. We welcome the progress that the guidelines represent in extending acceptable standards of consumer welfare to the Third World. As to the measures being taken to ensure that Australian companies operating in Third World countries conform to the guidelines, I point out that the guidelines are hortatory rather than mandatory in nature. Nevertheless, the Government is taking steps to publicise the guidelines with a view to bringing them to the attention of those responsible for bringing goods and services to the market. My colleague the Attorney-General has responsibility for consumer affairs matters and is looking at a variety of measures for bringing the guidelines to the attention of consumer bodies and other relevant groups in the community, industry and government. Senator HAMER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to pass on the 2.6 per cent national wage rise to the Food Preservers Union? Is this Union notorious for obtaining benefits which are clearly outside the so-called prices and incomes accord by stand-over tactics? Will this decision by the Arbitration Commission be a serious blow to the long term credibility of the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government? Senator WALSH —I have seen some Press reference to the decision to which Senator Hamer referred. I also have a note from Mr Willis in which I am advised that although the Commission has agreed to the 2.6 per cent flow-on, it has added the condition that the matter can be relisted speedily if any employer respondents to the award notify the Commission that the Food Preservers Union is pressing a claim outside the guidelines. Although the Union remains in the system, it has really been granted a conditional flow-on. The Union has been placed on trust. There is a capacity for the matter to go back to the Commission if there are any break outs. The Government will continue to oppose flow-ons where there are claims being pressed and in this case the Government's intervention clarified the Union's position and now there is on the record a clear commitment to the system. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Finance seen reports in Adelaide papers last Monday attributed to the Opposition 'whine' expert, Senator Messner, speculating that the Government would increase sales tax on wine in Tuesday's May economic statement? Can the Minister say whether there was ever any truth in the Messner claim or any of the other statements made in the article? Without giving Senator Messner a wine bucket, can the Minister say whether this sort of speculation is of any help to the wine industry? Senator WALSH —I have seen statements attributed to Senator Messner and I am sure they are attributed correctly. The index of unreliability which Senator Messner has previously displayed on this question has been upheld in this case. He was, of course, as is now a matter of public record, absolutely wrong about there being any increase in wine tax in the measures announced last Tuesday night. I would have thought that even someone as ill-informed as Senator Messner would have realised that last Tuesday night's statement was about expenditure, not about taxation. Nevertheless, last Sunday, in his typical style, he decided to throw panic among the poor wine growers of Renmark by saying that something was going to happen on Tuesday night. He managed to get himself reported in the Adelaide Advertiser, the Adelaide News and, presumably, radio and television. Senator Messner has displayed with this latest statement that he is illiterate as well as innumerate in reference to statements that I have made to the Senate on this subject in the past. He said that the statistics included sales of overseas wines which have flooded onto the market since the Hawke Government lowered the level of protection for Australian wines. The figures that I quoted before were extracted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication catalogue No. 8504.0 'Sales and Stocks of Australian Wine and Brandy by Winemakers, February 1985'. So not only, as I said earlier, has Senator Messner demonstrated that he is innumerate; he is illiterate as well. While I am on the subject, I might note that I also saw in the Press recently-I cannot remember the precise date-a letter from Mr Ernest Marty who represents an organisation which I think calls itself the Wine Industry Lobby. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister, by his words, indicated that what he is saying now is totally incidental to the question which has been raised. I would ask you, in light of the small amount of time that is left, to ask the Minister to resume his seat so that other questions can be asked. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening to Senator Walsh and what he is saying is still related to the question. However, I would ask him to confine his remarks to the question and keep the rest of his answer short. A lot of long answers have been given during Question Time and a number of honourable senators still wish to ask questions. Senator Missen —Mr President, I take a point of order. Is this related to Government Business? I know that Senator Messner will soon be in government, but he is not at the moment in government and actually this is not related to Government Business. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question as asked by Senator Cook clearly related to government responsibility and the Minister's responsibility. It is clearly in order. I ask Senator Walsh to keep his remarks to the point. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. Certain propagandists, of which Senator Messner and Mr Marty are prime examples, have long been noted for making wildly exaggerated assertions based on highly improbable assumptions. The most recent of these claims is that although the volume of sales of bottled wine has increased by quite a high rate, sales have fallen. I refer again with respect to bottled wine to the fact, not entirely revealed in the February issue of the publication to which I referred because it does not have the statistics for all the months but has statistics on a monthly basis going back to 1983 for all dry red, dry white, sweet and rose sold in glass containers of less than one litre, that the increase in sales in all those categories in the six months September 1984 to February 1985 over the same six months in the previous years amounts to 8.1 per cent. So in fact bottle sales-bottles being defined as containers of one litre and under-have shown an even greater rate of increase than wine sales in general. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is also directed to the Minister for Finance, relates to the statement by the Minister and the Treasurer about the deferral of the productivity claim until the scope of the depreciation and the extent of its effect on the economy become apparent. I refer the Minister to the words of Mr Simon Crean who on an AM program on Wednesday-that is, the morning after the speech-said, and I quote the words from the transcript: . . . to the extent to which the productivity benefit is taken in the form of superannuation and that's another important factor that we're saying we're not seeking a wage increase if you like through the productivity case. We're seeking the benefit to be taken in another form but that form can also be if you like phased in over a period depending upon the nature of the industry. Is it acceptable to the Government that the wage indexation case proceed as normal, as has been indicated, and at the same time in some industries the productivity case proceed on the basis that the benefit there would be in a form other than wages? Senator WALSH —Senator Lewis seems to think that he has stumbled over a nugget. The comments that Mr Crean made in the context I think I can remember him making many, many times before-that in the productivity claim there would be either higher incomes or some employer contribution to a superannuation fund; either a higher contribution to an existing fund or some contribution where no funds now exist. There is nothing new about that. That is the Australian Council of Trade Unions position. I have stated the Government's position quite clearly. I will go through it briefly once again in the hope that this time it penetrates. The Government's position has been stated by all of the responsible Ministers, including those who have more responsibility for this matter than I do, of course-that because it is not likely to be significant in the September national wage case, the Government will not argue for discounting of the devaluation induced consumer price index effects in the March and June quarters but the Government will argue for deferral of the productivity claim. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report in today's Australian Financial Review regarding a World Bank report on Indonesia? Is the Minister aware that the report has approved the Indonesian Government's transmigration policy which aims to move some of the 100 million people on Java to less densely populated areas such as Kalimantan and Irian Jaya? Did the Australian Government make any submissions at all to the World Bank report either directly or through the inter-governmental group on Indonesia? Does the Government consider the transmigration policy a humanitarian one? If not, has the Government made its views on the matter known to the Indonesian Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I told Senator McIntosh a minute ago when he insisted that he would ask this question, I will have to take that question on notice. I can say briefly only that the Government has taken a sustained interest in the transmigration question to the extent of initiating a discussion of this at the inter-governmental group on Indonesia in Jakarta on 20 March at which a comprehensive briefing was given to various delegates from various governments on this sensitive question. What input we may have had into the World Bank study is something on which I will need to gain further information and I will advise Senator McIntosh accordingly. Senator MISSEN —My question, which I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, relates to the recent claims that the Government has cut general practice attachment subsidies to the family medicine program run by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. I am aware of the homily that the Minister gave us on the subject of the Royal College today. I am also aware of the fact that the May mini-Budget does not make this matter clear in any way. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the Government's financing of the training program is to be cut by as much as 40 per cent in the coming year? Is the Minister aware of the catastrophic effect that such a cut would have on patients and the future cost and quality of health care, particularly in Victoria where 670 of the 1,800 medical graduates under the family medicine program are currently being trained? Finally, will the Minister assure the Senate that the level of general practice attachment subsidies will be maintained so as to ensure that the valuable work performed by the family medicine program is able to continue? Senator GRIMES —I quote from a telex to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners from Dr Blewett dated 14 May 1985. The telex states: Dear Dr Finnegan, I am writing to you in the context of the statement made by the Treasurer in respect of savings which the Government must make in the 1985-86 Budget Context. There has been considerable recent speculation that the family medicine program would be severely curtailed. I am pleased to advise you that this is not the case and that the current funding level for this program will be maintained in 1985-86. If that does not convince the college and Senator Missen, I do not know what will. My homily, as Senator Missen put it, is about the attitude of a college like the College of General Practitioners, whose members trained in universities at public expense, were residents in hospitals using facilities provided by the public purse and later received training by way of salary subsidies-and that is what the College of General Practitioners training program is largely about-again at public expense, were provided with extra qualifications, and then on receiving all those qualifications, demand the right to charge what they like, where they like and when they like the very same people who funded those programs. That is my complaint about the College of General Practitioners. Despite that, it is still getting its funding and that funding will be maintained next year. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question regarding the provision of so-called comprehensive briefing kits to government members and senators on the Treasurer's economic statement and whether such material would be made available to other members of parliament. I undertook to make inquiries on the matter and I am now in a position to respond fully to the honourable senator's question. It has been the long-standing practice of successive governments to advise government party members of the contents of important statements before they are made to the Parliament. Such a briefing of government party members was provided immediately prior to the Treasurer's statement being made. In addition, in the course of and at the completion of the Treasurer's statement, information on various aspects of the economic statement was provided to government party members by relevant Ministers. The rationale underlying the Government's measures was fully covered in the Treasurer's statement and in information publicly released by relevant Ministers. In the event that any individual senator or member is interested in seeking further information, he or she is free to pursue that interest through the normal parliamentary processes established for that purpose, such as Question Time. Of course, I note that that has happened during the past two days. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.03) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This memorandum of understanding was signed by the Australian Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, on 23 April and by the Secretary of Defense in the United States, Caspar Weinberger, on 30 March this year. The memorandum, including its annexes, came into force about a month ago. In so doing it superseded the earlier memoranda of understanding that are set out in the final paragraphs of the paper that is before us, that is, arrangements that had been concluded between us as allies in 1965 and 1980. This week Senator Mason gave notice to the Senate that he would seek to amend, or to gain some support for an amendment of, the preceding memorandum of understanding, that of 11 March 1981. I do not know whether he realises it, but the paper that is before us now has superseded the one that he seeks to amend. I suppose he will take that into account in due course. In my view, Senator Mason's matter ought not be treated, by the Senate with any urgency. I disagree with it and I think it is inappropriate for us to consider it, because there has been so much debate concerning the relationship between Australia and the United States with regard to the importance of the joint facilities and the importance of Australia being a true ally in the training and displacement of defence forces, and allowing B52 aircraft to land in the Northern Territory and American naval ships to visit Cockburn Sound and other ports in Australia. As a Liberal senator and a member of the coalition, I have no quarrel with the Government's current arrangements for the joint facilities and for these defence arrangements. Without having given the paper careful examination, I have nevertheless given some attention to the paper that is before us and I have no quarrel with that either, as it is in the tradition of updating the particularities of the defence arrangements between our two countries. We have a strong alliance. It continues to be the intention of the coalition-certainly it is my intention, as one Liberal senator-that the arrangements for defence that are set out in principle in the ANZUS agreement be supplemented and reinforced by detailed arrangements which are brought up to date periodically, such as has occurred in this paper. One matter relating to logistic support which is of very real concern to me-and, I believe, ought to be of concern to all honourable senators-is that in February this year the Government reneged on an undertaking that had been given to give logistic support in the testing in the Pacific of the MX missile, which was to land near Tasmania. At the time a minority element within the Government party raised a public storm which led the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to cave in, despite contrary advice from the Minister for Defence, who signed this memorandum of understanding on logistic support, and despite contrary advice from the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and other Ministers. Presumably, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to make such unilateral decisions. Therefore, as I am critical of that decision, as are, I believe, a majority of Australians, I looked at this current memorandum relating to logistic support between our two governments which are in alliance in these matters and I saw that there is not a specific referral to the testing of strategic missiles. It seems to me that there is not a direct reference in this understanding to the intention of Australia to give logistic support in the testing and modernisation of such weapons as an insurance that there is a certain deterrent against the Soviet Union's military intentions against the free world. I urge that the Senate not lose sight of the fact that we need to ensure that we have similarly detailed memoranda of understanding to ensure that Australia plays its full role and lives up to its responsibilities in the alliance for logistic support of this kind. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —by leave-I table additional information received by Senate Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Messner: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.12) —The Social Security and Repatriation (Abolition of Assets Test) Bill 1985 [No. 2] is another gesture by the Liberal-National Party Opposition to abolish the assets test. It is apparently to be a repeat performance over and over again for the forthcoming parliamentary sessions. The Opposition states that its Bill to abolish the assets test is based on two grounds, if I can summarise them. First, the Opposition suggests that the assets test was designed to encourage people to become more dependent on the Government. The second ground seems to be based on the assertion that the legislation is shot through with anomalies. Quite clearly, the Opposition has had some difficulty in coping with its attitude to the assets test, and perhaps it would be a good idea if I dealt with some of the Opposition's comments. On 5 May this year Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, said for the first time, having equivocated for a long time before that, that the assets test should be repealed. He has now joined Senator Messner by introducing in the other place legislation to try to repeal the assets test. Senator Messner previously had said: We rejected the notion of seeking amendments designed to correct anomalies in the assets test legislation. Prior to that he had talked of amendments to ensure that the legislation would be fairer. On the same day as Mr Peacock was saying that the assets test should be repealed, Mr Sinclair, the Leader of the National Party, was asking for the assets test to be amended to make up for the difficulties he saw in the legislation. On 27 April Mr Peacock made the first large announcement that the Opposition wanted to repeal the test. But on 27 November last year Mr Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said that he personally was 'in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare'. Although he did not agree with the methods of the assets test proposed, quite clearly he favoured the reintroduction of the assets test. Since then his deafening silence in this matter indicates where he really stands. I think the best summing up of the Liberal Party's approach was made by Professor Gruen after his Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test had commented on the Government proposals. He said: The position of Liberals is even less defensible. Those who argue for smaller government and needs based welfare, whilst rejecting concrete administrative moves in that direction, deserve to be regarded as supremely opportunistic cynics. In fact that is what Opposition members are and have been ever since the Government legislation was introduced. Despite the fact that the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and all the Opposition's usual supporters reaffirmed their support for welfare payments being made to those in need and supported the assets test, the Opposition, thinking it would gain political mileage out of this, continued to say that it opposed the assets test. Yet only two days ago the Opposition's new star on the horizon, Mr Paul Everingham, said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The only way you're going to cut back the deficit and be the only way we're going to have lower taxes which everyone wants is by cutting back expenditure. And one area of expenditure of course is social security where spending is now enormous and last year exceeded the total tax, personal tax income take. I think that we have to make sure that the money that's spent in the social security area is getting to the people who are disadvantaged. I think we have now to take the hard step of saying that people, you know, in the middle income brackets and upper income brackets, simply can't benefit from social security in any way if they are to have any hope of getting income tax cuts. We have had repeated statements of that type from almost every member of the Opposition present in the Parliament today. On past occasions I have quoted Senator Chaney, Mr Peacock, Mr Sinclair, Mr Howard and any number of back bench Opposition members who have talked about needs based welfare. Why do we have an assets test? Why did this Government reintroduce an assets test, which had been abolished in 1976? We reintroduced it because there was an anomaly in the Australian social security system whereby people who were able to arrange their financial affairs to minimise income as a result were able to pick up pensions. It was inequitable, we believed, that those with quite substantial private means were able to pick up benefits in a supposedly needs based system. It is unreasonable that the taxpayer should have to support those who are quite able to support themselves, and the assets test, by reducing expenditure in the way in which it does, enables any government, including this Government, to concentrate assistance on those in need and therefore provide additional revenue for redistribution of low income groups. As a result of the assets test, we now know that in both social security and veterans' affairs between $130m and $150m will be saved to the revenue. Those members of the Opposition who each day, since and before Tuesday's statement, have claimed that we must reduce government expenditure-particularly Mr Howard and Mr Peacock, who say that we must reduce government expenditure even more-may be contradicted by people such as the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Tourism, who put out no fewer than six statements in respect of proposals that would add $260m to existing Commonwealth expenditure. Ignoring those statements, we know that at all times we are asked to keep cutting government expenditure. Yet on this issue considerable parliamentary time and media time has been spent in urging the Government to forgo $150m and abolish the assets test. Senator Messner made an interesting second reading speech in which he took a different tack. It involved the suggestion that the assets test is designed to encourage people to become more dependent on the Government. The first point to make is that to the great majority of pensioners, and the great majority of persons approaching pension age, the assets test is not an issue at all. A total of 2.5 per cent of pensioners are affected; the vast majority are unaffected. This is because there are very generous exemption limits. Those limits are indexed annually. For a single person $70,000 plus a home, or $120,000 if no home is owned, is the starting point of the cut-off. For a married couple the corresponding figures are $100,000 and $150,000. The vast majority of pensioners do not even dream of having that amount of assets, let alone have them. For those who are affected by the assets test, the facts are quite the reverse of the Opposition's assertion. The existing income test had become increasingly exploited by those persons with very considerable assets who, together with their financial advisers, were able to arrange their assets so that they appeared to have little or no income and could therefore qualify for a full pension and full fringe benefits. They were the people who were so arranging their assets that they could get the full pension and the full fringe benefits and who were exploiting the system. Obviously the application of the income test encouraged people to become dependent on the Government for income support. The assets test has brought to light a significant number of cases in which people who have had assets amounting in some cases to hundreds and thousands of dollars, and in some cases even to over $1m, have not been using the assets to produce a reasonable income. Those people have been claiming pensions and benefits. In some instances capital appreciation was sought. In some cases massive amounts were kept in cheque accounts. The largest amount I can remember was $565,000. In all instances additional assistance through the social security system was sought. As Mr Howe has pointed out, we found that, in fact, no fewer than 12 millionaires in this country were drawing the full pension with full fringe benefits. Senator Messner —Twelve millionaires. Senator GRIMES —I know it is not many to people such as Senator Messner. But the simple fact of the matter is that 30,000 people admitted, by simply crossing the appropriate box, that they should not be getting a pension. They did not even bother to come to the Government and put up a claim. Senator Messner —Because they didn't want to disclose their private information to you. Senator GRIMES —They had to disclose their private information? Every pensioner in this country has to disclose his or her income. How can Senator Messner possibly suggest that it is unreasonable to ask people to declare, in confidence to the Department of Social Security, their assets, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to ask people to declare their income? How can Senator Messner possibly argue that as a consistent, logical argument? Senator Messner —You don't understand that. Senator GRIMES —I do understand that. I understand that people such as Senator Messner believe that if people can accumulate wealth as assets and can manipulate that wealth to get into the public purse, it is offensive for them to have to declare those assets. But for everyone, including the poor person on a weekly fixed income from superannuation, Senator Messner considers that it is reasonable that they declare their income. There is no consistency at all in that argument. Senator Messner talked about compassion. How compassionate is it, in fact, to allow people to avoid the income test while others are honestly complying with that test? I believe it is a fair comment that the average worker in Australia in fact readily accepts the obligation to support those in need. But the fact is that that average worker objects to supporting a person with very considerable assets, assets which are very considerably more than the value of his or her home. I think that is an understandable objection. Far from encouraging dependency on the Government, the assets test means that we say to people with assets of, for example, $300,000-there are plenty of them-that they should invest those funds reasonably and safely and produce at, say, 10 per cent interest $30,000 income rather than receive unnecessarily a pension of $4,778.80 a year. The second objection by Senator Messner is based on the assertion that the legislation is shot through, as he said, with anomalies. I think that suggestion needs to be examined both generally and, in particular, in relation to the specific examples Senator Messner cited. Speaking on a general level, I believe that to the impartial observer this test, even with its generous exemption limits and its total disregard of income, has addressed a major anomaly in the existing system. The effect of its immediate application in the Department of Social Security alone has been to reduce the annual pension bill by just in excess of $100m, and in the case of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, another $40m plus. In other words, a large number of people with substantial assets were able to provide for themselves and were escaping the income test arrangements and picking up a full or part pension. That $100m or $150m may not be much in Senator Messner's thoughts. In fact, it is almost enough to increase supplementary assistance which goes to the poorest pensioners in this country by some $5 a week. It is in excess of 50 per cent of the children's services program of the Federal Government. In fact, it is one-tenth of the total budget of my Department for providing care for aged and disabled people. We all know about the queues of people waiting to get into aged and disabled people's accommodation. This anomaly has been minimised. The amounts will increase as people who are getting more and more lump sums will no longer be able to manipulate the system. Now our social security system focuses more closely on the needy. About 30,000 people out of 2.5 million pensioners have lost all their entitlement and 20,000 people have had their pensions reduced. I ask honourable senators to remember the considerable limits this indicates. If pensioners own their own homes they do not lose the pension until they have $116,000 in assets if they are single and $177,000 if they are married. If they do not own a home they do not lose their pension until they get to $166,000 if they are single and $220,000 if they are married. Of course there have been some difficulties with the introduction of the test. I for one, and Senator Gietzelt for another, have always said that there would be and that, in fact, we would keep this matter under observation. Of course, the anomalies have been almost entirely in the rural areas and we were aware that that was a problem. But the improvement in the Government's capacity to address problems in the welfare system through the savings generated by the assets test I believe has been recognised by most people in the community. Let us look at some of the anomalies Senator Messner enumerated. He seems to use the same example all the time. I refer to his second reading speech in which he talks about the woman who was recently widowed. The woman and her husband had been allowed $100,000 plus their home before the assets test would have affected them. They had been unaffected by the assets test. If the $100,000 in assets produced $8,000 in income their combined pension would have been about $101 a week. In these circumstances, when the husband dies the effect under the existing income test is that after a period in which the pension formerly paid to the couple is continued the pension payable to the widow would have dropped to some $30 a week. Under the assets test the pension payable to her would be $31.90 a week. It is not apparent to me that the assets test adversely affects the widow in this example. She would be in a position where her private income amounts to $154 a week and her pension almost $32 a week, so she would have a total of $186 a week. I suggest that many people in the community would question whether a single person with an income at that level, plus a home and $100,000 in assets, requires the special consideration which Senator Messner seems to think she does. Senator Messner referred to the person who realises a considerable sum of money when he sells his home to enter a nursing or aged person's home, or the person who sells a business for $100,000. Such a person has the potential to obtain an attractive income through investing the proceeds. To preclude him from a pension he would need assets of $166,000. I suggest that reasonably attractive interest rates are now available from simple deposits in a building society or an investment account with a bank. Given the investment limits, a person in these circumstances who qualifies for some pension is, as Senator Messner knows, very likely to be income tested rather than assets tested. In other words, that person would be income tested under the existing system. Senator Messner used the example of the aged person's home. At the moment a person who obtains entry to an aged person's home without payment, loan or donation is treated as a non-home owner. If such a payment were made to obtain admission, the person is treated as a home owner, as he had some right or interest in the accommodation. The amount he paid is disregarded as an asset since it represents that home. I know that there is a wide range of circumstances under which people enter aged persons homes. In practice few will be affected by this provision. Only those with substantial assets would be affected. A single home owner may have other assets of $70,000 without being affected. If a person has $70,000 invested at, say, 9 per cent, the income would allow a pensioner to be paid $46.30 a week. Under the assets test a person would need assets of $92,800 before the pension at that rate was payable. I know that this is a sensitive area. Senator Haines and others have brought it up. It is the only area in respect of which there have been any number of questions from urban-based people about the assets test. We are monitoring the situation to see whether we cannot allow, say, a single sum for people who have paid to go into nursing homes and who, therefore, are considered to be home owners. It is in rural areas that there have been problems, as we have been the first to admit, although I must admit that sometimes the problems have had more to do with emotion than with reality. I well remember a beautiful example of that on the Willesee television program, of which I took care to get a transcript. In the transcript sentences were run together like this: 'Mrs X has a property worth $150,000 and she has $30,000 in the bank. She does not know where her next meal is coming from'. There are hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who have no money in the bank and who do not know where their next meal is coming from. To suggest that someone with $30,000 in the bank does not know where her next meal is coming from is ludicrous, emotive and emotional nonsense. Senator Haines —Perhaps she has expensive tastes. Senator GRIMES —She might be like Senator Messner and live on verve cliquot. But for heaven's sake, that is the sort of emotional nonsense which we have heard from the Opposition and from such programs. We would have to put up the wine tax an awful lot to affect someone in that situation! Of course there were anomalies, largely due to the fact that the system of valuation of rural properties was faulty. We were the first to admit that. The reason that some valuations tended to be faulty was that we were determined that people should not be intruded upon and some of the valuations had to be done at a distance. The best example of an anomaly I can remember concerned a gentleman from Benalla who lived in an area of apparently rich farmland on a considerable block of land, his land being a very scrubby bit of land in the middle of very good farmland and his house being no more than a shack. Within four days of that anomaly being brought to the attention of Mr Howe it was corrected. His valuation had been considerably more than it should have been. Of course there will be such anomalies, but we had to draw a balance between invading people's privacy and being ultra strict in valuations. There is now a good appeals mechanism, as there never was for the assets test administered for 30 years by those opposite. Senator Messner —That's why we had to get rid of it. Senator GRIMES —They did not get rid of their assets test for that reason. Senator Withers blew the gaff on that. He said that that assets test was got rid of because the then Country Party did not like it as it made it difficult for people with large rural holdings to maintain them, even when the kids and the parents did not want to work them. When it was got rid of we pointed out the anomalies and difficulties that would arise in the income test when it came forward. We have been looking at the problems in the rural areas. These problems concern between 1,000 and 2,000 people out of some 50,000 people affected by the assets test or out of 2.5 million pensioners. We are looking at that area. We will make some modifications to the scheme. They need be only modifications in administration. They will be submitted to Cabinet very shortly. I feel confident that many of them will go through, which will ease all this tension. It is a great pity but a practical reality of political life in this country that those anomalies in a scheme which was complicated and difficult to introduce but which is going to be of benefit to the vast majority of people should be concentrated on in the debate. But we accept that. A similar situation arises with respect to the hardship provisions, which were taken up and continued from those which have been applied in the social security system for a long time. Senator Chaney used to cite them here all the time. It may be that those provisions for $3,000 and $5,000 are too low and that the sums will have to be increased. Certainly that will be the subject of a submission to Cabinet. I feel quite confident that that anomaly will be corrected. But it is very difficult for me to see why the hardship provisions should be extended to someone with $60,000, $70,000, $100,000 or $150,000 in the bank. I certainly do not think they should be extended to someone who has $30,000 in the bank and who does not know where her next meal is coming from! That sort of emotive problem will always be a difficulty. We have always accepted that it will be a difficulty. It is a difficulty which has been taken up by an Opposition which has so little to say about government policy and so little to offer the people of this country that, for the second time this year in this Parliament, General Business time is being taken up with an assets test abolition Bill brought forward by Senator Messner. Heaven knows how many matters of public importance or urgency matters have been brought up in this place and in the other place dealing with this one issue. We in this community have unemployment, a very real continuing problem of poverty, very real continuing problems, which we accept, in industry and problems with our overseas trade. We do not deny them or resile from them. But we have an Opposition which presents itself as an alternative government and is absolutely obsessed with a measure which gave $150m to the revenue, which affected 2.5 per cent of pensioners in this country, and which provided the Government with the capacity to make alterations to the social security system to ensure that it helps those in need the most. We have an Opposition obsessed with a measure which was introduced in light of the fact that both major parties claim that we should have a needs-based social security system and that, once we get members of the Opposition on their feet and wind them up, the vast majority of them will immediately start talking about a needs-based system, about the need to cut social security expenditure and about closing loopholes to stop people avoiding the social security system. What gets me even more is that members of the Opposition are willing to get up in this place and vote against and block legislation which would recoup to the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars which have been stolen from the taxpayers by tax avoidance and tax evasion. They vote against and object very strongly to that sort of legislation, yet come in here and bleat about $150m which has been taken from the revenue, the taxpayers, and pensioners of this country. Senator Messner —What kind of legislation was that? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner is utterly inconsistent in his approach to this matter and is demonstrating that his concern is for those who can manipulate the system through manipulating their assets and the taxation system that we have and who, therefore, disadvantage ordinary taxpayers and pensioners. If that is the line he wants to take, he can continue to do so. But as long as he does so he will remain on that side of the chamber. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.40) —I have to say at the outset that I am sorely tempted today, which is the second time that this repeal legislation has been before the Senate, actually to support the Opposition's Bill, the Social Security and Repatriation (Abolition of Assets Test) Bill-not because I have any philosophical or ideological objection to a needs based test for pensions or because I oppose what the Government has attempted to do; that is, to expand the system from the previous anomalous incomes only test to an assets test, but because of the sorts of things that have been implied in a couple of telegrams that I received today. One came from Kelly Carter, a resident of south-east South Australia, who is a member of the UF and S Action Committee. In the telegram he said: Dear Senator Haines, due to the lack of action by the Government- I wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment- I beg you to please support Senator Tony Messner's Bill in the Senate today. Our future is in your hands. Please help us. The second telegram came from Tamworth and stated: On behalf of the farmers of Australia we strongly urge you to support Senator Messner's Bill in Parliament today. I would like to support Senator Messner's Bill in the Parliament today if only to prove to these people just how useless that action would be. There is no way that supporting Senator Messner's Bill in the Parliament today, or a month or so ago when he first introduced it, will have any effect at all on what is currently bothering the farmers under this test. It will have no effect at all. It will not stop the legislation coming into operation. It will do nothing more than what a simple resolution of the Senate saying that we object to the way in which the legislation is being administered would do. People in the community who seem to believe that the passage of this Bill in the Senate today will automatically repeal the assets test legislation have been made, I suspect, the victims of a very cruel hoax. If the implication has been given to those people by Senator Messner or by any other member of the Opposition, I deplore it absolutely. I can only assume, from the letters that I have had from people saying 'Please repeal it in the Senate, then we will not have to suffer under it' and the contents of the telegrams from Kelly Carter and Jim Hayes, that that is their belief. Why else would they say: 'Our future is in your hands; repeal this piece of legislation'? They must believe that in some way the repeal of the legislation, the passage of the repeal Bill here, will automatically stop the legislation from having any effect. I do not know Mr Hayes, but Kelly Carter is an intelligent person. Surely he must have some reason for indicating in this telegram that he believes that in some way Australian Democrats' support of Senator Messner's Bill in the Senate today will help those people in regard to the operation of the legislation. It will not. For those people who seem to believe that it will, let me just briefly run through what has to happen before an Act can be put into effect or can be repealed. There are, in fact, four stages to this. The legislation has to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate in an identical form. It has to receive royal assent and it has to be proclaimed. Three of those four procedures are currently in the charge of the Government, so simply passing the repeal Bill in the Senate today would do nothing except confuse a large number of people in the community who could well be led to believe that that has somehow stopped the effect of the assets test legislation. It would not. Let me go back to what I said a month or so ago when the Bill first came before us. We agree that there are anomalies in the operation of the legislation. The main ones, of course, affect people in rural areas. I raised one in Question Time some weeks ago with the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, of people who pay small, non-refundable deposits in order to secure a place in a nursing home. There may be one or two others affecting a few individuals, but certainly the main one is that which affects people in rural areas. We have acknowledged that. We pointed out at the time that there are very few pieces of legislation which are anomaly-free and that when anomalies occur they should be corrected. We said also at the time that it was not necessary to repeal this legislation, nor, in fact, even to amend it in order to assist people in rural areas who are suffering as a consequence of it. The Government has proved us right in this by pointing out that it could stop the anomalous administration by the Department of Social Security simply by introducing some regulations. It is not necessary to meddle with the legislation at all. It is simple enough to use the other processes that are available to us in this place. Repealing the legislation-assuming that it went through both Houses of Parliament, received royal assent and was ultimately proclaimed-would simply return us to the old, inequitable, highly anomalous incomes only scheme which more and more people were managing to avoid by rearranging their capital so as to minimise their income, and still holding large amounts of assets. I believe-I said this on the previous occasion on which the legislation came before the Senate-that if the Government is not going to act in this way, if it is not going to introduce regulations which will allow the legislation to be administered differently for people in country areas than it is for people in the cities, the other process that we can take is to establish an anomalies tribunal which will look at individual cases and treat them on their merits in such a way that people who are inadvertently affected by the administration of the legislation get a fair hearing and are exempted by the tribunal from the operations of the legislation. We have, in fact, had produced the first draft of the required legislation. Under this legislation the proposed assets anomalies tribunal would be based on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984 and the provisions for the tribunal that exist under that Act. The way we envisage the tribunal operating is fairly simple. It would exist to hear applications and to determine whether or not an anomaly existed in the assets test as it applied to a particular person. An anomaly would mean that a consequence of the operation of the assets test would result in substantial inequality of treatment as between persons whose property is substantially equivalent in value. That is, of course, the anomaly that is affecting people in rural areas at the moment. It would not cost the applicant anything to appeal to the tribunal because in the draft Bill a provision is made that costs could be paid to an applicant so that no additional financial strain would be put on him. Proceedings would be private and informal. They would be held in a convenient place, bearing in mind the age and the health of the applicant. Those are important considerations when one considers that the people we are dealing with very largely are elderly people. The tribunal would, in fact, operate to apply the principle of equity to applications and would endeavour not to apply the assets test if an anomaly would result. For example, it would be possible to define an uneconomic farm as one which produces an income of less than $10,000 a year and which is worked by the pensioner's son or daughter as his or her principal source of income. That income could then be disregarded as far as the assets test is concerned. I think most honourable senators present in the chamber today would agree that that is the sort of situation that is causing most concern to people in the rural community. Also of concern is the isolated instance that Senator Grimes mentioned of people living on a pocket of unproductive land in a belt of highly productive land being unfairly assessed and having put on their property a value right out of keeping with its actual valuation. I simply repeat that to return, as the ultimate repeal of this legislation would do, to the previous income only test would be to return to a system under which a large number of people-at least 30,000, according to Senator Grimes, and quite possibly more-were in receipt of a full pension, often with fringe benefits, or a part pension which they did not need. These people were in a position to look after themselves, irrespective of whether they felt they knew where their next meal was coming from. As Senator Grimes pointed out, somebody with $150,000 worth of assets and $30,000 in the bank ought to have some idea of where his next meal is coming from and ought not to expect to receive a pension at taxpayers' expense. The situation in which people were able to come out of business or a job with several hundred thousand dollars in superannuation lump sum payments, put it into a non-interest bearing account and then go on a full pension with fringe benefits was highly inequitable and highly immoral. With the introduction of the assets test those people are no more entitled to receive a pension than are people who come out of similar jobs and receive their superannuation, not as a lump sum but as a regular fortnightly income, thereby earning enough to deny them the pension and fringe benefits. Going back to that inequitable, iniquitous situation is not something I would have thought anybody who supported a needs based system would approve of. The obvious solution is either to do what Senator Grimes has indicated the Cabinet apparently will be looking at on Monday-not before time-and make some regulatory amendments to the legislation or, if that is not acceptable, to do what happened with the repatriation legislation and establish and anomalies commission for the assets test legislation. Despite the fact that I would like, as I said earlier, to support the Bill, in order to indicate to the community that it will not have any magical effect and that it will not cure overnight the community's problems or repeal the assets test and prevent its effects I indicate that we will not be supporting it. Therefore, I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'the Senate, recognising that agreement by the Senate to a Bill to repeal the assets test will not assist farmers, because it will not change the Act in any way, nevertheless condemns the Labor Government for its failure to act quickly to alleviate the hardship caused to the rural community by the administration of the assets test, and opposes the return to an inequitable income-only means test as proposed by the Liberal-National Party Opposition'. I think that amendment probably expresses the three main points I have made in my speech today. Firstly, people must be made aware that the passing of a repeal Bill in the Senate will not in fact repeal the legislation. Secondly, honourable senators, like a lot of people in the community, are getting sick and tired of the Government dithering around about what it is or is not going to do to remove the anomalous administration of the test. Thirdly, if we are to have a means tested pension system, it has to be as equitable as possible, as anomaly free as possible, and a return to an income only means test will not be the solution to all our problems. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.55) —In winding up the debate for the Opposition on the second reading of the Social Security (Abolition of Assets Test) Bill 1985 (No. 2), which seeks the abolition of the assets test on pensions, I am afraid that I cannot thank those honourable senators who have taken part in the debate for their contributions. I am sure that honourable senators are aghast at that. First of all I would like to deal with some of the remarks made by Senator Haines. She moved an amendment which gives her a way of sliding out of her responsibilities on this matter; it is obviously just a matter of having two bob each way. She based her argument on how the Opposition apparently has been misleading people by claiming that when this Bill passes the Senate the pensions test will be abolished. I suppose that it is only the Australian Democrats who would accept that kind of idea. Indeed, no person I have ever dealt with in the rural community, or in any other respect-- Senator Mason —Why are you carrying out this exercise? Senator MESSNER —I will come to that. I made this point quite clear to Senator Mason's party in other debates on this matter. Obviously there will not be any magical conclusion to this matter. Our problem is getting the Government to act. That is where the Australian Democrats are not facing up to their responsibilities. They have refused to act in cases brought forward in this chamber and by the media. The Democrats refuse to do anything about it. Twenty-two Government members of parliament have stood up and said that the assets test is wrong. They have taken the matter to their own Caucus and been refused, apparently, any action by the Government. It remains for this Parliament, through the Senate-the only place it can be done-and for the Democrats to support a motion of abolition in such a way as to allow us to force the Government to meet its responsibilities. That is the reason-not the Democrats' puerile thinking. This is the kind of situation which I believe we are obliged to face up to as members of parliament. This issue is one of very broad and great concern in the community. I hope that even the Democrats can see that. Let me deal with a few of the matters which the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) raised. For instance, he talked about the 12 millionaires caught along with the 70,000 other pensioners in the course of the application of the assets test. He claimed that that was a great achievement. Of course those 12 millionaires will surrender a pension which totals $50,000 extra for the revenue. That would amount to an extra 1.5c each week for every pensioner in Australia, if it were distributed. So much for that argument. Senator Grimes talked blithely about those people with several hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars sitting in bank accounts. He referred in that context to my speech on the second reading when I made the point that if a small businessman sells his business for $100,000 then because he, in one form or another, receives that $100,000 he is excluded from the pension. The point I make to the Government, the point it consistently refuses to acknowledge, is that when a person sells his farm or business he does not automatically get payment in cash. Payment does not come in the form of money that can be invested in another way or put in a bank account. Most people who sell their businesses or farms have to do so on very long term credit arrangements. The conversion of a business or a piece of land-which is hard to liquefy; hard to convert into cash-into another form becomes an asset for the purposes of the assets test. It is illiquid and difficult to obtain cash from and consequently leads to the kinds of situations that are so manifest in the community today. People may have very low incomes even though they may have substantial paper assets. For example, sons could owe debts, other members of the family could owe debts resulting from the purchase of a business, or people could be buying a business or farm on credit but, because of their low income, they find themselves unable to stay alive. Consider the farm situation as an example. This year the average farm income is $9,000. That is less than half of the average weekly earnings available today to a wage earner in Australia. Yet a farmer is expected to pay off the debt on his property, continue to run his business and keep his family alive all on $9,000. That is a situation which this Government refuses to acknowledge and ought to be changed. It will not come good. Senator Haines refers to it as an anomaly. I think it is gross discrimination because it challenges directly the farmer, or small businessman as the case may be, in such a way that his income is reduced substantially by his commitment to his capital asset. That is the core of our argument on this matter. We are not talking about people who are rich in terms of money that they can easily draw upon; we are talking about people who are relatively low income earners but, because of the valuations of properties that this Government applies to land and other assets, they find themselves in a situation where they cannot exist off the level of income that that asset generates. That is the core of the problem. I do not know when the Government will face up to its responsibilities in this matter. Today we had a first class opportunity for the Australian Democrats to join the Opposition in moving to put maximum pressure on the Government to achieve the abolition of the assets test. If there is any doubt that there is very substantial concern in the community about this matter one has to look only at the numbers of signatures on petitions that have been brought into this chamber and the House of Representatives. Petitions are continuing to flow in. Every member of parliament would have received representations from those in the community who are clearly being severely discriminated against and disadvantaged by this legislation. By introducing the assets test there can be no particular group that this Government has singled out for more attention than the rural community. Clearly it is rural people who will suffer most and who are suffering most. Today Senator Grimes brought forward particular issues and examples. I could counter them by bringing forward examples of the exact opposite, individual cases which would rend his heart, I hope, in the same circumstances in which he sought to rend ours. However, that would not profit the argument much because I know that he appreciates that these cases are prevalent and numerous in the community. So let us look at the Minister's defence as to why he has sought to continue this outrageous, most discriminatory attack on country people. Senator Grimes has said on the one hand: 'We are prepared to consider hardship. We are prepared to consider the case of a person who cannot draw upon his assets, cannot turn them into cash and we will provide a means by which individuals can go to the Department of Social Security and demonstrate that they are in need and so obtain a pension'. That sounds fine. I refer to a Commonwealth Record article of 15-21 October 1984, during the election campaign, in which the Minister so kindly pointed out: Farmers will not be forced to sell their farms as a result of the assets test. The Government has explicitly recognised the special position of farmers and has included a number of special provisions in the test to ensure that it operates fairly in relation to them. Let us see how fair that is. Recently in an Estimates committee debate the Minister acknowledged that 1,263 cases were lodged under the hardship provisions of the legislation but only 25 have been granted-25 out of the 1,263. That shows how fairly the Government is looking at cases under the hardship provisions. And is it any wonder? Under the hardship provisions the requirement is that a person can have assets of no more than $5,000. Even a person with a television set, a refrigerator, a stove and a house would have little more that $5,000 so automatically he is scrubbed out of the hardship provisions in this legislation. For that reason this provision is inoperative; it does not help the people in greatest need in rural communities. The other great joy that farmers have under the assets test is to apply for a pension under the so-called pay as you die scheme or the pension loans scheme. I can report to the Minister that there is very widespread suspicion of this scheme in the rural community. People have an absolute horror of getting themselves involved in those kinds of schemes. Let us look at the provisions of this. Time and again the exact points have been brought to the attention of the Minister and he has refused to acknowledge them. However, let us look at them. If a person wishes to draw a pension during his retirement years he can do so by signing over a mortgage on the property to the Government. Eventually, upon the death of that person, the Government can sell the property, repay the loan which has accumulated over the period in which the pension has been drawn and charge interest on a compound basis at the rate of 13.5 per cent. If a person retires at, say, age 65 and lives until he is 78, which is about the average life expectancy today, the amount of debt that would have accumulated under the scheme would be about a quarter of a million dollars. If that person lives until he is aged 95 he will owe the Government about $1.97m. The point of the exercise is this: Sooner or later the family farm will have to be sold and the proceeds paid to the Government. The farm will not be transferred to the next generation of that family. The point that has to be made is that under that loan scheme it takes relatively little time for the amount owed to come to a quarter of a million dollars. Of course that would virtually wipe out most of the smaller properties in Australia at present. Let us look at the other catch-22 situation that exists even with that most generous scheme, as the Government describes it. If between 1 June 1984 and now a farmer decided to transfer the property to his son in his normal way, so that he could continue the business into the next generation and so that the retiring farmer could do some part time work and earn a little extra income, supplemented by the pension, because the property was transferred legally and the transfer registered in the land titles office, the retiring farmer has no legal ownership to the property and, as a result, cannot give a mortgage to the Government to get the pension under the pension loans scheme. The Government refuses to acknowledge that very severe anomaly. It will not even acknowledge that it exists and that it is a particular problem in the rural community. I say to the Government that the very existence of this problem prevents people undertaking the normal operations within their retirement years of transferring their asset to their sons so that they can obtain a little extra income, supplemented by the pension, an asset which the son has taken the greater responsibility for and so keep the asset running into the future. That becomes a very severe problem to that particular group and destroys the basic premise upon which much of Australia has been built over the many generations that we have been going in this country. Farmers, of course, are a prime example, but similar arguments apply to those in small business and those who are accumulators of modest savings. This Government is seeking to cheat them out of their savings by removing their eligibility for a pension. Although they have paid their taxes all their working lives, they will be unable to qualify for the pension. If that is not discriminatory, I do not know what is. It is a clear example of how this Government is attacking those in the community who are seeking to do the most for themselves in order to take themselves off the Government pension payroll in the longer run. The point that the Minister continually fails to acknowledge is the basic argument that the Government's scheme of assets testing of pensions makes people more dependent upon the government in the long run, whereas the Opposition's approach to the system of retirement income is to make people independent of government by encouraging them to look after themselves. That is the basis of our argument; it is the core of it, and taking the long run view, it is obviously the only way for any government to approach the problem of social security in the retirement income area. Let us examine that statement. The Government makes great play of its belief that somehow in the year 2015 we are going to have pensioners literally dropping in the streets. They are going to be so thick on the ground that we are not going to be able to look after them adequately and the only way we will be able to look after them adequately is by cutting back on the pension now! Senator Grimes —I did not say that. Senator MESSNER —Of course the Minister did. The situation is that the Government has been using it as the basis for its attack on pensions under the assets test since it first introduced it, and Senator Grimes knows that. Senator Grimes —Quote me once. Senator MESSNER —It is in the Minister's second reading speech on the original legislation. The point that I would like to make about this is that if the Government is really serious about changing the impact of the cost of retirement income in the future-bear in mind that if we take a benchmark of the year 2015 we still have 30 years to do something about this-what we should be trying to do is to encourage as many people as possible to save for their own futures so that they become independent by the time they are due to retire beyond the year 2015. Is that not the point? Is that not the way that policy should be directed? Senator Grimes —No. Senator MESSNER —The Minister is apparently not in favour of occupational superannuation, which is the basis upon which we would develop an alternative system and a matter which this Government apparently refuses to address. Let us turn then to some of the other outstanding anomalies in the legislation which this Bill seeks to abolish. The Government has made much of the fact that there have been savings of, firstly, $50m, then $100m and now I notice we are being quoted $140m, in the pension assets test. I understand that the number of people now affected is over 70,000. That being so, let us just consider that a $140m saving is. The Minister makes the point that some people on supplementary benefits may be assisted, but the Government's chief commitment to the assistance of pensioners, as claimed in the election campaign before the 1983 election and before last year's election, is to build the pension up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The cost of doing that is over $1,200m. For all the strife that the Government has set the people of Australia to over the assets test, we are going to realise, at the very most, only about 10 per cent of that particular figure. It will realise 10 per cent-a minor amount of money-in seeking to achieve that objective. Consequently, we wonder to what extent that is a real figure anyway because when one considers the situation of small farmers-and I am not talking about rich people at all; I am talking about the average small farmer-who may have a property, which cannot be eaten, and which, on paper, is worth $200,000- Senator Grimes —But the money can be used to eat. Senator MESSNER —If they sell the property, but the Government said it was not going to force farmers to sell their properties. Senator Grimes —Why don't they- Senator MESSNER —Senator Grimes is now advocating that farmers sell their properties. Senator Grimes —No, why don't they take a loan out on it? Senator MESSNER —I explained why they cannot because the Government's system in the main prevents people from doing that and following their normal provisions. I only wish the Government would address its mind to the real issues sometimes; it might then understand. As to the amount of money that is going to come in from the assets test, the Minister is apparently not going to meet his obligation towards boosting the pension up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I suppose that we cannot expect that the Government will, in its present state of mind of seeking to reduce the outlays on the Budget. Senator Grimes —Don't back it in, cobber. Senator MESSNER —'Don't back it in', the Minister says. I wish he would always be a little bit more on the record about these things so that we could indeed make sure that he does fulfil his promises. The point about it is that those claims by the Government that there would be substantial gains from very rich people are indeed illusory. It is the battlers, the little people who have paper assets who are being hurt the most by this assets test at the present time. Senator Grimes —I wish I had paper assets of 250,000 smackers. Senator MESSNER —I can join with the Minister in agreeing with that. I think the Minister with his parliamentary superannuation would be far better off than any farmer with his paper assets. Senator Grimes —I will get the assets test though. Senator MESSNER —So will they. Senator Grimes —Tony will abolish it and I'll be rich. I will get the pension too. Senator MESSNER —But I thought that the Minister's Government had already fixed that by changing the parliamentary superannuation rules. With all the by-play, the point remains-and I want to make this extremely clear, even to the Minister-that it is not the very wealthy people who are being affected. In fact, the people who make up the excess over the 12 millionaires who are included in that total number of 70,000 who are losing pensions or part of them, represent a very wide section of this community, but there can be no doubt that the greatest part of that total are those people from the country areas. That, of course, is where the discrimination occurs. We only have to look at the Social Security Department figures for Victoria to see that in Horsham, for instance, 8.3 per cent of pensioners have lost their pensions. The figure for Wangaratta is 6.1 per cent, for Warrnambool 5.5 per cent and so on. A comparison can be made with those who live in suburbs of Melbourne such as Springvale where 0.8 per cent have lost their pension and Northcote where the figure is 1.1 per cent. This indicates that the burden is falling most heavily on those who live in country areas. Senator Grimes —What about Toorak? Try Toorak. Senator MESSNER —The major discrimination resides in the very point the Minister made about Toorak. Under this man's assets test a person can live in the suburb of Toorak with a $1m house and get a pension- Senator Grimes —How does he pay the rates? How does he pay the maintenance? Senator MESSNER —If the Minister ever cared to listen to the problems he might understand what the real people are thinking about. The point is that farmers of moderate means cannot get the pension because of the inflated value of their properties, which I point out that they cannot eat. Those properties might be worth a maximum of $200,000, which is only a fifth of the value of properties held by persons living in Toorak. That is where the discrimination lies, and the Minister knows it. Why does he not do something about it? We have been forced to go to the lengths we have to seek to abolish this Bill in order to force the Government to face up to its responsibilities. I do not know how we can ever force the Australian Democrats to meet their responsibilities because they do not know what the word 'responsibility' means. They are always two bob each way merchants. All they are seeking to do is to ride as best they can on the issue and try to obtain support from little pockets and little groups in the community. They seek to build up their constituency to 10 per cent or thereabouts so that they can somehow put up some kind of fight at the next election. That is all they are doing. But try asking them to take responsibility for their actions. They will never stand up in this place and attack the Government when it really counts. Senator Grimes would cringe from the sharp-pointed-toed shoe of Senator Haines if she ever got going. The point is that if she ever had the courage of her convictions to stand up in this place and support the Opposition and put maximum pressure on the Government we might get somewhere and the Government might take some action to assist the farmers and the small business people in the community who are mostly affected. I make one final point. There is a very simple issue at stake here. Obviously it is in the best interests of the nation to encourage people to seek, through modest enterprise, to look after themselves during their working lives and to save towards their future by working hard and building up assets in their own names. That is where the Liberal and National parties stand. It is not where the Democrats and the Australian Labor Party stand. It is that section of the community which is being so devastated by this assets test. It is retrospective in its effect because it hits people who have already planned for their futures and have accumulated savings in the way in which we have described. That is what this legislation is all about. It is why the Opposition has taken such a strong stand on this issue. It is why we are seeking to have the Government's legislation withdrawn. If Senator Haines cannot see the logic of why we need to put maximum pressure on the Government, I believe that she should not be in this place. The fact is that she fails to understand how the parliamentary system operates and, indeed, how the political system ought to operate. I urge honourable senators on all sides, especially those on the Labor Party benches who I know have some spirit within them on this matter and who are very concerned about the future, to support the Opposition. I see that Senator Crowley has come into the chamber to vote with the Opposition on this matter. We need a lot of Labor senators to cross the floor and vote with us because we can no longer rely on the Democrats. I hope that all honourable senators will see the logic of the Opposition's argument and seek to relieve the hardship which is so obvious, not only in the rural community but also certainly throughout the whole of the Australian community, and which is being caused by this Government's heartless action over the assets test. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the words proposed to be omitted by Senator Haines's amendment, be omitted. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Haines's amendment be inserted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.26) —The Australian Democrats, of course, are having two bob each way with this amendment. In the first place the amendment seeks to recognise that there is some justice in the Opposition's case. Consequently, it is something which we- Senator Haines —I can't understand this. You are supposed to be speaking to your amendment, Tony. Senator MESSNER —Yes, I am. I am just setting the scene, if the honourable senator does not mind. The Democrats, through their amendment, are obviously trying to draw the conclusion that the action taken by the Opposition in the Senate today is aimed only at seeking the immediate removal of the assets test. Apparently Senator Haines has been imbued with the idea that this is all the people in the community understand is happening. That is not true. Indeed, we have been advocating this line of approach to put maximum pressure on the Government to seek changes to the legislation but at the same time remaining committed to the abolition of the assets test. For that reason we seek to amend the Democrats amendment. Therefore I move: Leave out the words proposed to be inserted, insert: 'the Senate, recognising that agreement by the Senate and the House of Representatives to a Bill to repeal the assets test will assist farmers, and others, who saved towards the provision for their own futures, condemns the Labor Government for its failure to act quickly to alleviate the hardship caused to the rural community, widows, and those in aged persons accommodation by the administration of the assets test, and supports the return to an equitable retirement income system which supports self-provision and does not promote dependency on governments during retirement'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.28) —I wish to announce that the Government will oppose Senator Messner's amendment. Actually, we oppose Senator Haines's amendment because she says rude things about us and condemns us. We oppose Senator Messner's amendment because he says ruder things about both of us. However, he also says that he wishes the Senate to support the return of what he calls an equitable retirement income system which supports self-provision and does not promote dependency on governments during retirement. That, I assume, can only be a return to the system of an incomes test which was introduced by a previous conservative Government, which was inequitable for all the reasons that I have outlined. Therefore, we will oppose that amendment also. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Scott) —The question now is: That the words proposed to be left out of Senator Haines's amendment by Senator Messner's amendment be left out. Question resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Haines's amendment) be inserted. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. McClelland, DouglasAulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The action of the Senate in agreeing to leave out the words of the motion and not agreeing to insert words to replace them renders the motion meaningless, thus negating the second reading of the Bill. Accordingly, the Senate will now proceed to the next item of business. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, consideration of General Business pursuant to sessional order be not further proceeded with this day. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the Senate at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 20 May 1985, at 2 p.m.; (b) the days and hours of sitting of the Senate for the week commencing Monday, 20 May 1985 be: Monday, 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; Tuesday, 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; Wednesday, 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.; and Thursday 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.; (c) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the termination time each day; and (d) the Sessional Orders relating to the conduct of business which apply for week two apply for the sitting week commencing 20 May 1985. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 in two main respects. Firstly it will enable Telecom, in specified emergency situations, to intercept a telephone call in order to establish the location of a caller so that appropriate assistance can be given. Secondly, it will enable formal evidence of acts done by Telecom employees in enabling members of the Australian Federal Police to execute an interception warrant to be given by certificate in court proceedings. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act permits a Federal Court Judge to issue a warrant to members of the Australian Federal Police to intercept telecommunications in the course of investigating narcotics offences. The warrant is given to Telecom whose employees take the technical steps necessary for Police to conduct the interception. Initially, material obtained by interception was used for criminal intelligence purposes. However, as it is admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, there are cases where it is appropriate and necessary to put the material into evidence. Strict proof of actions taken by Telecom employees would require those employees to give evidence in Court. Telecom management has been advised that employees are unwilling to give such evidence because public identification of their involvement in narcotics interception would cause fear for their own safety, that of their families and that of their fellow workers. Telecommunications interception is of great assistance to the Australian Federal Police in the prevention and detection of drug offences. It would be contrary to the public interest for the lawful interception of telecommunications to be reduced or prejudiced. In this Bill, the Government proposes that evidence of acts performed by Telecom employees to enable the execution of an interception warrant be given by a certificate signed by the Managing Director of Telecom. Such a certificate would be conclusive proof of the matters contained therein. The matters which will be contained in the certificate are formal matters of evidence only and do not go to any issue before the court. The Government recognises that there is an objection to a prosecutor seeking to establish, by certificate or averment, an element of the prosecution case going to the conduct of the accused. However, proof that a warrant was executed strictly in compliance with its terms is a purely formal matter. Further, proving compliance by certificate would not conflict with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee has taken the view that Parliament should enact legislation to ensure that averment provisions are only resorted to by prosecutors where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal and does not relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant. Further support for this proposed amendment is to be found in the reports made by Mr Frank Vincent, Q.C., and Special Prosecutor Redlich. I turn now to the other major amendment. A number of organisations and individuals have requested that telecom be allowed to conduct emergency interceptions, in order to locate the origin of a call where life appears at risk. The classic situation is where a person informs another, by telephone, that he proposes to commit suicide. As the law currently stands, such interceptions are unlawful. The Government accepts that any interception of a telephone call is an invasion of privacy and is cautious in extending lawful interception. However, it is clearly desirable to locate the origin of such calls as soon as possible. It is also desirable for police to be able to communicate the location of the distress call to persons who can assist in preserving life. Accordingly, the Government proposes that the Act be amended to provide that where a member of a police force forms the view that the tracing of the location of the caller is likely to assist in dealing with the emergency, he may request Telecom to intercept the telephone call and to provide the location of the caller to police. The amendment also provides in effect that the police may lawfully communicate the whereabouts of the caller to people such as ambulance officers or doctors who can assist in preserving life. The use of this power of interception will be monitored. The Bill requires the Managing Director of Telecom to report annually to the Attorney-General on the general circumstances of each intercept. The Bill also provides for the Attorney-General to table that report in Parliament. The Act also makes a number of minor amendments. The first is to rectify an omission in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1985 passed by the Parliament earlier this year. The amendment in question referred to documents or information which may be given to the Stewart Royal Commission. It included a definition of ''unlawfully obtained material'', as meaning certain documents or information which disclosed the commission or possible commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a Territory. This Bill adds to that class certain documents which disclose the commission, or possible commission, of an offence against a law of a State. The Bill also provides that this amendment be deemed to come into operation on 29 March 1985, the date upon which the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1985 commenced operation. Sub-section 7 (6) of the Act provides that material obtained by an interception may be lawfully be given in evidence in certain prosecutions proceedings. This Bill makes it clear that those proceedings include committal proceedings. Finally, the Bill provides that this amendment, and the amendment enabling certain matters to be proved by certificate, apply in relation to proceedings instituted before or after the commencement of the Bill. This Bill has no financial implications and I commend it to honourable Senators. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.41) —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 amendments proposed in this Bill largely relate to section 20 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 which empowers the Authority to require information from Commonwealth agencies. Certain information, often of a sensitive and personal nature, obtained under various legislative provisions is specifically exempted from the ambit of section 20, by virtue of that legislation being listed in the Schedule to the Act. Sixteen Acts were included in the section 20 Schedule when the Act was passed but an exhaustive examination of all Commonwealth legislation prior to the Act being passed was not possible. Subsequently, all Commonwealth Departments were invited to submit views as to what further Acts should be included. As a result of this detailed examination, this Bill proposes that a further number of Acts now be included in the Schedule. Generally, inclusion of the additional Acts is proposed to protect information in the following categories: (a) sensitive, personal information, such as medical information held under the Health Insurance Act 1973 or information derived from the use of listening devices under the Customs Act 1901; (b) sensitive commercial information such as that held under the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 and the Reserve Bank Regulations; and (c) information given to Courts, tribunals and like bodies; for example, information held under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. While affording protection to this sensitive information, simply adding these matters to the Schedule would, under the existing provisions of the Act, prevent all such information from being made available to the Authority, irrespective of the circumstances. Of course, much of this information may not be of relevance to the Authority's investigations in any event. In view of this and after carefully considering the balance between the duty to protect sensitive and personal information and the need for the NCA to have access to information which could be relevant to its investigations, the Government has accepted a suggestion from the Authority that Commonwealth agencies immune from the Authority's powers under section 20 of the Act, should have a discretion to pass on relevant information to the Authority. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts in the Act a new section 19A which will allow a Commonwealth agency exempt from the section 20 requirement to provide information to the Authority, to comply with requests by the Authority for information and documents relevant to a prescribed investigation. In conjunction with these legislative proposals, the Government will introduce a number of administrative measures to ensure that the right balance is struck between access by the Authority and protection of personal privacy. Guidelines will be developed, in consultation with the NCA and the various agencies concerned, covering the types of information which could be released and which ought not be released. The guidelines could, for example, indicate that in relation to information under the Health Insurance Act, patient medical histories ought not, as a general rule, be released; whereas details of a person's name, address and whereabouts could be released. In addition, after one year, the Authority will report to me on requests made under the proposed section 19A, including on the number, nature and outcome of requests, the information obtained and the use to which it had been put. A copy of the report will also be forwarded to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Should any problems emerge under the arrangements in proposed section 19A, the Government will move quickly to take appropriate action, whether it be revising the guidelines, amending the Acts, or both. The Bill also establishes a particular framework for dealing with information held by the Australian Taxation Office. Honourable Senators may recall that parallel to the legislation to establish the Authority, the Government amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to enable the Authority to have access to income tax information. Given the Costigan Commission's Comments on the usefulness of this type of information in pursuing its investigations, the Government was concerned to ensure that this information was also available to the Authority. Access to income tax information is currently available to the NCA under a two tier scheme: for the purposes of a tax-related investigation, information may be passed to the Authority by the Taxation Commissioner, or a Royal Commissioner who has received the information under s. 16 (4) (k) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; and for the purposes of a special investigation not related to a tax matter, information may be obtained by the Authority under a judicial warrant. Before access is given to the NCA under judicial warrant, the Judge must be satisfied that the information is relevant to the Authority's investigations and that the information is not readily obtainable elsewhere. In addition, the judicial warrant may prohibit the NCA from communicating the information other than to the person, and in the manner, specified in the warrant. Such access arrangements are currently limited to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. They do not extend to other taxation Acts. A number of these are excluded from the provisions of section 20 (by virtue of being included in the Schedule) and as a result, the Authority has no avenue of access at all to the tax information covered by the presently scheduled Acts. Again, after giving careful consideration to the balance between the duty to protect sensitive information and the need for the NCA to have access to information which could be useful to its inquiries, the Government has decided to extend the access arrangements set in place for information under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to those taxation Acts within the meaning of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 definition of ''taxation law''; i.e. those taxation Acts currently listed in the Schedule to section 20 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. This is the purpose of clause 11 of the Bill which inserts in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 a new section 3D. Clause 13 ensures that the NCA access arrangements currently set out in section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will continue to apply in relation to information passed to the Authority before commencement of the new section 3D of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. I stress that the Government is conscious of the sensitivity of this type of information but considers that the safeguards built into the access arrangements, particularly that of a judicial warrant where the information is not relevant to a tax-related investigation, are appropriate. The Bill also covers a number of minor matters. Section 48 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 is amended to allow the Authority to engage consultants without the need to obtain the approval of the responsible Minister. This follows the arrangements introduced by the Public Service Board for Government Departments whereby Public Service Board approval of consultancies is no longer required. General financial control will, however, be exercised through the budgetary process. This proposal is in line with procedures being adopted for other statutory authorities. There is also a slight amendment to section 53 of the Act. This is a further tidying up measure raised by Parliamentary Counsel. A number of corrections and editorial amendments are also made to section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. No additional costs should be incurred as a result of the amendments proposed in this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of 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 Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.42) —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- COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This is the first of two Bills that I am introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The Formal Agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth/State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the Formal Agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State Companies legislation. Outline of Proposals During January this year the Ministerial Council released for public comment two proposed amendments to the Companies Act: one dealt with limited liability for the holders of units in unit trusts; and the other was for the introduction of a new, shorter, form of annual return. In respect of the first proposal, the Ministerial Council subsequently decided that the aims of the proposal could be more simply and appropriately achieved by administrative rather than legislative means. The legislative amendments which had been drafted to give effect to the proposal were necessarily complex and had the potential to operate inequitably. Instead the National Companies and Securities Commission will require, in appropriate cases, that a prospectus include a prominent statement as to whether the trust deed limits the liability of a unit holder, or whether the unit holders' liability is not limited. Investors may protect themselves by only investing in funds where the trust deed limits their liability to any unpaid subscriptions. The second proposal which was released for public comment in January and which is the subject of the Bill that I am now introducing involves a reduction of the regulatory burden on the business community by introducing more streamlined annual reporting obligations for the majority of companies. As originally released for public comment, the proposal contained four basic elements: the introduction of a new form of annual return which could be partially prepared by the State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions as delegates of the NCSC, using their computer facilities; the inclusion of key items of financial information in annual returns of all companies; relieving exempt proprietary companies that do not have their accounts audited of the obligation to lodge a copy of their accounts and other documents with their annual returns; and a reduction in the time-limits for lodging annual returns with the Corporate Affairs Commissions. It was intended that the reduction in the amount of information included in and annexed to an annual return would more closely tailor that information to the requirements of people searching company records. Public submissions generally welcomed the concept of the 'short-form' of annual return. However, there was opposition to any reduction in the time-limits for lodgments of annual returns; and the proposal that all companies should be required to disclose key items of financial information. Following its consideration of the views expressed in the public submissions, the Ministerial Council decided to proceed with a modified version of the original proposal. The principal changes were: retention of the existing maximum time-limits for lodgement of annual returns; and retention of the existing exemption under which exempt proprietary companies that have appointed an auditor do not have to disclose any financial information. This proposal will be partly implemented by amending the Companies Act and partly by amending the Companies Regulations. The amendment to the Regulations will provide for the introduction of the new form of annual return. Amendments to the regulations will also make the changes required to relieve exempt proprietary companies of the requirement to attach full accounts to their annual returns. I now turn to the 2 main aspects of the proposal which require amendments to be made to the Companies Act, namely, the new method of preparing annual returns and the timing of their lodgement with State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions. Preparations of Annual Returns The Bill amends section 263 of the Companies Act to enable the Corporate Affairs Commissions to partially prepare an annual return for each company using information that each company has previously supplied to it. Upon receipt of a partially completed annual return from the Corporate Affairs Commissions, companies will be required to- make any amendments that might be required to the information inserted by the relevant Corporate Affairs Commissions; insert any additional information that might be required; and lodge the completed document with the relevant Corporate Affairs Commission within the period allowed under the Companies Act. The procedures outlined above will only apply in those States and Territories where the delegates of the NCSC have ADP facilities programmed for that purpose. Where delegates do not have ADP facilities, companies will be required to prepare their annual returns (using the new form) in much the same way as they do at the present time. Lodgment of Annual Returns This Bill amends section 263 of the Companies Act to provide that the annual return of a company may be lodged with the NCSC at any time between: the end of the company's financial year; and one month after the date of the annual general meeting held in respect of that financial year. The effect of this amendment will be to make the ending of a company's financial year the event which creates the requirement to lodge an annual return, rather than the holding of the annual general meeting as at present. Thus, although the existing maximum time-limits will continue to apply for the lodgment of annual returns by the majority of companies, companies will be able to lodge their returns prior to the date of their annual general meetings if they so desire. There is, nevertheless, one small group of companies that will be required to lodge their annual returns within a shorter period of time than at present. These are the companies that have established a branch share register outside Australia. As these companies have to obtain information from their branch share registers for the purpose of completing their annual returns, they are currently allowed an extra month in which to lodge those returns with the NCSC to compensate for communication delays between Australia and other parts of the world. However, with modern communication facilities, information can be obtained from overseas almost as quickly as from other parts of Australia. Accordingly, there appears to be no reason why these companies cannot lodge their annual returns within the same time-limits as are imposed on other companies. Consequential Amendments Clause 7 of the Bill will insert a new section 265A in the Companies Act which will provide that where a company should have lodged documents with the NCSC giving details of changes in company officers, registered office and the like, those documents will be deemed to have been lodged with the NCSC if all of the particulars required to have been included in them are included in the company's annual return. Further streamlining of the regulatory requirements will be achieved by dispensing with various requirements for separate certificates to be attached to annual returns. The information will simply be required as separate items in the annual return itself. It is proposed that the substantive amendments will be proclaimed in the second half of 1985. As a consequence, for the majority of companies the changes will first apply in respect of annual returns that are lodged in 1986. Financial Impact Statement I will now make some reference to the financial impact that this Bill will have on Government revenues and expenditure. The changes in this Bill will result in additional costs to the NCSC for matters such as partially completing annual returns and sending them to companies. However, this increase in costs will be more than offset by a lower cost for processing lodged returns. In the case of the A.C.T Corporate Affairs Commission, the cost of preparing and dispatching partially completed annual returns is estimated to be $9,000 per annum, while expected savings are in the order of $18,000 per annum. The savings to State Governments will be considerably greater in respect of the amendments applied as State laws. As mentioned previously, the overall effect of these changes will be to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on companies. As a consequence, they should result in a lowering of the cost of completing and lodging future annual returns. However, it has not been possible to quantify the extent of this cost-saving to the commercial community. The Government commends the Companies Amendment Bill to the Senate. COMPANIES (FEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This is the second Bill I am introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A description of the provisions in this Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that I circulated in respect of the first Bill I dealt with, the Companies Amendment Bill. Outline of Proposals Under the existing law, companies are liable to pay late fees if they fail to notify Corporate Affairs Commissions within statutory time limits of matters such as changes of directors and changes in the address of the registered office. The purpose of the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill is to ensure that changes to the annual return procedures effected by the Companies Amendment Bill do not alter this capacity to collect late fees in these circumstances. The Companies Amendment Bill amends the Companies Act to provide, in effect, that if a company fails to lodge a notice of, say, a change in directors, within the required period after the change takes place, but indicates the name of the new director in its next annual return form, it will be deemed to have also lodged the separate notice at the time of lodging the annual return. In other words, it would be redundant to require the separate piece of paper notifying the change, once the company's annual return is up to date. However, in order to encourage companies to comply with their obligations to notify such changes at the time that they occur rather than simply when the next annual return form is due, it is proposed to amend the Companies (Fees) Act to retain the existing late fees. Under the existing provisions of the Companies (Fees) Act, fees are only payable on documents that are physically lodged with the NCSC. In the absence of the amendment, no fees would be payable on documents that are deemed to have been lodged. Financial Impact Statement The Bill does not involve the imposition of any new fees. It simply ensures that the present situation is retained. Without this amendment to the Companies (Fees) Act, the Commonwealth would lose fees revenue of about $100,000 per annum in respect of the A.C.T. Corporate Affairs Commission. Losses to State Governments would be considerably greater. The Government commends the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill to the Senate. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for the restructuring of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, to put it on a more commercial footing and to allow it to participate more effectively in the international engineering market. The changes are extensive, but simple and easy to understand. They are designed to allow operational flexibility to the Corporation in Australia and overseas, to improve the Corporation's competitive capacity in a wide range of engineering works, to maximise its flagship role overseas and to ensure that it acts with commercial prudence. On 27 March 1985 the Minister for Housing and Construction introduced a Bill entitled the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill 1985 to repeal and re-enact the existing Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, to give effect to the Government's objectives for the Corporation. A new Act was seen as the more efficient legal route, as the changes to the 1970 Act were so extensive. A new Act would mean however, that enabling legislation previously passed by the States, conferring powers on the Corporation, would need to be amended. As a matter of prudence this would have to be done before the new Commonwealth Act was brought into effect. The Minister has been advised that this action could take up to twelve months, or even longer, before all States passed the appropriate enabling legislation. In respect of the existing Act, the States, not unreasonably, did not take action in 1970 to introduce enabling legislation until the Commonwealth Act was proclaimed. In the event some of the enabling legislation did not come into effect until up to two years after the Commonwealth legislation came into operation. The Government's priority is to implement its objectives for the Corporation at the earliest possible time. It would not wish the proclamation of the necessary legislation to be subject to undue delay. To avoid this possibility and to avoid placing unreasonable pressure on the States the Government now proposes to amend the present Act rather than replace it by a new Act. This alleviates the need for any immediate changes in State enabling Acts and will allow the Corporation to carry out its new function and exercise its new powers as from the date of proclamation of the Commonwealth Act. This Bill, entitled the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill 1985 not only meets the Government's aim of implementing the Corporation's new functions and powers, but ensures that the end result will be the same as if the Bill the Minister introduced on 27 March 1985 were to take effect. That is, the range of amendments to the existing Act are identical with those that were contained in the original Bill to give effect to the Government's stated objectives. I will outline to the Senate the key changes to the Act. These are to: remove existing restrictions on the range of engineering activities open to the Corporation; include in the statement of functions a specific reference to the Government's intention that the Corporation shall, so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of overseas work, and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry; allow the corporation, with ministerial approval, to form companies or other legal arrangements where this is necessary, to assist the progress of involving Australian engineering companies in joint ventures overseas and for other commercial purposes; replace the present ''corporation sole'' by a five member board of directors, to give the corporation access to a range of management talent from the engineering, marketing, finance and the trade union sectors; ensure that the Corporation acts in accordance with sound commercial principles; and update the financial provisions of the Act to accord with current Government policy regarding statutory authorities. The Corporation was established under the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, to preserve and capitalise on the professional engineering expertise developed during construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme. It has provided a major source of engineering expertise to governments and industry in Australia. Just as importantly, the Corporation has played an increasing role in the provision of engineering design and construction management services in overseas markets. Initially it relied heavily on aid projects for involvement overseas on behalf of the Australian Government. But in recent years Australian aid projects have generally been allocated on a strictly commercial basis and the Corporation has had to operate in a difficult competitive environment. One result is that the Corporation has also been undertaking an increasing proportion of its work directly for international clients. Until 1983-84, the Corporation had an unbroken record of profitability, returning to government $3.3 million and corporate tax of $10 million. The Corporation developed an international reputation for the Australian engineering industry through the successful completion of some 1,100 projects in 35 countries, involving total consulting fees for the Corporation of over $200m. Its staff numbers grew from 192 in 1971, to a peak of more than 600 in 1983. In 1984, Engineering News Record, a major American publication, ranked the Corporation number 60 in the world's top 200 international design firms. Only two other Australian firms have ever appeared in these design listings. The Corporation's outstanding commercial export record over the 1970s and 1980s was marked by its receipt in 1984 of the Governor-General's award for export excellence. Since its establishment, the Corporation has pursued a conscious policy of assisting the Australian engineering profession to obtain a foothold overseas. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation inherited the great reputation and skills base created by the Snowy Mountains Authority upon its completion of the Snowy Mountains project-our greatest national engineering work to that time. It has provided proof that Australian skills are marketable in fiercely competitive foreign markets. Its reputation at home and abroad is now synonymous with engineering excellence. Like many private consulting engineering firms, the Corporation recently suffered from the decrease in available work in Australia and overseas. The world-wide economic recession, reduced aid flows from the oil exporting nations to Third World countries, and the debt problems of many developing countries led to reductions in overseas development programs. At the same time there was a sharp increase in competition from international engineering firms, who were faced with drastic downturns in activity in their traditional markets. Unlike private enterprise, the Corporation did not have the capacity to quickly shed staff, at minimal cost, to an appropriate level. In 1983-84, faced with a declining market, the first-ever operating loss, and severe cash pressures, the Corporation sought outside assistance to evaluate and review its operations. Following a review by management consultants, improved accounting, costing and management information systems were introduced. The Government announced in July 1984 its support for the continued operation of the Corporation, based in Cooma, together with the provision of a cash injection of up to $6 million largely to fund a voluntary retrenchment program. This was to enable the Corporation to streamline its operations pending decisions on a longer-term restructuring. Following these decisions, the Corporation's staff was reduced from a peak of 623 in February 1983, to 387 in February 1985, and will be further reduced to an expected 360 by June 1985. This has been achieved through natural attrition and voluntary retrenchment. The Corporation retains an effective mix of professional skills which will enable it to take full advantage of emerging opportunities. Certain key appointments have also been made which will increase the Corporation's capacity to operate on a commercial basis. In particular, Mr J. L. Liebelt, a former group executive director of CRA, has been appointed interim chairman to advise on the restructuring process. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decisions concerning the long-term restructuring of the Corporation. The Government is determined that the Corporation shall once again become a commercially viable organisation capable of maintaining a competitive presence in international markets. The Bill provides that the Corporation shall act in accordance with sound commercial principles and aim to raise revenue sufficient to permit the payment each year to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on capital, in addition to the payment of income tax. A five person board, comprising a chairperson, a managing director and three other directors, will be responsible for determining the policies of the Corporation and conducting its business. The board will be required to inform the Minister of its policy decisions and provide the Minister with regular reports on its operations. The Minister shall, of course, be able to direct the Corporation as to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. Any such directions will be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. It would not be the Government's intention to seek to intervene in the detailed activities of the Corporation, but rather to ensure its compliance with overall government policies and sound financial principles. In accordance with this greater commercial focus, the Government has removed the outdated restrictions which have hindered the Corporation from diversifying into new kinds of engineering activity. It is clear that in a rapidly changing international market-place the Corporation needs to be able to move into areas of expanding business and provide a comprehensive range of advanced engineering services. At the same time, the Government has explicitly recognised the Corporation's outstanding international reputation, its unrivalled commitment to the export of engineering services, and its long history of involving other Australian organisations in its overseas endeavours. The Government has therefore decided to formally recognise the Corporation's role in promoting the overseas activities of the Australian engineering profession by including in its statement of functions a requirement that the Corporation shall endeavour to: expand its activities and enhance its professional reputation overseas; so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of its functions overseas; and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry. It will be up to the Corporation's board, which the Minister for Housing and Construction shall be appointing as soon as possible following the passage of this Bill, to determine the policies to give effect to these functions and to decide how it will seek to involve Australian organisations in its overseas activities. On balance, private Australian engineering organisations are sure to benefit. They will experience stronger, but fairer, competition from a revitalised Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. In overseas markets, however, the Corporation will be committed to work in partnership with other Australian interests. The steps that the Corporation has already taken to restructure its operations, contain costs and improve its management systems will mean a substantial improvement in the Corporation's financial position. The Corporation has advised the Minister that following a projected net loss of some $3.5m in the current financial year, it will make every endeavour to break even in 1985-86. The Corporation will nevertheless be continuing to pursue cost cutting initiatives, including the consolidation of its operations at a single site at Back Creek, Cooma, and negotiations with staff associations and the Public Service Board to bring employment conditions more into line with the consulting engineering industry norm. The Corporation has informed the Minister that it is also developing proposals for superannuation arrangements for new employees outside the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Any such proposals will be dealt with expeditiously. I believe that the proposed amendments to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act, including the installation of a board of directors, will ensure that the Corporation continues to be a viable commercial engineering organisation of which Australia can be proud. Furthermore, a revitalised and restructured Corporation operating on sound commercial principles will reduce any potential call on taxpayers funds in future years. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.45) —Although the Government and the Minister would prefer this Ordinance not to be disallowed, it is clear that the combined votes of the Opposition will cause this to happen. Although it will cause some inconvenience, it will not cause the end of the world. Therefore, the Government will not oppose this with great vigour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.46) —I support the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1985, which I believe will get through this House, and I believe that my discussions with my colleague have gained support for it. When debate on the Bill was interrupted I was discussing the attitude of the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), to this legislation. I indicated that Mr Shack was putting as an option to the Government a proposal that we ignore the need for a major framework or structure for national occupational health and safety in the work place and simply continue with an improved operation of discussion and consultation between State government bodies and some parts of private enterprise. He was suggesting that, somehow or other, this would overcome any safety and health problems in the work place. I have already indicated that view is totally inappropriate. It has been proved to be inappropriate by the experiences of the period under the Fraser Government. Even minor requests to provide essential mechanical support to improve the provision of statistics about national health matters were looked on with, at best, apathy by the government of the day and, at worst, outright opposition. I recall the repeated requests that were made at industrial relations ministerial conferences, particularly to the then Federal Minister, Mr Viner, for a code of occupational classifications preceding the census in the early 1980s. Such a code would have been an essential ingredient in providing a better model for manpower planning and a base by which one could then measure all matters relating to accidents in occupations. At least by such means the statistics from the Government's viewpoint would be accurate and the advice that could then be given to the private enterprise sector, namely the insurance companies, would be of real value and not a matter of guesswork as it is at present. I wish to move on to consider that aspect very briefly, primarily in response to some statements made by Senator Watson in this debate. He indicated that employers are most concerned about the cost of workers compensation. I take for granted that they mean the cost not only in monetary terms but in terms of the damage to people's lives. I accept that that is a valid concern. I have met many employer organisations over the years whose representatives have indicated to me that the varying types of legislation throughout Australia brought down by State governments relating to workers compensation have been difficult for them to deal with. They are constantly attempting to do what their members want, which is to keep costs down. They are not sure how to go about it-or at least they were not sure until they had discussions with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who wanted views from them. As a result the Confederation of Australian Industry and other major employer groups have proved that they are prepared when approached in the appropriate way to look after their interests in a logical manner-to ensure, for example, that they are prepared to put their members' interests first rather than to push their own political prejudices. Therefore, the CAI supports the Bill. Mr Shack has attacked the CAI and criticised it in various forums for its support for this Bill. It is a matter of great concern that when we have a tripartite agreement on a matter as important as this, the Opposition should seek to distance itself for what I regard as cheap political purposes. The employers support this Bill, and they do so for very good reasons. They know that workers compensation and, for that matter, the insurance industry as a whole have changed in this country over the last four years. The employers and, I guess, most honourable senators in this chamber know that there has been an investment in the insurance industry in this country by a number of major overseas companies. Those companies have tended to set the pace for the sorts of requirements they make of their subsidiaries in this country about return on investment. Those companies are not prepared any longer simply to say to their subsidiaries that they should lose on workers compensation insurance; they are advising them to use it as a suck-in, as they describe it in the trade, to other forms of insurance. Those major companies are now saying to all branches of their insurance operations that all of them must pay their way. In a sense, that is an appropriate request to be made by any major organisation involved in the business world. It means that, for example, some insurance companies are putting up their premiums at the request of their parent companies. Those companies are putting up their premiums at a percentage rate which is doing damage to the operations and viability of certain companies in this country. They are the companies which are in areas of relative risk and which may have enjoyed what could be described as fairly generous premiums and workers compensation insurance over the last 10 or 20 years. That has changed. Honourable senators in this chamber will be aware that the Insurance Act of 1973 does not require what could be described as a detailed release of information by insurance companies on their mode of operation. The sort of information which would be extremely valuable to the public, to this place and to just curious people, let alone the government of the day, is not available. The closest information we have to that is, in fact, the ranking survey done by Australian Ratings, which recently carried out what can be described as a semi-confidential analysis of the insurance industry in this country. Of course, on the way, that company looked very closely at workers compensation. In its estimation a number of companies were in some degree of investment difficulty. I am not talking about their viability as a company; they were not returning the sorts of returns that their parent companies could expect. Many of them were heavily involved in workers compensation and were shored up by their parent company's viability and success in other areas of insurance coverage. As I have said, this company-Australian Ratings-had access to nearly all the confidential information which certainly is not available to governments, on the proviso, of course, that it did not make that information public. The ratings, in fact, marked down virtually every company in the insurance world that was relying wholly, or to a large degree, on returns from their investment in the workers compensation area. So we have two problems. One is the problem of ordinary employers, big or small, who are faced with a dramatic rise in premiums for workers compensation insurance. Secondly, the insurance industry is going through a period of shakeout. It is not as drastic as the shakeout which led to the demise of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd and Palmdale Insurance Co. Ltd, but it is certainly a shakeout. In the future we can look forward to premiums in workers compensation insurance rising further as a result. That is not a good scene for the whole industry unless something is done. The point I am making is that something has been done. This Government has decided that we must attack safety and illness in the work place right at the base, and the base is accident prevention and improving the working environment for people. Senator Messner —That is not a new thought. Senator AULICH —It is not a new thought. It is a thought which has been put forward by any number of people in industry around this country. The point I am making-Senator Messner has helped me make that point, albeit rather ponderously-is that the Opposition has distanced itself from one of the most common-sense requests which has been made by industry in this country today: That we do something about improving the safety environment in the work place. That is what this Bill is all about. I cannot understand why the Opposition stands back and ignores what is a positive move which has tripartite support. I cannot understand why the Opposition is sitting back in the nineteenth century and trying to return us to Water Babies and all the rest of it. My guess is that maybe it is trying to create a new form of literature-the sort of stuff that came out of the nineteenth century when people were trying to change the nature of society and the sort of work environment in which the young and old were forced to suffer in that period. Is that what the Opposition wants? Senator Messner —What has Water Babies got to do with it? Senator AULICH —It happens to be a reformist novel of the period which was an attempt to show that the exploitation of child labour in uncongenial working environments was absolutely un-Christian. Now that I have helped to jog the honourable senator's memory a little I am sure that he will understand the benefits of that sort of literature. In other words, the Opposition is trying to take us back to the nineteenth century. If that is what Senator Messner wants to do he should say so. But for heavens sake, he should not oppose what is one of the major achievements of this Government and, dare I say, the union movement and, dare I say again, top management in this country. The simple fact is that the current approach to safety in the work place is fragmented, desultory and ineffective. Business knows that, the unions know it and this Government knows it; the only people who do not know it are those sitting opposite in the Opposition. There are members of this Government who, I believe, shortly will indicate some of the practical difficulties and problems which are suffered by people who work in environments where there is no concern for safety. This Bill attempts to overcome that. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-In the debate earlier today in the Senate I made a statement about the National Safety Council of Australia which I wish to retract. I was given to believe that the National Safety Council of Australia would not enthusiastically support the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Since speaking with a senior member of the Council I now find that the National Safety Council of Australia is, in fact, supportive of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill and of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. However, in the past a considerable number of members have expressed considerable concern about the growth of yet another bureaucracy. I think their fears in this regard substantiate the latter comments I made in the debate on this subject. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.59) —In view of the large number of speakers already in the debate, I will try to keep my remarks brief. However, because the Opposition is opposing the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill I would like to emphasise several points. The first is that our opposition to this Bill in no way reflects any lack of concern about the objectives of the Bill. The main objective, as mentioned by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech, is the development among the community of an awareness of issues relating to occupational health and safety matters and facilitation of public debate on them. There can be no possible disagreement that this a laudable objective. The safety and well-being of people in employment are, or should be, of major concern to all Australians. Australia is generally regarded as having a very bad record in the field of occupational health and safety relative to many other industrial countries. The financial cost is enormous. The figure of $6,000m has been cited, and that figure may or may not be accurate. There is a disturbing lack of hard data in this area but, whatever the cost, it is certainly appallingly high. The cost of occupational health and safety cannot be measured purely in financial terms. To this must be added the huge social and personal costs incurred by persons who are injured or whose health suffers in other ways in the work force and by the families and children of people killed in the working environment. There should be no doubt whatsoever that the Opposition is in total agreement with the Government that improved occupational health and safety in Australia is an urgent priority. Where we differ from the Government is on the ways of achieving this priority. That is why we are opposing the Bill before the Senate. The Government proposes to establish a large new Federal statutory authority, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, to operate in this area. The Commission would function in two divisions-the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. The Government's proposed Commission follows closely the recommendations of the May 1984 report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Page 63 of that report gives estimates of the cost of the Commission in its first two full years. The cost in the first year is stated to be $23.7m and in the second year $41.2m. Those figures would, of course, be even higher when inflation is taken into account. They come on top of the $6.4m already allocated in the 1984 Budget for the Interim Commission. Of the $41.2m estimated for the second year of operations, no less than 60 per cent would go simply in salaries and other operating costs. Although the report claimed that there would be quantifiable offsets to the figures I have just mentioned, it also said that no attempt had been made to quantify them and, indeed, it described them as intangible benefits. The staffing levels estimated by the Commission are very high-350 by the end of its second year alone. In other words, the Bill will establish an extremely costly and heavily-staffed new statutory body for which no cost benefit analysis appears to have been undertaken. Why is the Government really wanting to establish this new and costly Commission? The answers, I think, are clear from a careful reading of the Minister's second reading speech. The answers I get from there are twofold: First, the proposal derives from the Government's efforts to comprehensively implement Australian Labor Party policy, which is understandable. That policy, as we see every day in this Parliament, is all about increasing the intrusion of government into an ever-increasing range of activities. The Labor Party has a deeply held philosophy that, if there is a problem in any walk of life, the answer is to have the Government attempt to solve that problem. That is what a socialist Party, which the Labor Party is, is all about. It is about taking away from people the responsibility and the opportunity to tackle and solve their own problems and rather to say: 'We, the all-knowing government, will solve the problems for you'. One reason for the Bill is that it fits like a glove into a socialistic approach to life. The second reason is that the proposal for a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is part of Labor's prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Labor Party is, therefore, locked into the proposal because, as it has demonstrated so very clearly in recent days in areas of taxation and wages policies, it has become a captive and a servant of the trade union movement. How else can one explain the Government's abject posturing to the ACTU by refusing to contemplate the discounting of future wage increases for the effects of devaluation in the next national wage case when everyone in Australia knows that not to do so will be to put in jeopardy all the potential gains from the devaluation of the Australian dollar? What would the proposed Commission actually do? The Minister has acknowledged in her second reading speech that the States, not the Commonwealth, have the constitutional responsibility in the area of occupational health and safety. All that a Federal Commission could do, says the Minister, would be to co-ordinate and facilitate. That view is also clearly stated in the May 1984 report of the Interim Commission. What does 'co-ordinate and facilitate' mean? According to the Government, it means undertaking work in the areas of standards development, research, training, and information collection and dissemination through 'the close co-operation and involvement of employer and employee peak councils and Commonwealth, State, and Territory governments'. Fine words, but what do they actually mean? In practice they mean the establishment of a substantial new bureaucracy which would duplicate work which would just as effectively be carried out by existing institutions, including the National Safety Council, the National Labor Consultative Council, tertiary academic institutions, State governments, existing Federal departments, such as Employment and Industrial Relations and Health, and other institutions. Whilst noting Senator Watson's comments in his personal explanation, I particularly mention the potential role of the National Safety Council which receives partial support from the Federal government. The National Safety Council operates Australia-wide. It has for many years been heavily involved in occupational health and safety. Given the responsibility, I believe that the National Safety Council could play a much more important role in relation to some of the tasks being proposed for the new Commission. I do not deny that much of the work envisaged for the Commission would be desirable. The point is, however, that we do not need to establish a new bureaucratic institution to have this work done. I also have grave doubts about the value of employer and employee peak organisations, and Commonwealth, State and Territory governments getting involved in an inevitable, endless round of discussions and negotiations on health and safety issues, particularly when the Commonwealth has no legislative responsibility in this area. It is very difficult to see what these discussions would achieve. Even if it were deemed desirable to have consultation, that again could be achieved without setting up the new Commission. There is, I believe, a considerable risk that the establishment of the new Commission would move the focus of attention away from the real area of importance, the actual work place. It is at the work place that accidents and health hazards occur. It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that unless individual employers and employees have the right attitude to occupational health and safety then the progress towards a safer working environment that we are all seeking will not be achieved. It is to this area that I believe more resources and attention should be devoted, not to more bureaucratic structures. I am also concerned about several of the regulatory provisions of the Bill. Part VII gives the Commission wide powers to conduct public inquiries, to summon witnesses and to apply punitive sanctions, including imprisonment, to witnesses who fail to appear. I am also very concerned that the Commissioner conducting an inquiry is not bound by the rules of evidence. I can see no justification whatsoever for such a draconian approach, particularly when the Commonwealth has no legislative responsibility in this whole area. The Government has made no attempt to explain or to justify the reasons for this approach. These functions would also duplicate the functions of existing State industrial commissions in many ways, at a time when there are already something like 160 pieces of legislation and regulative provisions throughout the Commonwealth in this area of occupational health and safety. The Government is aiming to achieve a uniform set of national standards for occupational health and safety. I personally agree with this aim, but I do not believe that the establishment of the proposed Commission will help to achieve it. Since the Interim Commission was established in 1983, the Victorian and New South Wales governments have attempted to push further ahead with their own legislation. In Victoria the legislation has been stalled because the Government does not have control of the upper House. That legislation is extreme. It gives so-called safety representatives, appointed by the labour unions, power to issue provisional prohibition notices which could halt factory production and interfere with the right of the employer to conduct business without any attendant responsibility or accountability placed on the safety representatives. The Victorian legislation goes much further than that applying in any other industrial country. The proposed comprehensive New South Wales legislation contains elements, such as the cost of training staff and the right of refusal to work, which are potentially highly disruptive and expensive and which are unlikely to improve occupational health and safety. Legislation is also proposed in South Australia and Western Australia. The Western Australian proposals are very open-ended and allow for extensive regulation. All of these proposals, in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, have come forward despite the establishment of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and despite the knowledge that the Commission will be, if the Government gets its way-as appears to be the case, given the support of the Australian Democrats-made a permanent body. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the establishment of a national commission will in any way deter the States from doing what they want to do regardless of the desirability of adopting a national approach. That is not to say that we should not seek to have a national approach, but rather this will not be facilitated by the new Commission. The Opposition agrees fully with the Government that Australia's occupational health and safety performance must be considerably improved. We disagree with the Government that this improvement will be brought about by the establishment of yet another bureaucratic and very costly Federal statutory authority in an area in which, as I have said before, the Commonwealth has no constitutional authority. It is for this reason, supplemented by the reasons that have been mentioned both by others and me earlier, that the Opposition opposes the Bill. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(5.13) —I feel obliged to answer some of the statements that have been made by some of the previous speakers, particularly Senator MacGibbon who said that no one on this side of the chamber had had any experience in the workshop at the level required in health, safety and welfare. I can assure the honourable senator that I have had 36 years experience in the workshop. Senator Messner was concerned about clause 52 which deals with the reversal of the onus of proof. Back in the 1950s I worked in a factory at Welshpool. That factory, which employed mainly migrant women, was a pot making factory. Three or four operations were required. For example, the operator would take a pot in one hand, a rivet in the other hand, put the rivet into the machine, place her hand on it, press the lever with her foot and the rivet would be spread. One can imagine that, with four operations, eventually something would go wrong. I can assure the Senate that about 50 per cent of the female employees in that factory were minus a finger. I brought out a device-I did not invent it; it was something which was adapted to go on those machines-which would prevent anyone losing a finger. It meant that a guard had to come down, which was a simple operation. The machine could not operate until the guard came down. The use of the guard occurred during the last operation. I was a hero for about a week until the accountant found that it took up quite a bit of time and cut down the level of production. It was very difficult to get the employees to go to the barricades to argue about the health and safety procedures at that factory. Economics forced the employees to carry on. If they had dared to say anything against the firm they would have lost their job. It is necessary to protect such people. I give another example. I worked at the Royal Australian Mint. This example touches on another concern of Senator Messner's regarding clause 8 (1) (b) in that it could apply to hours of work, shifts and the type of work performed. At the Mint there were two steel rolls which were two feet in length. People fed into those rolls a fillet which was about 2 1/4 inches wide and half an inch thick. Eventually, after being pushed through those rolls, this was broken down to the thickness of a cent. That involved working within one thousandth of an inch. One can imagine a person going in there and fitting a fillet into those rolls hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Just imagine what it is like. It was a soul destroying job. The fillets, being copper, were work hardened so eventually they got a ragged edge on them. That ragged edge would catch on the gloves of the workers. The inevitable thing took place. Someone had a hand jammed in the machine and it was squeezed down to the thickness of a cent. In that situation a person would develop super-human strength, pull his hand free and end up with nothing but a stump. Perhaps the workers suffered from what Senator Watson said-Mondayitis. One can forgive that Mondayitis if a person ended up with a bunch of grapes at the end of his hand instead of fingers. I am sure that he would quite welcome any intrusion into shift work and repetitious work which the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission may be able to look into. The problem may involve atmospherics; there may no temperature control; there may be 101 reasons, but I think it is important that the Commission is able to look into those matters. Mr Shack in the other place, Senator Messner and one or two other speakers said that the matter should go back to the workshop level; the matter can be decided between the workers in the workshop and the employees. I give the Senate another example. If ever there was anything that was a recipe for industrial strife, this is it. On a construction job in Kwinana a high electrical coaxial cable went over a hollow in the ground. One can imagine what happened when it rained. The cable was submerged. The shop steward complained because the men had to walk through this area. He complained to the firm and nothing happened. He went to the union. Again the union took up the issue and nothing happened. A three-day strike was held in order to do something about it. That is the sort of confrontation that is encouraged by the talk coming from Mr Shack and Senator Messner. That type of confrontation has been encouraged. One can imagine people in this chamber of Senator MacGibbon's ilk, when we hear that a strike is going on, popping up and down in their seats like sparrows with hiccups shouting 'communists, socialists' and goodness knows what. The ironic thing about the pot factory was that at that time-it was during the Menzies era-glossy pamphlets were issued. Those pamphlets depicted a map of China, with Australia down at the bottom, with big arrows, gold arrows, pointing to Canberra, the Lodge and Kirribilli House, and stated that people were worried about the creeping hordes of socialism. Quite frankly, when one considers what happened in that factory, I think the main worry was about the creeping hordes of capitalism and not the creeping hordes of socialism. I wish to consider two aspects. Firstly, I said in this place over four years ago that the time lost due to industrial accidents was one-third more than that lost due to industrial disputes. Unfortunately I am not in a position today to give any more precise picture than I did then. That is a point I shall return to. We have heard enough about the $6 billion and the three hundred lives lost in industrial accidents and the 12,500 people who are injured as a result of such accidents. Every honourable senator must have felt shock and dismay at the recent deaths of supporters at an English second division soccer match. Let there be no doubt that I am one of those people who were shocked. How many of us realise that thousands of Australians go to work in conditions as perilous as the state of that grandstand every single day? Perhaps it is symptomatic of our polarised society that emphasis has always been given to disputes and disasters. Usually, it seems to me, that in the case of disputes this has been at the expense of the public image of organised labour. The second factor which I wish to discuss briefly is that the collection and collation of occupational accident and disease statistics in Australia has been nothing short of a national disaster. Indeed, these statistics have not been collected as an end in themselves. The Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission background paper No. 5 referred to them as follows: Administrative by-product data generated by compensation claims made under the principal workers compensation legislation in each State. The statistics collected in the States are collected on such vastly different bases that they become, as a national picture, almost useless. The problem is that each of the States, if figures are available at all, categorise time lost so differently. For example, in Western Australia in 1981-82 time lost in formalised claims amounted to 80,644.8 weeks. For Tasmania for the same period the figure was 186,197 weeks but was calculated as the duration of leave in days. One has to be careful in that these figures may include weekends when workers are not normally at work or may include days when the worker has returned to work but to light duties. The figures for Queensland for 1981-82 were in calendar days lost and amounted to a staggering 1,245,509 days for males and 214,866 for females. The picture for New South Wales and Victoria was somewhat less clear. The point is that no matter what numbers are used at present they can only be, at best, a gross misrepresentation of the real situation. There is no appropriate way to discover in a uniform manner the true cost to our society of hidden illnesses and injuries. It is not the fault of the Australian Bureau of Statistics that it is unable to compile a clear picture of what is really happening nationally in this regard. The background paper I mentioned before stated: Substantial improvement in this area is dependent on national initiatives. As the report said, particular attention should be given to the following areas: First, the maintenance and development of comparable statistical collections across the States-without proper statistics the proposed Commission will lose an important piece in its armoury; second, computerisation of occupational injuries and disease data collection; third, the development of linkability within and between data sets; fourth, the investigation of the feasibility of incorporating occupational data in the minimal data sets for existing collections, for example, hospital admission data, cancer registers, et cetera. I am therefore pleased to see that the Bill before us includes the functions of the collection, interpretation and dissemination of information relating to occupational health and safety matters. We need to arm ourselves appropriately with usable information so as most efficiently to implement a national occupational health and safety policy. Without such we will never achieve the ideal as outlined in paragraph 1.2 of the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, namely, that 'everyone has a right to a healthy and safe working environment'. I would like to tackle just two or three more points before I finish my contribution today. One point concerns the international potential of this Bill. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) stated in his second reading speech: 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 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. In the course of the debate yesterday Senator Elstob interjected to ask Senator Sheil about asbestosis. That interjection was not answered by Senator Sheil. It is certainly true that the information on asbestosis did not reach workers here until many years after it had reached workers in other countries. Therefore, the work of the international organisations is important to me. I for one have lost a couple of colleagues through asbestosis. If that information had been available in this country a lot earlier I am quite sure they would be here today. I am pleased that the Commission will have an international perspective because this can only end up contributing to the economic and social well-being of our neighbours as well as ourselves. I would like to see the Commission establish links among the member states of the Pacific trade union forum and an Indian Ocean trade union forum for the purpose of exporting valuable information to workers in our less developed neighbouring countries. This legislation will rely heavily on honest contributions from the Federal and State governments, employers and trade unions. The amount of co-operation already existing amongst these three groups in regard to this legislation is a good indication that much will be able to be achieved in the field of national occupational health and safety policy. Just before I finish I point out that I agreed with Senator Watson when he said that the contribution of employers in Australia had been excellent. I agree; they are excellent. When I asked him whether he would like to include the trade union movement in that I had no reply from him. Therefore I would like to pass a book on to him that was published by the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union in the late 1970s. It is an excellent document. It deals with the whole issue of national occupational health and safety in Australia. It was issued to every shop steward throughout Australia. Therefore a lot has been done by the trade union movement. We do not just want this piece of legislation; we really need this legislation. I am only sorry that there is not a national compensation Bill going through with this legislation at the same time. While I am on my feet I would like to say also that I agree with Senator Jack Evans, who said that this legislation does not have enough teeth. However, I accept the legislation as it is. I commend the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.28) —The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill has been criticised in a number of quarters. I understand that most of the criticisms have been answered. I understand that the Bill will not be opposed or amended. Senator Messner —It will be opposed. Senator WALSH —I am sorry about that. I understand that the Australian Democrats at least will support it. I do not propose to delay its passage any further. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)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. Archer, B. R. Missen, A. J. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Lajovic, M. E. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Messner, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Gietzelt, A. T. Knowles, S. C. Black, J. R. Rae, PeterHearn, J. M. Hamer, D. J. Grimes, D. J. Jessop, D. S. McIntosh, G. D. Carrick, Sir JohnHaines, J. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.35) —The Opposition will support the passage of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 which makes a series of amendments to the customs and excise legislation of the Commonwealth. However, we will be seeking a number of amendments to it. I will, in the course of my speech at the second reading stage, give some indication of the areas of concern to the Opposition. The Bill does a number of things which are, apparently, unexceptionable and that is why we are supporting it. It amends the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901, the Distillation Act 1901, the Spirits Act 1906 and the Coal Excise Act 1949 in a number of ways. The principal amendments to the Customs Act are changes to the provision governing tender quota allocations, which will add flexibility to the existing provisions and also allow tariff concession orders to be revoked in a number of specified circumstances. The principal amendments to the Customs Act and the Excise Act seek to provide more effective control over aircraft and ship stores, especially excisable products, and to impute to a body corporate a state of mind of its directors, servants and agents acting within the scope of actual or apparent authority where that state of mind is relevant to an excise prosecution of the corporation. They also seek to index automatically the rate of rebate for duty paid on diesel for what might be described generally as off-road purposes. The principal amendments to the Excise Act, the Distillation Act, the Spirits Act and the Coal Excise Act will increase the level of penalties and update the prosecutions provisions in those Acts. The proposed amendments to the tender quota provisions to which I have referred lift from the Act the present restriction which requires the quota to be tied to a particular year. It can be readily imagined that that gives very little flexibility to those who are operating under quota. From the point of view of those who are commercially involved in the importation of goods, clearly there could be very real difficulties because of the strict time restriction. However, perhaps more importantly, the change which is being sought by the Government is necessary if it is to be able to implement part of the car industry plan which envisages that quotas will be established over a period of four years-the last four years of the first five years of the plan. That general scheme has the support of the Opposition. We would not wish to place any barrier in the way of the Government implementing that aspect of the car plan. There are also some other changes to the tender quota arrangements but I do not think there is any point in my detailing those. I am sure they are understood by those who are concerned with this industry. They are not matters which are of concern to the Opposition in the sense that we would wish to change anything. We are happy to support the general changes which are proposed with respect to the quota system. Therefore, I will offer no further comment on that aspect of the Bill. However, the change which is proposed to the tariff concession arrangements will need more attention from this chamber. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be very familiar with the concerns which have been expressed because they were the subject of consideration by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which you chair. It is still a matter of concern to Opposition senators that on our reading of the proposed sections as they stand, after amendment by the Government in the House of Representatives following representations from various quarters, it would still be possible to read them in a way which would permit the retrospective operation of a revocation by the Minister. We are concerned about that because it would be quite possible for an importer to act on the faith of a published tariff concession, to import goods, to have a finding by the Minister or by his Department that perhaps the concession ought not have been issued and therefore ought be revoked, to have it revoked back to the date of the making of the concession and to have at least an argument that duty was payable on goods that were imported after the date of the making of the concession order, before the date of the revocation, but with the revocation being back-dated to the original date. Because that is a matter of concern to the Opposition and because the Government has, I think, indicated that it does not wish this section to have retrospective operation, it is the intention of the Opposition to move an amendment-an amendment which the Government might argue is a bit of a belts and braces job-which would place beyond doubt any question of the revocation having a retrospective application with the imposition of charges or the payment of tariff on goods that were imported during a period when it was apparent that the concession order was in force. I hope that there will not be anything particularly controversial about that proposal. It does appear to me that the Act in its present form at least arguably leaves the possibility of a retrospective revocation open and we ought not pass the legislation with that possibility still there. The changes being made to the Customs and Excise Act, which are designed to more effectively control imports of excisable product, are not changes which appear to the Opposition to give rise to any particular difficulties. They appear to be aimed at meeting concerns about effective control in this area and the Opposition will not oppose those provisions. Certainly in the inquiries we have made, we have not been able to find any users or people who are involved in the importation of goods who regard the changes as giving rise to any particular difficulties. Therefore, these changes will have our support. Perhaps one of the most important provisions in the legislation is the Government's move to index diesel fuel rebates. That is a matter which I am sure will give rise to some debate in the Committee stage. The Government is moving in this legislation to partially cure a defect which was introduced by this Government in the changes it made to the excise arrangements in the 1983 Budget. I think it is worth going through the history of that matter so that the position of the Opposition can be clearly understood. Prior to the Budget in 1982, the arrangement was that certain users were exempt from excise duty and, as I recall the arrangement, users obtained certificates of exemption and were able to purchase fuel without paying the excise. There was a system in place which permitted those users who were exempt from excise to purchase their fuel without the excise, of course at a lower rate or at a lower purchase price than applied to other users. There were concerns at that time-and I think those concerns were also the concerns of the then Opposition-that the method of providing for exemption did permit some abuse. There were suggestions that there was quite widespread abuse of the purchase of exempt fuel for purposes which were not legitimate in terms of giving rise to the right to claim the exemption. For that reason, there was a switch announced in the 1982 Budget that as from that date all diesel fuel would bear the full rate of excise duty irrespective of its end use, and the then government, the Fraser Government, contemporaneously introduced a system to allow users to claim rebates of the excise in respect of certain categories of off-road end use. Broadly, that was domestic use, hospitals, nursing and convalescent homes and in the agricultural, mining, fishing and forestry industries. I might say that in a sense it is a mercy that the precision with which those categories can be drawn is not a matter for debate under this legislation because inevitably in these circumstances wherever we place the category, there is a new point at which there is discontent because a user is just outside it. I am sure that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) will be pleased to know that it is not the intent of the Opposition to move an amendment that would go to the question of categories, because I am sure we could have a wonderful few days debating that. The arrangements were then effectively changed by the new Government. Although it left in place the situation where the user had to pay the full price for fuel, including the excise, and subsequently claim the rebate, it made two changes in its first Budget which affected the amount of excise which was payable by users. First, it indexed the excise and by that means, of course, it guaranteed that twice yearly there would be adjustment to the amount of excise payable and in the same Budget, quite apart from the introduction of the indexation element, it increased the excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel by 1.5c per litre. It is at this point that the difficulty arises that the Government's own amendment partially seeks to remedy and which we seek to remedy fully because what the Government did was to leave the rebate of excise on diesel fuel at the level of the excise which had applied prior to the increases that were brought about by the 1983 Budget. In other words, the rebate remained in place. The same users had the right to claim the rebate, but the amount of rebate they could claim was fixed at the level of excise up to the point of the 1983 Budget. The 1.5 per cent adjustment and the indexation adjustment-the two increases to the excise introduced pursuant to that Budget-were not included as part of the rebate. This left a gap of a couple of cents between the amount of excise payable by exempt users and the amount they could actually claim back. With the Government's determination to ensure that it retains the flow of revenue from excises and the indexation provisions, that gap proceeded to grow. In the next six months, following an indexation change, the amount of excise not subject to rebate was increased. It was increased again by the adjustment that was due because of indexation. At the time of the 1984 Budget there was a third indexation adjustment to excise with the rebate being fixed. In the 1984 Budget the Government announced a partial response to the complaints which it had received, not surprisingly, from those people who were entitled to the rebate. It announced in the 1984 Budget that the rebate, which was still at the rate of 7.155c per litre, would become subject to six-monthly indexation, with the first indexation adjustment to the rebate in February 1985. At first blush that might appear to have remedied the problem, but of course it did not because it did not take into account the three indexation changes which occurred-the one at the time of the 1983 Budget, the one half way through the year and the one at the time of the 1984 Budget-and it did not take into account the 1.5c per litre increase in the excise which was laid down by the Government in the 1983 Budget. Indeed, given the indexation of the total excise, what the Government's announced intention will bring about is simply a narrowing of the gap for the time being between the amount of the rebate and the amount of the excise. However, on my understanding of the arithmetic involved, because of the continued indexation of the whole of the excise the gap will continue to grow-so that there will be a number of cents-and that will increase at six-monthly intervals, which would not be subject to rebate. It is hard to see why in logic if one takes the decision that certain users should receive a rebate, that that rebate should be partial and that the extent of the rebate should vary on a sort of constant basis every time there is an indexation adjustment every six months. I think the arrangement that the Government proposes to put in place really is quite illogical and silly. I remind the Senate that the following people are entitled to a rebate under section 78A of the Excise Act: People who are in mining operations or primary production, otherwise than for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle on a public road; people at residential premises who provide food and drink, lighting, heating, air-conditioning, hot water and similar amenities and who meet other domestic requirements of residents of the premises; and people at hospitals, nursing homes or other institutions which provide medical or nursing care or at a home for aged persons. As I say, I do not wish to open up the argument about whether those categories are all cut off at the point of perfection because I am sure we could have an endless discussion about that. I simply put the proposition that the Opposition's view is that those persons who are entitled to the rebate of duty ought be entitled to the full amount of the rebate which is payable rather than be given a partial rebate, the percentage of the total rebate varying at six-monthly intervals. That to me and to the Opposition seems to be a quite ludicrous situation. We propose to seek amendments in Committee to restore the amount of the rebate to the full amount of the excise payable. I must say that, for a fairly small technical Bill, the proposals that the Government has put forward seems to have attracted a great deal of interest and attention. I note that both the fourth and sixth reports of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills made comments on the Bill. The sixth report contains responses from the Minister. I have no doubt that the Minister, like the Opposition, has received a lengthy submission from the Law Council of Australia. The Opposition wishes to move amendments which touch on the concerns which have been raised by the Committee. I acknowledge that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills does not recommend amendments, but it has drawn matters to the attention of the Senate. The Opposition wishes to respond in respect of a number of areas. I wish to refer to the sixth report of the Committee which was brought down in the last few days. The Opposition is concerned about the provisions of clause 16 which relates to the unauthorised use of cameras. The Government proposes in this legislation to insert a new offence section in the Customs Act which, to quote the report: . . . would prohibit a person (including a disembarking passenger) from operating a camera or using an appliance which records or transmits sound except by authority- That is, where that person is at a place where a sign is displayed and so on. The Committee has expressed concern that it would not appear necessary, as the section is at present worded, that the person prosecuted had seen the sign or had even been aware that the place was one where the unauthorised use of cameras or sound recorders was prohibited. The report goes on: . . . it would not appear necessary that the person prosecuted had been aware that the personal baggage of passengers was being examined in the vicinity. The Opposition concurs with the Committee's expressed view that one of the paragraphs was cast far more broadly than was necessary. Although we accept that the intention of the Government in preventing people from taking action which would reduce the efficiency of the Customs in policing the importation of goods, we are concerned that innocent parties could well be caught up quite unfairly in a prosecution and in the circumstances of the sort which, on the correspondence which the Committee had had with the Minister, is not really the sort of conduct which the Minister and the Government are seeking to catch. It is the intention of the Opposition, therefore, to move an amendment which would be in one of the forms suggested by the Committee. I would like to make it clear that in putting forward amendments to this legislation the Opposition is essentially concerned, except on the excise question, with technical questions of law and with the fair application of the law to the citizen. I would like to make it quite clear that we would be happy to reconsider any amendments we put forward in light of drafting comments or, indeed, alternatives put forward by the Government to meet the problems which are suggested. I do not suggest that there is any high policy in the amendments in this area, rather there is a need to protect the liberty of the subject. I must say that certainly we are not at all prepared to go along with the suggestion that the Minister made that we simply allow the legislation to pass in the existing form, on the basis of an undertaking by him that the Act would then be amended in the next session of Parliament. I make it quite clear in our rejection of that suggestion from the Minister that we do not impugn his bona fides in his suggestion that he would bring forward the legislation. Senator Button —I am sorry, but I missed the start of the point you are making. Senator CHANEY —I was just saying that the Opposition is not prepared to go along with a suggestion that, according to the report that the Minister made to the Committee, the clause be passed in its present form on the basis that subsequent legislation would be brought on in the next session of Parliament to remedy the defect. I really do not think that that is an appropriate way for this Parliament to deal with legislation. I just want to make clear that we are not impugning the Minister's bona fides. I am not wishing to suggest that the Minister would not honour the undertaking that he gave. However, all Ministers are temporary, not to a greater or lesser extent. We just do not know when the period of office is going to end. All governments are temporary and parliaments tend to get very crowded. Legislative programs get very difficult. Senator Button —I am sorry to interrupt but we will not be adopting that course. We will accept your amendment. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister for that interjection. I simply would like to make it clear to Senator Button that, as I say, I mean no disrespect. I am sure that he would honour that undertaking but a lot of things can intervene to prevent that occurring. I wish to refer to a more difficult matter on which I am still receiving advice from the Law Council of Australia. I disagreed with some of the advice that it gave to the Opposition. I am sure that it gave the same advice to the Government. As a result I raised some queries with it. Quite frankly, I would prefer that the Committee stage of this Bill be dealt with next week because that would give both the Government and ourselves the chance to consider further the points that the Law Council has made just in the last few minutes. Clause 17 raises the issue of vicarious liability. Again, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has commented on that matter. The report states that the Committee: . . . raised for the consideration of the Senate whether it was just that a natural person in particular should be made criminally liable for the acts of servants or agents of which that person had no knowledge and for which that person had given no express authorisation. In addition, the Committee drew attention generally to the clause. The Law Council of Australia was much more critical than the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I suppose that the Council is free to be more critical. The Council put in a submission which very strongly argues that the sort of provision which is being sought here has no place in the criminal law. I think that is an expression which is used. The Council is particularly concerned about the application of the proposal to individuals. The Council also raised the question of whether it is fair and just for a company to have the views of its director, servant or agent acting within the real or apparent scope of his authority attributed to the company. I understand from a recent conversation with Mr Hawke, the Secretary-General of the Law Council of Australia, that there is particular concern that a director, servant or agent acting within the apparent scope of his authority but perhaps acting against the express instructions of a corporation, might still render a corporation liable and that a dissatisfied servant might actually be able to do enormous damage to an employer company by wilfully getting the company into breach of the excise legislation. The Opposition naturally wants to consider very carefully the views of the Law Council and, like the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, is concerned to see that the liberty of the subject is protected. I do have some difficulty with some of the views which the Law Council has put forward. I have looked at a number of references. I know that we should avoid becoming too tied up in trying to give legal opinions in this place. On the other hand, we have to try to pass legislation which will work. I must say that in the few authorities to which I have been able to turn I find the proposition that we should not impute the intentions of the director, servants and agents of the corporation to the corporation is a rather difficult one to sustain. I find it hard to see how we could ever prove an offence by the corporation, if we do not have a provision of the sort which the Government is proposing. I would have thought that in the absence of the clause a similar rule would apply; in other words, the clause is really making more definite what I think the law might well be in any event. I do not wish to spend too much time on legal matters but I welcome the chance to raise the matter today because I would like the Minister and his advisers to consider very carefully, as we have tried to do, the propositions put forward by the Law Council. I give notice that I am particularly concerned about the concern it expressed about the position of the individual human being whose servants' and agents' intentions are imputed to him. But I am less concerned about corporations for the sorts of reasons that are reflected in the third edition of Colin Howard's book entitled Criminal Law. At page 390 under the heading 'Corporations' it makes the point generally that the commercial world is dominated by the institution of the registered company. It then makes the following point: Australian courts have had no difficulty in trying corporations on charges of crime. The only problem of substance peculiar to the trial of a corporation derives from its need to act through human beings, for some test has to be adopted to decide when the actions of an employee are to be attributed to the corporation for the purposes of the criminal law and when they are not. In Australia this problem has been solved by borrowing from the civil law the notion of scope of employment: E's- that is the employees's- actions are those of the corporation if they may reasonably be regarded as within the scope of his employment. At the bottom of page 390 it states: The scope of E's employment for this purpose is not necessarily limited by what he has express authority to do, for if it were, at least in the case of junior employees, it frequently would be possible to exclude the operation of the criminal law by arguing that E had no authority to commit an unlawful act. However, it continues: On the contrary, it has been held that the knowledge of a junior employee may be the knowledge of the corporation, even though he has been forbidden by a senior employee to act in the manner to which the knowledge relates. In trying to visualise the factual circumstances in which this clause might be applied, the Opposition at present finds it difficult to support the view of the Law Council that it is unreasonable to impute to a corporation the proven intention. I think it is important to note that the clause still requires proof of the intention on the part of the director, servant or agent. We find it difficult to see how that clause could be administered if that proven intention could not be regarded as the intention of the corporation on whose behalf the act was carried out. No doubt we can canvass these matters in greater detail at the Committee stage. I acknowledge the reply which the Minister gave to the Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which deals with other aspects of the fact that these convictions are not regarded as criminal. I must say that that was a novel matter as far as I was concerned. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister on that point. Certainly, the scheme of the Act and so on certainly seems to me to be normal regime of criminal matters. It seems to me to be a rather technical matter to suggest that Customs Act offences are not criminal offences. However, that may be another reason for not going along with the view of the Law Council of Australia that these things have no place in the criminal law. As I say, having read Howard and at least one other text book, I find that a little hard to sustain. I wish I could say that I wish the Bill a speedy passage. On this occasion I merely say that I wish it a passage in this session. I hope that we can iron out some of the technicalities which I do think afflict this legislation. We believe it can be improved. I think it is a good example of a Bill that would have been better dealt with by sending it to a committee, but I do not propose that that course be followed on this occasion. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.05) —Senator Chaney has raised a number of items. I believe that it might be in everybody's interests, if in the Committee stage, I address my remarks to each of the items to which he has referred. I would also like to pursue an amendment which has been distributed on behalf of the Australian Democrats and which would expand the activities of the Australian Customs Service. I am particularly interested in hearing the response of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, on the items raised by Senator Chaney. I was not aware that clause 17 was likely to cause some controversy. Because of that, I will resume my seat now to give the Minister the opportunity to respond, and to allow the legislation to proceed to the Committee stage, if we reach that point before the Senate adjourns. But I think it will be helpful if the Minister responds before the Senate adjourn. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.06) —in reply-Brevity is the soul of wit. I am sure that Senator Jack Evans's speech was very witty and to the point. He took me by surprise. I thank honourable senators for their general support of the legislation. Senator Chaney has foreshadowed some amendments which may not be so difficult to force through this place as he may have imagined a few days ago. Senator Jack Evans has also referred to some proposed amendments. I do not wish to say any more at the second reading stage. It is complex legislation. I think the difficulties contained in it have been picked up, addressed and adverted to and we can deal with those in the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 4A. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.09) —I move: Page 2, after clause 4, insert the following clause: Prohibited imports '4A. The Principal Act is amended by adding after section 51 the following section: '52. (1) Goods, other than goods prescribed for the purpose of this section, the sale of which is prohibited in a foreign country, which is not a foreign country prescribed for the purpose of this section, by or under a law of that country which prohibits the sale of hazardous goods, are prohibited imports. '(2) The regulations shall make provision for the certification of the status of goods under sub-section (1).'.'. The amendment refers to the prescribing of goods which are regarded in other countries as hazardous goods and would provide by regulation for their proscription as imports to this country. The purpose of this amendment is to give the Government more information on which to act to prohibit dangerous goods from coming into this country when their danger has been recognised in another country. But for some reason, whether it be the inability of an authority, government body or the Department itself, or for any other reason, the goods have not been scheduled and therefore are still being allowed into this country. It needs to be recognised that current legislation and surveillance are not sufficient and that we must make use of the detection efforts of competent bodies throughout the world with computerised information entry and storage. In the submission 'Deadly Neglect: Regulating the Manufacture of Therapeutic Goods' which was made to the present Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations pointed out that there are approximately 250,000 different medical devices used in Australia, ranging from bandages, syringes and thermometers through to artificial limbs and electronic equipment. About three-quarters of these devices are imported. About 3,000 manufacturers are involved. The Australian Dental Standards Laboratory is responsible for monitoring the quality of dental products and also works on the testing and standardisation of medical devices. Only two of its 14 staff deal with medical devices. The official register of recalls of medical products, which is kept by the Trade Practices Tribunal, had no entry for 1983, yet there were 63 such recalls during that year. It can be concluded that our resources are far too meagre for there to be any hope of effective monitoring, even in this single product area, unless we avail ourselves of the result of work done overseas. We need a computerised register of product information to assist in the detection of unsatisfactory goods. We need to develop 'early warning' and 'alert bulletin' mechanisms, such as adverse reaction forms for medical devices similar to the notification system for drugs. In other countries such as the United States of America, Canada, France and Sweden, for instance, there is a variety of regulatory systems which result in the prohibition of manufacture or sale of various goods. We should make use of that expertise and save the repeats of frightful discoveries. For instance, the United Nations schedule of the consolidated list of 'products whose consumption and/or sale have been banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved by governments' could form the starting point for a major database. I touch briefly on two examples because it is worth highlighting the sort of thing we would be able to prevent if we went down this path. The first is the Dalkon shield, which continued to be sold in Australia even after its manufacturer, A. H. Robins, had voluntarily withdrawn it from the American market in 1974 while the Food and Drug Administration in that country examined its safety and efficacy. Since that time A. H. Robins has paid out over $200 million in product liability settlements in the United States. But nobody knows how many women were or are still using the Dalkon shield in Australia. After the revised version of the Dalkon shield was finally removed from the United States market in 1975, over a million of the devices disappeared from the American market. Consumer Interpol has revealed that they were shipped-bulk-packaged, unsterile and without proper labelling-to population control clinics in about 40 Third World countries. The consignment notes that had accompanied shipments of the Dalkon shield to Australia apparently listed them as 'plastic devices' rather than therapeutic devices. We must ensure that consignment forms are designed in such a way that adequate information is provided for customs authorities to be able to decide readily what consignments need further investigation. The information should be available to customs authorities, and this amendment would make that provision. Defective heart valves were sold in Australia by the importer Bio-Spectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd, which obtained them from the United States manufacturer Bjork Shiley. In 1983 at least five people died following cardiac surgery when these defective heart valves cracked away and crumbled in patients' chests. The valves were not allowed to be sold in the United States because, again, the Food and Drug Administration wanted evidence that changes in manufacture had not introduced new risks. There was no impediment to their import into this country and thus no impediment to the tragedies that followed. While Australia remains the only developed nation without effective control over the import of medical technology, we must be prepared to benefit from the classification and testing that is carried out overseas and tap into the global information that is available. I stress this point because if this amendment is not accepted I want the Government to take on board the task of investigating how the procedure can be implemented. I recognise that with Australia's relatively meagre resources we may not be in a position to foresee all the ramifications of such an amendment. I accept that there may be certain technical objections to such an amendment. If that is so, the Government may still be willing to accept the amendment-and I hope that is the case-on a trial basis, recognising that this amendment will at least signal to the rest of the world that Australia has ceased to be a dumping ground for hazardous products, whether they be defective products or hazardous for any other reason. I ask the Committee to support this amendment and I ask the Government at least to give it a try, even if it may need modification in the Budget session. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.16) —The Opposition has received this amendment only today, and I have not had a chance to discuss it with Senator Jack Evans. For technical reasons, the Opposition is not inclined to support it at this stage, but I would like to hear the Minister's reply before committing the Opposition to a course of action. I am interested in the Government's response. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.17) —Senator Jack Evans, in supporting his amendment, canvassed a fairly wide range of issues which go to the question of consumer protection generally. On many of these issues I regard the problems in Australia as enormous and the legislative and other mechanisms to deal with them as totally inadequate. I give one example from my recent experience. Australia does not have uniform food laws. Frequently quite different standards in respect of health and safety provisions exist in each State, often involving two or three different prescriptions in different States. Because we are a federation and each State wants to prescribe its own conditions on food and health matters, the Customs Service is unable to apply any standard to food imported into Australia with any degree of rigour and efficiency. That is a disastrous and silly situation. The Federal Government is pursuing the question as much as it can with the State governments, as did the previous Government, to try to achieve uniform health standards. I am hopeful that a meeting of State Health Ministers with the Federal Health Minister, Dr Blewett, which is to take place later this month, will go a little further towards resolving that issue. The illustration I have employed can be multiplied across a whole range of products and in some circumstances it creates difficult, potentially dangerous and quite silly situations. The Government accepts the spirit of the amendment in that it attempts to deal with the situation at the Customs barrier in respect of hazardous goods. Having said that, I would indicate that the Government does not propose to accept the amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats. First, the amendment traverses a number of ministerial portfolios and covers not just my portfolio. For example, it involves the Minister for Health, in respect of the illustration I gave, and also a wide range of other Ministers. I personally would like to take the opportunity to draw to the various Ministries' attention what Senator Jack Evans is suggesting and to discuss the question across that range of ministerial responsibility. I just want to make the point that the ability to declare goods as prohibited imports or exports where the sale of those goods is prohibited in a certain jurisdiction because the goods are hazardous, can already be accomplished under the Customs Act general power relating to the prohibition of the importation of goods, which is covered by section 50, and under the Customs Act power relating to the prohibition of the exportation of goods, which is covered by section 112 of the existing legislation. The difficulties arise in the sorts of situations which I described earlier, where there is no standard which is applicable for Customs to apply-where there are a lot of different standards. That is the difficulty. Both those sections are very broad. They give a power to prohibit. But they are very difficult to administer because of the reasons which flow from some of the more ludicrous consequences of the Federal System. I have said that both the sections to which I refer are very broad and give a power to prohibit by regulation the importation or exportation from Australia of goods absolutely or goods to or from a specified place, and so on. But there are those great administrative difficulties because of the standard situation in Australia. I make it quite clear to Senator Evans that we do not support this amendment at this stage largely on technical grounds. For example, we would like the opportunity to consider an appropriate definition of 'hazardous goods'. As I have said, the amendment is not being rejected out of hand. I give an undertaking that I will arrange for serious consideration to be given to the proposals contained in the Australian Democrats' amendment. As soon as possible I will advise the Australian Democrats of the Government's attitude, particularly on the technical difficulties we foresee and how we might work towards some solution in dealing with them. In turn, I seek any wisdom the Democrats or the Opposition might have on this matter on questions such as the definition of hazardous goods. I think there is a sort of sense of common purpose about all this, but we have to work towards the best solution. I am not sure that it is provided in the amendment as presently drafted and for those reasons the amendment is not acceptable. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.23) —I thank the Minister for his comments and indicate that the Opposition agrees with the broad direction indicated by the Minister. The Opposition, like the Government, can see value in the point which has been put forward. On the initial reading of the draft and on the basis of an earlier discussion with Senator Jack Evans outside the chamber, it appears to me that some of the difficulties can be met. He gave me some indication of the sort of international material which is available. But I see quite considerable potential administrative difficulties, given the number of foreign countries, the range of prohibitions which might apply and also the occasional misuse of provisions by countries other than Australia in order to control trade. I want to be quite satisfied that we are not going to pick up some supposed regulations or provisions governing hazardous goods which, in fact, had some quite different purpose. Senator Button —Excuse me for asking, but don't you have square cheeses of some kind in Western Australia which are round in every other State? Senator CHANEY —I am sure that there are plenty of examples of the sort of thing the Minister has raised. I am sure that they do not exist in my State of Western Australia, which I am required to say is absolutely perfect in every way. I think the Minister's undertaking to examine the matter is an appropriate response. We would not support this amendment at this stage but would be very interested in seeing the matter further developed and followed up. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.24) —I thank the Minister and Senator Chaney. I appreciate that there are potential difficulties. I hope that the Australian Customs Service as well as others who are affected by this-I am talking particularly about those who suffer from the use of hazardous goods which are imported in the ways I set out earlier-having had to put up with those potential difficulties for many years, can seek early relief. The Minister has indicated that he intends to take up the matter with other Ministers. I hope to get some sort of commitment from the Minister that we can look forward to such a Bill being introduced in the Budget session. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.25) —My commitment was not to produce a Bill in the Budget session. I do not want to be misinterpreted. My commitment was to examine this proposition and to arrange for discussions to be held with the Australian Democrats on how the proposition might be implemented. Whether that leads to a Bill is a matter which I cannot determine and about which I cannot say anything in this debate. That would be a matter for Cabinet decision. So I cannot make that commitment. I make the commitment to examine as soon as possible the thrust of the Democrats' amendment and the technical difficulties we see with it. Amendment negatived. Clauses 5 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Unathorised use of cameras and sound recorders). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.27) —I move: (1) Page 8, clause 16, proposed new section 234AB, leave out sub-section (1), insert the following sub-sections: ''(1) An officer may direct a person, including a passenger disembarking from, or embarking on, a ship or aircraft- (a) not to operate a camera, or use an appliance to record or transmit sound, at a place in relation to which a sign is displayed under sub-section 234AA (2); or (b) not to operate a camera, or use an appliance to record or transmit sound, at a place (being a place that is part of a ship, of an aircraft or of a wharf) at a time when the personal baggage of passengers disembarking from, or embarking on, a ship or aircraft, is being examined, for the purposes of this Act, at or in the vicinity of that place. ''(1A) Where an officer gives to a person a direction under sub-section (1), the officer shall inform that person that failure to comply with that direction is an offence under this Act. ''(1B) A person shall not fail to comply with a direction given to that person by an officer in accordance with sub-section (1). Penalty: $1,000.''. I want to speak briefly to that amendment. The purpose of the amendment is really to pick up what the Government has expressed in correspondence between the Minister and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as being its intention. The crux of the problem is the possibility that an innocent person may use his camera in circumstances in which there is a sign, but a sign of which he is not aware. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with two very different classes of people. We are dealing with some of the worst criminal elements in Australia, about whom we would all wish to do something, whom we wish to see aided in no way at all, and whom we wish to see brought to justice and so on. We are also dealing with the million-plus Australians who travel overseas, most of whom have a camera slung around their necks and who, in my experience, seem to take photographs of the most extraordinary things. I think a photo must have been taken of almost every object on earth in the course of a year. The possibility of an innocent person being guilty of an offence was adverted to by the Committee. The Minister has, in a response which is reported in the sixth report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, made it clear that what is wanted is a basis for officers to draw the attention of people to the presence of signs advising that the actions objected to might be an offence and so on. Accordingly, we have put forward the amendment which gives officers the power to direct that people not use cameras, appliances and so on and which makes a failure to comply with that direction an offence. I again make clear that the Opposition is not particularly wedded to the form of the amendment although we think it effectively does what- Senator Button —I am glad about that; I want to make a suggestion. Senator CHANEY —That is fine. The Committee made a number of suggestions. After consultation with Mr Harry Evans we thought that this is probably the simplest way of doing it. But we are quite happy, provided the objective is achieved. I will let the Minister make his suggestion. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.29) —Firstly, the Government had an amendment prepared in respect of this clause. That amendment would have been introduced by the Government for the reasons which Senator Chaney has stated. The only request I make of Senator Chaney is that in respect of his proposed new sub-section (1B) the words 'without reasonable excuse' should be inserted after the words 'A person shall not'. I ask for that not because I am fussed about it but because, according to the draftsman, in using this type of provision in a wide range of legislation that is the terminology which is used. So the amendment would read: A person shall not without reasonable excuse fail to comply with a direction given to that person by an officer in accordance with sub-section (1). At the moment I cannot for the life of me think what a reasonable excuse would be, but I ask for those words to be inserted in the interest of consistency with other legislative provisions. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.29) —That seems a reasonable provision as long as the Minister can assure me that it would not be a reasonable excuse to say that it seemed like a good idea at the time. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional orders I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.31) —I do not intend to keep the Senate here long. This speech seeks to expose three specific examples of where this Government's alleged commitment to open government is, in my view, lacking. I want to progress to three areas of criticism. They relate to basic requests for factual information, firstly, from the Public Service Board, secondly, from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and, thirdly, from the Department of Foreign Affairs. These delays experienced either represent a lack of ministerial awareness of the bureaucratic slow pace or are indications of the Government's deliberate abandonment of open government. The first example I cite is the Public Service Board. On 3 April I wrote to the Chairman of the Public Service Board requesting details of the number of applications and approvals for public servants to hold directorships in companies and business undertakings during the financial years 1982-83 and 1984-85. The second example relates to the community employment program, the CEP. On 1 April I wrote to the Regional Director of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in Adelaide seeking details of CEP approvals for South Australia alone during the year 1984-85. I am aware of the objectives of the CEP and I applaud a number of the community projects that have been assisted under this scheme. No one in this chamber would not wish to support schemes which have as their objective the assistance of unemployed people in a way that is useful both to those people and to the community. That is not to say, however, that there are not aspects of the CEP, as with any widespread public project, that are beyond criticism. As a senator for South Australia I wanted to have an appreciation of the totality of CEP activity in my State during the current financial year. I imagined that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations would maintain an extensive computer records section and I thought that it would not be a major task to provide me with the information I requested. Some two weeks after my letter my office received a telephone call from the regional office of the director indicating that the information I requested would be difficult to provide and that reference would have to be made to the department's central office in Canberra to see whether it was physically possible to extract that information from the computer. Another two weeks passed and on 1 May I received from the Regional Director of the Department a letter restating the telephone advice that the reference had been made to Canberra. I make just a few points. Firstly I consider the delays in the Department responding to my request to be quite unreasonable. Secondly, I cannot believe that the Department's computer capacity is so primitive that I cannot be provided with the extract that I have requested, which is a very simple amount of information. I have left to the last what I consider to be the most outrageous example of inaction to a simple request from a member of parliament. I refer to my experience with a request for information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). On 8 February I wrote to the Minister asking for departmental advice as to what the International Year of Peace was and how Australia was going to mark this year-pretty simple stuff, one would have thought. No great question of policy or complex case study was required. Weeks, in fact months, elapsed and I was not favoured even with the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. On 2 April, some seven weeks later, my office wrote to the Minister's senior private secretary enclosing a copy of my original letter and asking when an acknowledgement or a reply could be expected. Not a word was heard. At the end of that month, on 26 April to be exact, bearing in mind that the original request was made on 8 February, I wrote again to the Minister enclosing copies of my original letter and the letter following that from my office and asking him for a response. Just to make sure that the vagaries of Australia Post were not to blame, I sent this letter to the Minister's electoral office. The weeks passed and still the mail brought nothing. Then last week my office here in Parliament House received a phone call from an officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs, indicating that a response to my letter of 8 February was being drafted for the Acting Minister. When my office responded with some understandable incredulity at the delay, the departmental officer ventured an opinion that the delay was normal for Foreign Affairs and, in any case, it was having problems with the word processors. It would appear that high tech or even basic tech rests uneasy with our government departments. When the Department was asked why it did not at least acknowledge parliamentary representations, I am told that it advised my office that, due to the delays and problems with the word processors, the Department did not send out acknowledgments. Yesterday I at last received a written response to my basic question of 8 February. It took over three months, or a quarter of a year, for that reply to arrive. I realise that there are those people within the ranks of the Public Service mandarins who find it difficult to accept that mere elected members of parliament, back benchers, should occupy any of their self-designated important time, but I suggest that it is not a view compatible with parliamentary democracy and not one that sits easily with the sentiments of open government so freely voiced by honourable senators opposite. I would go further and submit that a number of Ministers need to take a careful look at the manner in which their departments respond to reasonable requests by members of this Parliament. I need hardly add that I look forward to a speedy finalisation of the other two matters: My requests for information from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Board. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.37) —Some notoriety has been achieved by a resolution passed by the administrative committee of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party on Friday, 10 May 1985, to the effect that the flow of refugees from Vietnam ought to be stopped until some people in Australia of Vietnamese origin, who have shown a propensity to commit offences or to cause disturbances, become peaceful and law abiding. The resolution did not interdict all migration, but confined it to those people coming from Vietnam to Australia pursuant to an agreement between the governments of those countries. This resolution was passed on a Friday night at the end of what was, no doubt, a hard working week. Amongst those who attended the meeting were some who had experienced threatening conduct by some Vietnamese. Senator Walsh —It wasn't held at the John Curtin, was it? Senator COONEY —We never do that down our way. That makes the philosophy inherent in the motion no less horrendous. Much has already been said about the motion, but I want to make two points at this stage. The motion cuts across two principles which most people would espouse with some passion. They are, firstly, that a group as a whole should not bear the sanctions imposed for a fault committed by one or some of its members, and, secondly, that refugee status attracts a right to refuge. I make the following comments on each of those principles: The Book of Deuteronomy written many centuries ago says: Fathers may not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for fathers. Each is to be put to death for his own sin. The principle of individual responsibility has become basic to our civilisation and any departure from it derogates from that civilisation. To criticise, to condemn, or to punish a group because of the transgressions of one or some of its members is an attribute of injustice, of oppression and of tyranny. It does not become a free, benign and democratic society. If we deny refuge to refugees we deny help to the vulnerable, the terrified, and the dispossessed. Again, this is something a free, benign and democratic society should never do. I talk here of people whose status is in reality that of the refugee. Anyone with compassion would take in people of that status-take them in as one should take in people who have suffered cruel violation of their rights and dignity as human beings. The principles about which I have spoken are accepted as correct by all people of good heart and conscience. At times, people of good heart and conscience fail to see in a particular situation that the principles are applicable and things go very wrong. It is appropriate in those circumstances to direct attention to the relevance and importance of those principles. If there is a group responsibility for the transgression of part only of the group, we are all put at risk. We all become subject to disadvantage and punishment for acts and omissions over which we have no control. If refugees are denied rights of refuge, people from countries which impose injustice, oppression and terror on their citizens are grievously prejudiced. There are too many regimes in the world which tyrannise their citizens. It is a dangerous thing to set a precedent which results in those people being denied reprieve from the oppression of such regimes. The philosophy that the individual, as contrasted with the group, is responsible for the individual's transgressions is embodied deeply in our society and should not be discounted. The approach that refugees have an entitlement to refuge is an approach taken generally in Australia. It would be tragic to see it diminished. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.43) —I want to speak very briefly about some communal violence which occurred in the past week in Sri Lanka. On 14 May there was a very serious attack on civilians by Tamil terrorists in the holy city of Anuradhapura in northern Sri Lanka. Reports of the number of people killed vary. If one said 100, one would be close to the probable reality. It is clear that the attack was one of the worst acts of communal violence in Sri Lanka in recent years. The attack is particularly noteworthy because of its religious overtones in that the Tamil terrorists-Tamil tigers, as I think they are termed-who mounted this attack clearly meant it to be of significance in relation to the holy city of Anuradhapura which is, of course, of great significance to the Buddhist Sinhalese majority of Sri Lanka. Clearly, the attack was designed to exacerbate and inflame tension between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities. I think it is worth bringing the matter to the attention of the Senate because individual senators and, indeed, the Government have been subjected to a very skilfully mounted public relations exercise on behalf of the Tamil communities of Sri Lanka who themselves have suffered some repressive measures by government security forces and by the army in some less than well-controlled situations. That has to be acknowledged. I think it also has to be acknowledged that when the Government condemns communal violence in Sri Lanka it ought not to do so in an utterly even-handed manner. The fact is that the terrorism promoted from within the Tamil community is the catalyst, the cause, the fact, which then invites a response from a community which, by its very nature, from my observation, is very long suffering and passive. The Sinhalese community does at times erupt and that is when some of the terrible violence that we have seen disfigure even the capital, Colombo, over the past several years occurs. I believe that the Australian Government is correct in firmly supporting the political and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and condemning the violence that does occur, but I do make a plea that it be recognised that the Tamil community itself needs to take control of those elements within it which are devoted to violence and violence which is directed, apparently, against significant Buddhist cities in a way which must cause a reaction and inflame tension. I hope that the visit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, to Sri Lanka from 20 to 23 May will enable him, in his discussions with a wide range of communal personalities, and the Government of course, to aid Australia in coming to an understanding of the situation there, so that it may join in the solution to this intercommunal problem. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.44) —I will look at the things that Senator Vanstone and Senator Tate have said. I do not think that Senator Cooney's comments relate to any ministerial responsibility. I have some information which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard regarding a question that was put to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, by Senator Macklin yesterday regarding veterans' affairs entitlements. Leave granted. The document read as follows:- The Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs has made the point that the changes in Repatriation legislation foreshadowed in the Treasurer's statement will be made independently of the earlier Government proposal to consolidate and simplify the Repatriation legislation through the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill will be introduced into the Parliament, as a separate measure, before the end of the current sittings. The Bill will not be debated until the Budget sittings, which will give ex-service organisations and other interested bodies a period of several months to study the Bill and make recommendations to the Government. As regards the amendments to section 47 of the Repatriation Act, the Government has taken the view that they are necessary because of court decisions. The O'Brien decision, by a 3-2 majority of the High Court, effectively meant that a disability pension claim could succeed even where there was no evidence or any other material to point to a connection between the disability or death of a veterans and his or her service. That interpretation was never intended when the legislation was introduced. Any earlier statements about retaining section 47 were made before the High Court's decision in the O'Brien case. The Acting Minister has also made the point that to refer to cuts of $123.6m in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio is misleading since it combines the Government's initiatives under the Repatriation legislation, Defence Force Re-establishment Loans legislation and the Defence Service Homes legislation. It is widely accepted that the changes to the arrangements for Defence Service Home loans will benefit eligible participants by providing greater access to home loan finances, by removing the $25,000 ceiling on the loan amount and the 10-month waiting period, and through efficiency gains in more appropriate management of home loan funds. I would draw the attention of honourable senators to a very sensible and well balanced article on this issue at page 49 of today's Australian Financial Review. Moreover, the latter two initiatives relating to re-establishment loans and DSH loans are more properly regarded as falling wholly or largely within the ambit of serving personnel rather than of veterans. Therefore, Senator Macklin's figure of cuts of $123.6m in veterans' programs is, to say the least, grossly misleading. These two programs comprise the lion's share of the figure he cites. It is also important to note that leaving aside the DSH savings, savings on veterans' programs represent 5.1 per cent of the total savings announced on 14 May, while in fact the Veterans' Affairs portfolio comprises 5.1 per cent of the 1985-86 Forward Estimates. By no means, therefore can veterans programs be said to be bearing a disproportionate share of the savings burden. Senator Macklin has referred to the onus of proof being reversed. Section 25 of the Repatriation Act provides that no onus of proof shall be imposed on a claimant. That section will remain unchanged, as will section 47 (1) of the present Act. I remind Senator Macklin that the majority of World War II veterans will continue to have their disability pension claims determined on the basis of the criminal standard of proof. Finally, I call on honourable senators to adopt a sensible attitude to proposed changes to repatriation provisions by not exaggerating their impact and by refraining from causing unnecessary alarm to most veterans and war widows who, as current beneficiaries, will be completely unaffected by these changes. Senator WALSH —The information sets the record straight on a number of things, but in particular it gives the lie to the assertion that the Veterans' Affairs portfolio has been hit disproportionately hard in the expenditure savings statement made last Tuesday. I expect the Press will be interested in the statement. Copies of the statement which I have incorporated may be obtained from my office. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.46 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Land, etc., acquired for-Construction, maintenance and operation of pipelines or parts thereof under and in accordance with the Pipeline Authority Act 1973-South Australia. Seat of Government (Administration Act-Notices (2) of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs, dated 15 May 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 129) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: (1) Is the east coast of Australia given greater emphasis and priority for search and rescue operations than other parts of the Australian coastline, given that the Minister for Aviation recently announced that 28 general aviation operators from Hobart to Cairns will be offered training in search and rescue techniques. (2) Given the great length of coastline along the northern and western Australian coasts and the immense security problems this creates, does the Government have any intention of providing training for additional search and rescue operators in these areas; if not, why not; if so, when will this training be provided. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Report of the Committee of Review into Civil Aviation Search and Rescue issued July 1984 made the following two recommendations: 'In areas where there is a high level of aviation activity and/or there is a history of relatively frequent or difficult search and rescue actions involving civil aircraft, operators of aircraft suitable for immediate search and rescue response be selected, equipped and trained to provide the services required.' 'The Department of Aviation, in conjunction with the aviation industry, determine the areas where the level or nature of the aviation activity justifies the selection and training of operators in search and rescue techniques to provide a rapid response.' In accordance with these recommendations the areas selected for the initial phase of a proposed protracted training program was the East Coast of Australia, with particular emphasis on Bass Strait. This does not imply greater emphasis on search and rescue operations, but reflects the historical and statistical evidence that the potential requirement for search and rescue operations is highest in these areas. The priority for the provision of training to the individual operators within these areas was determined accordingly. (2) It is intended to provide training in search and rescue techniques to additional selected general aviation operators along the northern and western coastlines as well as inland and southern Australia. The programming and precise timing for this activity has yet to be determined, but will be undertaken on completion of the initial phase of the program. (Question No. 170) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Of the income which was declared by (a) pensioners; and (b) beneficiaries, in the 1982-83 and 1983-84 financial years, what proportion was earned and what proportion was unearned income. (2) For each category of pensions and benefits paid in the 1982-83 and 1983-84 financial years, what proportion of the recipients received a reduced pension or benefit throughout the whole year as a result of the application of the relevant income test. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The information sought is available only on a point-in-time basis, not for financial years. At June 1984, the proportion of pensioners' declared income represented by earnings was 10.7 per cent. The proportion represented by unearned income was 89.3 per cent. The corresponding figures at June 1983 were 13.2 per cent and 86.8 per cent respectively. The fall in the proportion represented by earnings is largely attributable to the new income test imposed from November 1983 on age pensioners 70 years and over, whose earnings represent a lower proportion of total income than in the case of other pensioners. (b) Similar figures for beneficiaries are not available. (2) No figures are available on the proportion of pensioners and beneficiaries who received a reduced payment throughout a whole year. However, the following table shows the proportion of pensioners and beneficiaries receiving a reduced pension or benefit by pension or benefit type at June 1983 and June 1984 (pensioners) and May 1983 and May 1984 (beneficiaries). PROPORTION OF PENSIONERS AND BENEFICIARIES RECEIVING REDUCED PENSION/BENEFIT BY PENSION/BENEFIT TYPE-JUNE 1983 AND JUNE 1984 June 1983 June 1984 Pension/Benefit Type per cent per cent Age pensions 30.2 28.4 Wives and Spouse Carers pensions-Age 24.2 26.9 Invalid pensions 11.0 12.1 Wives and Spouse pensions-Invalid 17.3 18.7 Sheltered Employment Allowances 12.5 13.2 Rehabilitation Allowances (a) 6.3 Widows- Class A 17.6 19.9 Class B 15.0 15.9 Supporting Parents Benefits- Female 11.5 13.1 Male 10.9 11.9 Unemployment Benefits (b) 6.1 7.0 Sickness Benefits (b) 7.1 7.5 Special Benefits (b) 4.9 5.6 (a) Data not available (b) Data relates to May surveys. (Question No. 213) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been drawn to the Throsby and Withers Report 'What Price Culture', which cites a 90 per cent recognition and approval for the Government's role in arts funding. (2) Is the Minister aware that more people are employed in the arts than in mining or agriculture. (3) Is the Minister confident that the 1985-86 Budget will reflect public opinion towards arts funding as well as recognise the important employment-generating function of arts funding. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. This study indicates that a substantial majority of the people surveyed recognise and approve of the government's role in providing funds to the arts. (2) I am aware that the Throsby and Withers study quotes the 1981 census, which indicates that the arts in Australia now employ as many persons as mining or agriculture. The study states that culture is a major industry in Australia. (3) I am not in a position to comment on the contents of 1985-86 Budget. Naturally I welcome reports such as 'What Price Culture', which indicate a very high level of public support for increased funding for the arts and which demonstrate that the arts constitute a major source of employment.